The five great monarchies of the ancient eastern worldGeorge Rawlinson 1 THE FIVE GREAT MONARCHIES ANCIENT EASTERN WORLD; OR, THE HISTORY, GEOGRAPHY, AND ANTIQUITIES OF CHALDjEA, ASSYRIA, BABYLON, MEDIA, AND PEltSIA, COLLECTED AND ILLUSTRATED FROM ANCIENT AND MODERN SOURCES. By GEORGE RAWLINSON, M.A., CAMDEN PROFESSOR OF ANCIENT HISTORY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFOUL1; I.ATE FELLOW AND TUTOR OF EXETER COLLEGE. SECOND EDITION. IN THREE VOLUMES.—Vol. I. WITH MAPS AND ILLUSTRATIONS. NEW YORK: SCRIBNER, WELFORD, AND CO. MDCCOLXXI. I TO MY BROTHER, HENRY CRESWICKE RAWLINSON, K.C.B., D.C.L., &c. &c. &c., TO WHOSE GENIDS, LABOURS, AND CONSTANT KINDNESS I FEEL MYSELF INDEBTED MOKE THAN I CAN EXPRESS, THIS WORK IS DEDICATED, AS A SMALL TOKEN OF GRATEFUL AND AFFECTIONATE REMEMBRANCE. PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. In preparing for the press, alter au interval of seven years, a second edition of this work, the author has found it unnecessary to make, excepting in two chapters, any important or extensive alterations. The exceptions are the chapters on the History and Chronology of Chaldaea and Assyria. So much fresh light has been thrown on these two subjects by additional discoveries, made partly by Sir Henry Rawlinson, partly by his assistant, Mr. George Smith, through the laborious study of fragmentary inscriptions now in the British Museum, that many pages of the two chapters in question required to be written afresh, and the Chronological Schemes required, in the one case a com- plete, and in the other a partial, revision. In making this revision, both of the Chronology and the History, the author has received the most valuable assistance, both from the pub- lished papers and from the private communications of Mr. Smith—an assistance for which he desires to make in this place the wannest and most hearty acknowledgment. He is also beholden to a recent Eastern traveller, Mr. A. D. Berrington, for some valuable notes on the physical geography and pro- ductions of Mesopotamia, which have been embodied in the accounts given of those subjects. A few corrections have like- wise been made of errors pointed out by anonymous critics. Substantially, however, the work continues such as it was on its first appearance, the author having found that time only deepened his conviction of the reality of cuneiform decipher- ment, and of the authenticity of the history obtained by means of it. Oxford, Nut-ember, 1870. ^1327 PREFACE TO THE F1RST ED1T1ON. The history of Antiquity requires from time to time to be re-written. Historical knowledge continually extends, in part from the advance of critical science, which teaches us little by little the true value of ancient authors, but also, and more especially, from the new discoveries which the enterprise of travellers and the patient toil of students are continually bringing to light, whereby the stock of our information as to the condition of the ancient world receives constant augmen- tation. The extremest scepticism cannot deny that recent researches in Mesopotamia and the adjacent countries have recovered a series of "monuments" belonging to very early times, capable of throwing considerable light on the Antiquities of the nations which produced them. The author of these volumes believes, that, together with these remains, the lan- guages of the ancient nations have been to a large extent recovered, and that a vast mass of written historical matter of a very high value is thereby added to the materials at the Historian's disposal. This is, clearly, not the place where so difficult and complicated a subject can be properly argued. The author is himself content with the judgment of " experts," and believes it would be as difficult to impose a fabricated language on Professor Lassen of Bonn and Professor Max Muller of Oxford, as to palm off a fictitious for a real animal form on Professor Owen of London. The best linguists in Europe have accepted the decipherment of the cuneiform inscriptions as a thing actually accomplished. Until some good linguist, having PKKFACK. vii carefully examined into the matter, declares himself of a con- trary opinion, the author cannot think that any serious doubt rests on the subject.* The present volumes aim at accomplishing for the Five Nations of which they treat what Movers and Kenrick have accomplished for Phoenicia, or (still more exactly) what Wilkin- son has accomplished for Ancient Egypt. Assuming the inter- pretation of the historical inscriptions as, in general, sufficiently ascertained, and the various ancient remains as assigned on sufficient grounds to certain peoples and epochs, they seek to unite with our previous knowledge of the five nations, whether derived from Biblical or classical sources, the new information obtained from modern discovery. They address themselves in a great measure to the eye; and it is hoped that even those who doubt the certainty of the linguistic discoveries in which the author believes", will admit the advantage of illustrating the life of the ancient peoples by representations of their produc- tions. Unfortunately, the materials of this kind which recent explorations have brought to light are very unequally spread among the several nations of which it is proposed to treat, and, even where they are most copious, fall short of the abundance of Egypt. Still, in every case there is some illustration pos- sible; and in one—Assyria—both the " Arts" and the "Manners" of the people admit of being illustrated very largely from the remains still extant.t The Author is bound to express his obligations to the follow- ing writers, from whose published works he has drawn freely:— MM. Botta and Flandin, Mr. Layard, Mr. James Fergusson, * Some writers allow that the Persian cuneiform inscriptions have been success- fully deciphered and interpreted, but appear to doubt the interpretation of the Assyrian records. (See Edinburgh Sniew for July, 1862, Art. 111., p. 108.) Are they aware that the Persian inscriptions are accompanied in almost every instance by an Assyrian transcript, and that Assyrian interpretation tints follows upon Persian, without involving any additional "guess-work "? t Sec Chapters VI. and VlI. of the Second Monarchy. viii PHEFACK. Mr. Loftus, Mr. Cullimore, and Mr. Birch. He is glarl to take this occasion of acknowledging himself also greatly beholden to the constant help of his brother, Sir Henry Rawlinson, and to the liberality of Mr. Vaux, of the British Museum. The latter gentleman kindly placed at his disposal, for the purposes of the present work, the entire series of unpublished drawings made by the artists who accompanied Mr. Loftus in the last Mesopotamian Expedition, besides securing him undisturbed access to the Museum sculptures, thus enabling him to enrich the present volume with a large number of most interesting Illustrations never previously given to the public. In the sub- joined list these illustrations are carefully distinguished from such as, in one shape or another, have appeared previously. Oxford, September, 1862. CONTENTS OF VOL. I. THE FIKST MONARCHY. C H A L D M A. CHAPTEE I. I'OgO General View ok the Country 1 CHAPTEE n. Climate and Productions 28 CHAPTEE III. The People 43 CHAPTEE IV. Language and Writing 61 CHAPTEE V. Arts and Sciences 70 CHAPTEE VI. Manners and Customs 105 CHAPTEE VII. Religion 110 CHAPTER VIII. History and Chronology 149 X CONTENTS OF VOL. I. THK SECOND MONARCHY. ASSYRIA. CHAPTEE I. Page Description" of the Country 180 CHAPTEE II. Climate and Productions 210 CHAPTEE in. The People 236 CHAPTEE IV. The Capital 248 CHAPTEE V. Language and Writing: 262 CHAPTEE VI. Architecture and other Arts 277 CHAPTEE VII. Manners and Customs 406 LlST OF lLLUSTRATIONS. 1. Plan of Mugheir Kuins (after Taylor) 17 2. Ruins of Warka (Erech) (after Loftus) 19 3. Akkerkuf (after Ker Porter) 22 4. Hammam (after Loftus) 23 5. Tel-Ede (ditto) .. .. .' 23 6. Palms (alter Oppert) 34 7. Chaldaean reeds, from an Assyrian sculpture (after Layard) 37 8. Wild sow and pigs, from Koyunjik (Layard) 40 9. Ethiopians (after Prkhard) 53 10. Cuneiform inscriptions (drawn by the Author from bricks in the British Museum) 63, 64 11. Chaldaan tablet (after Layurd) 68 12. Signet-cylinder (after Ker Porter) 69 13. Bowariyeh (after Loftis) 74 14. Mugheir Temple (ditto) 76 10. Ground-plan of ditto (ditto) • 78 16. Mugheir Temple, restored (6;i the Author). 79 17. Terra cotta cone, actual size (after Loftus) 82 18. Plau and wall of building patterned with cones (after Loftus) 83 19. Ground-plan of chambers excavated at Abu-Shahrein (after Taylor) .. .. 84 20. Brick vault at Mugheir (ditto) 86 21. Chaldaan dish-cover tombs (ditto) 88 22. Chaldaan jar-coffin (ditto) 89 23. Section of drain (ditto) 9U 24. Chalda"an vases of the first period (drav:n by the Author from vases in the British Museum) 91 25. Chalda?an vases, drinking-vessels, and amphora of the second period (ditto) 91 20. Chaldaan lamps of the second period (ditto) 92 27. Seal-cylinder on metal axis (drawn and partly restored by the Author) .. 93 28. Signet-cylinder of King Urukh (after Kei•Porter) 94 2y. Flint knives (drawn by the Author from the originals in the British Museum) 95 3d. Stone hammer, hatchet, adze, and nail (chiefly after Taylor) 96 31. Chaldaan bronze spear and arrow heads (drawn by the Author from the originals in the British Museum) 96 32. Bronze implements (ditto) 97 33. Flint implement (after Taylor) 97 34. Ear-rings (drawn by t/m Author from tiie originals in the British Museum) 98 Leaden pipe and jar (ditto) 98 36. Brnuzc bangles (ditto) 99 XH LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS. P«g« 37. Senkareh Table of Squares 103 38. Costumes of Chaldaeans from the cylinders (after Cullimore and Sich) .. 106 39. Serpent symbol (after Cullimore) 122 40. Symbols of the Moon-God (ditto) 125 41. Symbols of the Sun-God (ditto) 128 42. Symbols of the Sun-Goddess (ditto) 129 43. Flaming sword (ditto) 130 44. Figure of Nin, the Fish-God (Layard) 132 45. Nin's emblem, the Man-Bull (ditto) 133 46. Fish symbols (after Cullimore) 133 47. Bel-Merodach (ditto) 135 48. Nergal's emblem, the Man-Lion (Layard) 137 49. 50. Clay images of Ishtar (after Cullimore and Layard) 139, 140 51. Nebo (drawn by the Author from a statue in the British Museum) .. .. 141 52. Signet of Kurri-galzu, King of Babylon (drawn by the Author from an im- pression in the possession of Sir H. Rawlinson) 170 53. The Khabour, from near Arban, looking north (after Layard) 187 54. Koukab (ditto) 189 55. Lake of Khatouniyeh (ditto) 190 56. Colossal lion, near Seruj (after Chesney) 197 57. Plan of the ruins at Nimrud (Calah) (reduced by the Author from Captain Jones's survey) 200 58. Great mound of Nimrud or Calah (after Layard) 202 59. Hand-swipe, Koyunjik (ditto) 215 60. Assyrian lion, from Nimrud (ditto) 220 61. Ibex, or wild goat, from Nimrud (ditto) 221 62. Wild ass (after Ker Porter) 222 63. Leopard, from Nimrud (after Layard) 223 64. Wild ass, from Koyunjik (from an unpublished drawing by Mr. Bontcher in the British Museum) 223 65. Gazelle, from Nimrud (after Layard) 224 66. Stag and hind, from Koyunjik (from an unpublished drawing by Mr. Boutcher in the British Museum) 224 67. Fallow deer, from Koyunjik (after Layard) 225 68. Hare and eagles, from Nimrud (ditto) 225 69. Hare, from Khorsabad (after Botta) 226 70. Chase of wild ox, from Nimrud (after Layard) 227 71. Vulture, from Nimrud (ditto) 228 72. Vulture feeding on corpse, Koyunjik (ditto) 228 73. Ostrich, from a cylinder (after Cullimore) 228 74. Ostrich, from Nimrud (after Layard) 228 75. Partridges, from Khorsabad (after Botta) 228 76. Unknown birds, Khorsabad (ditto) 229 77. Assyrian garden and fish-pond, Koyunjik (after Layard) 229 78. Bactrian or two-humped camel, from Nimrud (ditto) 230 79. Mesopotamian sheep (ditto) 230 80. Loading a camel, Koyunjik (ditto) 231 81. Head of an Assyrian horse, Koyunjik (ditto) 231 82. Assyrian horse, from Nimrud (ditto) LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS. xiii Page 83. Mule ridden by two women, Koyunjik (alter Layard) 233 84. Loaded mule, Koyunjik (ditto) 233 85. Cart drawn by mules, Koyunjik (ditto) 234 86. Dog modelled in clay, from the palace of Asshur-bani-pal, Koyunjik (dnuni by the Author from the original in the British Museum) 234 87. Dog in relief, on a clay tablet (after Jai/ard) •• 235 88. Assyrian duck, Nimrud (ditto) 235 89. Assyrians, Nimrud (ditto) 238 90. Mesopotaroian captives, from an Egyptian monument ( Wilkinson) .. .. 238 91. Limbs of Assyrians, from the Sculptures (after layard) 240 92. Capture of a city, Nimrud (ditto) - 242 93. Captives of Sargon, Khorsabad (after Botta) 243 94. Captive women in a cart, Nimrud (Layard) 243 95. Kuins of Niniveh (reduced by the Author from Captain Jones's survey) .. 253 96. Khosr-Su and mound of Nebbi-Yunus (after Layard) 255 97. Gate in the north wall, Nineveh (ditto) 258 98. Outer defences of Nineveh, in their present condition (ditto) 260 99. Assyrian cylinder (after Birch) 263 luO. Assyrian seals (after Layard) 264 101. Assyrian clay tablets (ditto) 26.ri 102. Black Obelisk, from Nimrud (after Birch) 266 103. Terrace-wall at Khorsabad (after Botta) 278 104. Pavement-slab, from the Northern Palace, Koyunjik (Fergusson) .. 270 105. Mound of Khorsabad (ditto) 280 106. Plan of the Palace of Sargon, Khorsabad (ditto) 281 107. Hall of Esar-haddon's Palace, Nimrud (ditto) 283 108. Plan of the Palace of Sargon, Khorsabad (ditto) 287 109. Remains of Propylwum, or outer gateway, Khorsabad (Layard) .. .. 288 110. King and attendants, Khorsabad (after Botta) 290 111. Plan of palace gateway (ditto) 291 112. King punishing prisoners, Khorsabad (ditto) 292 113. North-West Court of Sargon's Palace at Khorsabad, restored (after Fer- gusson) 293 114. Sargon in his war-chariot, Khorsabad (after Botta) 294 115. Cornice of temple, Khorsabad (Fergusson) 296 116. Armenian louvre (after Botta) 304 117. Armenian buildings, from Koyunjik (Layard) 305 118. Interior of an Assyrian palace, restored (ditto) 306 119. Assyrian castle on Nimrud obelisk (drawn by the Author from the original in the British Museum) .. .. 308 120. Assyrian altar, from a bas-relief, Khorsabad (after Botta) 308 121. Assyrian temple, Khorsabad (ditto) 309 122. Assyrian temple, from Lord Aberdeen's black stone (after Fergusson) .. 309 123. Assyrian temple, Nimrud (drawn by the Author from the original in the British Museum) 310 124. Assyrian temple, North Palace, Koyunjik (ditto) 310 125. Circular pillar-base, Koyunjik (after Layard) 311 126. Basement portion of an Assyrian temple, North Palace, Koyunjik (draun by the Author from the original in the British Museum) 312 xiv LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS. 127. Porch of the Cathedral, Trent (from an original sketch made by the Author) '313 128. Tower of a temple, Koyunjik (after Layard) 314 129. Tower of ditto, restored (by the Author) 314 130. Tower of Great Temple at Nimrud (after Layard) 315 131. Basement of temple-tower, Nimrud, north and west sides (ditto) .. .. 316 132. Ground-plan of Nimrud Tower (ditto) 318 133. Ground-plans of temples. Nimrud (ditto) 319 134. Entrance to smaller temple, Nimrud (ditto) 321 135. Assyrian village, Koyunjik (ditto) 322 136. Village near Aleppo (ditto) 323 137. Assyrian battlemented wall (ditto) 32* 138. Masonry and section of platform wall, Khorsabad (after Botta) 325 139. Masonry of town-wall, Khorsabad (ditto) 326 140. Masonry of tower or moat, Khorsabad (ditto) 327 141. Arched drain, North-West Palace, Nimrud (after Layard) 328 142. Arched drain, South-East Palace, Nimrud (ditto) 329 143. False arch (Greek) 330 144. Assyrian patterns, Nimrud (Layard) 331 145. Ditto (ditto) 332 14fi. Bases and capitals of pillars (chiefly driven by the Author from bas-reliefs in the British Museum) 333, 334 147. Ornamental doorway, North Palace, Koyunjik (from an unpublished drawing by Mr. Bmdcher in the British Museum) 335 148. Water transport of stone for building, Koyunjik (after Layard) .. .. 338 149. Assyrian statue from Kileh-Sherghat (ditto) 339 150. Statue of Sardanapalus I., from Nimrud (ditto) 340 151. Clay statuettes of the god Nebo (after Botta) 341 152. Clay statuette of the Fish-God (draicn by the Author from the original in the British Museum) 342 153. Clay statuette from Khorsabad (after Botta) 342 154. Lion-hunt, from Nimrud (after Layard) 344 155. Assyrian seizing a wild bull, Nimrud (ditto) 346 156. Hawk-headed figure and sphinx, Nimrud (ditto) 346 157. Death of a wild bull, Nimrud (ditto) 347 158. Kiug killing a lion, Nimrud (ditto) 347 159. Trees from Nimrud (ditto) 348 160. Trees from Koyunjik (ditto) 349 161. Groom and horses, Khorsabad (ditto) 350 162. 163. Assyrian oxen, Koyunjik (ditto) 351 164. Assyrian goat and sheep, Koyunjik (ditto) 352 165. Vine trained on a fir, from the North Palace, Koyunjik (drawn by the Author from a bas-relief in the British Museum) 353 166. Lilies, from the North Palace, Koyunjik (ditto) 354 167. Death of two wild asses, from the North Palace, Koyunjik (from an un- published drawing by Mr. Boutchcr in the British Museum) 355 168. Lion about to spring, from the North Palace, Koyunjik (ditto) 355 169. Wounded wild ass, seized by hounds, from the North Palace, Koyunjik (ditto) 356 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS. XV Page 170. Wounded lion, about to fall, from the North Palace, Koyunjik (from an unpublished drawing; by Mr. Boutcher, in the British Museum) .. 357 171. Wounded lion biting a chariot-wheel, from the North Palace, Koyunjik (ditto) 358 172. King shooting a lion on the spring, from the North Palace, Koyunjik (ditto) 359 173. Lion-hunt in a river, from the North Palace, Koyunjik (ditto) 361 174. Bronze lion, from Nimrud (after Layard) 365 175. Fragments of bronze ornaments of the throne, from Nimrud (ditto) .. .. 365 176. Bronze casting, from the throne, Nimrud (ditto) 366 177. Feet of tripods in bronze and iron (ditto) 367 178. Bronze bull's head from the throne (ditto) ..' 367 179. Bronze head, part of throne, showing bitumen inside (ditto) 367 180. End of a sword-sheath, from the N. W. Palace, Nimrud (ditto) 368 181. Stool or chair, Khorsabad (after Botta) 368 182. Engraved scarab in centre of cup, from the X. W. Palace, Nimrud (Layard) 368 183. Egyptian head-dresses on bronze dishes, from Nimrud (ditto) 369 184. Ear-rings from Nimrud and Khorsabad (ditto) 371 185. Bronze cubes inlaid with gold, original size (ditto) 372 186. Egyptian scarab (from Wilkinson) 372 187. Fragment of ivory panel, from Nimrud (after Layard) 373 188. Fragment of a lion in ivory, Nimrud (ditto) 373 189. Figures and cartouche with hieroglyphics, on an ivory panel, from the N. W. Palace, Nimrud (ditto) 374 190. Fragment of a stag in ivory, Nimrud (ditto) 375 191. Royal attendant, Nimrud (ditto) 376 192. Arcade work, on enamelled brick, Nimrud (ditto) 377 193. Human figure, on enamelled brick, from Nimrud (ditto) 379 194. Ram's head, on enamelled brick, from Nimrud (ditto) 379 195. King and attendants, on enamelled brick, from Nimrud (ditto) 380 196. Impression of ancient Assyrian cylinder, in serpentine (ditto) 382 197. Assyrian seals (ditto) 383 198. Assyrian cylinder, with the Fish-God (ditto) 383 199. Royal cylinder of Sennacherib (ditto) 383 200. Assyrian vases, amphora?, &c. (after Birch) 386 201. Funereal urn, from Khorsabad (after Batta) 386 202. Nestorian and Arab workmen, with jar discovered at Nimrud (Layard) .. 387 203. Lustral ewer, from a bas-relief, Khorsabad (after Botta) 387 204. Wine vase, from a bas-relief, Khorsabad (ditto) 388 205. Assyrian clay-lamps (after Layard and Birch) 388 206. Amphora, with twisted arms, Nimrud (Birch) 389 207. Assyrian glass bottles and bowl (after Layard) 389 208. Glass vase, bearing the name of Sargon, from Nimrud (ditto) 390 209. Fragments of hollow tubes, in glass, from Koyunjik (ditto) 391 210. Ordinary Assyrian tables, from the bas-reliefs (by the Author) 392 211. 212. Assyrian tables, from bas-reliefs, Koyunjik (ditto) 392 213. Table, ornamented with rams' heads, Koyunjik (after Layard) 392 214. Ornamented table, Khorsabad (ditto) 393 215. Three-legged table, Koyunjik (ditto) 393 216. Sennacherib on his throne, Koyunjik (ditto) 393 xvi LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS. Page 217. Arm-chair or throne, Khorsabad (after Butta) 39+ 218. Assyrian ornamented seat, Khorsabad (ditto) 394 219. Assyrian couch, from a bas-relief, Koyunjik (by the Author) 395 220. Assyrian footstools, Koyunjik (ditto) 395 221. Stands for jars (Layard) 396 222. Royal embroidered dresses, Nimrud (ditto) 397 223. Embroidery on a royal dress, Nimrud (ditto) 398 224. Circular breast ornament on a royal robe, Nimrud (ditto) 399 225. Assyrians moving a human-headed bull, partly restored from a bas-relief at Koyunjik (ditto) 402 226. Labourer employed in drawing a colossal bull, Koyunjik (ditto) 403 227. Attachment of rope to sledge, on which the bull was placed for transport, Koyunjik (ditto) 403 228. Part of a bas-relief, showing a pulley and a warrior cutting a bucket from the rope (ditto) 404 229. Assyrian war-chariot, Koyunjik (from the original in the British Museum) 407 230. Chariot-wheel of the early period, Nimrud (ditto) 407 231. Chariot-wheel of the middle period, Koyunjik (ditto) 407 232. Chariot-wheel of the latest period, Koyunjik (ditto) .. ,. 408 233. Ornamented ends of chariot-poles, Nimrud and Koyunjik (ditto) .. .. 408 234. End of pole, with cross-bar, Khorsabad (after Botta) 410 235. End of pole, with curved yoke, Koyunjik (after Layard) 410 236. End of pole, with elaborate cross-bar or yoke, Khorsabad (after Botta) .. 411 237. Assyrian chariot containing four warriors, Koyunjik (after Boutcher) .. 411 238. Assyrian war-chariot of the early period, Nimrud (from the original in the British Museum) '412 239. Assyrian war-chariot of the later period, Koyunjik (ditto) 413 240. Assyrian chariot of the transition period, Koyunjik (after Boutcher) .. 414 241. Assyrian chariot of the early period, Nimrud (from the original in the British Museum) '.. .. 416 242. Chariot-horse protected by clothing, Koyunjik (ditto) 416 243. Head of a chariot-horse, showing collar with bells attached, Koyunjik (after Boutcher) 417 244. Bronze bit, Nimrud (from the original in the British Museum) .. .. 418 245. Bits of chariot-horses, from the Sculptures, Nimrud and Koyunjik (ditto) 419 246. Driving-whips of Assyrian charioteers, from the Sculptures (ditto) .. .. 420 247. Mode of tying horses' tails, Koyunjik (ditto) 420 248. Mounted spearmen of the time of Sargou, Khorsabad (after Botta) .. .. 425 249. Grenve or laced boot of a horseman, Khorsabad (ditto) 426 250. Cavalry soldiers of the time of Sennacherib, Koyunjik (after Layard) .. 426 251. Horse archer of the latest period, Koyunjik (from the original in the British Museum) 427 252. Ordinary sandal of the first period, Nimrud (ditto) 429 253. Convex shield of the first period, Nimrud (after Layard) 429 254. Foot spearman of the first period, with wicker shield, Nimrud (from the original in the British Museum) 429 255. Foot archer, with attendant, first period, Nimrud (ditto) 429 256. Foot archers of the lightest equipment, time of Sargon, Khorsabad (after Botta) 430 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS. xvii Pago 257. Foot archer of the intermediate equipment, with attendant, time of Sargon, Khorsabad (after Botta) 431 258. Foot archer of the heavy equipment, with attendant, time of Sargon, Khorsabad (ditto) 432 259. Foot spearman of the time of Sargon, Khorsabad (ditto) 433 260. Shield and greave of a spearman, Khorsabad (ditto) 434 261. Spear, with weight at the lower end. Khorsabad (ditto) 434 262. Sling, Koyunjik (from the original in the British Museum) 435 263. Foot archer of the heavy equipment, with attendant, time of Sennacherib, Koyunjik (ditto) 435 264. Foot archers of the second class, time of Sennacherib, Koyunjik (dit to) .. 436 265. Belts and head-dress of a foot archer of the third class, time of Sen- nacherib, Koyunjik (after Boutcher) 436 266. Mode of carrying the quiver, time of Sennacherib, Koyunjik (from the original in the British Museum) 437 267. Foot archers of the lightest equipment, time of Sennacherib, Koyunjik (ditto) 437 268. Foot spearman of the time of Sennacherib, Koyunjik (after Layanl) .. ., 438 269. Wicker shields, time of Sennacherib, Koyunjik (from the originals in the British Museum) 439 270. Metal shield of the latest period, Koyunjik (ditto) 440 271. Slinger, time of Asshur-bani-pal, Koyunjik (after Boutcher) 440 272. Pointed helmet, with curtain of scales, Nimrud (after Layard) 441 273. lron helmet, from Koyunjik, now in the British Museum (hy the Author).. 441 274. Assyrian crested helmets, from the bas-reliefs, Khorsabad and Koyunjik (from the originals in the British Museum) 442 275. Scale, Egyptian (after Sir 6. Wilkinson) 443 276. Arrangement of scales in Assyrian scale-armour of the second period, Khorsabad (after BotU) 443 277. Sleeve of a coat of mail—scale-armour of the first period, Nimrud (from the original in the British Museum) 444 278. Assyrian ycrrha, or large wicker shields (ditto) 445 279. Soldier undermining a wall, sheltered by yerrhon, Koyunjik (ditto) .. .. 446 280. Round shields or targes, patterned, Khorsabad (after Botta) 447 281. Convex shields with teeth, Nimrud (from the originals in the British Museum) 447 282. Egyptian convex shield, worn on back (after Sir (if. Wtlkinson) 448 283. Assyrian ditto, Koyunjik (from the original in the British Museum) .. 448 284. Assyrian convex shield, resembling the Greek, Koyunjik (ditto) .. .. 448 285. Quiver, with arrows and javelin, Nimrud (ditto) 449 286. Ornamented end of bow, Khorsabad (after Botta) 449 287. Stringing the bow, Koyunjik (from the original in the British Museum) .. 450 288. Assyrian curved bow (ditto) 450 289. Assyrian angular bow, Khorsabad (after Botta) 450 290. Mode of carrying the bow in a bow-case, Koyunjik (from the original in the British Museum) 451 291. Peculiar mode of carrying the quiver, Koyunjik (ditto) 451 292. Quiver, with rich ornamentation, Nimrud (after Layard) 452 293. Quivers of the ordinary character, Koyunjik (from the originals in the British Museum); 452 VOL. I. I xviii LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS. l'age 294. Quiver with projecting rod, Khorsabad (after Botta) 453 295. Assyrian covered quivers, Koyunjik (from the originals in the British Museum) 453 296. Bronze arrow-heads, Nimrud and Koyunjik (ditto) 454 297. Flint arrow-head, Nimrud (ditto) 454 298. Assyrian arrow (ditto) 455 299. Mode of drawing the bow, Koyunjik (after Buatcher) 455 300. Guard worn by an archer, Koyunjik (ditto) 456 301. Bronze spear-head, Nimrud (from the original in the British Museum) .. 456 302. Spear-heads (from the Sculptures) 457 303. Ornamented ends of spear-shafts, Nimrud (after Layard) 457 304. Ornamented handle of short sword, Khorsabad (after Botta) 457 305. Sheathed sword, Koyunjik (after Boutcher) 458 306. Ornamented handle of longer sword, Nimrud (from the original in the British Museum) 458 307. Assyrian curved sword, Khorsabad (after Botta) 458 308. Head of royal mace, Khorsabad (ditto) 459 309. Maces, from the Sculptures 459 310. Assyrian battle-axes, Koyunjik (from the originals in the British Museum) 459 311. Scythian battle-axe (after Texier) 459 312. Ornamented handles of daggers, Nimrud (after Layard) 460 313. Handle of dagger, with chain, Nimrud (ditto) 460 314. Sheaths of daggers, Nimrud (ditto) 461 315. Assyrian standard, Khorsabad (after Botta) 461 316. Soldier swimming a river, Koyunjik (after Layard) 464 317. Royal tent, Koyunjik (from the original in the British Museum) .. .. 465 318. Ordinary tent, Koyunjik (after Boutcher) 465 319. Interior of tent, Koyunjik (ditto) 465 320. King walking in a mountainous country, chariot following, supported by men, Koyunjik (from an obelisk in the British Museum, after Boutcher) 466 321. Fortified place, belonging to an enemy of the Assyrians, Nimrud (after Layard) 468 322. Gateway of castle, Koyunjik (after Boutcher) 469 323. Battering-rains, Khorsabad and Koyunjik (partly after Botta) 470 324. Assyrian balista, Nimrud (after Layard) 472 325. Crowbar, and mining the wall, Koyunjik (ditto) 473 326. Implement used in the destruction of cities, Khorsabad (after Botta) .. 474 327. Soldiers destroying date-palms, Koyunjik (after Iiayard) 475 328. Soldier carrying otf spoil from a temple, Khorsabad (after Botta) .. .. 475 329. Scribes taking account of the spoil, Khorsabad (ditto) 476 330. Mace-bearer, with attendant, executing a prisoner, Koyunjik (from the original in the British Museum) 477 331. Swordsman decapitating a prisoner, Koyunjik (ditto) 478 332. Female captives, with children, Koyunjik (after Layard) 480 333. Chasuble or outer garment of the king (chiefly after Botta) 485 334. King in his robes, Khorsabad (after Botta) 480 335. Tiaras of the later and earlier periods, Koyunjik and Nimrud (Layard and BoutcJicr) 487 336. Fillet worn by the kfng, Nimrud (after Layard) 487 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS. xix Page 337. Royal sandals, times of Sargon and Asshur-izir-pal (from the originals in the British Museum) 488 338. Royal shoe, time of Sennacherib, Koyunjik (ditto) 488 339. Royal necklace, Nimrud (ditto) 489 340. Royal collar, Nimrud (ditto) 489 341. Royal armlets, Khorsabad (after Botta) 490 342. Royal bracelets, Khorsabad and Koyunjik (after Botta and Boutcher) .. 490 343. Royal ear-rings, Nimrud (from the originals in the British Museum) .. 491 344. Early king in his war-costume, Nimrud (ditto) 491 345. King, queen, and attendants, Koyunjik (ditto) 493 346. Enlarged figure of the queen, Koyunjik (ditto) 494 347. Royal parasols. Nimrud and Koyunjik (ditto) 495 348. Heads of eunuchs, Nimrud (ditto) 497 349. The chief eunuch, Nimrud (ditto) 498 350. Head-dress of the vizier, Khorsabad (after Botta) 499 351. Costumes of the vizier, tinies of Sennacherib and Asshur-izir-pal, Nimrud and Koyunjik (from the originals in the British Museum) 500 352. Tribute-bearers presented by the chief eunuch. Nimrud obelisk (ditto) .. 502 353. Fans or fly-flappers, Nimrud and Koyunjik (ditto) 503 354. King killing a lion, Nimrud (after Layard) 506 355. King, with attendants, spearing a lion, Koyunjik (after Bontcher) .. .. 506 356. King, with attendant, stabbing a lion, Koyunjik (ditto) 507 357. Lion let out of trap, Koyunjik (ditto) 509 358. Hound held in leash, Koyunjik (from the original in the British Museum) 510 359. Wounded lioness', Koyunjik (ditto) 512 360. Fight of lion and bull, Nimrud (after Layard) 512 361. King hunting the wild bull, Nimrud (ditto) 513 362. King pouring libation over four dead lions, Koyunjik (from the original in the British Museum) 515 363. Hound chasing a wild ass colt, Koyunjik (after Boutcher) 516 364. Dead wild ass, Koyunjik (ditto) 516 365. Hounds pulling down a wild ass, Koyunjik (ditto) 517 366. Wild ass taken with a rope, Koyunjik (from the original in the British Museum) 517 367. Hound chasing a doe, Koyunjik (after Boutcher) 518 368. Hunted stag taking the water, Koyunjik (ditto) 519 369. Net spread to take deer, Koyunjik (from the original in the British Museum) 520 370. Portion of net, showing the arrangement of the meshes and the pegs, , Koyunjik (ditto) 520 371. Hunted ibex, flying at full speed, Koyunjik (after Boutcher) 521 372. lbei transfixed with arrow —falling (ditto) 521 373. Sportsman carrying a gazelle, Khorsabad (from the original in the British Museum) 522 374. Sportsman shooting, Khorsabad (after Botta) 523 375. Greyhound and hare, Nimrud (from a bronze bowl in the British Museum) 523 376. Nets, pegs, and balls of string, Koyunjik (after Boutcher) 524 377. Man fishing, Nimrud (after Layard) 525 378. Man fishing, Koyunjik (ditto) 526 XX LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS. Page 379. Man fishing, seated on skin, Koyunjik (from the original in the British Museum) . .. .,. , 527 380. Bear standing, Niinrud (from a bronze bowl in the British Museum) .. 528 381. Ancient Assyrian harp and harper, Nimrud (from the originals in the British Museum) 529 382. Later Assyrian harps and harpers, Koyunjik (ditto) 530 383. Triangular lyre, Koyunjik (ditto) 531 384. Lyre with ten strings, Khorsabad (after Botta) 532 385. Lyres with five and seven strings, Koyunjik (from the originals in the British Museum) .. .. 533 386. Guitar or tamboura, Koyunjik (ditto) 534 387. Player on the double pipe, Koyunjik (ditto) 534 388. Tambourine player and other musicians, Koyunjik (ditto) 535 389. Eunuch playing on the cymbals, Koyunjik (after Boutcher) 536 390. Assyrian tMuls, or drums, Koyunjik (from the originals in the British Museum) 537 391. Musician playing the dulcimer, Koyunjik (ditto) 538 392. Koman trumpet (Column of Trajan) 539 393. Assyrian ditto, Koyunjik (after Layard) 539 394. Portion of an Assyrian trumpet (from the original in the British Museum) 539 395. Captives playing on lyres, Koyunjik (ditto) 540 396. Lyre on a Hebrew coin (ditto) 541 397. Baud of twenty-six musicians, Koyunjik (ditto) 542 398. Time-keepers, Koyunjik (after Boutchcr) 543 399. Assyrian coracle, Nimrud (from the original in the British Museum) .. 546 400. Common oar, time of Sennacherib, Koyunjik (ditto) 547 401. Steering oar, time of Asshur-izir-pal, Nimrud (ditto) 547 402. Karly long boat, Nimrud (ditto) 549 403. Later long boat, Khorsabad (after Botta) 549 404. Phanician bireme, Koyunjik (after Layard) 550 405. Oar kept in place by pegs, Koyunjik (from the original in the British Museum) 550 406. Chart of the district about Nimrud, showing the course of the ancient canal and conduit (after the survey of Captain Jones) 565 407. Assyrian drill-plough (from Lord Aberdeen's black stone, after Feryusson) 567 408. Modern Turkish plough (after Sir C. Fellows) 567 409. Modern Arab plough (after C. Nicbuhr) 567 410. Ornamental belt or girdle, Koyunjik (from the original in the British Museum) 569 411. Ornamental cross-belt, Khorsabad (after Botta) 569 412. Armlets of Assyrian grandees, Khorsabad (ditto) 570 413. Head-dresses of various officials, Koyunjik (from the originals in the British Museum) 571 414. Curious mode of arranging the hair, Koyunjik (ditto) 571 415. Female seated (from an ivory in the British Museum) 572 416. Females gathering grapes (from some ivory fragments in the British Museum) 573 417. Necklace of flat glass beads (from the original in the British Museum) .. 574 418. Metal mirror (ditto) 575 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS. xxi I'ap' 419. Combs in iron and lapis lazuli (from the originals in the British Museum) 575 420. Assyrian joints of moat (from the Sculptures) 577 4J1. Killing the sheep, Koyunjik (after Buntcher) 577 A'1'1. Cooking meat in cauldron, Koyunjik (after Layard) 578 423. Frying, Nimrud (from the original in the British Museum) 578 424. Assyrian fruits (from the Monuments) 579 425. Drinking scene, Khorsabad (after Batta) 580 426. Ornamental wine-cup, Khorsabad (ditto) 580 427. Attendant bringing flowers to a banquet, Koyunjik (after Layard) .. . 581 428. Socket of hinge, Nimrud (ditto) 58'J 4'J9. Assyrians seated on stools, Koyunjik (from the original in the British Museum) 583 430. Making the bed, Koyunjik (after Boutcher) 583 431. Domestic utensils (from the Sculptures) 584 i'o'l. Dish handles, Nimrud (after Layard) 584 433. Bronze ladle, Nimrud (in the British Museum) 585 434. Hanging garden, Koyunjik (after Layard) 585 435. Assyrians drawing a hand-cart, Koyunjik (ditto) 586 436. Assyrian implements (from the Monuments) 587 437. Assyrian close carriage or litter, Koyunjik (from an obelisk in the British Museum, after Boutcher) 588 438. Groom feeding horses, Koyunjik (after Layard) 589 439. Groom currycombing a horse, Nimrud (from the original in the British Museum) 589 VOL. 1. THE FIRST MONARCHY. CHALD.EA. CHAPTEE L GENERAL VIEW OP THE COUNTRY. "Behold the land of the Chaldeans."—Isaiah xxiii. 13. The broad belt of desert which traverses the eastern hemi- sphere, in a general direction from west to east (or, speaking more exactly, of W.S.W. to N.E.E.), reaching from the Atlantic on the one hand nearly to the Yellow Sea on the other, is interrupted about its centre by a strip of rich vegetation, which at once breaks the continuity of the arid region, and serves also to mark the point where the desert changes its character from that of a plain at a low level to that of an elevated plateau or table-land. West of the favoured district, the Arabian and African wastes are seas of sand, seldom raised much above, often sinking below, the level of the ocean; while east of the same, in Persia, Kerman, Seistan, Chinese Tartary, and Mon- golia, the desert consists of a series of plateaus, having from 3000 to nearly 10,000 feet of elevation. The green and fertile region, which is thus interposed between the "highland" and the "lowland" deserts,1 participates, curiously enough, in both characters. Where the belt of sand is intersected by the valley of the Nile, no marked change of elevation occurs; and the continuous low desert is merely interrupted by a few miles of green and cultivable surface, the whole of which is just as smooth and as flat as the waste on either side of it. But it is 1 Humboldt, Aspects of Nature, vol. 1. pp. 77, 78, E.T. VOL. I. B 2 Chap. I. THE FIRST MONARCHY. otherwise at the more eastern interruption. There the verdant and productive country divides itself into two tracts, running parallel to each other, of which the western presents features not unlike those that characterise the Nile valley, but on a far larger scale; while the eastern is a lofty mountain-region, consisting for the most part of five or six parallel ranges, and mounting, in many places far above the level of perpetual snow. It is with the western or plain tract that we are here concerned. Between the outer limits of the Syro-Arabian desert and the foot of the great mountain-range of Kurdistan and Luristan intervenes a territory long famous in the world's history, and the chief site of three out of the five empires of whose history, geography, and antiquities it is proposed to treat in the present volumes. Known to the Jews as Aram-Naharaim, or "Syria of the two rivers;" to the Greeks and Romans as Mesopotamia, or "the between-river country;" to the Arabs as Al-Jezireh, or "the island," this district has always2 taken its name from the streams, which constitute its most striking feature, and to which, in fact, it owes its existence. If it were not for the two great rivers—the Tigris and Euphrates—with their tributaries, the more northern part of the Mesopotamian lowland would in no respect differ from the Syro-Arabian desert on which it adjoins, and which in latitude, elevation, and general geological character, it exactly resembles. Towards the south, the importance of the rivers is still greater; for of Lower Mesopotamia it may be said, with more truth than of Egypt,3 that it is "an acquired land," the actual "gift" of the two streams which wash it on either side; being, as it is, entirely a recent formation—a deposit which the streams have 2 Even the title of Shinar, the earliest known name of the region (Gen. xi. 2), may'be no exception; for it is perhaps derived from the Hebrew 'JSJ', "two," and ar or mihr (Heb. "^J), "a river." The form ar belongs to the early Scy thic or Cushite Babylonian, and is found in the Ar-malchar of Pliny (//. N. vi. 26), and the Armacales of Abydenus—terms used to designate the Nahr-rnalcha (Royal River) of other authors. (See the Fragmenta Hisioricorvm Gracorum, vol. iv. pp. 283, 284.) s Herodotus, ii. 5. Sir Gardner Wil- kinson observes that Herodotus is mis- taken in this instance. The Nile never emptied itself into a gulf, but from the first laid its deposits on ground already raised above the level of the Mediter- ranean. (See the author's Herodotus, vol. ii. p. 6, note4.) Chap. I. 3 MESOPOTAMIA—UPPER AND LOWER. made in the shallow waters of a gulf into which they have flowed for many ages.4 The division, which has here forced itself upon our notice, ( between the Upper and the Lower Mesopotamian country, is one very necessary to engage our attention, in connexion with the ancient Chaldaea, ' There is no reason to think that the term Chaldaea had at any time the extensive signification of Mesopotamia, much less that it applied to the entire flat country between the desert and the mountains. 'Chaldaea was not the whole, but a part, of the great Mesopotamian plain; which was ample enough to contain within it three or four considerable monarchies. According to the combined testimony of geographers and historians,5 Chaldaea lay towards the south, for it bordered upon the Persian Gulf; and towards the west, for it adjoined Arabia. • If we are called upon to fix more • accurately its boundaries, which, like those of most countries without strong natural frontiers, suffered many fluctuations, we are perhaps entitled to say that the Persian Gulf on the south, the Tigris on the east, the Arabian desert on the west, and the limit between Upper and Lower Mesopotamia on the north, formed the natural bounds, which were never greatly exceeded and never much infringed upon. These boundaries are for the most part tolerably clear, though the northern only is invariable. Natural causes, hereafter to be mentioned more particularly,6 are perpetually varying the course of the Tigris, the shore of the Persian Gulf, and the line of demarcation between the sands of Arabia and the verdure of the Euphrates valley. But nature has set a permanent mark, half way down the Meso- potamian lowland, by a difference of geological structure, which is very conspicuous. Near Hit on the Euphrates, and a little below Samarah on the Tigris,7 the traveller who descends the 4 Loftus's ChalcLxa and Susiana, p. 282. 5 See Strabo, xvi. 1, § 6; Pliny, H. N. vi. 28; Ptolemy, v. 20; Beros. ap. Syncell. pp. 28, 29. 6 See below, pp. 13, 14, &o. 1 Ross came to the end of the al- luvium and the commencement of the secondary formations in lat. 34", long. 44°. (Journal of Geographical Society, vol. ix. p. 446.) Simiinrly Captain Lynch found the bed of the Tigris change from pebbles to mere alluvium near Khan Tholiyeh, a little above its confluence with the Adhem. (Ib. p. 472.) For the point where the Euphrates enters on the alluvium, see Eraser's Assyria and Mesopotamia, p. 27. B 2 4 Chap. I. THE FIRST MONARCHY. streams, bids adieu to a somewhat waving and slightly elevated plain of secondary formation, and enters on the dead flat and low level of the mere alluvium. The line thus formed is marked and invariable; it constitutes the only natural division between the upper and lower portions of the valley; and both probability and history point to it as the actual boundary between Chaldaea and her northern neighbour. The extent of ancient Chaldaea is, even after we have fixed its boundaries, a question of some difficulty. From the edge of the alluvium a little below Hit, to the present coast of the Persian Gulf at the mouth of the Shat-el-Arab, is a distance of above 430 miles; while from the western shore of the Bahr-i- Nedjif to the Tigris at Serut is a direct distance of 185 miles. The present area of the alluvium west of the Tigris and the Shat-el-Arab may be estimated at about 30,000 square miles. But the extent of ancient Chaldaea can scarcely have been so great. It is certain that the alluvium at the head of the Persian Gulf now grows with extraordinary rapidity, and not improbable that the growth may in ancient times have been even more rapid than it is at present. Accurate observations have shown that the present rate of increase amounts to as much as a mile each seventy years,8 while it is the opinion of those best qualified to judge that the average progress during the historic period has been as much as a mile in every thirty years!9 Traces of post-tertiary deposits have been found as far up the country as Tel Ede and Hammam,10 or more than 200 miles from the embouchure of the Shat-el-Arab; and there is ample reason for believing that, at the time when the first Chaldaean monarchy was established, the Persian Gulf reached inland, 120 or 130 miles further than at present. We must s Loftus, Chaldaa and Susiana, p. 282. u Sir H. Rawlinson, in the Journal of the Geographical Society, vol.xxvii. p. 186. The increase did not escape the notice Mauritanian it was 50 miles from the sea, and in his own day 120 miles! (Hist. Nat. vi. 27.) . This would give for the first period a rate of increase of the ancients. It is mentioned and , exceeding a mile in seven years, and exaggerated by Pliny, who says that Charax of Spasinus was originally built by Alexander the Great at the distance of little more than a mile from the shore, but that in the time of Juba the for the second a rate of about a mile a year; or for the whole period, a rate of a mile in 3} years. 10 Loftus, in Journal of the Geographical Society, vol. xxvi. p. 146. Chap. L 5 EXTENT OF ANCIENT CHALDAEA—RIVERS. deduct therefore from the estimate of extent grounded upou the existing state of things, a tract of land 130 miles long and some 60 or»70 hroad, which has been gained from the sea in the course of about forty centuries. This deduction will reduce Chaldaea to a kingdom of somewhat narrow limits; for it will contain no more than about 23,000 square miles. This, it is true, exceeds the area of all ancient Greece, including Thessaly, Acarnania, and the islands;1 it nearly equals that of the Low Countries, to which Chaldaea presents some analogy; it is almost exactly that of the modern kingdom of Denmark; but it is less than Scotland, or Ireland, or Portugal, or Bavaria; it is more than doubled by England, more than quadrupled by Prussia, and more than octupled by Spain, France, and Euro- pean Turkey. Certainly, therefore, it was not in consequence of its size that Chaldaea became so important a country in the early ages, but rather in consequence of certain advantages of soil, climate, and position, which will be considered in the next chapter. It has been already noticed that in the ancient Chaldaea, the chief—almost the sole—geographical features, were the rivers.2, Nothing is more remarkable even now than the featureless character of the region, although in the course of ages it has received from man some interruptions of the original uniformity. On all sides a dead level extends itself, broken only by single solitary mounds, the remains of ancient temples or cities, by long lines of slightly elevated embankment marking the course of canals, ancient or recent, and towards the south by a few sand-hills. The only further variety is that of colour; for while the banks of the streams, the marsh-grounds, and the country for a short distance on each side of the canals in actual operation, present to the eye a pleasing, and in some cases a luxuriant verdure; the rest, except in early spring, is parched and arid, having little to distinguish it from the most desolate districts of Arabia. Anciently, except for this difference, the 1 See Clinton's Fasti Hcllcnici, vol. ii. nania, ^Etolia, Eubcea, and the other p. 473, where the whole area of Euro- littoral islands, is shown to be 22,231 pean Greece, including Thessaly, Acar- miles. 8 See above, p. 2. 6 Chap, t THE FIEST MONARCHY. tract must have possessed all the wearisome uniformity of the steppe region; the level horizon must have shown itself on all sides unbroken by a single irregularity; all places must have appeared alike, and the traveller can scarcely have per- ceived his progress, or have known whither or how to direct his steps. The rivers alone, with their broad sweeps and bold reaches, their periodical changes of swell and fall, their strength, motion, and life-giving power, can have been objects of thought and interest to the first inhabitants; and it is still to these that the modern must turn who wishes to represent, to himself or others, the general aspect and chief geographical divisions of the country. The Tigris and Euphrates rise from opposite sides of the same mountain-chain. This is the ancient range of Niphates (a prolongation of Taurus), the loftiest of the many parallel ridges which intervene between the Euxine and the Mesopota- mian plain, and the only one which transcends in many places the limits of perpetual snow. Hence its ancient appellation, and hence its power to sustain unfailingly the two magnificent streams which flow from it. The line of the Niphates is from east to west, with a very slight deflection to the south of west; and the streams thrown off from its opposite flanks, run at first in valleys parallel to the chain itself, but in opposite directions, the Euphrates flowing westward from its source near Ararat to Malatiyeh, while the Tigris from Diarbekr "goes eastward to Assyria."3 The rivers thus appear as if never about to meet; but at Malatiyeh the course of the Euphrates is changed. Sweeping suddenly to the south-east, this stream passes within a few miles of the source of the Tigris below Lake Gdljik, and forces a way through the mountains towards the "south, pursuing a tortuous course, but still seeming as if it intended ultimately to mingle its waters with those of the Mediterranean.4 It is not till about Balis, in lat . 36°, that this intention appears to be finally relinquished, and the convergence of the two streams begins. The Euphrates at first flows nearly due east, but soon 3 Gen. ii. 14, marginal rendering. I dentem petit, ni Taurus obstet, in nostra 4 See the remark of Mela:—" Occi- | inaria venturus." (De Hit. Orb. Hi. 8.) Chap. L 7 DESCRIPTION OF THE EUPHRATES AND TIGRIS. takes a course which is, with few and unimportant deflections, about south-east, as far as Suk-es-Sheioukh, after which it runs a little north of east to Kurnah. The Tigris from Til to Mosul pursues also a south-easterly course, and draws but a very little nearer to the Euphrates. From Mosul, however, to Samarah, its course is only a point east of south; and though, after that, for some miles it flows off to the east, yet resuming, a little below the thirty-fourth parallel, its southerly direction, it is brought about Baghdad within twenty miles of the sister stream. From this point there is again a divergence. The course of the Euphrates, which from Hit to the mounds of Mohammed (long. 44°), had been E.S.E., becomes much more southerly, while that of the Tigris—which, as we have seen, was for a while due south —becomes once more only slightly south of east,6 till near Serut, where the distance between the rivers has increased from twenty to a hundred miles. After passing respectively Serut and El Khitr, the two streams converge rapidly. The flow of the Euphrates is at first E.S.E., and then a little north of east to Kurnah, while that of the Tigris is S.S.E. to the same point. The lines of the streams in this last portion of their course, together with that which may be drawn across from stream to stream, form nearly an equilateral triangle, the distances being respectively 104, 110, and 115 miles.6 So rapid is the final convergence of the two great rivers. The Tigris and Euphrates are both streams of the first order. The estimated length of the former, including main windings, is 1146 miles; that of the latter is 1780 miles.7 Like most rivers that have their sources in high mountain regions, they are strong from the first, and, receiving in their early course a vast number of important tributaries, become broad and deep streams before they issue upon the plains. The Euphrates is navigable from Sumeisat (the ancient Samosata), 1200 miles 5 In one part of its course, viz. from Kut-el-Amarah at the mouth of the Shat-el-Hie to Hussun Khan's fort, 50 miles iower down the stream, the direction of the Tigris is even north of east. • From El Khitr to Serut the direct distance is 104 miles, from Serut to Kurnah 110, and from Kurnah to £1 Khitr 115. 'Chesney, Euphrates Expedition, vol.i. pp. 38 and 40. 8 Chap. I. THE FIEST MONARCHY. above its embouchure; and even 180 miles higher up, is a river "of imposing appearance," 120 yards wide and very deep.8 The Tigris is often 250 yards wide at Diarbekr,9 which is not a hundred miles from its source, and is navigable in the flood time from the bridge of Diarbekr to Mosul,10 from which place it is descended at all seasons to Baghdad, and thence to the sea.1 Its average width below Mosul is 200 yards, with a depth which allows the ascent of light steamers, unless when there is an artificial obstruction.2 Above Mosul the width rarely exceeds 150 yards, and the depth is not more in places than three or four feet. The Euphrates is 250 yards wide at Balbi, and averages 350 yards from its junction with the Khabour to Hit; its depth is commonly from fifteen to twenty feet.3 Small steamers have descended its entire course from Bir to the sea. The volume of the Euphrates in places is, however, somewhat less than that of the Tigris, which is a swifter and in its latter course a deeper stream. It has been calculated that the quan- tity of water discharged every second by the Tigris at Baghdad is 164,103 cubic feet, while that discharged by the Euphrates at Hit is 72,804 feet.4 The Tigris and Euphrates are very differently circumstanced with respect to tributaries. So long as it runs among the Armenian mountains, the Euphrates has indeed no lack of affluents; but these, except the Kara Su, or northern Euphrates, are streams of no great volume, being chiefly mountain-torrents which collect the drainage of very limited basins. After it leaves the mountains and enters upon the low country at Sume'isat, the affluents almost entirely cease; one, the river of Sajur, is received from the right, in about lat. 36° 40'; and two 8 Chesney, Euphrates Expedition, vol. i. Lieutenant Lynch, ascended the Tigris p. 44. I nearly to Jumrud in 1838; but was 3 Ibid. p. 15. It only attains this I stopped by an artificial bund or dam width, however, in the season of the 1 thrown aeross the stream near that floods. Generally it is at Diarbekr about 100 or 1S20 yards wide. 10 Loftus, Chaldcea and Susiana, p. 3. 'Chesney, Euphrates Expedition, vol. i. p. 32; compare Layard, Ninereh and its Item/tins, vol. ii. ch. xiii. p. 92. 1 Tho 1 Euphrates' steamer, under | 4 Ibid. p. 62. place. (Chesney, vol. i. p. 32.) The 'Nitocris' in 1846 attempted the ascent, but was unable to proceed far above Tekrit, from a want of sufficient power. (Nineveh and its Jtemains, vol. i. ch. v. p. 139.) * Chesney, vol. i. pp. 53-57. Chap. I. TRIBUTARIES OF THE EUPHRATES AND TIGRIS. 9 of more importance flow in from the left—the Belik (ancient Bilichus), which joins it in long. 39° 9'; and the Khabour (ancient Habor or Chaboras), which effects a junction in long. 40° 30', lat, 35° 7'. The Belik and Khabour collect the waters which flow from the southern flank of the mountain range above Orfa, Mardin, and Nisibin, best known as the "Mons Masius" of Strabo.5 They are not, however, streams of equal importance. The Belik has a course which is nearly straight, and does not much exceed 120 miles. The Khabour, on the contrary, is sufficiently sinuous, and its course may be reckoned at fully 200 miles. It is navigable by rafts from the junction of its two main branches near the volcanic cone of Koukab,6 and adds a considerable body of water to the Euphrates. Below its confluence with this stream, or during the last 800 miles of its course, the Euphrates does not receive a single tributary. On the contrary, it soon begins to give off its waters right and left, throwing out branches, which either terminate in marshes, or else empty themselves into the Tigris. After a while, in- deed, it receives compensation, by means of the Shat-el-Hie and other branch streams, which bring back to it from the Tigris, between Mugheir and Kurnah, the greater portion of the borrowed fluid. The Tigris, on the contrary, is largely enriched throughout the whole of its course by the wuters of tributary streams. It is formed originally of three main branches: the Diarbekr stream, or true Tigris, the Myafarekin River, and the Bitlis Chai, or Centrites of Xenophon,7 which carries a greater body than either of the other two.8 From its entry on the low country near Jezireh to the termination of its course at Kurnah, it is continually receiving from the left a series of most important additions. The chain of Zagros, which, running parallel to the two main streams, shuts in the Mesopotamian plain upon the east, abounds with springs, which 4 Strab. u 12, § 4; 14, § 2, &c. * Layard, Nineveh and Babylon, ch. xv. p. 322. Compare ch. xi. pp. 269, 270. 'Xenophon, Anabatit, iv. 3, § 1. 8 Layard, A'inereh and Babylon, ch. iii. p. 49. The Bitlis Chai at Til, just above the point of confluence, was found by Mr. Layard to be " about equal in size" to the united Myafarekin and Diarbekr rivers. 10 Chap. I. THE FIRST MONARCHY. are well supplied during the whole summer from its snows,9 and these when collected form rivers of large size and most refresh- ing coolness. The principal are, the eastern Khabour, which joins the Tigris in lat. 37° 12'; the Upper Zab, which falls in by the ruins of Nimrud; the Lower Zab, which joins some way below Kileh Sherghat; the Adhem, which unites its waters half way between Samarah and Baghdad; and the Diyaleh (ancient Gyndes), which is received between Baghdad and the ruins of Ctesiphon. By the influx of these streams the Tigris continues to grow in depth and strength as it nears the sea, and becomes at last (as we have seen) a greater river than the Euphrates, which shrinks during the latter part of its course, and is reduced to a volume very inferior to that which it once boasted. The Euphrates at its junction with the Khabour, 700 miles above Kurnah, is 400 yards wide and 18 feet deep; at Irzah or Werdi, 75 miles lower down, it is 350 yards wide and of the same depth; at Hadiseh, 140 miles below Werdi, it is 300 yards wide, and still of the same depth; at Hit, 50 miles below Hadiseh, its width has increased to 350 yards, but its depth has diminished to 16 feet; at Felujiah, 75 miles from Hit, the depth is 20 feet, but the width has diminished to 250 yards. From this point the con- traction is very rapid and striking. The Saklawiyeh canal is given out upon the left, and some way further down the Hin- diyeh branches off upon the right, each carrying, when the Euphrates is full, a large body of water. The consequence is that at Hillah, 90 miles below Felujiah, the stream is no more than 200 yards wide and 15 feet deep; at Diwaniyeh, 65 miles further down, it is only 160 yards wide; and at Lamlun, 20 miles below Diwaniyeh, it is reduced to 120 yards wide, with a depth of no more than 12 feet! Soon after, however, it begins to recover itself. The water, which left it by the Hindiyeh, returns to it upon the one side, while the Shat-el-Hie and numerous other branch streams from the Tigris flow in upon the other; but still the Euphrates never recovers itself entirely, 'Loftus, Chaldwa and Suslana, p. 308; Journal of Geograph. Society, vol. ix. p. 95. Chap. I. l I DWINDLING OF THE EUPHRATES. iior even approaches in its later course to the standard of its earlier greatness. The channel from Kurnah to El Khitr was found by Colonel Chesney to have an average width of only 200 yards, and a depth of about 18 or 19 feet,10 which implies a body of water far inferior to that carried between the junction with the Khabour and Hit. More recently, the decline of the stream in its later course has been found to be even greater. Neglect of the banks has allowed the river to spread itself more and more widely over the land; and it is said that, except in the flood time, very little of the Euphrates water reaches the sea.1 Nor is this an unprecedented or very unusual state of things. From the circumstance (probably) that it has been formed by the deposits of streams flowing from the east as well as from the north, the lower Mesopotamian plain slopes not only to the south, but to the west.2 The Euphrates, which has low banks, is hence at all times inclined to leave its bed, and to flow off to the right,9 where large tracts are below its ordinary level. Over these it spreads itself, forming the well-known " Chaldjean marshes,"4 which absorb the chief portion of the water that flows -into them, and in which the "great river" seems at various times to have wholly, or almost wholly, lost itself.5 No such misfortune can befall the Tigris, which runs in a deep bed, and seldom varies its channel, offering a strong contrast to the sister stream.* Frequent allusion has been made, in the course of this descrip- tion of the Tigris and Euphrates, to the fact of their having each a flood season. Herodotus is scarcely correct when he says, that in Babylonia "the river does not, as in Egypt, overflow the "Euphrates Expedition, vol. i. pp. 59, 60. 1 Layard, Ninereh and Babylon, ch. xxi. p. 475; Loftus, Chalda'a and Susiam, p. 45. * Heeren's statement, which is directly the reverse of this (Asiatic Nations, vol. ii. p. 131, E. T.), is at once false and self-contradictory. The "deep bed" and "bold shores" of the Tigris are the consequence of the hi/her level of the plain in its vicinity. The fall of the Tigris is much greater than that of the Euphrates in its lower course, and the stream cuts deeper into the alluvium, on the principle of water finding its own level. 1 Loftus, p. 44. 4 Arrian, Exped. Alex. vii. 21, 22; Strab. xvi. 1, §. of 56 Chap. HI. THE FIRST MONARCHY. The language also of the early inscriptions is thought to contain traces of Semitic, and Arian influence; so that it is at least pro- bable that the "four tongues" intended were not mere local dialects, but distinct languages, the representatives respectively of the four great families of human speech. It would result from this review of the linguistic facts and other ethnic indications, that the Chaldaeans were not a pure, but a very mixed people. Like the Romans in ancient, and the English in modern Europe, they were a "colluvio gentium om- nium," a union of various races between which there was marked and violent contrast. It is now generally admitted that such races are among those which play the most distinguished part in the world's history, and most vitally affect its progress. With respect to the name of Chaldaean, under which it has been customary to designate this mixed people, it is curious to find that in the native documents of the early period it does not occur at all. Indeed it first appears in the Assyrian inscriptions of the ninth century before our era, being then used as the name of the dominant race in the country about Babylon. Still, as Berosus, who cannot easily have been ignorant of the ancient appellation of his race, applies the term Chaldaean to the primi- tive people,8 and, as Scripture assigns Ur to the Chaldees as early as the time of Abraham, we are entitled to assume that this term, whenever it came historically into use, is in fact no unfit designation for the early inhabitants of the country. Perhaps the most probable account of the origin of the word is, that it designates properly the inhabitants of the ancient capital, Ur or Hur—KhaJdi being in the Burbur dialect the exact equi- valent of Hur, which was the proper name of the Moon God, and Chaldaeans being thus either "Moon-worshippers," or simply "inhabitants of the town dedicated to, and called after, the Moon." Like the term "Babylonian," it would at first have designated simply the dwellers in the capital, and would subse- quently have been extended to the people generally. the wandering tribes, should be a Scyth, or Turanian; Arioch recalls the term "Arian," while Amraphel is a name cast in a Semitic mould. See a note by Sir H. Kawlinson in the first volume of the author's Herodotus, vol. i. Essay vi. § 21, note' (second edition). • Berosus, Fr. i. §§ 5, 6, 11, fee. Chap. HI. CHALDEAN THEORY OF GESENIUS. 57 A different theory has of late years been usually maintained with respect to the Chaldaeans. It has been supposed that they were a race entirely distinct from the early Babylonians— Armenians, Arabs, Kurds, or Sclaves—who came down from the north long after the historical period, and settled as the domi- nant race in the lower Mesopotamian valley.9 Philological arguments of the weakest and most unsatisfactory character were confidently adduced in support of these views;1 but they obtained acceptance chiefly on account of certain passages of Scripture, which were thought to imply that the Chaldaeans first colonised Babylonia in the seventh or eighth century before Christ . The most important of these passages is in Isaiah. That prophet, in his denunciation of woe upon Tyre, says, according to our translation,—"Behold the land of the Chal- daeans; this people was not, till the Assyrian founded it for them that dwell in the wilderness; they set up the towers thereof? they raised up the palaces thereof; and he brought it to ruin ;"2 or, according to Bishop Lototh, "Behold the land of the Chal- daeans. This people was of no account. (The Assyrians founded it for the inhabitants of the desert, they raised the watch-towers, they set up the palaces thereof.) This people hath reduced her and shall reduce her to ruin." It was argued that we had here a plain declaration that, till a little before Isaiah's time, the Chaldaeans had never existed as a nation. Then, it was said, they obtained for the first time fixed habitations from one of the Assyrian kings, who settled them in a city, probably Babylon. Shortly afterwards, following the analogy of so many Eastern races, they suddenly sprang up to power. Here another * Gesenius, Comment, in Ksaiam xziii. 13, and Oeschklite der Jlehr. Sprache, pp. 63, 64; Hecren, Asiatic Nations, vol. ii. p. 147; Niebuhr, Lectures on Ancient History, vol. i. p. 20, note; Winer, Reatvibrterbuch, vol. i. p. 218; Kitto, Biblical Cyclopatdia, vol. i. p. 408, 4tc. Mr. Vaux (Diet, of Antvfuities, vol. i. p. 601) with good reason questions the common opinion. 1 As that Nebuchadnezzar might he the Sclavonic sentence fiebyc kad tenur tzar, or "De coelo missus dominus,"— that Mcrodach might be the Persian mar- dak, " homunculus," &c. (See Prichard's Phys. Hist, of Mankind, vol. iv. pp. 563- 564.) A more refined argument was that of Gesenius, "that the construction of the names was according, not to Semitic, but to Medo-Persian prin- ciples ;" but, being based upon pure conjectures as to the possible etymology of the words, it was really worthless. * Isaiah xxiii. 13. 58 Chap. in. THE FIRST MONARCHY. passage of. Scripture was thought to have an important bearing on their history. "Lo! I raise up the Chaldaeans," says Habakkuk, "that bitter and hasty nation, which shall march through the breadth of the land to possess the dwelling places that are not theirs. They are terrible and dreadful; their judgment and their dignity shall proceed of themselves; their horses also are swifter than the leopards, and are more fierce than the evening wolves: and their horsemen shall spread them- selves, and their horsemen shall come from far; they shall fly as an eagle that hasteth to eat; they shall come all for violence; their faces shall nip as the east wind, and they shall gather the captivity as the sand. And they shall scoff at the kings, and the princes shall be a scorn unto them; they shall deride every stronghold; they shall heap dust and take it."3 The Chaldaeans, recent occupants of Lower Mesopotamia, and there only a domi- nant race, like the Normans in England or the Lombards in North Italy, were, on a sudden, "raised up"—elevated from their low estate of Assyrian colonists to the conquering people which they became under Nebuchadnezzar. Such was the theory, originally advanced by Gesenius, which, variously modified by other writers, held its ground on the whole as the established view, until the recent cuneiform dis- coveries. It was, from the first, a theory full of difficulty. The mention of the Chaldseans in Job,4 and even in Genesis,5 as a well-known people, was in contradiction to the supposed recent origin of the race. The explanation of the obscure passage in the 23rd chapter of Isaiah, on which the theory was mainly based, was at variance with other clearer passages of the same prophet. Babylon is called by Isaiah the "daughter of the Chaldaeans,"8 and is spoken of as an ancient city, long "the glory of kingdoms,"7 the oppressor of nations, the power that "smote the people in wrath with a continual stroke."8 She is "the lady of kingdoms,"' and "the beauty of the Chaldees' excellency."1 The Chaldaeans are thus in Isaiah, as elsewhere 'Habakkuk i. 6-10. • Job i. 17. 'Gen. xi. 28 and 31. * Isaiah xlvii. 1 and 5. 7 Isaiah xiii. 19. * Ibid. xiv. 6. • Ibid, xlvii. 5. 1 Ibid. xiii. 19. Chap. ITT. CHALDEAN THEORY OF GESENIUS, EXAMINED. 59 generally in Scripture, the people of Babylonia, the term "Ba- bylonians" not being used by him; Babylon is their chief city, not one which they have conquered and occupied, but their "daughter "—" the beauty of their excellency ;" and so all the antiquity and glory which is assigned to Babylon belong neces- sarily in Isaiah's mind to the Chaldaeans. The verse, therefore, in the 23rd chapter, on which so much has been built, can at most refer to some temporary depression of the Chaldaeans, which made it a greater disgrace to Tyre that she should be conquered by them. Again, the theory of Gesenius took no account of the native historian, who is (next to Scripture) the best literary authority for the facts of Babylonian history. Berosus not only said nothing of any influx of an alien race into Babylonia shortly before the time of Nebuchadnezzar, but pointedly identified the Chaldaeans of that period with the primitive people of the country. Nor can it be said that he would do this from national vanity, to avoid the confession of a conquest, for he admits no fewer than three conquests of Babylon, a Median, an Arabian, and an Assyrian.8 Thus, even apart from the monuments, the theory in question would be un- tenable. It really originated in linguistic speculations,3 which turn out to have been altogether mistaken. The joint authority of Scripture and of Berosus will probably be accepted as sufficient to justify the adoption of a term which, if not strictly correct, is yet familiar to us, and which will con- veniently serve to distinguish the primitive monarchy, whose chief seats were in Chaldaea Proper (or the tract immediately bordering upon the Persian Gulf), from the later Babylonian Empire, which had its head-quarters further to the north. The people of this first kingdom will therefore be called Chaldaeans, although there is no evidence that they applied the name to themselves, or that it was even known to them in primitive times. The general character of this remarkable people will best s Berosus, Fr. 11 and 12. * See Nicbuhr, Lectures on Ancient History, vol. i. p. 20, note; and Prichard, Physical History of Mankind, vol. Iv. pp. 563, 564. 6b Chap. III. THE FIRST MONAECHY. appear from the account, presently to be given, of their man- ners, their mode of life, their arts, their science, their religion, and their history. It is not convenient to forestal in this place the results of almost all our coming inquiries. Suffice it to observe that, though possessed of not many natural advantages, the Chaldaean people exhibited a fertility of invention, a genius, and an energy, which place them high in the scale of nations, and more especially in the list of those descended from a Hamitic stock. For the last 3000 years the world has been mainly indebted for its advancement to the Semitic and Indo- European races; but it was otherwise in the first ages. Egypt and Babylon—Mizraim and Nimrod—both descendants of Ham —led the way, and acted as the pioneers of mankind in the various untrodden fields of art, literature, and science. Alpha- betic writing, astronomy, history, chronology, architecture, plastic art, sculpture, navigation, agriculture, textile industry, seem, all of them, to have had their origin in one or other of these two countries. The beginnings may have been often humble enough. We may laugh at the rude picture-writing, the uncouth brick pyramid, the coarse fabric, the homely and ill-shapen instruments, as they present themselves to our notice in the remains of these ancient nations; but they are really worthier of our admiration than of our ridicule. The first inventors of any art are among the greatest benefactors of their race; and the bold step which they take from the unknown to the known, from blank ignorance to discovery, is equal to many steps of subsequent progress. "The commencement," says Aristotle, "is more than half of the whole."4 This is a sound judgment; and it will be well that we should bear it in mind during the review, on which we are about to enter, of the lan- guage, writing, useful and ornamental art, science, and lite- rature of the Chaldaeans. "The child is father of the man," both in the individual and the species; and the human race at the present day lies under infinite obligations to the genius and industry of early ages. 4 Arist. Eth. Nic. i. 7, ad fiu. Ciup. IV. 61 LANGUAGE AND WRITING. CHAPTEK IV. LANGUAGE AND WEITING. "Vpafifiara Kal yKSxrira Xa\8alaiv."—Dan. i. 4. (Sept. vers.) It was noted in the preceding chapter that Chaldaea, in the earliest times to which we can go back, seems to have been inhabited by four principal tribes. The early kings are con- tinually represented on the monuments as sovereigns oyer the Kiprat-arbat, or "Four Races." These "Four Races" are called sometimes the Arba Lisun, or " Four Tongues," whence we may conclude that they were distinguished from one another, among other differences, by a variety in their forms of speech. The extent and nature of the variety could not, of course, be determined merely from this expression; but the opinion of those who have most closely studied the subject appears to be that the differences were great and marked—the languages in fact belonging to the four great varieties of human speech— the Hamitic, Semitic, Arian, and Turanian. The language which the early inscriptions have revealed to us is not, of course, composed equally of these four elements. It does, however, contain strong marks of admixture. It is predominantly Cushite in its vocabulary, Turanian in its struc- ture. Its closest analogies are with such dialects as the Mahra of Arabia, the GaUa and Wolaitsa of Abyssinia, and the ancient language of Egypt, but in certain cases it more resembles the Turkish, Tatar, and Magyar (Turanian) dialects; while in some it presents Semitic and in others Arian affinities. This will appear sufficiently from the following list:— Dingir or Dimir, "God." Compare Turkish Tengri. Atta, "father." Compare Turkish atla. Etea is " father" in the Wolaitsa (Abyssinian) dialect. Sis, "brother." Compare Wolaitsa and Woratla isha. 62 Chap. TV. THE FIRST MONARCHY. Tar, "a youth," "a son." Compare the tur-khan of the Parthians (Tu- ranians), who was the Crown Prince. E, "a house." Compare ancient Egyptian e, and Turkish ev. Ka, "a gate." Compare Turkish kapi. Kharran, "a road." Compare Galla kara. Huru, "a town." Compare Heh. "VJ?. Ar, "a river." Compare Heh. "ins. Arab. nahr. Gabri, "a mountain." Compare Arabic jdbal. Ki, "the earth.* Kingi, "a country." San, "the sun." Kha, "afish"(?). Kurra, "a horse." Compare Arabic gurra. Gu&ki, "gold." Compare Galla werke. Guski means also "red" and "the evening." Babar, "silver," "white," "the morning." Compare Agau ber, Tigre burrur. Zabar, "copper." Compare Arabic sifr. flurud, " iron." Compare Arabic hadid. Zakad, "the head." Compare Gonga toko. Kat, "the hand." Compare Gonga kiso. Si, "the eye." Pi, "the ear." Compare Magyar ful. Gula, "great." Compare Galla guda. Tura, "little." Compare Gonga tu and Galla Una. Kelga, " powerful." Ginn, " first." Mis, "many." Compare Agau mineh or meneh. Gar, "to do." Egir, "after." Compare Hhamara (Abyssinian) igria. The grammar of this language is still but very little known. The conjugations of verbs are said to be very intricate and difficult, a great variety of verbal forms being obtained from the same root, as in Hebrew, by means of preformatives. Number and person in the verbs are marked by suffixes—the third person singular (masculine) by hi (compare Gonga hi, "he "), or ani (compare Galla enni, "he "), the third person plural by bi-nini. The accusative case in nouns is marked by a postposition, ku, as in Hindustani. The plural of pronouns and substantives is formed sometimes by reduplication. Thus ni is "him," while nini is "them;" and Chanaan, Yavnan, Ltbnan, seem to be plural forms from Chna, Yavan, and Liban. Chap. IV. 63 LANGUAGE OF THE CHALDEANS. A curious anomaly occurs in the declension of pronouns.1 When accompanied by the preposition kita, " with," there is a tmesis of the preposition, and the pronouns are placed between its first and second syllable; e.g. ni, "him"—ki-ni-ta, "with him." This takes place in every number and person, as the following scheme will show :— Sing Plur. 1st person. ki-mu-ta (with me) ki-mi-ta (with us) 2nd person. ki-zu-ta (with thee) ki-zu-nini-ta (with you) 3rdt ki-ni-ta (with him) ki-nini-ta (with them). N.B.—The formation of the second person plural deserves attention. The word zu-nini is, clearly, composed of the two elements, zu, "thee," and nini, "them "—so that instead of having a word for "you," the Chaldaeans employed for it the periphrasis "thee-them"! There is, I believe, no known language which presents a parallel anomaly. Such are the chief known features of this interesting but diffi- cult form of speech. A specimen may now be given of the mode in which it was written. Among the earliest of the monuments hitherto discovered are a set of bricks bearing the following cuneiform inscription :— 1 There is, I believe, a near parallel to this peculiarity in the Ostiak. [It has been compared with our own use of such an expression as "to us-ward;" but here " to" and "ward" are really separate prepositions, both having the same meaning, and the phrase is merely pleonastic. There is no reason to be- lieve that Ai and ta have separately the meaning of " with."] 64 Cuap. IV. THE FIRST MONARCHY. This inscription is explained to mean:—" Beltis, his lady, has caused Urukh (?), the pious chief, King of Hur, and King of the land (?) of the Akkad, to build a temple to her." In the same locality where it occurs,2 bricks are also found bearing evidently the same inscription, but written in a different manner. Instead of the wedge and arrow- head being the elements of the writing, the whole is formed by straight lines of almost uniform thick- ness, and the impression seems to have been made by a single stamp. . This mode of writing, which has been called with- out much reason "the hieratic,"8 and. of which we have but a small number of instances, has confirmed a conjecture, originally suggested by the early cuneiform writing itself, that the characters were at first the pictures of objects. In some cases the pictorial representation is very plain and palpable. For instance the "determinative" of a god—the sign, that is, which marks that the name of a god is about to follow, in this early rectilinear writing is , an eight-rayed star. The archaic cuneiform keeps closely to this type, merely changing the lines into wedges, thus —, while the later cuneiform first unites the oblique wedges in one and then omits them as un- necessary, retaining only the perpendicular and the horizontal ones . Again, the character representing the word "hand" is, in the rectilinear writing in the archaic cuneiform , in the later cuneiform The five lines (after- * The bricks in question were found 169.) nt Warka, the ancient Uuruk or Ercch. * See Oppert's Expedition scientijique (See Loftus, ChalcLva and Susiana, p. en Mesopotamie, tom. ii. p. 62. Chap. IV. WRITING OF THE CHALDEANS. 65 wards reduced to four) clearly represent the thumb and the four fingers. So the character ordinarily representing "a house" * J is evidently formed from the original | |, the ground-plan of a house; and that denoting "the sun" J^f , conies from (\, through yj^^^' an(^ '*'1e °"S1nal O being the best representation that straight lines could give of the sun. In the case of ka, "a gate," we have not the original design; but we may see post, bars, and hinges in the ordinary character.4 Another curious example of the pictorial origin of the letters is furnished by the character ^j^^^ , which is the French une, the feminine of " one." This character may be traced up through several known forms to an original picture, which is thus given on a Koyunjik tablet =j . It has been con- jectured that the object here represented is "a sarcophagus." 5 Hut the true account seems to be that it is a double-toothed comb, a toilet article peculiar to women, and therefore one which might well be taken to express "a woman," or more generally the feminine gender. It is worth notice that the emblem is the very one still in use among the Lurs, in the mountains over- hanging Babylonia.6 And it is further remarkable that the phonetic power of the character here spoken of is it (or yat)— the ordinary Semitic feminine ending. The original writing, it would therefore seem, was a picture- writing, as rude as that of the Mexicans. Objects were them- selves represented, but coarsely and grotesquely—and, which is especially remarkable, without any curved lines. This would 1 It has lwen con'cctured that the ideograph for "king," which stands as the first character in the first and second compartments of the second column in the inscription given above (p. 63), is derived from a rude drawing Babylone, p. 20.) 4 Oppert, tom. ii. p. 60. 0 See the Journal of tlie Geographical Society, vol. ix. p. 58, where, in speaking of the devices on the tombs of the Lurs, Sir H. Kawljnson notes "the doublo- of a bee, the Egyptian emblem of toothed comb" as the distinctive mark sovereignty. (See ft^nant, Briques de , of the female sex. VOL. i. F 66 Chap. IV. THE FIRST MONARCHY. seem to indicate that the system grew up where a hard material, probably stone, was alone used. The cuneiform writing arose when clay took the place of stone as a material. A small tool, with a square or triangular point,7 impressed, by a series of distinct touches, the outline of the old pictured objects on the soft clay of tablets and bricks. In course of time simplifications took place. The less important wedges were omitted. One stroke took the place of two, or sometimes of three. In this way the old form of objects became, in all but a few cases, very indistinct; while generally it was lost altogether. Originally each character had, it would seem, the phonetic power of the name borne by the object which it represented. But, as this name was different in the languages of the different tribes inhabiting the country, the same character came often to have several distinct phonetic values. For instance, the character * YyT' rePresentmg "a house," had the phonetic values of e, hit, and mal, because those were the words expressive of "a house," among the Hamitic, Semitic, and Arian populations respectively, Again, characters did not always retain their original phonetic powers, but abbreviated them. Thus the character which originally stood for Assur, "Assyria," came to have the sound of ae, that denoting bil, "a lord," had in addition the sound of hi, and so on. Under these circumstances it is almost impossible to feel any certainty in regard to the phonetic representation of a single line of these old inscriptions. The meaning of each word may be well known; but the articulate sounds which were in the old times attached to them may be matter almost of conjecture. The Chakkean characters are of three kinds—letters proper, monograms, and determinatives. With regard to the letters proper, there is nothing particular to remark, except that they have almost always a syllabic force. The monograms represent in a brief way, by a wedge or a group of wedges, an entire word, often of two or three syllables, as Nebo, Babil, Merodach, &c. 'Tools with a triangular point, made cuneifoim writing, have been found at in ivory, apparently for employment in Babylon. (See Oppcrt, tom. ii. p. 63.) Chap. IT. WRITING ON BRICKS AND TABLETS. 67 The determinatives mark that the word which they accompany is a word of a certain class, as a god, a man, a country, a town, &c. These last, it is probable, were not sounded at all when the word was read. They served, in some degree, the purpose of our capital letters in the middle of sentences, but gave more exact notice of the nature of the coming word. Curiously enough, they are retained sometunes, where the word which they accompany has merely its phonetic power, as (generally) when the names of gods form a part of the names of monarchs. It has been noticed already that the chief material on which the ancient Chaldamns wrote was moist clay, in the two forms of tablets and bricks. On bricks are found only royal inscriptions, having reference to the building in which the bricks were used, commonly designating its purpose, and giving the name and titles of the monarch who erected it.8 The inscription does not occupy the whole brick, but a square or rectangular space towards its centre. It is in some cases stamped, in some impressed with a tool. The writing—as in all cuneiform inscriptions, excepting those upon seals—is from left to right, and the lines are carefully separated from one another. Some specimens have been already given.9 The tablets of the Chaldaeans are among the most remarkable of their remains, and will probably one day throw great addi- tional light on the manners and customs, the religion, and even, perhaps, the science and learning, of the people. They are small pieces of clay,10 somewhat rudely shaped into a form 6 See above, page 64, where the translation of an inscription is given. Other translations of the brick legends belonging to the same king are the following:— 1. On a brick from Mughcir (Ur):— "Urukh, king of Ur, is he who has built the temple of the Moon-God." 2. On a brick from the same:—" The Moon-God, his lord, has caused Urukh, king of Ur, to build a temple to him, and has caused him to build the enceinte of Ur." 3. On a brick from the same:—"The Moon-God, brother's son (?) of Anu, and eldest son of Bolus, his lord, has caused Urukh, the pious chief, king of Ur, to build the temple of Tsingathu (?), his holy place." 4. On n brick from Senkareh >—"The Sun-God, his lord, has caused Urukh, the pious chief, king of Ur, king of the land (?) of the Akkad, to build a temple to him." 5. On a brick from Niffer 1—"Urukh, king of Ur, and king of the land (?) of the Akkad, who has built the temple of Belus." 9 See above, pp. 63, 64. 10 The size varies from on inch to four or five inches in length, the width being 1 always less. The envelope is of very ; thin clay, and does not much add to the bulk. F 2 68 Chap. IV. THE FIRST MONARCHY. resembling a pillow, and thickly inscribed with cuneiform cha- racters, which are sometimes accompanied by impressions of the cylindrical seals so common in the museums of Europe. The seals are rolled across the body of the document, as in the accompanying woodcut. Except where these impressions occur, the clay is commonly covered on both sides with minute writing. What is most cu- rious, however, is that the documents thus duly attested have in general been enveloped, after they were baked, in a cover of moist clay, upon which their eon- tents have been again inscribed, so as to present ex- ternally a dupli- cate of the writing within; and the tablet in its cover has then been baked afresh. That this was the pro- cess employed is evident from the fact that the inner side of the en- velope bears a cast, Chalda?an tablet (after Layard). m relief, of the in - scription beneath it. Probably the object in view was greater security—that if the external cover became illegible, or was tampered with, there might be a means of proving beyond a doubt what the document actually contained. The tablets in question have in a considerable number of cases been de- Chap. IV. 69 WHITING ON SEALS. cyphered; they are for the most part deeds, contracts, or engagements entered into by private persons and preserved among the archives of families. Besides their writings on clay, the Chaldaeans were in the habit, from very early times, of engraving inscriptions on gems. The signet cylinder of a very ancient king exhibits that archaic formation of letters which has been already noted as appearing upon some of the earliest bricks. That it belongs to the same period is evident, not only from the resemblance of the literal type,1 but from the fact that the same king's name appears upon both. This signet inscrip- jm * m tion—so far as it has been hitherto decyphered—is read as follows: —" The signet of Urukh, the pious chief, king of Ur, .... High-Priest (?) of ... . Nifler." Another similar relic, belonging to a son of this monarchhas the inscription, " To the manifestation of Nergal, king of 33it-Zida, of Zurgulla, for the saving of the life of Ilgi, the powerful hero, the king of Ur, , son of Urukh. May his name be preserved."2 A third signet, which belongs to a later king in the series, bears the following legend: '- sin, the powerful chief, the king of Ur, the king of the Kiprat-arbat (or four races) his seal." The cylinders, however, of this period are more usually without inscriptions, being often plain,3 and often engraved with figures, but without a legend. 1 We have only a representation of 2 I am indebted for the translation of this inscription, the cylinder itself this legend to Mr. George Smith, of the being lost. The representation will be British Museum. found in Sir K. Kcr Porter's Travels,; 1 As. Soc. Journ. vol. xv. pp. 272. 273. vol. ii. plate 79, no. 6. I Chap. V. ART'S AND SCIENCES. habitations would soon be produced quite equal to those in which the bulk of mankind reside, even at the present day. In process of time, however, a fresh want would be felt. Architecture, as has been well observed, has its origin, not in nature only, but in religion.4 The common worship of God requires temples; and it is soon desired to give to these sacred edifices a grandeur, a dignity, and a permanency corresponding to the nature of the Being worshipped in them. Hence in most countries recourse is had to stone, as the material of greatest strength and durability; and by its means buildings are raised which seem almost to reach the heaven whereof they witness. In Babylonia, as it has been already observed,5 this material was entirely wanting. Nowhere within the limits of the alluvium was a quarry to be found; and though at no very great distance, on the Arabian border, a coarse sandstone might have been obtained, yet in primitive times, before many canals were made, the difficulty of transporting this weighty substance across the soft and oozy soil of the plain would necessarily have prevented its adoption generally, or, indeed, anywhere, except in the immediate vicinity of the rocky region. Accord- ingly we find that stone was never adopted in Babylonia as a building material, except to an. extremely small extent; and that the natives were forced, in its default, to seek for the grand edifices, which they desired to build, a different substance. The earliest traditions,6 and the existing remains of the earliest buildings, alike inform us that the material adopted was brick. An excellent clay is readily procurable in all parts of the alluvium; and this, when merely exposed to the intense heat of an Eastern sun for a sufficient period, or still more when kiln-dried, constitutes a very tolerable substitute for the stone employed by most nations. The baked bricks, even of the earliest times, are still sound and hard; while the sun-dried bricks, though they have often crumbled to dust or blended together in one solid earthen mass, yet sometimes retain their shape and original character almost unchanged, and offer a 4 Stieglitx, quoted in Smith's Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities, ad voc . Abchitkcttbe. * See above, p. 38. * Gen. xi. 3. 72 Chap. V. THE FIRST MONARCHY. stubborn resistance to the excavator.7 In the most ancient of the Chaldaean edifices we occasionally find, as in the Bowariyeh ruin at Warka,8 the entire structure composed of the inferior material; but the more ordinary practice is to construct the mass of the building in this way, and then to cover it com- pletely with a facing of burnt brick, which sometimes extends to as much as ten feet in thickness. The burnt brick was thus made to protect the unburnt from the influence of the weather, while labour and fuel were greatly economised by the employ- ment to so large an extent of the natural substance. The size and colour of the bricks vary. The general shape is square, or nearly so, while the thickness is, to modern ideas, dispropor- tionately small; it is not, however, so small as in the bricks of the Romans. The earliest of the baked bricks hitherto dis- covered in Chaldaea are 11J inches square, and 2J inches thick,9 while the Roman are often 15 inches square, and only an inch and a quarter thick.1 The baked bricks of later date are of larger size than the earlier; they are commonly about 13 inches square, with a thickness of three inches.2 The best quality of baked brick is of a yellowish-white tint, and very much re- sembles our Stourbridge or fire brick; another kind, extremely hard, but brittle, is of a blackish blue; a third, the coarsest of all, is slack-dried, and of a pale red. The earliest baked bricks are of this last colour.3 The sun-dried bricks have even more variety of size than the baked ones. They are sometimes as large as 16 inches square and seven inches thick, sometimes as small as six inches square by two thick.4 Occasionally, though not very often, bricks are found differing altogether in shape from those above described, being formed for special purposes. Of this kind are the triangular bricks used at. the corners of walls, intended to give greater regularity to the angles than would otherwise be attained;5 and the wedge-shaped bricks, 7 Journal of the Asiatic Society, vol. xv. pp. 263 and 405. 1 This ruin is carefully described by Mr. Loftus in his Chaidaa and Susiano, pp. 167-170. . * Journal of the Asiatic Society, vol. xv. p. 261. 1 Wytteabach, Guide to the Soman Antiquities of Trecet, p. 42. 2 Rich, First Memoir, p. 61. 3 Loftus, p. 130. * Journal of Asiatic Society, vol. xv. pp. 263, 264. 4 Ibid. p. 266. Chap. V. 73 ARCHITECTURE. „ formed to be employed in arches, which were known and used by this primitive people.6 The modes of applying these materials to building purposes were various. Sometimes the crude and the burnt brick were used in alternate layers, each layer being several feet in thick- ness ;7 more commonly the crude brick was used (as already noticed) for the internal parts of the building, and a facing of burnt brick protected the whole from the weather. Occasionally the mass of an edifice was composed entirely of crude brick; but in such cases special precautions had to be taken to secure the stability of this comparatively frail material. In the first place, at intervals of four or five feet, a thick layer of reed matting was interposed along the whole extent of the building, which appears to have been intended to protect the earthy mass from disintegration, by its projection beyond the rest of the external surface. The readers of Herodotus are familiar with this feature, which (according to him) occurred in the massive walls whereby Babylon was surrounded.8 If this was really the case, we may conclude that those walls were not composed of burnt brick, as he imagined, but of the sun-dried material. Eeeds were never employed in buildings composed of burnt brick, being useless in such cases; where their impression is found, as not unfrequently happens, on bricks of tin's kind, the brick has been laid upon reed matting when in a soft state, and afterwards submitted to the action of fire. In edifices of crude brick, the reeds were no doubt of great service, and have enabled some buildings of the kind to endure to the present day. They are very strikingly conspicuous where they occur, since they stripe the whole building with continuous horizontal lines, having at a distance somewhat the effect of the courses of dark marble in an Italian structure of the Byzantine period. Another characteristic of the edifices in which crude brick is thus largely employed, is the addition externally of solid and massive buttresses of the burnt material. These buttresses have 5 Loft us, p. 133; Journal of Asiatic j Babylonian, not the Chaldocan, period. Society, 1 . §. c . The "moulded semi- • 7 Journal of the Asiatic tioC'ety, vol. circular bricks" found at Warka xv. p. 263. (Loftua, p. 175) are . probably of the | » Herod, i. 179. 74 Chai\ V. THE FIRST MONARCHY. sometimes a very considerable projection; they are broad, but not high, extending less than half way up the walls against which they are placed. Two kinds of cement are used in the early structures. One is a coarse clay or mud, which is sometimes mixed with chopped straw; the other is bitumen. This last is of excellent quality, and the bricks which it unites adhere often so firmly together that they can with difficulty be separated.9 As a general rule, in the early buildings, the crude brick is laid in mud, while the bitumen is used to cement together the burnt bricks. These general remarks will receive their best illustration from a detailed description of the principal early edifices which recent researches in Lower Mesopotamia have revealed to us. These are for the most part temples; but in one or two cases the edifice explored is thought to have been a residence, so that the domestic architecture of the period may be regarded as known to us, at least in some degree. The temples most carefully examined hitherto are those at Warka, Mugheir, and Abu- Shahrein, the first of which was explored by Mr. Loftus in 1854, the second by Mr. Taylor in the same year, and the third by the same traveller in 1855. Bowariych. The Warka ruin is called by the natives Eowariyeh, which signifies " reed mats," in allusion to a peculiarity, already noticed, * LoftiM, Cfuildwa and Susiana, p. 169. Chap. V. >S ARCHITECTURE. in its construction. It is at once the most central and the loftiest ruin in the place. At first sight it appears to have been a cone or pyramid; but further examination proves that it was in reality a tower, 200 feet square at the base, built in two stories, the lower story being composed entirely of sun-dried bricks laid in mud, and protected at intervals of four or five feet by layers of reeds, while the upper one was composed* of the same material, faced with burnt brick. Of the upper stage very little remains; and this little is of a later date than the inferior story, which bears marks of a veiy high antiquity. The sun- dried bricks whereof the lower story is composed, are "rudely moulded of very incoherent earth, mixed with fragments of pottery and freshwater shells," and vary in size and shape, being sometimes square, seven inches each way; sometimes oblong, nine inches by seven, and from three to three and a half inches thick.1 The whole present height of the building is estimated at 100 feet above the level of the plain. Its summit, except where some slight remains of the second story constitute an in- terruption, is "perfectly flat," and probably continues very much in the condition in which it was when the lower stage was first built. This stage, being built of crude brick, was necessarily weak; it is therefore supported by four massive buttresses of baked brick, each placed exactly in the centre of one of the sides, and carried to about one-third of the height. Each buttress is nineteen feet high, six feet one inch wide, and seven and a half feet in depth; and each is divided down the middle by a receding space, one foot nine inches in width. All the bricks composing the buttresses are inscribed, and are very firmly cemented together with bitumen, in thick layers. The buttresses were entirely hidden under the mass of rubbish which had fallen from the building, chiefly from the upper story, and only became apparent when Mr. Loftus made his excavations.8 It is impossible to reconstruct the Bowariyeh ruin from the facts and measurements hitherto supplied to us; even the height 1 Loftus, Chaldaa and Susiana, p. 168. * See this traveller's account of his labours (Chaldwa and Susiam, pp. 167-170). THE FIRST MONARCHY. Chai: V. of the first story is at present uncertain;3 and we have no means of so much as conjecturing the height of the second. The exact emplacement of the second upon the first is also doubtful, while the original mode of access is undiscovered; and thus the plan of the building is in many respects still defective. We only know that it was a square; that it had two stories at the least; and that its entire height above the plain considerably exceeded 100 feet. Mugheir Temple. The temple at Mugheir has been more accurately examined. On a mound or platform of some size, raised about twenty feet above the level of the plain, there stands a rectangular edifice, consisting at present of two stories, both of them ruined in parts, and buried to a considerable extent in piles of rubbish composed of their debris. The angles of the building exactly face the four 3 The whole building is said to be nor what height the fragment of the 100 feet above the surface of the plain; second story attains. All that can be but we are not told what is the height gathered from Mr. Loftus is that the from the plain of the mound or plat- first story was at least 46 feet high, form upon which the temple stands; Chap. V. 77 ARCHITECTURE. cardinal point-*.4 It is not a square, but a parallelogram, having two longer and two shorter sides. The longer sides front to the north-east and south-west respectively, and measure 198 feet; while the shorter sides, which face the north-west and the south- east, measure 133 feet. The present height of the basement story is 27 feet; but, allowing for the concealment of the lower part by the rubbish, and the destruction of the upper part by the hand of time, we may presume that the original height was little, if at all, short of 40 feet. The interior of tins story is built of crude or sun-dried bricks of small size, laid in bitumen; but it is faced throughout with a wall, ten feet in thickness, com- posed of red kiln-dried bricks, likewise cemented with bitumen. This external wall is at once strengthened and diversified to the eye by a number of shallow buttresses or pilasters in the same material; of these there are nine, including the comer ones, on the longer, and six on the shorter sides. The width of the but- tresses is eight feet, and their projection a little more than a foot. The walls and buttresses alike slope inwards at 'an angle of nine degrees. On the north-eastern side of the building there is a staircase nine feet wide, with sides or balustrades three feet wide, which leads up from the platform to the top of the first story. It has also been conjectured that there was a second or grand staircase on the south-east face, equal in width to the second story of the building, and thus occupying nearly the whole breadth of the structure on that side.0 A number of narrow slits or air-holes are carried through the building from side to side; they penetrate alike the walls and buttresses, and must have tended to preserve the dryness of the structure. The second story is, like the first, a parallelogram, and not of very different proportions.6 Its longer sides measure 119 feet, and its shorter ones 75 feet at the base. Its emplacement upon the first story is exact as respects the angles, but not central as regards the four sides. While it is removed from the south- • Loftus, Chnllva and Susiona, p. 128. 1 5 Loftus. C/uildaa and Susiana, p. 129. According to Mr. Loftus, this emplace- | * The proportions of the lower stage ment "is observable in all edifices are almost exactly as 3 to 2. Those of (temples ?) of true Chaldwan origin." the upper are as 3,'j to 2. THE FIRST MONARCHY. Chap. V eastern edge a distance of 47 feet, from the north-western it is distant only 30 feet. From the two remaining sides its distance is apparently about 28 feet. The present height of the second story, including the rubbish upon its top, is 19 feet; but we may reasonably suppose that the ori- ginal height was much greater. The material of which its inner structure is composed, seems to be chiefly (or wholly) partially-burnt brick, of a light red colour, laid in a cement composed of lime and ashes. This central mass is faced with kiln-dried bricks of large size and excellent quality, also laid, except on the north-west face,7 in lime mortar. No but- tresses and no staircase are trace- Ground-plan of Mughcir Temple. ft^]e on t]jjs story . though it is possible that on the south-east side the grand staircase may have run the whole height of both stories. According to information received by Mr. Taylor from the Arabs of the vicinity,8 there existed, less than half a century ago, some remains] of a third story, on the summit of the rubbish which now crowns the second. This building is described as a room or chamber, and was probably the actual shrine of the god in whose honour the whole structure was erected. Mr. Taylor discovered a number of bricks or tiles glazed with a blue enamel, and also a number of large copper nails, at such a height.in the rubbish which covers up much of the second story, that he thinks they could only have come from this upper . chamber. The analogy of later Babylonian buildings, as of the Birs-Nimrud and the temple of Belus at Babylon,9 confirms this view, and makes it probable that the early Chaldaean temple was 'On this side the material used is bitumen. (See Mr. Taylor's article in the Journal of the Asiatic Society, vol. xv. p. 261.) 8 Journal of tlie Asiatic Soc'ett/. vol. xv. p. 264. 'Herod, i. 181. Chap. V. 79 ARCHITECTUEE. a building in three stages, of which the first and second were solid masses of brickwork, ascended by steps on the outside, while the third was a small house or chamber highly ornamented, containing the image and shrine of the god. Mugheir Temple, restored. In conclusion, it must be observed that only the lower story of the Mugheir temple exhibits the workmanship of the old or Chaldaean period. Clay cylinders found in the upper story in- form us that in its present condition this story is the work of Nabonidus, the last of the Babylonian kings; and most of its bricks bear his stamp. Some, however, have the stamp of the aame monarch who built the lower story;1 and this is sufficient to show that the two stories are a part of the original design, and therefore that the idea of building in stages belongs to the first kingdom and to primitive times. There is no evidence to prove whether the original edifice had, or had not, a third story; since the chamber seen by the Arabs was no doubt a late Baby- lonian work. The third story of the accompanying sketch must therefore be regarded as conjectural. It is not necessary for our present purpose to detain the reader with a minute description of the ancient temple at Abu-Shahrein. The general character of this building {seems to have very closely resembled that of the Mugheir temple. Its angles fronted the cardinal points; it had two stories, and an ornamented chamber at the top; it was faced with burnt brick, and strengthened by buttresses; and in most other respects followed the type of the Mugheir edifice.2 Its only very notable peculiarities are the 1 Journal of the Asiatic Society, vol. xv. p. 264, note. 2 See Mr. Taylor's description in the Journal of the Asiatic Society, vol. xv. pp. 405-408. So Chap. V. THE FIHST MONARCHY. partial use of stone in the construction, and the occurrence of a species of pillar, very curiously composed. The artificial plat- form on which the temple stands is made, of beaten clay, cared with a massive wall of sandstone and limestone, in some places twenty feet thick. There is also a stone, or rather marble, stair- case which leads up from the platform to the summit of the first story, composed of small polished blocks, twenty-two inches long, thirteen broad, and four and a half thick. The bed of the staircase is made of sun-dried brick, and the marble was fastened to this substratum by copper bolts, some portion of which was found by Mr. Taylor still adhering to the blocks.3 At the foot of the staircase there appear to have stood two columns, one on either side of it. The construction of these columns is very sin- gular. A circular nucleus composed of sandstone slabs and small cylindrical pieces of marble disposed in alternate layers, was coated externally with coarse lime, mixed with small stones and pebbles, until by means of many successive layers the pillar had attained the desired bulk and thickness. Thus the stone and marble were entirely concealed under a thick coating of plaster; and a smoothness was given to the outer surface, which it would have otherwise been difficult to obtain. The date of the Abu-Shahrein temple is thought to be con- siderably later than that of the other buildings above described ;* and the pillars would seem to be a refinement on the simplicitv of the earlier times. The use of stone is to be accounted for, not so much by the advance of architectural science, as by the near vicinity of the Arabian hills, from which that material could be readily derived.5 lt is evident, that if the Chaldamn temples were of the cha- racter and construction which we have gathered from their remains, they could have possessed no great architectural beauty, though they may not have lacked a certain grandeur. In the dead level of Babylonia, an elevation even of 100 or 150 feet must have been impressive;6 and the plain massive- 3 Journal of Asiatic Society, vol. xv. p. 406, note. * Sec below, chapter viii. p. I66. 8 Supra, ch. i. p. 25. « Mr. Loftus says—" I know of no- thing more exciting or impressive than Chap. V. Si AECHITECTCTtE. ness of the structures no doubt added to their grand effect on the beholder. But there was singularly little in the buildings, architecturally viewed, to please the eye or gratify the sense of beauty. No edifices in the world—not even the Pyramids— are more deficient in external ornament. The buttresses and the air-holes, which alone break the flat uniformity of the walls, are intended simply for utility, and can scarcely be said to be much embellishment. If any efforts were made to delight by the ordinary resources of ornamental art, it seems clear that such efforts did not extend to the whole edifice, but were con- fined to the shrine itself—the actual abode of the god—the chamber which crowned the whole, and was alone, strictly speaking, "the temple."7 Even here there is no reason to believe that the building had externally much beauty. No fragments of architraves or capitals, no sculptured ornaments of any kind, have been found among the heaps of rubbish in which Chaldecan monuments are three-parts buried. The ornaments which have been actually discovered, are such as suggest the idea of internal rather than external decoration; and they render it probable that such decoration was, at least in some cases, extremely rich. The copper nails and blue enamelled tiles found high up in the Mugheir mound, have been already noticed.8 At Abu-Shahrein the ground about the basement of the second story was covered with small pieces of agate, alabaster, and marble, finely cut and polished, from half an inch to two inches long, and half an inch (or somewhat less) in breadth, each with a hole drilled through its back, containing often a fragment of a copper bolt. It was also strewn less thickly with small plates of pure gold, and with a number of gold-headed or gilt-headed nails,9 used apparently to attach the gold plates to the internal plaster or wood-work. These fragments seem to attest the high the first sight of one of these great | (irupyoi) are carefully distinguished Chaldiean piles, looming in solitary from the temple (vri&s) at the summit, grandeur from the surrounding plains * See above, p. 78. and marshes." (Cluildcea and Susiana, j * Journal of Asiatic Society, vol. xv. p. 113.) I p. 407. 7 See Herod, i. 181, where the stages VOL. I. G 82 Chap. V. THE FIRST MONARCHY. ornamentation of the shrine in this instance, which we have no reason to regard as singular or.in any way exceptional. The Chaldaean remains which throw light upon the domestic architecture of the people are few and scanty. A small house was disinterred by 3Ir. Taylor at Mugheir, and the plan of some chambers was made out at Abu-Shahrein; but these are hitherto the only specimens which can be confidently assigned to the Chaldamn period. The house stood on a platform of sun-dried bricks, paved on the top with burnt bricks. It was built in the form of a cross, but with a good deal of irregularity, every wall being somewhat longer or shorter than the others. The material used in its construction was burnt brick, the outer layer imbedded in bitumen, and the remainder in a cement of mud. Externally the house was ornamented with perpendicular stepped recesses,1 while internally the bricks had often a thin coating of gypsum or enamel, upon which cha- racters were inscribed. The floors of the chambers were paved with burnt brick, laid in bitumen. Two of the doorways were arched, the arch ex- tending through the whole thickness of the walls; it was semicircular, and was constructed with bricks made wedge-shaped for the purpose. A good deal of charred date-wood was found in the house, probably the remains of rafters which had supported the roof.2 The chambers at Abu-Shahrein were of sun-dried brick, with an internal covering of fine plaster, ornamented Term cotta cone. Actual size, ^fa paint . Jn Qne fa ornamentation consisted of a series of red, black, and white bands, three inches Loftus, Chaldiea andSiuiana, p. 133. 1 Journal of As. Soc. vol. xv. pp. 265, 266. Chxp. Vn. GROUPING OF THE CHIEF DEITIES. 113 or Anunit, and Hurki (the Moon) by a goddess whose name is wholly uncertain, but whose common title is " the great lady." Such are the gods at the head of the Pantheon. Next in order to them we find a group of five minor deities, the representa- tives of the five planets,—Nin or Ninip (Saturn), Merodach (Jupiter), Nergal (Mars), Ishtar (Venus), and Nebo (Mercury). These together constitute what we have called the principal gods; after them are to be placed the numerous divinities of the second and third order. These principal gods do not appear to have been connected, like the Egyptian and the classical divinities,6 into a single genealogical scheme: yet still a certain amount of relationship was considered to exist among them. Ana and Bel, for instance, were brothers, the sons of Il or Ra; Vul was son of Ana; Hurki, the Moon-god, of Bel; Nebo and Merodach were sons of Hea or Hoa. Many deities, however, are without parentage, as not only Il or Ra, but Hea, San (the Sun), Ishtar, and Nergal. Sometimes the relationship alleged is confused, and even con- tradictory, as in the case of Nin or Ninip, who is at one time the son, at another the father of Bel, and who is at once the son and the husband of Beltis. It is evident that the genealogical aspect is not that upon which much stress is intended to be laid, or which is looked upon as having much reality. The great gods are viewed habitually rather as a hierarchy of co-equal powers, than as united by ties implying on the one hand pre- eminence and on the other subordination. We may now consider briefly the characters and attributes of the several deities, so far as they can be made out, either from the native records, or from classical tradition. And first, concerning the god who stands in some sense at the head of the Chaldaean Pantheon, « These schemes themselves were probably not genealogical at first. In their genealogical shape they were an arrangement given after a while to separate and independent deities recog- nised in different places by distinct communities, or even by distinct races. (See Bunsen's Egi/pl, vol. iv. p. 66, B. Engl. Transl.) VOL. I. I 114 THE FIRST MONARCHY. Chai-. VII . IL.or RA. The form Ea represents probably the native Chaldaean name of this deity, while 11 is the Semitic equivalent. H, of course, is but a variant of El (bx), the root of the well-known Biblical Elohim (d'H^n) as well as of the Arabic Allah. It is this name which Diodorus represents under the form of Elus ( HXosJ,7 and Sanchoniathon, or rather Philo-Byblius, under that of Elus CHXo?) or llus (TlXoi?).8 The meaning of the word is simply "God," or perhaps "the god" emphatically. lia, the Cushite equivalent, must be considered to have had the same force originally, though in Egypt it received a special application to the sun, aud became the proper name of that particular deity. The word is lost in the modern Ethiopic. It formed an element in the native name of Babylon, which was Ka-ra, the Cushite equivalent of the Semitic Bab-U, an expression signifying "the gate of God." Ra is a god with few peculiar attributes. He is a sort of fount and origin of deity, too remote from man to be much worshipped or to excite any warm interest. There is no evi- dence of his having had any temple in Chaldaea during the early times. A belief in his existence is implied rather than expressed in inscriptions of the primitive kings, where the Moon-god is said to be " brother's son of Ana, and eldest son of Bil, or Belus." We gather from this, that Bel aud Ana were considered to have a common father ; and later documents suffi- ciently indicate that that common father was II or Ra. We must conclude from the name Babil, that Babylon was origin- ally under his protection, though the god specially worshipped in the great temple there seems to have been in early times Bel, and in later times Merodach. The identification of the Chald»an Il or Ra with Saturn, which Diodorus makes,9 and which may seem to derive some confirmation from Philo- 'See Diod. Sic. ii. 30, § 3. where, however, there is a corrupt reading, the word"HAou being most absurdly replaced by 'HAfov. * See his fragments in Midler's Fragm. Hist. GtcEC. vol. iii. pp. 567 and 571; Fr. 2, § 14, and Fr. 5. • Loc. sup. cit. 'ISia rby (rwb rwy 'E\Tfywv Kpopov ovofia(,uu.ivuv kuAovuiy "HAou. Chap. VII. 127 SAN OH SANSI. the kings, directing and favourably influencing their expeditions; or again, as helping them to discharge any of the other active duties of royalty. San is "the supreme ruler who casts a favourable eye on expeditions," " the vanquisher of the king's enemies," "the .breaker-up of opposition." He "casts his motive influence" over the monarchs, and causes them to "assemble their chariots and warriors"—he goes forth with their armies, and enables them to extend their dominions—he chases their enemies before them, causes opposition to cease, and brings them back with victory to their own countries. Besides this, he helps them to sway the sceptre of power, and to rule over their subjects with authority. It seems that, from observing the manifest agency of the material sun in stimulating all the functions of nature, the Chaldaeans came to the con- clusion that the sun-god exerted a similar influence on the minds of men, and was the great motive agent in human history. The chief seats of the sun-god's w orship in Chaldaea appear to have been the two famous cities of Larsa (Ellasar ?) and Sippara. The great temple of the Sun, called Bit-Parra,7 at the former place, was erected by Urukh, repaired by more than one of the later Chakkean monarchs, and completely restored by Nebu- chadnezzar. At Sippara, the worship of the sun-god was so predominant, that Abydenus, probably following Berosus, calls the town Iieliopolis.8 There can be little doubt that the Adramineleob, or "Fire-king,"9 whose worship the Sepharvites (or people of Sippara) introduced into Samaria,1 was this deity. Sippara is called Tsipar sha Shamas, "Sippara of the Sun," in various inscriptions, and possessed a temple of the god which was repaired and adorned by many of the ancient Chaldajau kings, as well as by Nebuchadnezzar and Nabonidus. 'It would seem from this name that • Winer, Itcaluorterlfuch, ad voc. Parro was also a title under which the "Adrammelech." Sir H. Kawlinson Sun was known in Chnldea in the early | allows this derivation to be not im- times. .May not this title be connected 1 probable (Kawlinson's Herodotus, vol. i. with the Egyptian Ph-ra or l'i-ra, " the p. 611). suggesting, however, another, sun," whence probably the Hebrew from edirn, "the arranger," and meiek Pharaoh? (ibid.). 1 2 Kings xvii. 31. * Abyden. Fr. 1; Syncell. vol. i. p. 70. | 128 Chap. VIT. THE FIRST MONARCHY. The general prevalence of San's worship is indicated most San or Sansi had a wife, Ai, Gula, or Anunit, of whom it now follows to speak. Ai, Gula, or Anunit, was the female power of the sun, and was commonly associated with San in temples and invocations. Her names are of uncertain signification, except the second, Gula, which undoubtedly means "great," being so translated in the vocabularies2 It is suspected that the three terms may have been attached respectively to the "rising," the "culmi- nating," and the "setting sun," 3 since they do not appear to interchange; while the name Gula is distinctly stated in one inscription to belong to the "great" goddess, "the wife of the meridian Sun." It is perhaps an objection to this view, that the male Sun, who is decidedly the superior deity, does not appear to be manifested in Chaldaea under any such threefold representation.4 As a substantive deity, distinct from her husband, Gula's characteristics are that she presides over life and over fecundity. It is not quite clear whether these offices belong to her alone, or whether she is associated in each of them with a sister goddess. There is a " Mistress of Life," who must be regarded us the special dispenser of that blessing; and there is a " Mis- tress of the Gods." who is expressly said to "preside over 2 Gula is rendered by rahu in the I Ai may perhaps be the same word • vocabularies, which is the Hebrew rab, as the Agau (Abyssinian) avi, " light." 3T "a great one" — and thence "a j * Sir H. Kawlinson in the author's doctor." It is probably connected with Herodotus, vol. i. p. 612. with 713, or at any rate only indi- thcrc we have no ,riple nomenclature. AI, GULA, or ANUNIT. 4 In Assyria such a threefold worship of the male Sun is found; but even Chap. VII. 129 VUL OR IVA. births." Concerning these two personages we cannot at present determine whether they are really distinct deities, or whether they are not rather aspects of Gula, sufficiently marked to be represented in the temples by distinct idols.5 Gula was woi-shipped in close combination with her husband, both at Larsa and Sippara. Her name appears in the inscrip- tions connected with both places; and she is probably the '•' Anammelech," whom the Sepharvites honoured in conjunction with Adrammelech, the "Fire-King."6 In later times she had also temples independent of her husband, at Babylon and Bor- sippa, as well as at Calah and Asshur. The emblem now commonly regarded as symbolizing Gula is the eight-rayed disk or orb, which frequently accompanies the orb with four rays in the Babylonian representations. In lieu of a disk, we have sometimes an eight-rayed star , and even occasionally a star with six rays only • It is curious that the eight-rayed star became at an early period the universal emblem of divinity; but perhaps we can only conclude from this the stellar origin of the worship generally, and not any special pre-eminence or priority of Auunit over other deities. VUL or IVA. The third member of the second Triad is the god of the atmosphere, whose name it has been proposed to render phonetically in a great variety of ways.7 Until a general agree- ment shall be established, it is thought best to retain a name with which readers are familiar; and the form Vul will there- fore be used in these volumes. Were Iva the correct articula- s The only place where these two deities are clearly distinguished from Gula is in the list of the idols con- tained in the great temple of Bel-Mero- dach at Babylon. But for this notice, the names would certainly have been regarded as nothing more than titles of Gula. 1 Jfo satisfactory explanation has been VOL. I. given of the word Anammelech. If it represents the female power of the sun, we must suppose that Ana is an ab- breviated form of Anunit, and that melek, 'tpDi is for malcah, fD^O, the Jews from contempt not caring to be correct in the names of false gods. 'See above, p. 112, note s. K 130 THE FIRST MONARCHY. Chap. VH. tion, we might regard the term as simply the old Hamitic name for " the air," and illustrate it by the Arabic heva, \^j>, which has still that meaning. The importance of Vul in the Cbaldaean mythology, and his strong positive character, contrast remarkably with the weak and shadowy features of Uranus, or .iEther, in the classical system. Vul indeed corresponds in great measure with the classical Zeus or Jupiter, being, like him, the real "Prince of the power of the air," the lord of the whirlwind and the tempest, and the wielder of the thunderbolt. His standard titles are " the minister of heaven and earth," "the Lord of the air," " he who makes the tempest to rage." He is regarded as the destroyer of crops, the rooter-up of trees, the scatterer of the harvest. Famine, scarcity, and even their consequence, pestilence, are assigned to him. He is said to have in his hand a "flaming sword," with which he effects his works of destruction; and this "flaming sword," which probably represents lightning, becomes his emblem upon the tablets and cylinders, where it is figured as a double or triple bolt.8 Vul again, as the god of the atmosphere, gives the rain; and hence he is " the careful and beneficent chief," " the giver of abundance," " the lord of fecundity." In this capacity he is naturally chosen to preside over canals, the great fertilizers of Babylonia; and we find among his titles " the lord of canals," and "the establisher of works of irrigation." There is not much evidence of the worship of Vul in Chaldaea during the early times. That he must have been known appears from the fact of his name forming an element in the name of Shamas-Vul, son of Ismi-dagon, who ruled over Chaldaea about B.C. 1850.9 It is also certain that this Shamas-Vul set up his worship at Asshur (Kileh-Sherghat) in Assyria, asso- ciating him there with his father Ana, and building to them 8 Bolts of the kind represented were ! quests. (Sir H. Kawlinson in the author's also used as trophies of victory. Ti- Ife'odotus, vol. i. p. 609.) plath-Pileser I. made one of copper nnd | 0 See below, ch. viii. p. 164. inscribed upon it a record of his con- i Chap. VII. 131 BAR, NIN, OR NINIP. conjointly a great temple.1 Further than this we have no proof that he was an object of worship in the time of the first monarchy; though in the time of Assyrian preponderance, as well as in that of the later Babylonian Empire, there were few gods more venerated. Vul is sometimes associated with a goddess, Shala or Tala, who is probably the Salambo or Salambas of the lexicographers.2 The meaning of her name is uncertain;5 and her epithets are for the most part obscure. Her ordinary title is sarrat or iharrat, " queen," the feminine of the common word sar, which means " Chief," " King," or " Sovereign." BAR, NIN, or NINIP. If we are right in regarding the five gods who stand next to the Triad formed of the Moon, the Sun, and the Atmosphere, as representatives of the five planets visible to the naked eye, the god Nin, or Ninip, should be Saturn. His names Bar, and Is in, are respectively a Semitic and a Hamitic term signifying "lord" or "master;' Nin-ip, his full Hamitic appellation, signifies "Nin, by name," or "he whose name is Nin;" and, similarly, his full Semitic appellation seems to have been Bar- shem, "Bar, by name," or "he whose name is Bar "—a term which is not indeed found in the inscriptions, but which appears to have been well known to the early Syrians and Armenians,4 and which was probably the origin of the title Barsemii, borne by the kings of Hatra (Hadhr near Kileh-Sherghat) in Boman times.5 In character and attributes the classical god, whom Nin most closely resembles, is, however, not Saturn, but Hercules. An indi- cation of this connexion is perhaps contained in the Herodotean 1 See the Inscription of Tiglath-Fi- User I. p. 62. 2 Hesychius uses the form 2aAau/9i'. and calls the goddess "the Babylonian Venus." In the Etymologicum Magnum the form used is SaAaVfSaf. 'The second element in Snlambo or Salambas is probably umuui (Heb. DN), "a mother." * See Mos. Choren. Hist. Armi-n. i. 13, "Barsamum ob tbrtissimas res gestas in Deos nscriptum ad longum tcinpus Syri coluere." ii. 13, "Tigranes in Mesopo- tamiam descendit. ct nactus ibi Barsami stataam, quam ex eborc et beryllo fac- tam argento ornaverat, deportari can: jubet, et in Thorduno oppido locari." s Hcrodian. iii. 1, § 11. K 2 132 Chap. VII. THE FIRST MONARCHY. genealogy, which makes Hercules an ancestor of Ninus.6 Many classical traditions, we must remember, identified Hercules with Saturn;7 and it seems certain that in the East at any rate this identification was common.8 Nin, in the inscriptions, is the god of strength and courage. He is "the lord of the brave," "the champion," " the warrior who subdues foes," " he who strengthens the heart of his followers;" and again, "the destroyer of enemies," " the reducer of the dis- obedient," "the exterminator of rebels," " he whose sword is good." In many respects he bears a close resemblance to Nergal or Mars. Like him, he is a god of battle and of the chace, presiding over the king's expeditions, whether for war or hunting, and giving success in both alike. At the same time he has qualities which seem wholly un- connected with any that have been hitherto mentioned. He is the true "Fish-God" of Berosus,9 and is figured as such in the sculptures. In this point of view he is called "the god of the sea," "he who dwells in the deep," and again, somewhat curiously, "the opener of aqueducts." Besides these epi- thets he has many of a more general character, as "the power- Figure of >in, the Fish-God. ful chief," "the supreme," "the first of the gods," "the favourite of the gods," "the chief of the spirits," and the like. Again, he has a set of epithets, « Herod, i. 7. ; Lydus, De Menaikug, iv. 46; Athe- nag. beg. pro Christ, xv. 6; Damasc. '1fe Princip. « Sec the Memoir of M. Raoul Ko- chettc on the Assyrian Hercules in the 17th volume of the Mfm. dc I'Imtitut., where this point is abundantly proved. • Fr. 1, § 3. Tb pit fi\ov ,rw,uo fx0" i,Y_0uos, Iiirb 5e r^v Kt^ta\^v irapairt- ipi*tv-iav af' r Keipa\ify iiiroKirw ttff tov ix&yos Ktipa\ijs, iral ir6$as 6/ioiws tLvBpunrov, irapairtipvKdrat 5e 4k ttIf oiipus tov ixQuos. Chap. VII. NIN'S EMBLEM, THE MAN-BULL. 133 which seem to point to his stellar character, very difficult to reconcile with the notion, that, as a celestial luminary, he was Saturn. We find him called "the light of heaven and earth," "he who, like the sun, the light of the gods, irradiates the nations." These phrases appear to point to the Moon, or to some very brilliant star, and are scarcely re- concilable with the notion that he was the dark and distant Saturn. Nin's emblem in Assyria is the Man-Ball, the impersonation of strength and power. He guards the palaces of the Assyrian kings, who reckon him their tutelary god, and give his name to their capital city. We may conjecture that in Babylonia his emblem was the sacred fish, which is often seen under different forms upon the cylinders. The monuments furnish no evidence of the early worship of Nin in Chaldaea. We may perhaps gather the fact irom Berosus' account of the Fish-God as an early object of vene- ration in that region,10 as well as from the Hamitic etymology of the name by which he was ordinarily known even in Assyria.1 There he was always one of the most important deities. His temple at Nineveh was very famous, and is noticed by Tacitus in his 'Annals;'2 and he had likewise two temples at Calah (Nimrud), both of them buildings of some pretension. Nin's emblem, the Man-Bull. "The Fish-god ('ndyvni) comes out of the Red Sea (Persian Gulf) to instruct the settlers in Chaldaa. 1 That the Assyrians commonly used the Hamitic Nin, or Ninip, and not the Semitic Bar, or Barshem, is proved by the traditions concerning Ninu-. and by the name of their capital city. 1 Tacit. Ann. xii. 13. 134 Chap. VII- THE FIRST MONARCHY. It has been already mentioned3 that Nin was the son of Bel- Ximrod, and that Beltis was both his wife and his mother. These relationships are well established, since they are repeatedly asserted. One tablet, however, inverts the genealogy, and makes Bel-Nimrod the son of Nin, instead of his father. The contradiction perhaps springs from the double character of this divinity, who, as Saturn, is the father, but, as Hercules, the son of Jupiter. BEL-MERODACH. Bel-Merodach is, beyond all doubt, the planet Jupiter, which is still called Bel by the Mendaeans. The name Merodach is of uncertain etymology and meaning. It has been compared with the Persian marddk* the diminutive of mard, "a man," and with the Arabic Hirrich? which is the name of the planet Mars. But, as there is every reason to believe that the term belongs to the Hamitic Babylonian, it is in vain to have recourse to Arian or Semitic tongues for its derivation. Most likely the word is a descriptive epithet, originally attached to the name Bel, in the same way as Nipru, but ultimately usurping its place and coming to be regarded .as the proper name of the deity. It is doubtful whether any phonetic representative of Merodach has been found on the monuments; if so, the pro- nunciation should, apparently, be Amardak, whence we might derive the Amordacia ('A/topSa/cla) of Ptolemy.6 The titles and attributes of Merodach are of more than usual vagueness. In the most ancient monuments which mention him, he seems to be called "the old man of the gods,"7 and "the judge "; he also certainly has the gates, which in early times were the seats of justice, under his special protection. Thus he would seem to be the god of justice and judgment— 3 Sw above, page 120. * Gesenius, Lci. icon Ncbraicum, ad voc. "Merodneh.'' 5 Kitto's Biblical Cydopadia, vol. ii. p. 328. 0 This is Ptolemy's name for a dis- trict of Babylonia (sec his iJcoilrrqihj, v. 20). The Latin translator renders it by Mardoca'a. 'So the Phoenicians worshipped Bel as Be\iiav, or JD'S *?2, " the old Bel" (Damasc. ap. Phot. Bibliothec. p. 343); and the SabaJans of Ilarran called their Bel, "Bel, the grave old man." (Chwol- sohn, Ssabier und Ssabismus, vol. ii. p. 39.) Chap. VH. 135 Zm-BANIT. an idea which may have given rise to the Hebrew name of the planet Jupiter, viz. Sedek, P~)$, "justitia." Bel-Merodach was worshipped in the early Chaldamn kingdom, as appears from the Tel-Sifr tablets. He was probably from a very remote time the tutelary god of the city of Babylon;8 and hence, as that city grew into importance, the worship of Merodach became more prominent. The Assyrian raonarchs always especially associate Babylon with this god; and in the later Babylonian empire he becomes by far the chief object of worship. It is his temple which Herodotus describes so elaborately,9 and his image, which, according to the Apocryphal Daniel, the Baby- lonians worshipped with so much devotion.10 Nebuchadnezzar ans were fairly taxed with im- posture and charlatanism; in the early ages they seem to have really deserved the eulogy bestowed on them by Cicero.8 It may have been the astronomical knowledge of the Chal- deans which gave them the confidence to adventure on im- portant voyages. Scripture tells us of the later people, that "their cry was in the ships; " 0 and the early inscriptions not only make frequent mention of the "ships of Ur," but by - This passage has often been referred to, but rarely quoted. Simplicius argues that the earlier Greek writers on astronomy have less value than the later ones8ii rb fi-tfirw ra$ intb KaA- \iffdtvov! 4k Bafiv\wvos irefitpdeiaas xapariifrriffets atpiKtcrdai th t^v 'EA- XaSa, rov 'Apiffrort\ovs rovro imaKfr ^amos atn$' tuntvas Siriyurai b Hop- Qupios x&Awv irwv c?KEU Kal iyyttb- Koalwy rptwv, /«XP' fbv xpivov 'AAe{- avtpov rov MaKeSovos rTai£b/ieVaf. 3 Plin. H. N. vii. 56. "Epigencs apud Babylonios dccxx annorum ob- servationes siderum ooctilibus tatercutis inscriptas docet." * See above, p. 76. s This is distinctly asserted of the great temple of Belus by Diodorus (ii. 9, § 4j. The careful emplacement of the curliest temples makes it probable that they were applied to similar uses. s Herod, ii. 10U. 'Ibid. 8 See the passage prefixed as a motto to this chapter (supra, p. 70). ° Isaiah xliii. 14. 102 CiiAr. V THE FIRST MONARCHY. connecting these vessels with those of Ethiopia1 seem to imply that they were navigated to considerable distances. Unfortu- nately we possess no materials from which to form any idea either of the make and character of the Chaldaean vessels, or of the nature of the trade in which they were employed. We may perhaps assume that at first they were either canoes hollowed out of a palm-trunk, or reed fabrics made water-tight by a coating of bitumen. The Chaldee trading operations lay, no doubt, chiefly in the Persian Gulf;2 but it is quite possible that even in very early times they were not confined to this sheltered basin. The gold, which was so lavishly used in de- coration,3 could only have been obtained in the necessary quan- tities from Africa or India; and it is therefore probable that one, if not both, of these countries was visited by the Chaldaean traders. Astronomical investigations could not be conducted without a fair proficiency in the science of number. It would be reason- able to conclude, from the admitted character of the Chaldaeans as astronomers, that they were familiar with most arithmetical processes, even had we no evidence upon the subject. Evidence however, to a certain extent, does exist. On a tablet found at Senkareh, and belonging probably to an early period, a table of squares is given, correctly calculated from one to sixty.4 The system of notation, which is here used, is very curious. Berosus5 informs us that, in their computations of time, the Chaldaeans employed an alternate sexagesimal and decimal notation, reckoning the years by the soss, the ner, and the sar—the boss being a term of 60 years, the ner one of 600, and the sar one of 3600 (or 60 sosses). It appears from the Senkareh monument, that they occasionally pursued the same practice in mere numerical calculations, as will be evident from the fol- lowing extract:— 1 Sir H. Ranlinson in the Journal of sv. p. 218; and compare Loftus's dial- the Asiatic Soc. vol. xxvii. p. 185. daa and Susiana, p. 256. 2 Sec Heeren's Asiatic Nations, vol. ii. * Ap. Euseb. Chron. Can. i. i. p. 5, p. 220, E T. 'Supra, p. 81. ed. Mai. * See Journal of the Asiatic tioc. vol. | Chap. V. 103 ARITHMETIC. Extract from Senkareh Table of Squares. m« t 5-1 <"« T , Onto, ii. p. 123. 1 Mr. Bomnqoet is almost the only chronologer who still disputes the ac- curacy of this document. (See his Messiah the Pi hue, Appendix, pp. 455-8, 2nd edition.) Chai\ VIII. FOUNDING OF THE EMPIRE — NIMROD. as sixteen or seventeen hundred years; and, secondly, that the chronology which results from their statements and those of Berosus is moderate, probable, and in harmony with all the knowledge which we obtain of the East from other sources. It is proposed therefore, in the present volumes, to accept the general scheme of Berosus as, in all probability, not seriously in error; and to arrange the Chaldaean, Assyrian, and Babylonian history on the framework, which it furnishes. Chaldaean history may therefore be regarded as opening upon us at a time anterior, at any rate by a century or two,2 to B.C. 2286. It was then that Nirnrod, the son or descendant of Cush, set up a kingdom in Lower Mesopotamia, which attracted the attention of surrounding nations. The people, whom he led, came probably by sea; at any rate, their earliest settlements were on the coast; and Ur or Hur, on the right bank of the Euphrates, at a very short distance from its embouchure, was the primitive capital. The "mighty hunter" rapidly spread his dominion inland, subduing or expelling the various tribes by which the country was previously occupied. His kingdom extended northwards, at least as far as Babylon, which (as well as Erech or Huruk, Accad, and Calneh) was first founded by this monarch.3 Further historical details of his reign are wanting; but the strength of his character and the greatness of his achievements are remarkably indicated by a variety of testimonies, which place him among the foremost men of the Old World, and guarantee him a never-ending remembrance. At least as early as the time of Moses his name had passed into a proverb. He was known as "the mighty hunter before the Lord"4—an expression which bad probably a double meaning, implying at once skill and bravery in the pursuit and destruc- 3 Syncellus gave 225 years to the I to the late Babylonian period. One first Chnldaenn dynasty in Babylonia; j only (Chomasbelus, perhaps Shamns-Bel) but it is difficult to say on what basis j has at all the air of a name of this he went. He admitted seven kings, to I early time. whom he gave the names of Evechius, Chomasbelus, Porus, Xechubas, Nabius, Oniballus, and Zinzerus. These names do not much encourage us to view the list as historical. Three of them belong 3 Gen. x. 10. 4 Gen. x. 9: "He was a mighty hunter before the Lord; wherefore it is sail, Even as NimroJ, the mighty hunter before the Lord." 154 Chap. VIII. THE FIRST MONARCHY. tion of wild beasts, and also a genius for war and success in his aggressions upon men. In his own nation he seems to have been deified, and to have continued down to the latest times one of the leading objects of worship, under the title of Bilu- Nipru or Bel-Nimrod,5 which may be translated " the god of the chace," or "the great hunter." One of bis capitals, Calneh, which was regarded as his special city, appears afterwards to have been known by bis name (probably as being the chief seat of his worship in the early times); and this name it still retains, slightly corrupted. In the modern Niffer we may recognise the Talmudical Nopher, and the Assyrian Nipur, which is Nipru, with a mere metathesis of the two final letters. The fame of Nimrod has always been rife in the country of his domination. Arab writers record a number of remarkable traditions, in which be plays a conspicuous part;6 and there is little doubt but that it is in honour of his apotheosis that the constellation Orion bears in Arabian astronomy the title of El Jabbar, or " the giant."7 Even at the present day his name lives in the mouth of the people inhabiting Chaldaea and the adjacent regions, whose memory of ancient heroes is almost confined to three— Nimrod, Solomon, and Alexander. Wherever a mound of ashes is to be seen in Babylonia or the adjoining countries, the local traditions attach to it the name of Nimrvd or Nimrod;8 and the most striking ruins now existing in the Mesopotamian valley, whether in its upper or its lower portion, are made in this way monuments of his glory.9 5 The Greek forms, Ne/3pi8 and Ne- 0pa8, serve to connect Nipru with T1DJ, The native root is thought to be napar, "to pursue," or "cause to flee." (See the author's Jlerodutus, vol. i. p. 597.) s Yacut declares that Nimrod at- tempted to mount to heaven on the wings of an eagle, and makes Niffer (Calneh) the scene of this occurrence. (Lex. Geograph. in voc. Aiifar.) It is supposed that we have here an allusion to the building of the tower of Babel. The Koran contains a story of Nimrod'* casting Abraham into a fiery furnace. 'The Arabic Jabbar represents the Hebrew "133, which is the epithet applied to Nimrod in Gen. x. 9. The identification of Nimrod with Orion is noted by Greek writers. iSee John of Antioch, Fr. 3; J'asch. Chron. vol. i. p. 64; John of Malula, p. 17 ; Cedrenus, vol. i. p. 27; &c.) Orion is a "mighty hunter," even in Homer. (See Odyss. xi. 572-575.) 8 Journ. of Asiatic Soc. vol. xv. p. 230. • The great temple of Borsippa is known as the JJirs-i-Ninyud; and the Chap. VIII. SUCCESSORS OF NIMROD — URUKH. 155 Of the immediate successors of Nimrod we have no account that even the most lenient criticism can view as historical. It appears that his conquest was followed rapidly by a Semitic emigration from the country—an emigration which took a northerly direction. The Assyrians withdrew from Babylonia, which they still always regarded as their parent land, and, occupying the upper or non-alluvial portion of the Mesopotamiau plain, commeuced the building of great cities in the tract upon the middle Tigris.1 The Phoenicians removed from the shores of the Persian Gulf, and, journeying towards the north-west, formed settlements upon the coast of Canaan,2 where they became a rich and prosperous people. The family of Abra- ham, and probably other Aramaean families, ascended the Euphrates,3 withdrawing from a yoke which was oppressive, or at any rate unpleasant. Abundant room was thus made for the Cushite immigrants, who rapidly established their preponde- rance over the whole of the southern region. As war ceased to be the necessary daily occupation of the new comers, civilisa- tion and the arts of life began to appear. The reign of the "Hunter" was followed, after no long time, by that of the "Builder." A monumental king, whose name is read doubt- fully as Urkham* or Urukh, belongs almost certainly to this early dynasty, and may be placed next in succession, though at what interval we cannot say, to Nimrod. He is beyond ques- tion the earliest Chaldaean monarch of whom any remains have been obtained in the country. Not only are his bricks found in a lower position than any others, at the very foundations of buildings, but they are of a rude and coarse make, and the inscriptions upon them contrast most remarkably, in the sim- plicity of the style of writing used and in their general archaic simple name Nimrwi is given to probably the most striking heap of ruins in the ancient Assyria. 1 Gen. x. 11, 12. - Herod, i'. 1; vii. 89; Strab. xvi. 3 $ 4; Justin, xviii. 3, s§ 2; Plin. //. N. iv. 22; Dionys. Per. 1. 'JOB. 3 Gen. xi. 31. 4 This conjectural reading of the name has led to a further conjecture, chamus" of Ovid, whom he represents as the seventh successor of Belus in the government of Babylon (Met'ipk. iv. 212-3). But the phonetic value of the monograms, in which the names of the early Chaldrean kings are written, is so wholly uncurtain that it seems best to itain from speculations, which may viz. that in this monumental sovereign have their basis struck from under we have the real original of the "'Or- | them at any moment. 156 Chap. VIII. THE FIRST MONARCHY. typp, with the elaborate and often complicated symbols of the later monarehs.5 The style of Urukh's buildings is also primi- tive and simple in the extreme; his bricks are of many sizes, and ill fitted together;6 he belongs to a time when even the baking of bricks seems to have been comparatively rare, for sometimes he employs only the sun-dried material;7 and he is altogether unacquainted with the use of lime mortar, for which his substitute is moist mud, or else bitumen. There can be little doubt that he stands at the head of the present series of monumental kings, another of whom probably reigned as early as B.C. 2286'. As he was succeeded by a son, whose reign seems to have been of the average length, we must place his accession at least as early as B.C. 2326. Possibly it may have fallen a century earlier. It is as a builder of gigantic Works that Urukh is chiefly known to us. The basement platforms of his temples are of an enormous size; and though they cannot seriously be com- pared with the Egyptian pyramids, yet indicate the employ- ment for many years of a vast amount of human labour in a very unproductive sort of industry. The Bowariyeh mound at AVarka is 200 feet square, and about 100 feet high.8 Its cubic contents, as originally built, can have been little, if at all, under 3,000,000 feet; and above 30,000,000 of bricks must have been used in its construction. Constructions of a similar character, and not very different in their dimensions, are proved by the bricks composing them to have been raised by the same monarch at Ur, Calneh or Nipur, and Larancha or Larsa, which is perhalis Ellasar.9 It is evident, from the size and number of these works, that their erector had the command of a vast amount of "nake 1 human strength," and did not scruple to employ that strength in constructions from which no material benefit was derivable, but which were probably designed chiefly to extend his own fame and perpetuate his glory. We may gather from this that 5 See Sir H. Rnwlinson's remarks in the author's Herodotus, vol. i. p. 425; and compare above, pp. 615, 64. 8 Journal of Asiatic Society, vol. xv. pp. 261-263; Loltus, Vhaldcea and £usiana, p. 168. 'As in the Boivariych ruin at Warka (Loftus, p. 167). 6 Supra, pp. 7j, 76. 'Gen. fuv. I. Chap. VHI. URUKH'S GREAT BUILDINGS. he was either an oppressor of his people, like some of the Pyramid Kings in Egypt,10 or else a conqueror, who thus employed the numerous captives carried off in his expeditions. Perhaps the latter is the more probahle supposition; for the builders of the great fabrics in Babylonia and Chaldaea do not seem to have left behind them any character of oppressiveness, such as attaches commonly to those monarchs who have ground down their own people by servile labour. The great buildings of Urukh appear to have been all designed for temples. They are carefully placed with ( heir angles facing the cardinal points,1 and are dedicated to the Sun, the Moon, to Belus (Bel-Nimrod), or to Beltis. The temple at Mugheir was built in honour of the Moon-god, Sin or Hurki, who was the tutelary deity of the city. The Warka temple was dedi- cated to Beltis. At Calneh or Nipur, Urukh erected two temples, one to Beltis and one to Belus. At Larsa or Ellasar the object of his worship was the Sun-god, San or Sansi. He would thus seem to have been no special devotee of a single god, but to have divided out his favours very fairly among the chief personages of the Pantheon. It has been observed that both the inscriptions of this king, and his architecture, are of a rude and primitive type. Still in neither case do we seem to be brought to the earliest dawn of civilisation or of art. The writing of Urukh has passed out of the first or hieroglyphic stage, and entered the second or transition one, when pictures are no longer attempted, but the lines or wedges follow roughly the old outline of the objects." In his architecture, again, though there is much ^that is rude and simple, there is also a good deal which indicates knowledge and experience. The use of the buttress is understood; and the buttress is varied according to the material.3 The impor- tance of sloping the walls of buildings inwards to resist interior "Herod, ii. 124,128; Arist.Pol.vii. II. 'Loft Hs, Chaldavi and Susiatia, p. 246. 'Supra, pp. 63, 64. * Compare the slight buttresses, only 13 inches thick, supporting the Mugheir temple, which has a facing of burnt brick to the depth of ten feet, with the strong ones at Warka (where uaburnt brick is the material used), which pro- ject seven feet and a half from the central mass. (Loftus, pp. 128, 129, and p. 169.) 158 Chap. VIII. THE FIRST MONARCHY. pressure is thoroughly recognised.4 Drains are introduced to carry off moisture, which must otherwise have been very destruc- tive to buildings composed mainly, or entirely, of crude brick. It is evident that the builders whom the king employs, though they do not possess much genius, have still such a knowledge of the most important principles of their art as is only obtained gradually by a good deal of practice. Indeed the very fact of the continued existence of their works at the distance of forty centuries is sufficient evidence that they possessed a considerable amount of architectural skill and knowledge. We are further, perhaps, justified in concluding, from the careful emplacement of Urukh's temples, that the science of astronomy was already cultivated in his reign, and was regarded as having a certain connexion with religion. We have seen that the early worship of the Chaldaeans was to a great extent astral5 —a fact which naturally made the heavenly bodies special objects of attention. If the series of observations, which Callisthenes sent to Aristotle, dating from B.C. 2234, was in reality a record, and not a mere calculation backwards of the dates at which certain celestial phenomena must have taken place, astronomical studies must have been pretty well advanced at a period not long subsequent to Urukh. Nor must we omit to notice, if we would estimate aright the condition of Chaldaean art under this king, the indications fur- nished by his signet-cylinder. So far as we can judge from the representation, which is all that we possess of this relic, the drawing on the cylinder was as good and the engraving as well executed as any work of the kind, either of the Assyrian or of the later Babylonian period. Apart from the inscription, this work of art has nothing about it that is rude or primitive. The elaboration of the dresses and headgear of the figures has been already noticed.6 It is also worthy of remark, that the prin- cipal figure sits on an ornamental throne or chair, of particu- larly tasteful construction, two legs of which appear to have been modelled after those of the bull or ox. We may conclude, * Loftus, p. 128. 5 See above, ch. vii. p. 111. • Supra, pp. 105 and IO6. Chap. VIH. 159 BEIGN OF ILGI. without much danger of mistake, that in the time of the monarch who owned this seal, dresses of delicate fabric and elaborate pattern, and furniture of a recherche and elegant shape, were in use among the people over whom he exercised dominion. The chief capital city of Urukh appears to have been Ur. He calls himself "King of Ur and Kingi-Accad "; and it is at TJr that he raises his principal buildings. Ur, too, has furnished the great bulk of his inscriptions. Babylon was not yet a place of much importance, though it was probably built by Nimrod. The second city of the Empire was Huruk or Erech: other places of importance were Larsa (Ellasar?) and Nipur or Calneh. Urukh appears to have been succeeded in the kingdom by a son, whose name it is proposed to read as Elgi or Ilgi. Of this prince our knowledge is somewhat scanty. Bricks bearing his name have been found at Ur (Mugheir) and at Tel Eid, near Erech, or Warka; and his signet-cylinder has been recovered, and is now in the British Museum. We learn from inscriptions of Nabonidus that he completed some of the buildings at Ur, which had been left unfinished by his father; while his own bricks inform us that he built or repaired two of the principal temples at Erech. On his signet-cylinder he takes the title of "King of Ur." After the death of Ilgi, Chaldaean history is for a time a blank. It would seem, however, that, while the Cushites were establish- ing themselves in the alluvial plain towards the mouths of the two great rivers, there was growing up a rival power, Turanian, or Ario-Turanian,7 in the neighbouring tract at the foot of the Zagros mountain-chain. One of the most ancient, perhaps the i At this early period in the world's their vocabulary is mainly Turanian, history, the differences between the it also contains numerous words which great families of human speech were were continued in the later Arian but very partially developed. Language \ speech. For instance, Nakhunta is be- was altogether in an agglutinate, rather ] yond a doubt the Anatiita of the Persians than inan inflected, state. The intricacies , and the Anaitis of the Greeks. Kudur ofArian—even the lesser intricacies of j is the same word as the Persian chitra, Semitic grammar—had not been in- "sprung from " (compare Zend chithra, vented, languages differed one from "seed"). Mabuk is, perhaps, Ma'm/, another chiefly in their vocabularies. which is formed from the two thoroughly What we observe with respect to the Arian roots, ma, "mother," and bog i Old Susianians or Elamites is, that while Pers. baga, Slavon. bog, bogie). " God." i6o CiiAr. VIII- THK FIRST MONARCHY. most ancient, of all the Asiatic cities, was Susa, the Elamitic capital, which formed the centre of a nationality that endured from the twenty-third century B.C. to the time of Darius Hystaspis (b.C. 520), when it sank finally under the Persians.8 A king of Elam, whose court was held at Susa, led, in the yijar B.C. 2286 (or a little earlier9), an expedition against the cities of Chaldaea, succeeded in carrying all before him, ravaged the country, took the towns, plundered the temples, and bore off into his own country, as the most striking evidence of victory, the images of the deities which the Babylonians especially reverenced.10 This king's name, which was Kudur-Nakhunta, is thought to be the exact equivalent of one which has a world- wide celebrity, to wit, Zoroaster.1 Now, according to Poly- histor2 (who here certainly repeats Berosus), Zoroaster was the first of those eight Median kings who composed the second dynasty in Chaldaca, and occupied the throne from about B.C. 2286 to 2052. The Medes are represented by him as capturing Babylon at this time, and imposing themselves as rulers upon the country. Eight kings reign in the space of 234 (or 224) years, after which we hear no more of Medes, the sovereignty being (as it would seem) recovered by the natives. The coin- cidences of the conquest, the date, the foreign sovereignty, and the name Zoroaster, tend to identify the Median dynasty of Berosus with a period of Susianian supremacy,3 which the 8 Sec Bchist. rnscr. col. i. pars. 16,17; col. ii. pars. 3, 4. The transfer of the Per- sian capital to Susa. which took place soon after this, was probably in part an acknowledgment of the superior anti- the Arian family (Journal of Asiatic Society, vol. xv. p. 227, note *); and that its true meaning is "the seed of Ishtar (Venus)." If so, Kudur-Na- khunta would exactly correspond to quity and dignity of the Elamitic capital. I Zoro-aster (or Ziru-Ishtar). See p. 159, * The date of Asshur-bnni-pal's con- I note '. quest of Susa is doubtful. It may have 2 A p. Syncell. Chronograph, p 78, B. been as early as u.c. 661. (See Mr. G. Compare JIos. Chorcn. Hist, Armtn. i. 5. Smith's paper in the Zeitschrift fur "Zoroastrem Magum . . . qui fuit Me- Aegyptische Sprache for Nov. 1868, p. dorum principium." 116.) The conquest of Chaldwa by * By calling his second dynasty "Me- Kudur-Nakhunta may therefore have dian," Berosus probably only meant to fallen as early as b.c. 2296. say that it came from the mountain 10 Zeitschrift, 1. s. c. tract east of Babylonia, which in his 1 It was long ago suggested by Sir H. own day had been for so many ages the Rawlinsou that the etymology of this seat of Medo-Pcrsic power. Susiana name is to be sought in the languages had in his time been completely ab- of the Semitic rather than in those of j sorbed into Persia. (Strabo, xv. 3 § 2.) Chap. VIII. 161 REIGN OF CHEDOR-LAOMER. monuments show to have been established in Chaldaea at a date not long subsequent to the reigns of Urukh and Ilgi, and to have lasted for a considerable period. There are five monarchs known to us who may be assigned to this dynasty. The first is the Kudur-Nakhunta above named, who conquered Babylonia and established his influence there, but continued to hold his court at Susa, governing his conquest probably by means of a viceroy or tributary king. Next to him, at no great interval, may be placed Kudur-Lagamer, the Chedor-laomer of Scripture,4 who held a similar position to Kudur-Nakhunta, reigning himself in Elam, while his vassals, Amraphel, Arioch, and Tidal (or Turgal5) held the governments respectively of Shinar (or Upper Babylonia), Ellasar (Lower Babylonia or Chaldiea), and the Goi'm or the nomadic races. Possessing thus an authority over the whole of the alluvial plain, and being able to collect together a formidable army, Kudur-Lagamer resolved on an expedition up the Euphrates, with the object of extending his dominion to the Mediterranean Sea and to the borders of Egypt. At first his endeavours were successful. Together with his confederate kings, he marched as far as Palestine, where he was opposed by the native princes, Bera, king of Sodom, Birsha, king of Gomorrah, Shinab, king of Admah, Shemeber, king of Zeboiim, and the king of Bela or Zoar.6 A great battle was fought between the two confederated armies in the vale of Siddim towards the lower end of the Dead Sea.7 The invaders were victorious; and for twelve years, Bera and his allies were content to own themselves subjects of the Elamitic king, whom they "served " for that period.8 In the 4 Gen. xiv. 1. was afterwards submerged, when the e For the Tidal (?jnD) of the 1 area of the Dead Sea was extended, present Hebrew text, the LXX. have Compare the expression (Gen. xiv. 3), Thargal (fiapya\), which implies a "All these were joined together in the reading of ^JTin in their copies. Turgal would be significative in early Babylonian, meaning "the great chief." (See Smith's Biblical Dictionary, ad voc. Tidal.) • Gen. xiv. 2. vale of Siddim, trhich is the salt sea;" and see Mr. Ffoulkes's article on Go- morrah in Dr. Smith's Biblical Dic- tionary, vol. i. pp. 709, 710. 'The scene of the battle seems to have been that part of the plain which • "Twelve years they served Chedor- laomer, and in the thirteenth year they rebelled." (Gen. xiv. i.) VOL. I. M l62 THE FIRST MONARCHY. Chap. VIII. thirteenth year they rebelled: a general rising of the western nations seems to have taken place;9 and in order to main- tain his conquests it was necessary for the conqueror to make a fresh effort. Once more the four eastern kings entered Syria, and, after -various successes against minor powers, engaged a second time in the valley of Siddim with their old antagonists, whom they defeated with great slaughter; after which they plundered the chief cities belonging to them.10 It was on this occasion that Lot, the nephew of Abraham, was taken prisoner. Laden with booty of various kinds, and encumbered with a number of captives, male and female,1 the conquering army set out upon its march home, and had reached the neighbourhood of Damascus, when it was attacked and defeated by Abraham, who with a small band ventured under cover of night to fall upon the retreating host, which he routed and pursued to some distance.2 The actual slaughter can scarcely have been great; but the prisoners and the booty taken had to be surrendered; the prestige of victory was lost; and the result appears to have been that the Mesopotamian monarch relinquished Lis projects, and, contenting himself with the fame acquired by such distant expeditions, made no further attempt to carry his empire beyond the Euphrates.3 The other three kings who may be assigned to the Elamitic dynasty are a father, son, and grandson, whose names appear upon the native monuments of Chaldaea in a position which is thought to imply that they were posterior to the kings Urukh and Ilgi, but of greater antiquity than any other monarchs who have left memorials in the country. Their names are read as Sinti-shil-khak, Kudur-Mabuk, and Arid-Sin. Of Sinti-shil- 'Among the nations chastised by Chedor-laomer on his second invasion we find the Kephaim or "Giants," the Zuzim, the Kmim, the Horites, the Ainorites, und the Amalekites. (Gen. xiv. 5-7.) 10 Gen. xiv. 9-12. 1 Gen. xiv. 16. s May not the tradition, that Abra- ham was king of Damascus (Nic. l>nm. Fr. 30), be connected with this exploit? It could scarcely hare been grounded on the mere fact that he had for steward a native of that city. (Gen. xv. 2.) 'The expression in verse 17 of the Authorised Version, "the sfawIhter of Chcdor-laomer, and of the kings which were with him,'" is over-strong. The Hebrew phrase niSHD does not mean more than "defeat" or "overthrow." Chap. VIH. END OF ELAMITIC DYNASTY. 163 khak nothing is known beyond the name.4 Kudur-Mabuk is said in the inscriptions of his son to have "enlarged the do- minions of the city of Ur;" and on his own bricks he bears the title of Apia Martu, which probably means t; Conqueror of the West."5 We may presume therefore that he was a warlike prince, like Kudur-Nakhunta and Kudur-Lagamer; and that, like the latter of these two kings, he made war in the direction of Syria, though he may not have carried his arms so far as his great predecessor. He and his sou both held their court at Ur,6 and, though of foreign origin, maintained the Chaldaean religion unchanged, making additions to the ancient temples, and worshipping the Chakhean gods under the old titles. The circumstances which brought the Elamitic dynasty to a close, and restored the Chakkean throne to a line of native princes, are unrecorded by any historian; nor have the monu- ments hitherto thrown any light upon them. If we may trust the numbers of the Armenian Eusebius,7 the dynasty which succeeded, ab. B.C. 2052, to the Susianian (or Median), though it counted eleven kings, bore rule for the short space of forty- eight years only. This would seem to imply either a state of great internal disturbance, or a time during which viceroys, removable at pleasure and often removed, governed the country under some foreign suzerain.8 In either case, the third dynasty of Berosus may be said to mark a transition period between the time of foreign subjection and that of the recovery by the native C'hakheans of complete independence. To the fourth Berosian dynasty, which held the throne for 458 * It is not, perhaps, quite certain that Sinti-shil-lchak was a Chaldaean monarch. His name appears only in the inscriptions of his son, Kutlur-Mabuk, where he is not given the title of king. 'Martu certainly means either "the "West" generally, or Syria in particular, which was the most western country known to the early Babylonians. Apili is perhaps connected with .the Hebrew moi which in the Hiphil has the sense of " destroy" or " ravage." 4 The inscriptions of Kudur-Mabuk and Arid-Sin have been found only at Mughcir, the ancient Ur. (See British Mus. Series, vol. i. Pl. 2, No. iii., and Pl. 5. No. xvi.) 'It is true that the number 48 oc- curs only in the margin of the Armenian MS. But the inserter of that number must have had it before him in some copy of Eusebius; for he could not have conjectured it from the number of the kings. s ComIMire the rapid succession in the seventh dynasty, which is given (par- tially ) in the Canon of Ptolemy, more fully in the fragments of Berosus and Poly- histor. M 2 164 Chai\ vin. THE FIRST MONARCHY. years, from about B.C. 2004 to B.C. 154(1, the monuments enable us to assign some eight or ten monarchs, whose inscriptions are characterised by a general resemblance, and by a character intermediate between the extreme rudeness of the more ancient and the comparative elegance and neatness of the later legends. Of these kings one of the earliest was a certain Ismi-dagon, the date of whose reign we are able to fix with a near approach to exactness. Sennacherib, in a rock inscription at Bavian, relates that in his tenth year (which was B.C. 692) he recovered from Babylon certain images of the gods which had been carried thither by Merodach-iddin-akhi, King of Babylon, after his defeat of Tiglath-Pileser, King of Assyria, 418 years previously. And the same Tiglath-Pileser relates, that he rebuilt a temple in Assyria, which had been taken down tO years before, after it had lasted 641 years from its foundation by Shamas-Vul, son of Ismi-dagon.9 It results from these numbers, that Ismi-dagon was king as early as B.C. 1850, or, probably, a little earlier.10 The monuments furnish little information concerning Ismi- dagon, beyond the evidence which they afford of the extension of this king's dominion into the upper part of the Mesopotamian valley, and especially into the country known in later times as Assyria. The fact that Shamas-Vul, the son of Ismi-dagon, built a temple at Kileh-Sherghat, implies necessarily that the Chaldaeans at this time bore sway in the upper region. Shamas- Vul appears to have been, not the eldest, but the second son of the monarch, and must be viewed as ruling over Assyria in the capacity of viceroy, either for his father or his brother. Such evidence as we possess of the condition of Assyria about this period seems to show that it was weak and insignificant, administered ordinarily by Babylonian satraps or governors, whose office was one of no great rank or dignity.1 • See the author's Herodotus, vol. i. Essay vi. p. 433, note 10 If Sennacherib's 10th year is B.c. 692, Tiglath-Pilcser's defeat must have heen in B.C. 1110. His restoration of the temple was certainly earlier, for it was at the very beginning of his reign — say b.c. 1120. Add the 60 years during which the building had been in ruins and the 641 during which it had stood, and we have B.C. 1821 for the building of the original temple by Sha- mas-Vul. The date of his lather's ac- cession should be at least 30 years earlier—or b.c. 1851. 1 Three or four tablets of Babylonian Chap. VIII. I65 GURGUNA — NAKAM-SIN. In Chaldaea Ismi-dagon was succeeded by a son, whose name is read, somewhat doubtfully, a* Gunguna or Gurguna.2 This prince is known to us especially as the builder of the great public cemeteries which now form the most conspicuous objects among the nuns of Mugheir, and the construction of which is so remarkable.3 Ismi-dagon and his son must have occupied the Chaldaean throne during most of the later half of the nine- teenth century before our era—from about B.C. 1850 to B.C. 1800. Hitherto there has been no great difficulty in determining the order of the monumental kings, from the position of their bricks in the principal Cbaldaean ruins and the general character of their inscriptions. But the relative place occupied in the series by the later monarchs is rendered very doubtful by their records being scattered and unconnected, while their styles of inscrip- tion vary but slightly. It is most unfortunate that no writer has left us a list corresponding in Babylonian history with that which Manetho put on record for Egyptian; since we are thus compelled to arrange our names in an order which rests on little more than conjecture.4 The monumental king who is thought to have approached the nearest to Gurguna is Naram-Sin, of whom a record has been discovered at Babylon,5 and who is mentioned in a late inscrip- tion 6 as the builder, in conjunction with his father, of a temple at the city of Agana. His date is probably about B.C. 1750. The satraps have been discovered at Kileh- Sherghat. The titles assumed ore said to "belong to the most humble class of dignities." (Sir H. Kawlinson, in the author s Jferoitotus, vol. i. p. 448, note \) 2 For inscriptions of Gurguna, see British Museum Series, vol. i. pi. 2, No. vi. Some doubt has been entertained as to whether this prince was the son or the grandson of Ismi-dagon, but on the whole the verdict of cuneiform scholars has been in favour of the interpretation of these inscriptions which makes him the son. * See above, ch. v. pp. 86-90. * Berosus gave no doubt the complete list; but his names have not been pre- served to us. The brief Chaldantn list in Syncellus (p. 169) probably came from him; but the names seem to have belonged to the first or mythical dynasty. One might have hoped to obtain some help trom Ctesias's Assyrian list, as it went back. at least as far as B.C. 2182, when Assyria was a mere pro- vince of the Chaldaean Empire. But it presents every appearance of an ab- solute forgery, being composed of Arian, Semitic, Egyptian, and Greek appella- tions, with a sprinkling of terms bor- rowed from geography. 'Brit. Mus. .Series, vol. i. pi. 3, No. 7. 8 The fact is recorded by Nabonidus —the Labynetus of Herodotus—on the famous Mugheir cylinder. (Brit. Mus. Series, vol. i. pi. 69; col. 2, 1. 30.) THE FIRST MONARCHY. Chai-. VIH. seat of his court may be conjectured to have been Babylon, which hud by this time risen into metropolitan consequence. It is evident that, as time went on, the tendency was to remove the seat of government and empire to a greater distance from the sea. The early monarchs reign at Ur (Mugheir), and leave no traces of themselves further north than Niffer. Sin-Shada holds his court at Erech (Warka), twenty-five miles above Mugheir; while Naram-Sin is connected with the still more northern city of Babylon. We shall find a similar tendency in Assyria, as it rose into power. In both cases we may regard the fact as indicative of a gradual spread of empire towards the north, and of the advance of civilisation and settled government in that direction. A king, who disputes the palm of antiquity with Naram-Sin, has left various records at Erech or Warka,7 which appeal's to have been his capital city. It is proposed to call him Sin-Shada.8 He constructed, or rather re-built, the upper terrace of the Bowariyeh ruin, or great temple, which Urukh raised at Warka to Beltis; and his bricks are found in the doorway of another large ruin (the Wuswas) at the same place; it is believed, how- ever, that in this latter building they are not in situ, but have been transferred from some earlier edifice.9 His reign fell pro- bably in the latter part of the 18th century B.C. Several monarchs of the Sin series—t. e. monarchs into whose names the word Sin, the name of the Moon-god, enters as an element—now present themselves. The most important of them has been called Zur-Sin. This king erected some buildings at Mugheir; but he' is best known as the founder of the very curious town whose ruins bear at the present day the name of Abu-Shahrein. A. description of the principal buildings at this site has been already given.10 They exhibit certain improve- ments on the architecture of the earlier times, and appear to have been very richly ornamented, at least in parts. At the 7 Brit. Mus. Series, vol. i. pi. .1, No. 8. i certainly a female name. 8 Sin-Shiula seems io have iniine- 9 Loftus, Chaldavx and Susiatia, ch. xvi. diately succeeded a queen. He calls p. 184. himself "son of Bilat0'ut," which is , 10 Sec above, pp. 79, 80. Chap. VIII. ARABIAN DYNASTY. same time they contain among their debris remarkable proofs of the small advance which had as yet been made in some of the simplest arts. Flint knives and other implements, stone hatchets, chisels, and nails, are abundant in the ruins; and though the use of metal is not unknown, it seems to have been comparatively rare. When a metal is found, it is either gold or bronze, no trace of iron (except in ornaments of the person) appeariug in any of the Chaldaeau remains. Zur-Sin, Rim-Sin,1 and three or four other monarchs of the Sin series, whose names • are imperfect or uncertain, may be assigned to the period included between B.C. 1700 and B.C. 1546. Another monarch, and the only other monumental name that we can assign to Berosus's fourth dynasty, is a certain Nur-Vul, who appears by the Chaldaean sale-tablets to have been the immediate predecessor of Rim-Sin, the last king of the Sin series. Nur-Vul has left no buildings or inscriptions; and we seem to see in the absence of all important monuments at this time a period of depression, such as commonly in the history of nations precedes and prepares the way for a new dynasty or a conquest. The remaining monumental kings belong almost certainly to the fifth, or Arabian, dynasty of Berosus, to which he assigns the period of 245 years—from about B.C. 1546 to B.C. 1300. That the list comprises as many as fifteen names, whereas Berosus speaks of nine Arabian kings only, need not surprise us, since it is not improbable that Berosus may have omitted kings who reigned for less than a year.2 To arrange the fifteen monarchs3 in chronological order is, unfortunately, impossible. Only three of them have left monuments. The names of the others are 1 Rim-Sin m7s left a very fine inscrip- tion on a small black tablet, found at Mughcir. (lirit. Mus. Series, vol. i. pi. 3; No. 10.) * A' Ptolemy ilid in his Canon. * Some writers have exaggerated the number of the names to twenty-four or twenty-five. (See Oppert, Expedition rcientifique en Mesopotamie, vol. i. p. 276; and compare Lenormant, Manuel iVHistoire ancienne de V Orientt vol. ii. pp. 25, 32.) But this is by misunder- standing a tablet on which nine of them occur. M. Iionormant obtains thirteen successors to Khammu-rabi (p. 32) by not seeing that the tablet is bilingual, and counting in five translitions of names which he has already reckoned. M. Oppert does not fall into this error, but unduly enlarges his royal list by counting twelve names from the ob- verse of the tablet, which there is no ground for regarding as royal names at all. THE FIRST MONARCHY. Chap. VHI. found on linguistic and other tablets, in a connection which rarely enables us to determine anything with respect to their relative priority or posteriority.4 We can, however, definitely place seven names, two at the beginning and five towards the end of the series, thus leaving only eight whose position in the list is undetermined. The series commences with a great king, named Khanimu- rabi, who was probably the founder of the dynasty, the "Arab" chief, who, taking advantage of the weakness and depression of Chaldaea under the later monarchs of the fourth dynasty, by in- trigue or conquest established his dominion over the country, and left the crown to his descendants. Khammu-rabi is especially remarkable as having been the first (so far as appears) of the Babylonian monarchs to conceive the notion of carrying out a system of artificial irrigation in his dominions, by means of a canal derived from one of the great rivers. The Nahar-Khammu- rabi (" River of Khammu-rabi"), whereof he boasts in one of his inscriptions,5 was no doubt, as he states, "a blessing to the Babylonians"—it " changed desert plains into well-watered fields; it spread around fertility and abundance "—it brought a whole district, previously barren, into cultivation, and it set an example, which the best of the later monarchs followed, of a mode whereby the productiveness of the country might be increased to an almost inconceivable extent, Khammu-rabi was also distinguished as a builder. He re- paired the great temple of the Sun at Senkereh,6 and con- structed for himself a new palace at Kalwadha, or Chilmad, not * Eight royal names follow Khammu- rabi on the tablet above mentioned (see last note). It might have been sup- posed that they would occur in chrono- logical order. But. in fact, Khammu- rabi's successor, his son, Samsu-iluna, is omitted; and Kurri-galzu, the son of Purna-puriyas, who was the third king after his father, is put in the fifth place before him. The order of the names cannot, therefore, be chronological. 5 This inscription is on a white stone in the Museum of the Louvre. It has been published with a comment by M. Menant (Inscriptions de Hammowabi, roi de JJabi/lone, Paris, 1861!), and has also been translated,by M. Oppert in the Expedition, vol. i. pp. 2ti7, 268. M. Lenormant assumes without reason (Manuel, vol. ii. p. 31) the identity of the Nahar-KIuimmumbi with the AuAj-- Malchu of Nebuchadnezzar. * See Brit. Mm. Series, vol. i. pi. 4, No. xv.; Inscr. 2 (translated by M. Op- pert, Expedition, vol. i. p. 267); and compare the cylinder of Nabonidus. (Brit, M. Series, vol . i. p1 . 69, col. ii. 1. 1.) Chap. VIII. ARABIAN DYNASTY. 1 169 far from the modern Baghdad.7 His inscriptions have been found at Babylon, at Zerghul, and at Tel-Sifr; and it is thought pro- bable that he made Babylon his ordinary place of residence. His reign probably covered the space from about B.C. 154b' to B.C. 1520, when he left his crown to his son, Sainsu-iluna. Of this monarch our notices are exceedingly scanty. We know him only from the Tel-Sifr clay tablets, several of which are dated by the years of his reign. He held the crown probably from about B.C. 1520 to B.C. 1500. About sixty or seventy years after this we come upon a group of names, belonging almost certainly to this same dynasty, which possess a peculiar interest, inasmuch as they serve to connect the closing period of the First, or Chaldaean, with the opening portion of the Second, or Assyrian, Monarchy. A succession of five Babylonian monarchs is mentioned on an Assyrian tablet, the object of which is to record the synchronous history of the two countries.8 These monarchs are contemporary with inde- pendent Assyrian princes, and have relations towards them which are sometimes peaceful, sometimes warlike. Kara-in-das, the first of the five, is on terms of friendship with Asshur-bel-nisi-su, king of Assyria, and concludes with him a treaty of alliance. This treaty is renewed between his successor, Purna-puriyas, and Buzur-Asshur, the successor of Asshur-bel-nisi-su on the throne of Assyria. Not long afterwards a third Assyrian monarch, Asshur-upallit, obtains the crown, and Purna-puriyas not only continues on the old terms of amity with him, but draws the ties which unite the two royal families closer by marrying Asshur-upallit's daughter. The issue of this marriage is a prince named Kara-khar-das, who, on the death of Purna-puriyas, ascends the throne of Babylon. But now a revolution occurs. A certain Nazi-bugas rises in revolt, puts Kara-khar-das to death, and succeeds in making himself king. Hereupon Asshur-upallit takes up arms, invades Babylonia, defeats and kills Nazi-bugas, and places upon the throne a brother of the murdered Kara- khar-das, a younger son of Purna-puriyas, by name Kurri-galzu, 7 Brit. M. Series, vol. i. pi. 4, No. xv. Ins. 3. 8 Ibid. vol. ii. p. 65. i ;o Our. VIII. THE FIRST MONARCHY. or Durri-galzu. These events may be assigned with much pro- bability to the period between B.C. 1440 and B.C. 1380.10 Of the five consecutive monarchs presented to our notice iu this interesting document, two are known to us by their own inscriptions. Memorials of Purna-puriyas and Kurri-galzu, very similar in their general character, have been found in various parts of Chaldaea. Those of Purna-puriyas come from Senkereh,1 the ancient Larsa, and consist of bricks, showing that he repaired the great temple of the Sun at that city—which was originally built by Urukh. Kurri-galzu's memorials comprise bricks from Mugheir (Ur) and Akker- kuf,2 together with his sig- net-seal, which was found at Baghdad in the year 18G0.3 It also appears by an inscription of Naboni- dus4 that he repaired a Signet-seal of Kurri-galzu, King of Babylon. temple at the city of Agana, and left an inscription there. But the chief fame of Kurri-galzu arises from his having been the founder of an important city. The remarkable remains at Akkerkuf, of which an account has been given in a former chapter,4 mark the site of a town of his erection. It is conjec- tured with some reason that this place is the Dur-Kurri-galzu of the later Assyrian inscriptions—a place of so much consequence in the time of Sargon that he calls it "the key of the country." The remaining monarchs, who are on strong grounds of pro- 10 The position of the kings, Asshur- bel-nisi-su. Buzur-Asshur, and Asshur- upallit.in the Assyrian list, has been defi- nitely fixed by Mr. G. Smith'sdiscovery in 1869ofan inscription of Pudiel, in which he states that Asshur-upallit was his grandfather. We have thus now a con- tinuous succession from Asshur-bel-nisi- su to Tiglathi-Nin, the conqueror of Babylon; and as this conquest is fixed to about b.C. 1300, wo can count liack to Asshur-bel-nisi-su by allowing an average of twenty years to a reign, and approximately fix his date as from B.C. 1440 to 1420. 1 Brit. Mus. Series, vol. i. pi. 4, No. xiii. 2 Ibid. pi. 4, No. xiv. 3 The inscription on the seal is read as follow s :— " Kurri-galzu, king of , son of Purna-puriyas, king of Babylon." (See Brit. Mus. Series, vol. i., Table of Contents, p1 . 4, No. xiv.) 4 Ibid. pi. 69, col. ii. 1. 32. s See above, p. 21. The bricks of Kurri-galzu are not found, however, in the great ruin, which is most pro- bably a Parthian work. Chap. VIII. 171 TABLE OF KINGS. Kings of Ciiald.ea. B.C. to B.C (Cualdamn) IX (Elamite) 2286 IlI. rv. (Chaldaean) V. (Arab) 2052 2004 1546 2286 2052 2004 1546 1801 1300 Nimrod Urukh .. Ilgi (son). Kudur-Nakhunta (Zoro-uoter) * • * * Kudur-Lagamer .. « » • • Sinti-shil-khak. Kudur-Mabuk (son) Arid-Sin (son). * * * * * * * * » * * • • * • * » • » * Ismi-dagnn Gurguna (son) • • • * Naram-Sin. * * • * Bilat * * at! a queen). Sin-Shada (son). * • » » Zur-Sin. Nur-Vul Rim-Sin Khammu-rabi Samsu-iluna (son) * * # * * * * # Kara-in-das Furna-puriyas Kara-khnr-das (son) Nuzi-bugas Kurri-galzu (brother of Kara kliar-dasj Events, &c. Founds the Empire. Builds numerous temples. Conquers Chakhna, B.C. 2286. !Contemporary with Abra- ham. Makes twu expedi- tious into Syria. Wars in Syria. 1 Reigns from about B.C. 1850 \ to 1830. 'His brother, Shamas-Vul, \ rules in Assyria. (Reigns from about u.C. 1586 I to 1566. Beigns from about B.C. 1560 to 1546. /Reigns from about u.c. 1546 \ to 1520. 1 Reigns from about B.C. 1520 I to 1500. Contemporary with Asshur- v bel-nisi-su, ab. B.C. 1440. I Contemporary with Buzur- \ Asshur, B.C. 1420-1400. Contemporary with Asshur- upallit, B.C. 1400-1380. 1 Clmldrra conquered by \ Tiglathi-Nin. 172 Chap. VIII. THE FIRST MONARCHY. bability, etymological and other, assigned to this dynasty are Saga-raktiyas,6 the founder of a Temple of the male and female Sun at Sippara,7 Ammidi-kaga, Simbar-sikhu, Kharbi-sikhu, Ulam-puriyas, Nazi-urdas,Mili-sikhu, and Kara-kharbi. Nothing is known at present of the position which any of these monarchs held in the dynasty, or of their relationship to the kings pre- viously mentioned, or to each other. Most of them are known to us simply from their occurrence in a bilingual list of kings, together with Khammu-rabi, Kurri-galzu, and Purna-puriyas. The list in question appears not to be chronological.8 Modern research has thus supplied us with memorials (or at any rate with the names) of some thirty kings, who ruled in the country properly termed Chaldaea at a very remote date. Their antiquity is evidenced by the character of their buildings and of their inscriptions, which are unmistakably rude and archaic. It is further indicated by the fact that they are the builders of certainly the most ancient edifices whereof the country contains any trace. The probable connexion of two of them9 with the only king known previously from good authority to have reigned in the country during the primitive ages confirms the conclusion drawn from the appearance of the remains themselves; which is further strengthened by the monumental dates assigned to two10 of them, which place them respectively in the twenty-third and the nineteenth century before our era. That the kings belong to one series, and (speaking broadly) to one time, is evidenced by the similarity of the titles which they use, by their unin- terrupted worship of the same gods, and by the general resem- blance of the language and mode of writing which they employ.1 1 6 Saga-raktiyas is by some regarded as the father of Xaram-Sin (Oppert, £xpeditiou, vol. i. p. 273, note1; Le- normant, Manuel, vol. ii. p. 27). But the foundation of this notion is the identification of a temple bearing the name of Ulauis at Agana, with a temple of the same name at Sippara. Agana and Sippara must, however, have been distinct cities. 'Brit, .Hus. Series, vol. i. pi. 69, col. iii. 1. 20. 'See above, p. lti8, note * Kudur-Nakhunta, and Kudur- Mabuk, who are certainly to be eon- turted with the Chedor-laomer (Kudur- Lagamer) of Scripture. (See above, pp. 162, 163.) 10 Kudur-Nakhunta and Ismi-dagon. (See page 164.) 11 Sir H. Bawlinson says:—"All the kings whose monuments are found in ancient Chalda?a used the same language and the same form of writing; they professed the same religion, inhabited the same cities, and followed the same traditions. Temples built in the earliest Chap. VIII. PROBABLE NUMBER OF THE KINGS. 173 That the time to which they belong is anterior to the rise of Assyria to greatness appears from the synchronism of the later monarchs of the Chaldnean with the earliest of the Assyrian list, as well as from the fact that the names borne by the Babylonian kings after Assyria became the leading power in the country are not only different, but of a different type. If it be objected that the number of thirty kings is insufficient for the space over which they have in our scheme been spread, we may answer that it has never been supposed by any one that the twenty-nine or thirty kings, of whom distinct mention has been made in the foregoing account, are a complete list of all the Chaldaean sove- reigns. On the contrary, it is plain that they are a very incom- plete list, like that which Herodotus gives of the kings of Egypt, or that which the later Romans possessed of their early monarchs. The monuments themselves present indications of several other names of kings, belonging evidently to the same series,1 which are too obscure or too illegible for transliteration. And there may, of course, have been many others of whom no traces remain, or of whom none have been as yet found. On the other hand, it may be observed, that the number of the early Chaldoean kings reported by Polyhistor2 is preposterous. If sixty-eight consecutive monarchs held the Chaldaean throne between B.C. 228i5 and b.C. 1546, they must have reigned on an average less than eleven years apiece. Nay, if forty-nine ruled between B.C. 2001 and B.C. 1546, covering a space of little more than four centuries and a half—which is what Berosus is made to assert— these later monarchs cannot even have reigned so long as ten years each, an average which may be pronounced quite impossible in a settled monarchy such as the Chaldrcan. The probability would seem to be that Berosus has been misreported, his numbers having suffered corruption during their passage through so many hands,3 and being in this instance quite untrustworthy. We times received the veneration of suc- cessive generations, and were repaired and adorned by a long series of monarchs, even down to the time of the Semitic Nabonidus." (Kawlinson's Herodotus, To1 . i. Essay vi. p 441.) 1 See the author's Herodotus, vol. i. p. 440. 2 See the fragments of this writer preserved by Eusebius (Onon. Can. pars i. c. 4). 3 The words of Polyhistor are re- THE FIRST MONARCHY. Chap. VIII- may conjecture that the actual number of reigns which he intended to allow his fourth dynasty was nineteen,4 or at the utmost twenty-nine, the former of which numbers would give the common average of twenty-four years, while the latter would produce the less usual but still possible one of sixteen years. The monarchy, which we have had under review, is one, no doubt, rather curious from its antiquity than illustrious from its great names, or admirable for the extent of its dominions. Less ancient than the Egyptian, it claims the advantage of priority over every empire or kingdom which has grown up upon the soil of Asia. The Arian, Turanian, and even the Semitic tribes appear to have been in the nomadic condition, when the Cushite settlers in Lower Babylonia betook themselves to agri- culture, erected temples, built cities, and established a strong and settled government. The leaven which was to spread by degrees through the Asiatic peoples was first deposited on the shores of the Persian Gulf at the mouth of the "Great Kiver;" 4 and hence civilisation, science, letters, art, extended themselves northward, and eastward, and westward. Assyria, Media, Semitic Babylonia, Persia, as they derived from Chaldaea the character of their writing,6 so were they indebted to the same country for their general notions of government and administration, for their architecture, their decorative art,, and still more for their science and literature. Each people no doubt modified in some measure the boon received, adding more or less of its own to the common inheritance. But Chaldaea stands forth as the great parent aud ported to us by Eusebius in a work (his Chronica} the original of which is lost, and which we have onlv in an Armenian toribus." (Fragm. Hist. Gr. vol. ii. p. 496.) * The change of AS into A0 is one version. Polyhistor himself does not very likely to occur, and has numerous appear to have read the work of He- I parallels. rosus. He derives his knowledge of it from Apollodorus. Thus we have Be- rosus at fifth hand—through Apollo- dorus, Polyhistor, Eusebius, and the Armenian translator. Hence the ex- Gen, xv. 18; Deut. i. 7; Josh. i. 4. « The alphabets, as well as the languages, of these various races differ; but, as all assume the wedge as the ultimate element out of which their cellent advice of C. Miiller—" Igitur letters are formed, it seems almost cer- cum per tot manas migraverint qua? ad tain that they learnt the art of writing nos perdurarant fragmenta. haud mira- from one another. If so, Chalda?a has beris variis modis verba Berosi defor- on every ground the best claim to be mata esse, caventlumque ne Beroso im- regarded as the teacher of the others, putcmus qua? sunt imputanda excerp- , Chap. VIII. 175 GENERAL RESULTS. original inventress of Asiatic civilisation, without any rival that can reasonably dispute her claims. The great men of the Empire are Nimrod, Urukh, and Chedor- laomer. Nimrod, the founder, has the testimony of Scripture that he was " a mighty one in the earth ;"7 "a mighty hunter;"8 the establisher of a "kingdom," when kingdoms had scarcely begun to be known; the builder of four great and famous cities, "Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar,"9 or Mesopotamia. To him belongs the merit of selecting a site peculiarly fitted for the development of a great power in the early ages of the world,10 and of binding men together into a community which events proved to possess within it the ele- ments of prosperity and permanence. Whether he had, indeed, the rebellious and apostate character which numerous traditions, Jewish, Arabian, and Armenian,1 assign to him; whether he was in reality concerned in the building of the tower related in the eleventh chapter of the Book of Genesis,8 we have no means of positively determining. The language of Scripture with regard to Nimrod is laudatory rather than the contrary;3 and it would seem to have been from a misapprehension of the nexus of the Mosaic narrative that the traditions above mentioned originated.4 Nimrod, "the mighty hunter before the Lord," had 'Gen. x. 8. • lb. verse 9. • lb. verse 10. u In later times, when civilisation was more advanced, less fruitful tracts may, by calling forth men's powers, have produced the most puissant rnces (see Hero l. ix. ad fin.); but in the first apes only fertile regions could nurture and develop greatness. Elsewhere man's life was a struggle for bare existence. 1 Josephus makes Nimrod the prime mover in the building of the tower (Ant. Jud. i. 4, § 2). The Targums generally take the same view. Some of the Arabic traditions have been already mentioned. 'Supra, p. 15+, note6.} The Armenian account will be found in Moses of Cho- rene, who, identifying Nimrod with Belus, proceeds to describe him as the chief of the Giants, by whom the tower was built, proud and fierce, and of in- satiable ambition, engaged in perpetual wars with his neighbours. (Hist, Armen. i. 6-10.) * Gen. xi. 1-9. 1 Nimrod is called 11a mighty one in the earth," and "a mighty hunter before the Lord." Many commentators have observed that the phrase in italics is almost always used in a good sense, implying the countenance and favour of God, and his blessing on the work which is said to have beeu done " before" him, or " in his sight." 'Commentators seem generally to have supposed that the building, or attempt to build, described in Gen. xi. 1-9, is the building of Babel ascribed to Nimrod in Gen. x. 10. But this cannot be so: for in Gen. xi. we are told, " they left off to build the city." The truth seems to be that the tenth chapter is parenthetical, and the author in ch. xi. takes up the narrative from ch. ix., going back to a time not long after the Deluge. 176 Chap. VIII. THE FIRST MONARCHY. not in the days of Moses that ill reputation which attached to him in later ages, when ho was regarded as the great Titan or Giant, who made war upon the gods, and who was at once the builder of the tower, and the persecutor who forced Abraham to quit his original country. It is at least doubtful whether we ought to allow any weight at all to the additions and embellish- ments with which later writers, so much wiser than Moses, have overlaid the simplicity of his narrative. Urukh, whose fame may possibly have reached the Romans,5 was the great Chaldaean architect. To him belongs, apparently, the conception of the Babylonian temple, with its rectangular base, carefully placed so as to present its angles to the four cardinal points, its receding stages, its buttresses, its drains, its sloped walls, its external staircases for ascent, and its ornamental shrine crowning the whole. At any rate, if he was not the first to conceive and erect such structures, he set the example of building them on such a scale and with such solidity as to secure their long continuance, and render them well nigh imperishable. There is no appearance in all Chaldaea, so far as it has been explored, of any building which can be even probably assigned to a date anterior to Urukh. The attempted tower was no doubt earlier; and it may have been a building of the same type;6 but there is no reason to believe that any remnant, or indeed any trace, of this primitive edifice, has continued to exist to our day. The structures of the most archaic character throughout Chaldaea are, one and all, the work of King Urukh; who was not content to adorn his metropolitan city only with one of the new edifices, but added a similar ornament to each of the great cities within his empire.7 The great builder was followed shortly by the great conqueror. Kudur-Lagamer, the Elamitic prince, who, more than twenty centuries before our era, having extended his domiuion over Babylonia and the adjoining regions, marched an army a dis- * If, that is, the Orchamus of Ovid, Babel" in Smith's Dictionary of the is really to be connected with the word Bible, vol. i. pp. 158-160. now read as Urukh. ''See above, p. 156. * See the article on the "Tower of ( Chap. Till. 177 GREAT MEN OF THE EMPIRE. tanee of 1200 miles8 from the shores of the Persian Gulf to the Dead Sea, and held Palestine and Syria in subjection for twelve years, thus effecting conquests which were not again made from the same quarter till the time of Nebuchadnezzar, fifteen or sixteen hundred years afterwards, has a good claim to be re- garded as one of the most remarkable personages in the world's history—being, as he is, the forerunner and prototype of all those great Oriental conquerors who from time to time have built up vast empires in Asia out of heterogeneous materials, which have in a longer or a shorter space successively crumbled to decay. At a time when the kings of Egypt had never ventured beyond their borders, unless it were for a foray in Ethiopia,9 and when in Asia no monarch had held dominion over more than a few petty tribes, and a few hundred miles of territory, he con- ceived the magnificent notion of binding into one the manifold nations inhabiting the vast tract which lies between the Zagros mountain-range and the Mediterranean. Lord by inheritance (as we may presume) of Elam and Chaldiea or Babylonia, he was • not content with these ample tracts, but, coveting more, pro- ceeded boldly on a career of conquest up the Euphrates valley, and through Syria, into Palestine. Successful here, he governed for twelve years dominions extending near a thousand miles from east to west, and from north to south probably not much short of five hundred. It is true that he was not able to hold this large extent of territory; but the attempt and the success temporarily attending it are memorable circumstances, and were probably long held in remembrance through Western Asia, where they served as a stimulus and incentive to the ambition of later monarchs. These, then, are the great men of the Chnldaean empire. Its extent, as we have seen, varied greatly at different periods. Under the kings of the first dynasty—to which Urukh and Ilgi belonged—it was probably confined to the alluvium, which seems * The march would necessarily be [ is not more than 800 miles; but the along the Euphrates to the latitude desert cannot tie crossed by an army, (nearly) of Aleppo, and then down 8 See the "Historical Essay" of Sir Syria to the Dead Sea. This is 1200 G. Wilkinson, in the author's Herodotus, miles. The direct distance by the desert vol. ii. pp. 3-11-351. VOL. I. N i78 Chap. Vill. THE FIRST MONARCHY. then to have been not more than 300 miles in length along the course of the rivers,10 and which is about 70 or 80 miles in breadth from the Tigris to the Arabian desert. In the course of the second dynasty it received a vast increase, being carried in one direction to the Elamitic mountains, and in another to the Medi- terranean, by the conquests of Kudur-Nakhunta and Chedor- laomer. On the defeat of the latter prince it again contracted, though to what extent we have no means of determining. It is probable that Elam or Susiana, and not unlikely that the Euphrates valley, for a considerable distance above Hit, formed parts of the Chaldaean Empire after the loss of Syria and Pales- tine. Assyria occupied a similar position, at any rate from the time of Ismi-dagon, whose sou built a temple at Kileh-Sherghat or Asshur. There is reason to think that the subjection of Assyria continued to the very end of the dynasty, and that this region, whose capital was at Kileh-Sherghat, was adminis- tered by viceroys deriving their authority from the Chaldaean monarchs.1 These monarchs, as has been already observed,2 gradually remove their capital more and more northwards; by which it would appear as if their empire tended to progress iu that direction. The different dynasties which ruled in Chaldaea prior to the establishment of Assyrian influence, whether Chaldaean, Susia- nian, or Arabian, seem to have been of kindred race; and, whether they established themselves by conquest, or in a more peaceful manner, to have made little, if any, change in the lan- guage, religion, or customs of the Empire. The so-called Arab kings, if they are really (as we have supposed), Khammu-rabi and his successors, show themselves by their names and their inscriptions to be as thoroughly proto-Chaldaean as Urukh or Ilgi. But with the commencement of the Assyrian period the case is altered. From the time of Tiglathi-Nin (about B.C. 1300), the Assyrian conqueror who effected the subjugation of Babylon, a strong Semitising influence made itself felt in the lower country—the monarchs cease to have Turanian or Cushite and 10 Compare oh. i. p. 4. 1 Supra, p. 164, note '. 2 P. 16U. ClIAP. VIII. 179 FALL OF THE EMPIRE. bear instead thoroughly Assyrian names; inscriptions, when they occur, are in the Assyrian language and character. The entire people seems by degrees to have been Assyrianised, or at any rate Semitised—assimilated, that is, to the stock of nations » to which the Jews, the northern Arabs, the Aramaeans or Syrians, the Phoenicians, and the Assyrians belong. Their lan- guage fell into disuse, and grew to be a learned tongue, studied by the priests and the literati; their Cushite character was lost, and they became, as a people, scarcely distinguishable from the Assyrians.3 After six centuries and a half of submission and insignificance, the Chaldamns, however, began to revive and re- cover themselves—they renewed the struggle for national inde- pendence, and in the year B.C. 625 succeeded in establishing a second kingdom, which will be treated of in a later volume, as the fourth or Babylonian Monarchy. Even when this monarchy met its death at the hands of Cyrus the Great, the nationality of the Chaldaeans was not swept away. We find them recognised under the Persians,4 and even under the Parthians,5 as a distinct people. When at last they cease to have a separate national existence, their name remains; and it is in memory of the suc- cessful cultivation of their favourite science by the people of Nimrod from his time to that of Alexander, that the professors of astronomical and astrological learning under the Roman Emperors receive, from the poets and historians of the time, the appellation of "Chaldaeans."0 3 Hence Herodotus* always regards the Babylonians as Assyrians, and Baby- lonia as a district of Assyria. (See i. 106, 178, 188, 192, &c.; iii. 92 and 135,} * Herod, vii. 63. 'Strab. xvi. 1, § 6; Plin. //. N. vi. 28. 8 Juv. Sat. vi. 552; x. 94; Tacit. Ann. ii. 27: iii. 22; vi. 20. &c.; Sueton. lit. Vitell.U; I'it. Vomit. 14. N 2 THE SECOND MONARCHY. ASSYRIA. CHAPTER I. DESCRIPTION OF THE COUNTRY. 11 Tpm)fiopiri tf 'Affffvp'ir} xfy7! rV ^vydfiti tt)s & is 'Aa'nIs."—Htnou. i. 192. The site of the second—or great Assyrian—monarchy was the tipper portion of the Mesopotamian valley. The cities which successively formed its capitals lay, all of them, upon the middle Tigris; and the heart of the country was a district on either side that river, enclosed within the thirty-fifth and thirty-seventh parallels. By degrees these limits were enlarged; and the term, Assyria, came to be used, in a loose and vague way, of a vast and ill-defined tract extending on all sides from this central region. Herodotus1 considered the whole of Babylouia to be a mere district of Assyria. Pliny2 reckoned to it all Mesopotamia. Strabo8 gave it, besides these regions, a great portion of Mount Zagros (the modern Kurdistan) and all Syria as far as Cilicia, Judaea, and Phoenicia. a If, leaving the conventional, which is thus vague and un- 'Herod, i. 106, 192; iii. 92. 'Airi and Calachenu, and Chazeni', and Adia- BafSv\&vos Si xal tt/s Aonrrjf 'Aaavpiris. bene—and the Mesopotninian nations 2 Plin. Hist. Nat. vi . 26. "Mesopo- about the Gordiieans, and the Mygdo- tamia tota Assyriorum fuit." nians about Nisibis, as far as the passage 3 Strabo says: "The Assyrians ad- of the Euphrates, and a great part of the join on Persia and Susiana; for by this - country beyond the Euphrates (which is name they call Babylonia, and a vast | in possession of the Arabs), and the tract of the surrounding country, in- people now called by way of distinction eluding Aturia (which contains Nineveh) Syrians, reaching to Cilicia, and Pba> and Apollonias, and the Elyma?ans, and nicia, and Judaea, and to the sea over the Panetaca?, and the district about against the sea of Egypt and the gulf of Mount Zagros called Chalonitis, and the Issus," (Gi'ograph. xvi. 1, § 1.) plain tracts near Nineveh—Dolomene, . Chap. I. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF ASSYRIA. l8l satisfactory, we seek to find certain natural limits which we may regard as the proper boundaries of the country, in two directions we seem to perceive an almost unmistakable line of demarca- tion. On the east the high mountain-chain of Zagros, pene- trable only in one or two places, forms a barrier of the most marked character, and is beyond a doubt the natural limit for which we are looking. On the south a less striking, but not less clearly defined, line—formed by the abutment of the upper and slightly elevated plain on the alluvium of the lower valley * —separates Assyria from Babylonia, which is best regarded as a distinct country. In the two remaining directions, there is more doubt as to the most proper limit. Northwards, we may either view Mount Masius as the natural boundary, or the course of the Tigris from Diarbekr to Til, or even perhaps the Armenian mountain-chain north of this portion of the Tigris, from whence that river receives its early tributaries.5 Westward, we might confine Assyria to the country watered by the affluents of the Tigris,6 or extend it so as to include the Khabour and its tributaries, or finally venture to carry it across the whole of Mesopotamia, and make it be bounded by the Euphrates. On the whole it is thought that in both the doubtful cases the wider limits are historically the truer ones. Assyrian remains cover the entire country between the Tigris and the Khabour, and are frequent on both banks of the latter stream, giving un- mistakable indications of a long occupation of that region by the great Mesopotamian people. The inscriptions show that even a wider tract was in process of time absorbed by the con- querors; and if we are to draw a line between the country actually taken into Assyria, and that which was merely con- quered and held in subjection, we can select no better boundary than the Euphrates westward, and northward the snowy moun- tain-chain known to the ancients as Mons Niphates. If Assyria be allowed the extent which is here assigned to * Supra, p. 3. * Supra, p. 9. 6 This is the division adopted in the geographical essay, contained in vol. i. of the author's Herodotus (p. 569). It was thought most suitable to a general review of the geography of Western Asia; but is less adapted to a special account of the empire of the Assyrians. 182 Chap. I. THE SECOND MONARCHY. her, she will be a country, not only very much larger than Chaldea or Babylonia, but, positively, of considerable dimensions. Beaching on the north to the thirty-eighth and on the south to the thirty-fourth parallel, she had a length diagonally from Diarbekr to the alluvium of 350 miles, and a breadth between the Euphrates and Mount Zagros varying from about 300 to 170 miles. Her area was probably not less than 75,000 square miles, which is more than double that of Portugal, and not much below that of Great Britain. She would thus from her mere size be calculated to play an important part in history; and the more so, as during the period of her greatness scarcely any nation, with which she came in contact, possessed nearly so extensive a territory. Within the limits here assigned to Assyria, the face of the country is tolerably varied. Possessing, on the whole, perhaps, a predominant character of flatness, the territory still includes some important ranges of hills, while on two sides it abuts upon lofty mountain-chains. Towards the north and east it is pro- vided by nature with an ample supply of 'water; rills everywhere flowing from the Armenian and Kurdish ranges, which soon collect into rapid and abundant rivers. The central, southern, and western regions are, however, less bountifully supplied; for though the Euphrates washes the whole western and south- western frontier, it spreads fertility only along its banks; and though Mount Masius sends down upon the Mesopotamian plain a considerable number of streams, they form iu the space of 200 miles between Balis and Mosul but two rivers, leaving thus large tracts to languish for want of the precious fluid. The vicinity of the Arabian and Syrian deserts is likewise felt in these regions, which, left to themselves, tend to acquire the desert character, and have occasionally been regarded as actual parts of Arabia.7 The chief natural division of the country is that made by the Tigris, which, having a course nearly from north to south, between Til and Samarah, separates Assyria into a western and 'Xenophon, Anab. i. 5, § 1 ; Plin. //. A", v. 24; Strab. xvi. 1, § 26. Chap. I. CHIEF DIVISIONS — EASTERN AND WESTERN". 183 an eastern district. Of these two, the eastern or that upon the left bank of the Tigris, although considerably the smaller, has always been the more important region. Comparatively narrow at first, it broadens as the course of the river is descended, till it attains about the thirty-fifth parallel a width of 130 or 140 miles. It consists chiefly of a series of rich and productive plains, lying along the courses of the various tributaries which flow from Mount Zagros into the Tigris, and often of a semi- alluvial character. These plains are not, however, continuous. Detached ranges of hills, with a general direction parallel to the Zagros chain, intersect the flat rich country, separating the plains from one another, and supplying small streams8 and brooks in addition to the various rivers, which, rising within or beyond the great mountain barrier, traverse the plains on their way to the Tigris. The hills themselves—known now as the Jebel Maklub, the Ain-es-sufra, the Karachok, &c.—are for the most part bare and sterile. In form they are hogbacked, and viewed from a distance have a smooth and even outline; but on a nearer approach they are found to be rocky and rugged. Their limestone sides are furrowed by innumerable ravines, and have a dry and parched appearance, being even in spring generally naked and without vegetation. The sterility is most marked on the western flank, which faces the hot rays of the afternoon sun; the eastern slope is occasionally robed with a scanty covering of dwarf oak or stunted brushwood.9 In the fat soil of the plains the rivers commonly run deep and concealed from view,1 unless in the spring and the early summer, when through the rains and the melting of the snows in the mountains they are greatly swollen, and run bank full, or even overflow the level country. The most important of these rivers are the following:—the 'The most important of these is the Khosr. or river of Koyunjik, which, rising from the Ain Sifni hills beyond the Jebel Maklub, forces its way through that range, and after washing Khor- sabad, and crossing the great plain, winds round the eastern base of the mound at Koyunjik, and then runs on to the Tigris. It is a narrow and sluggish stream, but deep, and only ford able about Koyunjik in a few places. (Sec Layard's Ainezeh and Babylon, p. 77; and com- pare the view of the ruins of Nineveh, infra, p. 255.) 0 Layard. p. 222. 1 Ibid. p. 223. THE SECOND MONARCHY. Chap. I. Kurnib or Eastern Khabour, which joins the Tigris in lat. 37° 12'; the Greater Zab (Zab Ala), which washes the ruins of Nimrud, and enters the main stream almost exactly in lat. 36°; the Lesser Zab (Zab Asfal), which effects its junction about lat. 35° 15'; the Adhem, which is received a little below Samarah, about lat. 34°; and the Diyaleh, which now joins below Baghdad, but from which branches have sometimes entered the Tigris a very little below the mouth of the Adhem. Of these streams the most northern, the Khabour, runs chiefly in an un- traversed country—the district between Julamerik and the Tigris. It rises a little west of Julamerik in one of the highest mountain districts of Kurdistan, and runs with a general south- westerly course to its junction with another large branch, which reaches it from the district immediately west of Amadiyeh; it then flows due west, or a little north of west, to Zakko, and, bending to the north after passing that place, flows once more in a south-westerly direction until it reaches the Tigris. The direct distance from its source to its embouchure is about 80 miles; but that distance is more than doubled by its windings. It is a stream of considerable size, broad and rapid, at many seasons not fordable at all and always forded with difficulty.2 The Greater Zab is the most important of all the tributaries of the Tigris. It rises near Konia, in the district of Karasu, about lat. 38° 20/ long. 44° 30', a little west of the watershed which divides the basins of Lakes Van and Urumiyeh. Its general course for the first 150 miles is S.S.W., after which for 25 or 30 miles it runs almost due south through the country of the Tiyari. Near Amadiyeh it makes a sudden turn, and flows S.E. or S.S.E. to its junction with the Rowandiz branch;3 whence, finally, it resumes its old direction, and runs south-west past the Nimrud ruins into the Tigris. Its entire course, exclusive of small windings, is above 350 miles, and of these nearly 100 are across the plain country, which it enters soon • Mr. Ijivnrd forded the Khabour on j 5 Ainsworth, in the Journal of the his way to Moral in 1849. The water Geographical Society, vol. xi. p. 70. Cora- was above the horses' bellies. (Ninevth pare Mr. Layard's large map at the end and Babylon, p. 56.) !of his Nineveh and Babylon. Chap. E RIVERS OF EASTERN" ASSYRIA. after receiving the Rowandiz stream. Like the Khabour, it is fordable at certain places and duriug the summer season; but even then the water reaches above the bellies of horses.4 It is 20 yards wide a little above its junction with the main stream.5 On account of its strength and rapidity the Arabs sometimes call it the " Mad River." * The Lesser Zab has its princilial source near Legwin,7 about twenty miles south of Lake Urumiyeh, in lat. 36° 40', long. 46° 25'. This source is to the east of the great Zagros chain; and it might have been supposed that the waters would neces- sarily flow northward or eastward, towards Lake Urumiyeh, or towards the Caspian. But the Legwin river, called even at its source the Zei or Zab, flows from the first westward, as if deter- mined to pierce the mountain barrier. Failing, however, to find an opening where it meets the range, the Little Zab turns south and even south-east along its base, till about 25 or 30 miles from its source it suddenly resumes its original direction, enters the mountains in lat. 36° 20', and forces its way through the numerous parallel ranges, flowing generally to the S.S.W., till it debouches upon the plain near Arbela, after which it runs S.W. and S.W. by S. to the Tigris. Its course among the mountains is from SO to 90 miles, exclusive of small windings; and it runs more than 100 miles through the plain. Its ordinary width, just above its confluence with the Tigris, is 25 feet.8 The Diyaleh, which lies mostly within the limits that, have been here assigned to Assyria, is formed by the confluence of two principal streams, known respectively as the Holwan, and the Shir wan, river. Of these, the Shirwan seems to be the main branch. This stream rises from the most eastern and highest of the Zagros ranges, in lat. 34° 45', long. 47° 40' nearly. It flows at first west, and then north-west, parallel to the chain, but on entering the plain of Shahrizur, where tributaries join it from the north-east and the north-west, the Shirwan changes its 'Layard, p. 169. 'Chesney, Eu/i/irotes Er/u'tlition, vol. j. p. 24. 'Ibid. p. 22, note *. 1 See the account of its source given by Sir H. Rawlinson, who was the first European to explore this region, in the Journal of the ijeotjraphical Society, vol. x. p. 31. k Chesney, vol. i. p. 25. i £6 Chap, t THE SECOND MONARCHY. course and begins to run south of west, a direction which it pursues till it enters the low country, about lat. 35° 5', near •Semiram. Thence to the Tigris it has a course which in direct distance is 150 miles, and 200 if we include only main windings.9 The whole course cannot be less than 380 miles, which is about the length of the Great Zab river. The width attained, before the confluence with the Tigris, is 60 yards,1 or three times the width of the Greater, and seven times that of the Lesser Zab. On the opposite side of the Tigris, the traveller comes upon a region far less favoured by nature than that of which we have been lately speaking. Western Assyria has but a scanty supply of water; and unless the labour of man is skilfully applied to compensate this natural deficiency, the greater part of the region tends to be, for ten months out of the twelve, a desert. The general character of the country is level, but not alluvial. A line of mountains, rocky and precipitous, but of no great elevation, stretches across the northern part of the region, running nearly due east and west, and extending from the Euphrates at Rum-kaleh to Til and Chelek upon the Tigris. Below this, a vast slightly undulating plain extends from the northern mountains to the Babylonian alluvium, only inter- rupted about midway by a range of low limestone hills called the Sinjar, which leaving the Tigris near Mosul runs nearly from east to west across central Mesopotamia, and strikes the Euphrates half-way between Rakkeh and Kerkesiyeh, nearly in long. 40°. The northern mountain region, called by Strabo "Mons Masius," and by the Arabs the Karajah Dagh towards the west, and towards the east the Jebel Tur, is on the whole a tolerably fertile country.8 It contains a good deal of rocky land; but 'Sec the map attached to Sir H. ! Nicbuhr. (See his Voyage en Arable. Kawlinson's Memoir on the Atropatenian pp. 300-334.) Some careful MS. notes Ecbatana, in the Journal of the Geo- ' have been kindly placed at my disposal graphical Society, vol. x. by Mr. A. D. Berrington, who has tra- 1 Chesney, Euphrates Expedition, vol. versed it. On the general fertility of i. p. 35. the region, compare Xiebuhrs Description 2 This region has been traversed by iie VArabie,*p\i. 134, 135. Strabo's words few, and described by fewer, Europeans. are well weighed, and just meet the case— The best published account which 1 have 'Eoti S'fi ftiv xapuptios eiiSaifiwv Ucwist been able to find is that of the elder xvi. i. § 23. Chap. I. 18.7 RIVERS OF WESTERN ASSYRIA. has abundant springs, and in many parts is well wooded. To- wards the west it is rather hilly than mountainous ;3 but towards the east it rises considerably, and the cone above Mardin is both lofty and striking.4 The waters flowing from the range consist, on the north, of a small number of brooks, which after a short course fall into the Tigris; on the south, of more numerous and more copious streams, which gradually unite, and eventually form two rather important rivers. These rivers are The Khabour, from near Arban. looking north (after Layard). the Belik, known anciently as the Bilecha,5 and the Western Khabour, called Habor in Scripture, and by the classical writers Aborrhas or Chaboras.6 The Belik rises among the hills east of Orfa, about long. 39°, lat. 37° 10'. Its course is at first somewhat east of south; but 1 Niebuhr, Voyage en Arabie, pp. .128-334; Pocock, Description of the East, vol. ii. pp. 158-163; Cheney, Euphrates Expedition, vol. i. p. 107. * Niebuhr, p. 317; Layard. Nineveh and Babylon, p. 51. 5 lsid. Char. p. 3. 0 Aborrhas by Strabo (xvi. i. § 27) and Procopius (Bell. Pars. ii. 5) ; Cha- boras iXonurai] by Pliny (xxx. 3), and Ptolemy (v. 18). Other forms of the word are Aburas ('A/Wpas, Isid. Char, p. 5), and Abora ('Afiupa, Zosiin. iii. 12). THE SECOND MONARCHY. Chap. I. it soon sweeps round, and, passing by the city of Harran—the Haran of Scripture and the classical Carrhie7—proceeds nearly due south to its junction, a few miles below Rakkah, with the Euphrates. It is a small stream throughout its whole course,' which may be reckoned at 100 or 120 miles. The Khabour is a much more considerable river. It collects the waters which flow southward from at least two-thirds of the Mons Masius,9 and ha.s, besides, an important source, which the Arabs regard as the true "hi>ad of the spring,"1 derived appa- rently from a spur of the Sinjar range. This stream, which rises about lat. 36° 40', long. 40°, flows a little south of east to* its junction near Koukab with the Jerujer or river of Nisibis, which comes down from Mons Masius with a course not much west of south. Both of these branches are formed by the union of a number of streams. Neither of them is fordable for some dis- tance above their junction; and below it, they constitute a river of such magnitude as to be navigable for a considerable distance by steamers.8 The course of the Khabour below Koukab is tortuous;3 but its general direction is S. S.W. The entire length of the stream is certainly not less than 200 miles. The country between the "Mons Masius" and the Sinjar range is an undulating plain, from 60 to 70 miles in width, almost as devoid of geographical features as the alluvium of Babylonia. From a height the whole appears to be a dead level:4 but the traveller finds, on descending, that the surface, like that of the American prairies and the Roman Campagna, really rises and falls in a manner which offers a decided con- trast to the alluvial flats nearer the sea. Great portions of the tract are very deficient in water. Only small streams descend from the Sinjar range, and these are soon absorbed by the thirsty soil; so that except in the immediate vicinity of the hills north and south, and along the courses of the Khabour, the Belik, and their affluents, there is little natural fertility, 7 Plin. H. N. v. 24; Dio Cass, xxxvii. , the Ten Thousand, p. 79, note '. 5; Strab. xvi. 1. § 23, &c. iJlas el Ain. (Xiebuhr, p. 316; 8 Chesnvy, Euphrates Expedition, vol. ' Ijiynrd, p. 308; Alniworth, p. 75.) i. p. 48. !Ainsworth, 1.s. c . * Ainsworth, Travels in the Trach of j 'Layard, p. 304. 4 Ibid. p. 51. Chap. I . VOLCANIC HILL OF KOUKAB. and cultivation is difficult. The soil too is often gypsiferous; and its salt and nitrous exudations destroy vegetation ;5 while at the same time the streams and springs are from the same cause for the most part brackish and unpalatable.6 Volcanic action probably did not cease in the region very much, if at all, before the historical period. Fragments of basalt in many places strew the plain; and near the confluence of the two chief branches of the Khabour, not only are old craters of volcanoes distinctly visible, but a cone still rises from the centre Koukab (after Layard). of one, precisely like the cones in the craters of Etna and Vesuvius, composed entirely of loose lava, scoriae, and ashes, and rising to the height of 300 feet. The name of this re- markable hill, which is Koukab, is even thought to imply, that the volcano may have been active within the time to which the traditions of the country extend.7 Sheets of water are so rare in this region that the small lake of Khatouniyeh seems to deserve especial description. This 5 Layard, p. 324. * Ibid. pp. 242, 325. 7 Ibid. p. 308. Koukab is said to signify " a jet of fire or flame." 190 THE SECOND MONARCHY. Chap. I . lake is situated near the point where the Sinjar changes its character, and from a high rocky range subsides into low broken hills. It is of oblong shape, with its greater axis point- ing nearly due east and west, in length about four miles, and in its greatest breadth somewhat less than three.8 The banks • See Mr. Layard's mops at the end of his Nincveh and Babylon. For a ge- neral description of the lake, compare the same work, p. 324. with C. Nirbuhr's Voyage en Arabie, p. 316. Chap. I. 191 SINJAB RANGE. are low and in part marshy, more especially on the side towards the Khabour, which is not more than ten miles distant.9 In the middle of the lake is a hilly peninsula, joined to the main- land by a narrow causeway, and beyond it a small island covered with trees. The lake abounds with fish and waterfowl; and its water, though brackish, is regarded as remarkably whole- some both for man and beast. The Sinjar range, which divides Western Assyria into two plains, a northern and a southern, is a solitary limestone ridge, rising up abruptly from the flat country, which it commands to a vast distance on both sides. The limestone, of which it ia composed, is white, soft, and fossiliferous; it detaches itself in enormous flakes from the mountain-sides, which are sometimes broken into a succession of gigantic steps, while occasionally they present the columnar appearance of basalt.1 The flanks of the Sinjar are seamed with innumerable ravines, and from these small brooks issue, which are soon dispersed by irrigation, or absorbed in the thirsty plains.2 The sides of the mountain are capable of being cultivated by means of terraces, and pro- duce fair crops of corn and excellent fruit; the top is often wooded with fruit-trees or forest-trees.3 Geographically, the Sinjar may be regarded as the continuation of that range of hills which shuts in the Tigris on the west, from Tekrit nearly to Mosul, and then leaving the river strikes across the plain in a direction almost from east to west as far as the town of Sinjar. Here the mountains change their course and bend to the south- west, till having passed the little lake described above, they somewhat suddenly subside,4 sinking from a high ridge into low undulating hills, which pass to the south of the lake, and then disappear in the plain altogether. According to some, the Sinjar here terminates; but perhaps it is best to regard it as rising 9 A long swamp, called the Hoi, ex- p. 423, &c.) tends from the lake to within a short 1 Layard, Nineveh and Babylon, p. 250. distance of the Khabour (Layard, 1. s. c.). 2 Ibid. p. 256. Compare Nineveh and This is probably the Holi, or Hauli of its Remains, vol. i. p. 315, note, some writers, which is represented as a * Layard, Nineveh and Babylon, pp. tributary of the Khabour. (SeeChesncy, I 253-256. Euphrates Expedition, vol. i. p. 51; I * Ibid. p. 265. Journal of Geographical Society, vol. ix. | » 192 Chap, I . THE SECOND MONARCHY. again in the Abd-el-aziz hills,5 which, intervening between the Khabour and the Euphrates, run on in the same south-west direction from Arban to Zelabi. If this be accepted as the true course of the Sinjar, we must view it as throwing out two imliortant spurs. One of these is near its eastern extremity, and runs to the south-east, dividing the plain of Zerga from the great central level. Like the main^chain, it is of limestone; *nd, though low, has several remarkable peaks which serve as landmarks from a vast distance. The Arabs call it Kebritiyeh, or "the Sulphur range," from a sulphurous spring which rises at its foot.6 The other spur is thrown out near the western extremity, and runs towards the north-west, parallel to the course of the upper Khabour, which rises from its flank at Ras-el-Ain.7 The name of Abd-el-aziz is applied to this spur, as well as to the continuation of the Sinjar between Arban and Halebi. It is broken into innumerable valleys and ravines,8 abounding with wild animals, and is scantily wooded with dwarf oak. Streams of water abound ki it. South of the Sinjar range, the country resumes the same level appearance which characterises it betweeu the Sinjar and the Mons Masius. A low limestone ridge skirts the Tigris valley from Mosul to Tekrit,9 and near the Euphrates the country is sometimes slightly hilly;1 but generally the eye travels over a vast slightly undulating level, unbroken by eminences, and supporting but a scanty vegetation. The description of Xeno- phon a little exaggerates the flatness, but is otherwise faithful enough:—" In these parts the country was a plain throughout, as smooth as the sea, and full of wormwood; if any other shrub or reed grew there, it had a sweet aromatic smell; but there was not a tree in the whole region."8 Water is still more This is the view of Colonel Chesney. chalk formation, as is the Abd-el-aziz, (See his Euphrates Expedition, vol. i. p. 105.) 0 Lay Bid, A ineveh and Babylon, p. 242, note, and p. 249. 7 Chesney, Euphrates Expedition, p, 49. according to the same author. (Ibid, p. 105.) - Xen. Anab. i. 5, § 1. 'Ev rovrtp 8f riij r6irtii %y fiiv ri yrj ircSiW, &xav dfiav &airep flaAarra, atytvB'iov 5t x jpts' ci s Layard, JS'ineveh and Babylon, p. 312. 8« ti Kal &Wo hnp 8X17* $ KaAcytov, 0 Ibid. pp. 240, 241. tiaravTa %aav evieSri, &rnrtp apwuara' 1 Chesney, Euphrates Expedition, pp. ' SivUpov 8' ouotv ivrjv. 52, 53. The hills in this region are of j Chap. I . POLITICAL GEOGRAPHY. 193 scarce than in the plains north of the Sinjar. The brooks descending from that range are so weak that they generally lose themselves in the plain before they have run many miles. In one case only do they seem sufficiently strong to form a river. The Tharthar, which flows by the ruins of El Hadhr, is at that place a considerable stream, not indeed very wide, but so deep that horses have to swim across it.3 Its course above El Hadhr has not been traced; but the most probable conjecture seems to be that it is a continuation of the Sinjar river, which rises about the middle of the range, in long. 41° 50', and flows south-east through the desert. The Tharthar ap- pears at one time to have reached the Tigris near Tekrit,4 but it now ends in a marsh or lake to the south-west of that city.5 The political geography of Assyria need not occupy much of our attention. There is no native evidence that in the time of the great monarchy the country was formally divided into districts, to which any particular names were attached, or which were regarded as politically separate from one another; nor do such divisions appear in the classical writers until the time of the later geographers, Strabo, Dionysius, and Ptolemy. If it were not that mention is made in the Old Testament of certain districts within the region which has been here termed Assyria, we should have no proof that in the early times any divisions at all had been recognised. The names, however, of Padan-Aram, Aram-Naharaim, Gozan, Halah, and (perhaps) Huzzab, designate in Scripture particular portions of the Assyrian territory; and as these portions appear to correspond in some degree with the divisions of the classical geographers, we are led to suspect that these writers may in many, if not in most, cases have followed ancient and native traditions or authorities. The principal divisions of the classical geographers will therefore be noticed briefly, so far at least as they are intelligible. According to Strabo,6 the district within which Nineveh stood 'Journal of Geographical Society, vol. ix. p. 455. 'Chesoey, p. 50. VOL. I. s Ibid. p. 51; Layard, Nineveh and its Remains, vol. i. p. 315, note. • Stnib. xvi. 1, § 1. O 194 Chap. I. THE SECOND MONARCHY. was called Aturia, which seems to be the word Assyria slightly corrupted, as we know that it habitually was by the Persians.7 The neighbouring plain country he divides into four regions— Dolomene, Calachene, Chazene, and Adiabene. Of Dolomene, which Strabo mentions but in one place, and which is wholly omitted by other authors, no account can be given.8 Cala- chene, which is perhaps the Calacine of Ptolemy,9 must be the tract about Calah (Nimrud), or the country immediately north of the Upper Zab river. Chazene, like Dolomen£, is a term which cannot be explained.1 Adiabene, on the contrary, is a well-known geographical expression.2 It is the country of the Zab or Biab rivers,3 and either includes the whole of Eastern Assyria between the mountains and the Tigris,4 or more strictly is applied to the region between the Upper and Lower Zab,5 which consists of two large plains separated from each other by the Karachok hills. In this way Arbelitis, the plain between the Karachok and Zagros, would fall within Adiabene; but it is sometimes made a distinct region,6 in which case Adiabene must be restricted to the flat between the two Zabs, the Tigris, T The form' Aturia QAravpia) is used likewise by Arrian (Exp. AX. iii. 7), and by Stephen (ad voc. Nifof). Dio Cassias writes Atyria ('Arupi'a), and asserts that the t was always used for the s "by the barbarians" (lv. 28). It was certainly bo used by the Persians (see the Behistun Inscription, passim); but the Assyrians themselves, like the Jews and the Greeks, seem to have employed the s. 8 Dolomené is ingeniously connected by Mons. C. Miiller with the Dolba of Arrian. (Fr. 11. See the Fragment. Hist. Or. vol. iii. p. 588.) It is clear that the ethnic Uo\$i)vt) (Steph. Byz. ad voc.) would easily pass into AoAo/iqpjj. Dolba, according to Arrian, was a city in Adiabene. 0 Ptol. vi. H. As Ptolemy, however, places Calacine above Adiabene, he may possibly intend it for Chalonitis. 1 Chazene was indeed mentioned by Arrian in his Parthica; and if we pos- sessed that work, we should probably not find much difficulty in locating it. But the fragment in Stephen (ad voc. XofiIpff) tells us nothing of its exact position. Stephen himself is clearly wrong in placing it on the Xlu/Jirntes. Arrian probably included it in the territory of Dolba, which was with him a part of Adiabene. (See above, note 8, and com- pare the fragment of Arrian: 'Ev ravrn rfi 'OAj9i'a (leg. AoA$i'a vel AoA/3aia KaL tcl ireSi'u rfjs X.a^ifvijs ffarpartias ItI fi-ffKtffrov airorera/teVa.) 2 See Strab. xvi. 1, § 1 and § 19; Plin. //. A', v. 12, vi. 13; Ptol. vi. 1; Arrian, Fr. 11-13; Pomp. Mel. i. 11; Solin. 48; Amm. Marc, xxiii. 20, &c . * So Ammianus explains the name— "Nos autein id dicimus, quod in his terris amnes sunt duo perpetui, quos et transivimus, Diabas et Adiabas, juncti navalibus pontibus; ideoque intelligi Adiabenam cognominatam, ut a flumi- nibus maximis A^gyptus, ct India, iti- demtIue Hiberja et BaHica." (xxiii. 6.) 4 Pliny seems to give to Adiabend this extended signification, when he says,—" Adiabenen Tigris et montium sinus cingunt. At laeva ejus regio Me- dorum est." (//. A", vi. 9; compare ch. vi. 26.) * Amm. Marc. 1. s. c. * As by Ptolemy (JJeograph. vi. 1). Chap. I. DISTRICTS OF ASSYRIA. and the Karaehok. Chalonitis and Apolloniatis, which Strabo seems to place between these northern plains and Susiana,7 must be regarded as dividing between them the country south of the Lesser Zab, Apolloniatis (so called from its Greek capital, Apollonia) lying along the Tigris, and Chalonitis along the mountains from the pass of Derbend to Gilan.8 Chalonitis seems to have taken its name from a capital city called Chala,9 which lay on the great route connecting Babylon with the southern Eebatana, and in later times was known as Holwan.1 Below Apolloniatis,2 and (like that district) skirting the Tigris, was Sittacene (so named from its capital, Sittace3), which is commonly reckoned to Assyria,4 but seems more properly re- garded as Susiauian territory. Such are the chief divisions of Assyria east of the Tigris. West of the Tigris, the name Mesopotamia is commonly used, like the Aram-Nabaraim of the Hebrews, for the whole country between the two great rivers. Here are again several districts, of which little is known, as Aeabene", Tingene, and Ancobaritis.5 Towards the north, along the flanks of Moris Masius from Nisibis to the Euphrates, Strabo seems to place the Mygdonians, and to regard the country as Mygdonia.6 Below Mygdonia, towards the west, he puts Anthemusia, which he extends as far as the Khabour river.7 The region"south of 'Strab. xv. 3. § 12; xvi. 1, § 1. 'The position of Chalonitis is pretty exactly indicated by Strabo, Polybius, and Isidore of Charax. Strabo calls it t^p irtp) to Xdypoy vpos Xa\wv'irtv (xvi. 1, § 1). Polybius connects it with the same mountain range (v. 54, § 7). Isidore distinctly places it between Apolloniatis and Media (Mans. Parth. p. 5). See also Dionvs. Perieg. i. 1015, and Plin. //. X. vi. 27. 9 Isid. Mans. Parth. 1. s. c. i Tacitus probably intends the same city by his "Halus" (Ann. vi. 41), which he couples with Artcmita. It does not appear to have been identical either with the Halah of the Book of Kings, or with the C'alah of Genesis. 1 The ruins of Holwan were visited by Sir U. Kawlinson in the year 1836. For an account of them, and for a notice of the importance of Holwan in Maho- metan times, see the Jounvil of (he Geii- graphical Soc. vol. ix. pp. 35-40. 'Strabo identifies Sittacene! with Apolloniatis (xv. 3, § 12); but from Ptolemy (vi. 1) and other geographers we gather that Sittacene was further down the river. * Sittace was first noticed by Heca- taeus (Fr. 184). It was visited by Xe- nophon (Aruib. ii. 4, § 13). Strabo omits all mention of it. We have notices of it in Pliny (//. ^V. vi. 27), and Stephen (ad voc. Vittok^). 4 Strab. xvi. 1, § 1, et passim; Ptol. vi. 1. 5 Ptol. v. 18. « Strab. xvi. 1, § 1, and § 23. 'Ibid. § 27. Anthemusia derived its name from a city Anthemus (Steph. Byz.), or Anthemusias (Tacit. Isid.), built by the Macedonians between the Euphrates and the Belik. o 2 I96 THE SECOND MONARCHY. Chap. I. the Khabour and the Sinjar he seems to regard as inhabited entirely by Arabs.8 Ptolemy has, in lieu of the Mygdonia of Strabo, a district whic h he calls Gauzanitis;9 and this name is on good grounds identified with the Gozan of Scripture 1—the true original probably of the "Mygdonia" of the Greeks.2 Gozan appears to represent the whole of the upper country from which the longer affluents of the Khabour spring; while Halah, which is coupled with it in Scripture,3 and which Ptolemy calls Chalcitis, and makes border on Gauzanitis, may designate the tract upon the main stream, as it comes down from Ras-el- Ain.4 The region about the upper sources of the Belik has no special designation in Strabo, but in Scripture it seems to be called Padan-Aram,5 a name which has been explained as " the flat Syria," or " the country stretching out from the foot of the hills."6 In the later Roman times it was known as Osrhoene;7 but tin's name was scarcely in use before the time of the An- tonines. The true heart of Assyria was the country close along the Tigris, from lat. 35° to 36° 30'. Within these limits were the four great cities, marked by the mounds at Khorsabad, Mosul, Nimrud, and Kileh-Sherghat, besides a multitude of places of inferior consequence. It has been generally sup|1osed that the left bank of the river was more properly Assyria than the right;8 and the idea is so far correct, as that the left bank was • Strab. xvi. 1, § 26. Compare Plin. //. N. y. 24. * Ptol. v. 18. 1 2 Kings xvii. 6; xviii. 11; xix. 12; 1 Chron. v. 26; la. xxxvii. 12. The identification does not depend upon the is still called Gla, or Kalah, by the Arabs. (See Layard's A'ineceh and Baby- lon, p. 312, note.) 5 Gen. xxv. 20; xxviii. 2-7, &c . The name is only used in Genesis. mere resemblance of name; but upon « Stanley, Sinai and J'alestine, p. 128, that, combined with the mention of the Habor (or Khabour) as the river of Gozan, and the implied vicinity of Gozan to Haran (Harran) and Halah (Chalcitis). 1 See the article on "Gozan" in Smith's Biblical Dictionary, vol. i. p. 726. note '. It is curious, however, that both /'ridan-Aram and Aram-.YiiA'irm>rt recall the names of nations inhabiting these parts in the Assyrian times. The chief inhabitants of the Mons Masius men- tioned by the earlv Assyrian kings arc The initial m (D) in the word Mygdonia the -Vain; and across the Euphrates, is probably a mere adjectival or parti- cipial prefix; while the d represents the Semitic z (T), according to an ordinary phonetic variation. 3 2 Kings xvii. 6; xviii. 11; 1 Chron. v. 26. 4 One of the mounds on this stream towards Aleppo, there is a tribe called the Patena. Probably, however, both coincidences are accidental. 'l)io Cass. xl. 19; lxviii. 18, &c. Arrian, Fr. 2; Herodian, iii. 9, &c. * Ptolemy bounds Assyria by the Tigris (Geoyraph. vi. 1). Pliny identi- Chap. I. 197 EXTENT OF ASSYRIAN RUINS. in truth of primary value and importance,9 whence it naturally happened that three out of the four capitals were built on that side of the stream. Still the very fact that one early capital was on the right bank is enough to show that both shores of the stream were alike occupied by the race from the first; and this conclusion is abundantly confirmed by other indications through- out the region. Assyrian ruins, the remains of considerable towns, strew the whole country between the Tigris and Kha- bour, both north and south of the Sinjar range.' On the banks of the Lower Khabour are the remains of a royal palace,2 besides many other traces of the tract through which it runs having been permanently occupied by the Assyrian people.3 Mounds, probably Assyrian, are known to exist along the course of the Khabour's great western affluent;4 and even near Seruj, in the country between Harran and the Euphrates some evidence has been found not only of conquest butof occu- pation.5 Remains are perhaps more frequent on the oppo- site side of the Tigris; at any rate they are more striking and more important. Bavian, Khorsabad, Shereef - Khan, Xebbi-YunuS, Koyunjik, and Colossal lion, near Seruj. Nimrud, which have furnished by far the most valuable and interesting of the Assyrian monu- ments, all lie east of the Tigris; while on the west two places fies Adia'bene with Assyria (//. Ar. v. 12). If the Huzzab of Nahum is really "the Zab region" (Smith's Biblical Dic- tionary, sub voc.), that prophet would make the same identification. When Strabo (xvi. 1, § 1) and Arrian (Exp. Alex. iii. 7) place Aturia on the left bank of the Tigris only, they indicate a similar feeling. 'Sec above, pp. 182, 183. 1 They are less numerous nort h of the Sinjar. (See Layard, Nineveh and Baby- lon, p. 252.) Still there are a certain number of ancient mounds in the more northern plain. (Ibid. pp. 334, 335; and compare Nineveh and its Jlemains, vol. i. p. 311.) * At Arban. (Nineveh and Babylon, pp. 275, 276.) 'lbid. pp. 297-300. 4 Ibid. p. 312, and note. 5 The colossal lions at this place, 12 feet long and 7 feet 3 inches high, are un- mistakably Assyrian, and must have belonged to some large building. (Sec Chesney, Euphrates Expedition, vol. i. pp. 114, 115, whence the above repre- sentation is taken.) 198 Chap. I. THE SECOND MONARCHY. only have yielded relics worthy to be compared with these, Arban and Eileh-Sherghat. It is curious that in Assyria, as in early Chaldaea, there is a special pre-eminence of four cities. An indication of this might seem to be contained in Genesis, where Asshur is said to have "builded Nineveh, and the city Rehoboth, and Calah, and Resen;"6 but on the whole it is more probable that we have here a mistranslation (which is corrected for us in the margin7), and that three cities only are ascribed by Moses to the great patriarch. In the nourishing period of the empire, however, we actually find four capitals, of which the native names seem to have been Ninua, Calah, Asshur, and Bit-Sargina, or Dur- Sargina (the city of Sargon)—all places of first-rate conse- quence. Besides these principal cities, which were the sole seats of government, Assyria contained a vast number of large towns, few of which it is possible to name, but so numerous that they cover the whole face of the country with their ruins.8 Among'them were Tarbisa, Arbil, Arapkha, and Khazeh, in the tract between the Tigris and Mount Zagros; Haran, Tel-Apni, Razappa (Rezeph), and Amida, towards the north-west fron- tier; Nazibina (Nisibis), on the eastern branch of the Eha- bour; Sirki (Circesium), at the confluence of the Khabour with the Euphrates; Anat on the Euphrates, some way below this junction; Tahiti, Magarisi, Sidikan, Eatni, Beth-Khalupi, &c., in the district south of the Sinjar, between the lower course of the Ehabour and the Tigris. Here, again, as in the case of Chaldaea,9 it is impossible at present to locate with accuracy all the cities. We must once more confine ourselves to the most important, and seek to determine, either absolutely or with a certain vagueness, their several positions. It admits of no reasonable doubt that the ruins opposite Mosul are those of Nineveh. The name of Nineveh is read on 0 Gen. x. 11, 12. 'In the margin we hove TJ? Ilh'm translated "the streets of the city," which is far better than the textual rendering. Had r'holxith been the name of a place, the term 'ir would scarcely have been added. * Layard, Nineveh and its Remains, vol i. p. 314; Nineceh and Babylon, pp. 245, 246, 312, 313, &e.; Journal of Asiatic Society, vol. xv. pp. 303, 304. * See above, p. 15. Chap. L IDENTIFICATION OF SITES — NINEVEH. 199 the bricks; and a uniform tradition, reaching from the Arab conquest to comparatively recent times,1 attaches to the mounds themselves the same title. They are the most exten- sive ruins in Assyria; and their geographical position suits per- fectly all the notices of the geographers and historians with respect to the great Assyrian capital.2 As a subsequent chapter will be devoted to a description of this famous city,3 it is enough in this place to observe that it was situated on the left or east bank of the Tigris, in lat. 36° 21', at the point where a considerable brook, the Khosr-su, falls into the main stream^ On its west flank flowed the broad and rapid Tigris, the " arrow- stream," as we may translate the word; * while north, east, and south, expanded -the vast undulating plain which intervenes between the river and the Zagros mountain-range. Midway in this plain, at the distance of from fifteen to eighteen miles from the city, stood boldly up the Jabel Maklub and Ain-sufra hills, calcareous ridges rising nearly 2000 feet5 above the level of the Tigris, and forming by far the most prominent objects in the natural landscape.6 Inside the Ain Sufra, and parallel to it, ran the small stream of the Gomel, or Ghazir, like a ditch skirting a wall, an additional defence in that quarter. On the south-east and south, distant about fifteen miles, was the strong and impetuous current of the Upper Zab, completing the natural defences of the position, which was excellently chosen to be the site of a great capital. 1 The early A rabian geographers and historians mentioned the forts of Ninawi to the cast and of Mosul to the west of the Tigris. (As. Soc. Journ. vol. xii. p. 418, note *.) To prove the continuity of the tradition, it would be necessary to quote all travellers, from Benjamin of Tudela to Mr. Layard, who disputes its value, but does not deny it. * See Herod, i. 193; Strab. xvi. 1, § 3; Ptol. vi. 1; Plin. vi. 13, § 16; Ann. Marc, xviii. 7; Eustath. ad Dio- nys. Perieg. 991. * See below, ch. iv. * So Strabo, xi. 14, § 8; Plin. H. S, vi. 27; Q. Curt. iv. 9, § 16, &c. There are, however, some difficulties attaching to this etymology. It is Arian, not Se- mitic—tigra, as "an arrow," standing connected with the Sanscrit tij, "to sharpen," Armenian teg, "a javelin," Persian tigh, "a blade," and fir, "an arrow." Yet it was used by the Jews, under the slightly corrupted form of Dekel, (^pl)i a* early as Moses (Gen. ii. 14), and by the Assyrians about b.c. 1000. (Journal of As. Soc. vol. xiv. p. xcv.) It is conjectured that there was a root dik in ancient Babylonian, of cognate origin with the Sanscrit tij, from which the forms Dekel, Digla, or Diglath were derived. 4 Capt. Jones, in the Journal of the As. Soc. vol. xv. p. 299. • Ibid. p. 298. 200 Chap. T. THE SECOND MONARCHV. South of Nineveh, at the distance of about twenty miles by the direct route and thirty by the course of the Tigris,7 stood the second city of the empire, Calah, the site of which is marked by the extensive ruins at Nimrud.8 Broadly, this place may be said to have been built at the confluence of the Tigris with the Upper Zab; but in strictness it was on tfye Tigris only Plan of the Ruin.- at Nimrud (Calah). the Zab flowing five or six miles further to the south,9 and entering the Tigris at least nine miles below the Nimrud ruins.1 'So Colonel Chesncy (Euphrates Ex- pedition, vol. i. p. 21). 8 Sir H. Kawlinson and Dr. Hincks agree in reading the ancient name of this city as Calah. At the same time it is not to be denied that there are diffi- culties in the identification. 1. Nimrud being only 20 miles from Nineveh, it is difficult to find room for Resen, a '"great city" (Gen. x. 12) between them, not to mention that there are no important ruins in this position. 2. Calah, more- over, if it gave name to Ptolemy's Cala- cine, should be away from the river, for by placing Calaciné above Adiabene, he almost certainly meant further from the river. • Journal of As. Soo. vol. xv. p. 342. At the same time it must be admitted that water from the Zab was conducted into the city by a caual and tunnel, of which more will be said in another chapter. 1 Chesney, 1. s. c. Chap. I. 201 CALAH, NOW NIMEUD. These ruins at present occupy an area somewhat short of a thousand English acres,2 which is little more than one-half of the area of the ruins of Nineveh; but it is thought that the place was in ancient times considerably larger, and that the united action of the Tigris and some winter streams has swept away no small portion of the ruins.' They form at present an irregular quadrangle, the sides of which face the four cardinal points. On the north and east the rampart may still be dis- tinctly traced. It was flanked with towers along its whole course,4 and pierced at uncertain intervals by gates, but was nowhere of very great strength or dimensions. On the south side it must have been especially weak, for there it has disap- peared altogether. Here, however, it seems probable that the Tigris and the Shor Derreh stream, to which the present ob- literation of the wall may be ascribed, formed in ancient times a sufficient protection. Towards the west, it seems to be certain that the Tigris (which is now a mile off) anciently flowed close to the city.5 On this side, directly facing the river, and extend- ing along it a distance of 600 yards,6 or more than a third of a mile, was the royal quarter, or portion of the city occupied by the palaces of the kings. It consisted of a raised platform, forty feet above the level of the plain, composed in some parts of rubbish, in others of regular layers of sun-dried bricks, and cased on every side with solid stone masonry, containing an area of sixty English acres, and in shape almost a regular rect- angle, SCO yards long, and from 350 to 450 broad.7 The plat- form was protected at its edges by a parapet, and is thought to have been ascended in various places by wide staircases, or in- clined ways, leading up from the plain.8 The greater part of its area is occupied by the remains of palaces constructed by * Capt. Jones, in the Journal of the Asiatic Soc. vol. xv. pp. 347-351. 3 Ibid. vol. xv. p. 347. 'Layard, Nineveh and Babylon, p. 656. * Ibid. i. s. c.; As. Soc. Journal, vol. xv. pp. 342, 343. * See Mr. Layard's "Plan" in his Nineveh and Babylon, opp. p. 655. For the present state of the ruins, see his Nineveh and its Jtemains, vol. i. opp. p. 331, and compare the chart (supra, p. 200), which is reduced from Captain F. Jones's Surrey. "' The platform is not quite regular, being broader towards the south than towards the north, as will be seen in the plan. « Layard, Nineveh and Babylon, p. 654. THE SECOND MONARCHY. Chap. I. various native kings, of which a more particular account will be given in the chapter on the architecture and other arts of tho Assyrians.9 It contains also the ruins of two small temples, and abuts at its north-western angle on the most singular struc- ture which has as yet been discovered among the remains of the Assyrian cities. This is the famous tower or pyramid which looms so conspicuously over the Assyrian plains, and which has always attracted the special notice of the traveller.1 An exact description of this remarkable edifice will be given hereafter. Great Mound of Nimrud or Calah (after Layard). It appears from the inscriptions on its bricks to have been com- menced by one of the early kings, and completed by another. Its internal structure has led to the supposition that it was designed to be a place of burial for one or other of these monarchs. Another conjecture is, that it was a watch-tower; 2 but this seems very unlikely, since no trace of any mode by which it could be ascended has been discovered. Forty miles below Calah, on the opposite bank of the Tigris, • See below, chap. vi. 1 Xenophon describes Calah, which he calls Larissa (compare the Lachisa, of the Samaritan Pentateuch), as '' a vast deserted city, formerly inha- bited by the Medes; it was," he says, "surrounded by a wall 25 feet broad, 100 feet high, and nearly seven miles in circumference, built of baked brick, with a stone basement to the height of 20 feet." He then observes: "nap' avrtiv tfIk *6\iV 9tV iTVpafils \idtVrl, rb fJieV c&pos T\i8pov. rb Si vtyos ivo ir0pwv." (Anab. Hi. 4, § 9.) Ctesias, with his usual ex- aggeration, made the width nine stades, and the height eight stades, or nearly a mile! He placed the pyramid at Ni- neveh, and on the Euphrates! (See Diod. Sic. ii. 7, § 1.) The imposing effect of the structure even now is wit- nessed to by Mr. Layard (Ninevth and its Jietnains, vol. i. p. 4); Colonel Rich (Kurdistan, vol. ii. p. 132); Colonel Chesney (Euphrates Expedition, vol. i. p. 21); and Captain Jones (.4s. &ic Journal, vol. xv. pp. 348, 349). 1 This is the opinion of Captain Jones (As. £oe. Journal, vol . xv. p. 349). Chap. L 203 ASSHUE — DUR-SARGINA. was a third great city, the native name of which appears to have been Asshur. This place is represented by the ruins at Kileh- Sherghat, which are scarcely inferior in extent to those at Nirarud or Calah.3 It will not be necessary to describe minutely tins site, as in general character it closely resembles the other ruins of Assyria. Long lines of low mounds mark the position of the old walls, and show that the shape of the city was quad- rangular. The chief object is a large square mound or plat- form, two and a half miles in circumference, and in places a hundred feet above the level of the plain, composed in part of sun-dried bricks, in part of natural eminences, and exhibiting occasionally remains of a casing of hewn stone, which may once have encircled the whole structure. About midway on the north side of the platform, and close upon its edge, is a high cone or pyramid. The rest of the platform is covered with the remains of walls and with heaps of rubbish, but does not show much trace of important buildings. This city has been sup- posed to represent the Biblical Resen; but the description of that place as lying "between Nineveh and Calah" seems to render the identification worse than uncertain. The ruins at Kileh-Sherghat are the last of any extent to- wards the south, possessing a decidedly Assyrian character. To complete our survey, therefore, of the chief Assyrian towns, we must return northwards, and, passing Nineveh, direct our atten- tion to the magnificent ruins on the small stream of the Khosr- su, which have made the Arab village of Khorsabad one of the best known names in Oriental topography. About nine miles from the north-east angle of the wall of Nineveh, in a direction a very little east of north, stands the ruin known as Khorsabad, from a small village which formerly occupied its summit4—the scene of the labours of M. Botta, who was the first to disentomb from among the mounds of Mesopotamia the relics of an Assyrian palace. The enclosure at Khorsabad is nearly square in shape, each side being about 2000 yards long.4 No part of cavations. (Letters from Nuieveh, p. 57, note.) 4 See Captain Jones's Survey, sheet I. 204 Chai\ I. THE SECOND MONARCHY. it is very lofty, but the walls are on every side well marked. Their angles point towards the cardinal points, or nearly so; and the walls themselves consequently face the north-east, the north-west, the south-west, and the south-east. Towards the middle of the north-west wall, and projecting considerably be- yond it, was a raised platform of the usual character; and here stood the great palace, which is thought to have been open to the plain, and on that side quite undefended.6 Four miles only from Khorsabad, in a direction a little west of north, are the ruins of a smaller Assyrian city, whose native name appears to have been Tarbisa, situated not far from the modern village of Sherif-khan. Here was a palace, built by Esarhaddon for one of his sons, as well as several temples and other edifices. In the opposite direction, at the distance of about twenty miles, is Keremles, an Assyrian ruin, whose name cannot yet be rendered phonetically.7 West of this site, and about half-w ay between the ruins of ^Nineveh and Nimrud or . Calah, is Selamiyah, a village of some size, the walls of which are thought to be of Assyrian construction.8 We may conjecture that this place was the Resen, or Dase,9 of Holy Scripture, which is said to have been a large city, interposed between Nineveh and Calah.1 In the same latitude, but considerably further to the east, was the famous city of Arabil or Arbil2 known to the Greeks as Arbela, and to this day retaining its ancient appel- lation. These were the principal towns, whose positions can be fixed, belonging to Assyria Proper, or the tract in the immediate vicinity of Nineveh. Besides these places, the inscriptions mention a large number of cities which we cannot definitely connect with any particular 1 Layard, Ninereh and Babylon, p. 657. 7 The name is formed of two elements, the first meaning city, which would be Jhir or Beth. The second element is the name of a god otherwise unknown to us; and this, being a mere monogram, can- not be represented phonetically. 'Journal of Asiatic Society, vol. xv. pp. 351 and 374. • The LXX. interpreters have Aaaif in the place of the Hebrew The Targums substitute the wholly different name of Tel-Assar OMr^ri). 1 Gen. x. 12. * Arbil is etymologically "the city of the four go Is;" but it is not known which are the deities intended. This place is first mentioned in the reign of Shamas-Vul, the son of the Black Obe- lisk king, about B.C. 850. Chap, t 205 CITIES OF UNCERTAIN SITE. site. Such are Zaban and Zadn, beyond the Lower Zab, pro- bably somewhere in the vicinity of Kerkuk; Kurban, Tidu (?), Napulu, Kapa, in Adiabene"; Arapkha and Khaparkhu, the former of which names recalls the Arrapachitis of Ptolemy,3 in the district about Arbela; Hurakha, Sallat (?), Dur-Tila, Dariga, Lupdu, and many others, concerning whose situations it is not even possible to make any reasonable conjecture. The whole country between the Tigris and the mountains was evidently studded thickly with towns, as it is at the present day with ruins;4 but until a minute and searching examination of the entire region has taken place, it is idle to attempt an assign- ment to particular localities of these comparatively obscure names. In Western Assyria, or the tract on the right bank of the Tigris, while there is reason to believe that population was as jik, frequent; but they are foreign rather than Assyrian, since they occur only among * Layard, Nineveh and Babylon, p. 246. 7 The horse draws chariots and not carts. He is never used as a beast of burthen. 234 Cuap. II. THE SECOND MONARCHY. the spoil taken from conquered countries. The dog is frequent on the later sculptures; and has been found modelled in clay, Cart drawn by Mules (Koyunjik). No. I. Dog modelled in clay, from the palace of Asshur-bani-pal, Koyunjik. and also represented in relief on a clay tablet. Their character is that of a large mastiff or hound, and there is abundant evi- dence that they were employed in hunting.8 If the Assyrians domesticated any bird, it would seem to have 8 Dogs arc constantly represented as engaged in the chase upon the sculp- tures of Asshur-bani-pal (Sardanapa- lus). A number of his hounds were found modelled in clay at Koyunjik. They have each their name inscribed on them, which is always a term indicative of their hunting prowess. The woodcut (No. I.) on this page is taken from one of them. Chap. II. 235 DOGS —DUCKS —FISH PONDS. been the duck. Models of the duck are common, and seem generally to have been used for weights.9 The bird is ordinarily No. II. Dog in relief, on a clay tablet. represented with its head turned upon its back, the attitude of the domestic duck when asleep. The Assyrians seem to have had artificial ponds or stews, which are always represented as full of fish, but the forms are conventional, as has been already observed.1 Considering the size to which the carp and barbel actually grow at the pre- Assyrian Duck (Nimrud). sent day, the ancient representations are smaller than might have been expected. • Layard, Nin. and Bab. pp. 600, 601. 1 Supra, p. 231. 236 Chap. HI. THE SECOND MONARCHY. CHAPTER IIL THE PEOPLE. "The Assyrian was a cedar in Lebanon, fair of branches, and with a shadowing shroud, and of an high stature; and his top was among the thick boughs. .... Nor was any tree in the garden of God like unto him in his beauty."—Ezek. xxxi. 3 and 8. The ethnic character of the ancient Assyrians, like that of the Chaldaeans, was in former times a matter of controversy. When nothing was known of the original language of the people lieyond the names of certain kings, princes, and generals, believed to have belonged to the race, it was difficult to arrive at any determinate conclusion on the subject. The ingenuity of etymologists displayed itself in suggesting derivations for the words in question,1 which were sometimes absurd, sometimes plausible, but never more than very doubtful conjectures. No sound historical critic could be content to base a positive view on any such unstable foundation, and nothing remained but to decide the controversy on other than linguistic considerations. Various grounds existed on which it was felt that a conclusion could be drawn. The Scriptural genealogies1 connected Asshur with Aram, Eber, and Joktan, the allowed progenitors of the Aramaeans or Syrians, the Israelites or Hebrews, and the northern or Joktanian Arabs. The languages, physical type, and moral characteristics of these races were well known; they all belonged evidently to a single family—the family known to ethnologists as the Semitic. Again, the manners and customs, especially the religious customs, of the Assyrians connected them plainly with the Syrians and Phoenicians, with whose practices they were closely allied.3 Further, it was observed that the modern Chaldaeans of Kurdistan, who regard themselves as descendants 1 See Prichard'g Physical History of Mankind, vol. iv. pp. 563, 564, where some of the supposed derivations are given. 1 Gen. x. 21-31; 1 Chr. i. 17-23. * See this argument urged by Dr. Prichard, Physical Hist, of Mankind, vo1 . iv. pp. 567, 568. Chap. m. ETHNIC CHARACTER OF THE PEOPLE. 237 of the ancient inhabitants of the neighbouring Assyria, still speak a Semitic dialect.4 These three distinct and convergent lines of testimony were sufficient to justify historians in the con- clusion, which they commonly drew,5 that the ancient Assyrians belonged to the Semitic family, and were more or less closely connected with the Syrians,6 the (later) Babylonians, the Phoenicians, the Israelites, and the Arabs of the northern por- tion of the peninsula. Recent linguistic discoveries have entirely confirmed the conclusion thus arrived at. We now possess in the engraved slabs, the clay tablets, the cylinders, and the bricks, exhumed from the ruins of the great Assyrian cities, copious documentary evidence of the character of the Assyrian language, and (so far as language is a proof) of the ethnic character of the race. It appears to be doubted by none, who have examined the evi- dence,7 that the language of these records is Semitic. However imperfect the acquaintance which our best Oriental archaeologists have as yet obtained with this ancient and difficult form of speech, its connexion with the Syriac, the later Babylonian, the Hebrew, andjthe Arabic does not seem to admit of a doubt. Another curious confirmation of the ordinary belief is to be found in the physical characteristics of the people, as revealed to us by the sculptures. Few persons in any way familiar with these works of art can have failed to remark the striking re- semblance to the Jewish physiognomy which is presented by the sculptured effigies of the Assyrians. The forehead straight but * The cider Niebuhr was the first to report this fact. (See his Voyage en Arabie, p. 285.) It was commonly dis- believed till Mr. Ainsworth confirmed the statement. 4 See B. G. Niebuhr's Lectures on An- cient History, vol. i. p. 12, E. T.; Grote, Hist, of Greece, vol. iii. p. 403; Bunsen, Essay on Ethnology (1847), p. 29. • Niebuhr went so far as to identify the Assyrians with the Syrians; but here he fell into a mistake. The Ara- ma?ans were probably as distinct from the Assyrians as any other Semitic race. Niebuhr was misled by the Greek fancy that the names, "Assyrian" and "Sy- rian," were really identical. (See Herod, vii. 63.) But these names had, in truth, an entirely distinct origin. Syria (more properly J'syrui) was the name given by the Greeks to the country about Tsur or Tyre, "VIS. Assyria was the cor- respondent term to Asshur, "I-IB'X,—the native, as well as the Hebrew, name of the tract upon the middle Tigris. 'See Bunsen's Philosophy of History, vol. iii. pp. 193-216; Max Mi'iller, Lan- guages of the Seat of War, p. 25, 2nd ed.; Oppert, Element de la Grammaire Assy- rienne; &c. 238 Chap. HX THE SECOND MONARCHY. uot high, the full brow, the eye large and almond-shaped, the aquiline nose, a little coarse at the end, and unduly depressed, the strong, firm, mouth, with lips somewhat over thick, the well- formed chin—best seen in the representations of eunuchs—the abundant hair and ample beard, both coloured as black,—all Assyrians (Nimrud). these recall the chief peculiarities of the Jew, more especially as he appears in southern countries. They are less bjfce the traits of the Arab, though to them also they bear a considerable resemblance. Chateaubriand's description of the Bedouin—" la tete ovale, le front haut et arque, le nez aquilin, les yeux grands Mesopotamia!! captives, from an Egyptian monument. Chap. HI. 239 RESEMBLANCE TO JEWS. et coupes en amandes, le regard humideetsingulierementdoux"8 —would serve in many respects equally well for a description of the physiognomy of the Assyrians, as they appear upon the monuments. The traits, in fact, are for the most part common to the Semitic race generally, and not distinctive of any par- tictdar subdivision of it. They are seen now alike in the Arab, the Jew, and the Chaldaean of Kurdistan; while anciently they not only characterised the Assyrians, but probably belonged also to the Phoenicians, the Syrians, and other minor Semitic races. It is evident, even from the mannered and conventional sculp- tures of Egypt, that the physiognomy was regarded as cha- racteristic of the western Asiatic races. Three captives on the monuments of Amenophis III.,9 represented as belonging to the Patana (people of Bashan?), the Asuru (Assyrians), and the Karukamishi (people of Carchemish), present to us the same style of face, only slightly modified by Egyptian ideas. While in face the Assyrians appear thus to have borne a most close resemblance to the Jews, in shape and make they are perhaps more nearly represented by their descendants, the Chaldaeans of Kurdistan. While the Oriental Jew has a spare form and a weak muscular development, the Assyrian, like the modern Chaldaean.1 is robust, broad-shouldered, and large-limbed. Nowhere have we a race represented to us monumentally of a stronger or more muscular type than the ancient Assyrian. The great brawny limbs are too large for beauty; but they indicate a physical power, which we may well believe to have belonged to this nation—the Romans of Asia—the resolute and sturdy people which succeeded in imposing its yoke upon all its neighbours. If from physical we proceed to mental characteristics, we seem again to have in the Jewish character the best and closest analogy to the Assyrian. In the first place there is observable in each a strong and marked prominency of the religious principle. Inscriptions of Assyrian kings begin and end, almost 'Itinfraire, vol. i. p. 421. 0 Lcpsius, Denhnaler, Abtheil. iii. Bl . 88. 1 Rich, Residence in Kurdistan, vol. i. p. 278. 240 Chap. IIl. THE SECOND MONARCHY. without exception, with praises, invocations, and prayers to the principal objects of their adoration. All the monarch's suc- cesses, all his conquests and victories, and even his good fortune in the chase,2 are ascribed continually to the protection and favour of guardian deities. Wherever he goes, he takes care to "set up the emblems of Asshur," or of "the great gods;" and forces the vanquished to do them homage. The choicest of the Limbs of Assyrians (from the sculptures). spoil is dedicated as a thank-offering iu the temples. The temples themselves are adorned, repaired, beautified, enlarged, increased in number, by almost every monarch. The kings worship in them in person,3 and offer sacrifices.4 They embellish their palaces, not only with representations of their own victories and hunting expeditions, but also with religious figures—the emblems of some of the principal deities,5 and with scenes in * See especially the Tiglath - Pilcser cylinder, where such expressions as these occur:—•" Under the auspices of Ninip, my guardian deity, I killed four wild bulls, strong and fierce." "Under the auspices of Ninip, 120 lions fell before me" (pp. 54-57). '"As he (Sennacherib) was worship- ping in the house of Nisroch his god" (2 Kings xix. 37). * Tiglath-Pileser I. speaks of sacri- ficing as a part of the kingly office (/«- icription, &c. p. 70). 'See above, pp. 132, 133. 137. Ac- cording to Ammianus Marcellinus, the later inhabitants of the country were far less religious, and confined their pictured and sculptured representations to battles and hunting-pieces. (" Ncc enim apud eos pingitur vol fingitur aliud prater varias [bestiarum] cedes et bclla," xxiv. 6.) Chap. III. 241 RELIGIOUS FEELING. which are portrayed acts of adoration. Their signets, and indeed those of the Assyrians generally,6 have a religious cha- racter. In every way religion seems to hold a marked and pro- minent place in the thoughts of the people, who fight more for the honour of their gods than even of their king, and aim at ex- tending their belief as much as their dominion. Again, combined with this prominency of the religious principle, is a sensuousness—such as we observe in Judaism continually struggling against a higher and purer element—but which in this less favoured branch of the Semitic family reigns uncontrolled, and gives to its religion a gross, material, and even voluptuous character. The ideal and the spiritual find little favour with this practical people, which, not content with symbols, must have gods of wood and stone whereto to pray, and which in its complicated mythological system, its priestly hierarchy, its gorgeous ceremonial, and finally in its lascivious ceremonies,7 is a counterpart to that Egypt, from which the Jew was privileged to make his escape. The Assyrians are characterised in Scripture as "a fierce people."8 Their victories seem to have been owing to their combining individual bravery and hardihood with a skill and proficiency in the arts of war not possessed by their more un- civilised neighbours. This bravery and hardihood were kept up, partly (like that of the Romans) by their perpetual wars, partly by the training afforded to their manly qualities by the pursuit and destruction of wild animals. The lion—the king of beasts—abounded in their country,9 together with many other dangerous and ferocious animals. Unlike the ordinary Asiatic, who trembles before the great beasts of prey and avoids a collision by flight if possible,1 the ancient Assyrian sought out the strongest and fiercest of the animals, provoked them to the encounter, and engaged with them in hand-to-hand combats. * Layard. Nineveh and its Remains, vol. ii. p. 421; Nin. and Bab. pp. 603- 605. 7 See below, ch. viii. * Isaiah xxxiii. 19. '11Inter arundineta Mesopotamia? fluminum et fruteta leonos vagantur in- numeri." Amm. Marc, xviii. 7. Tiglath- Pileser I. claims to have slain in all 800 lions. (Inscription, &c. p. 56.) 1 Loftua, Chaldaa and Susiana, pp. 261, 262. VOL. I. II 242 THE SECOND MONARCHY. Chap. IH. The spirit of Nimrod, the "mighty hunter before the Lord," not only animated his own people, but spread on from them to their northern neighbours; and, as far as we can judge by the monuments, prevailed even more in Assyria than in Chaldaea • itself. The favourite objects of chase with the Assyrians seem to have been the lion and the wild-bull, both beasts of vast Capture of a city (Nimrud). strength and courage, which could not be attacked without great danger to the bold assailant. No doubt the courage of the Assyrians was tinged with ferocity. The nation was "a mighty and a strong one, which, as a tempest of hail and a destroying storm, as a flood of mighty waters overflowing, cast down to the earth with the hand."s Its capital might well deserve to be called "a bloody city," or 2 Isaiah xxviii. 2. Chap. HI. FIERCENESS COMBINED WITH CLEMENCY. 243 "a city of bloods."3 Few conquering races have been tender- hearted, or much inclined to spare; and undoubtedly carnage, ruin, and desolation followed upon the traek of an Assyrian army, and raised feelings of fear and hatred among their adversaries. But we have no reason to believe that the nation Captives of Sargon (Khorsabad). was especially bloodthirsty or unfeeling. The mutilation of the slain—not by way of insult, but in proof of their slayer's prowess4 —was indeed practised among them; but otherwise there is little indication of any bar- barous—much less of any really cruel — usages. The Assyrian hstens to the enemy who asks for quarter, he prefers making prisoners to slaying; he is very terrible in the battle and the assault, but afterwards he forgives, and spares. Of course in some cases he makes exceptions. When a town has rebelled and been subdued, he impales some of the most guilty;5 and in Captive Women in a cart (Nimrud). 'Nahura iii. 1. "Woe to the bloody citv,"—or, as the margin gives it — "Woe to the city of bloods!" (TJ? 'in 4 Probably a reward was given for heads, as has often been the fashion with Orientals. Sometimes scribes are represented as taking account of them. (See Layard, Nin. and its Remains, vol. ii. p. 184.) 5 Mr. Layard has, I think, expressed himself too strongly when he says that R 2 244 Chap. III. THE SECOND MONARCHY. two or three instances prisoners are represented6 as led before the king by a rope fastened to a ring which passes through the under lip, while now and then one appears in the act of being flayed with a knife.7 But, generally, captives are either released, or else transferred, without unnecessary suffering,8 from their own country to some other portion of the empire. There seems even to be something of real tenderness in the treatment of captured women, who are never manacled, and are often allowed to ride on mules,9 or in carts. The worst feature in the character of the Assyrians was their treachery. "Woe to thee that spoilest, though thou wast not spoiled, and dealest treacherously, though they dealt not treacherously with thee !" is the denunciation of the evangelical prophet.1 And in the same spirit the author of " the Burthen of Nineveh " declares that city to be "full of lies and robbery "2 —or, more correctly, " full of lying and violence."3 Falsehood and treachery are commonly regarded as the vices of the weak, who are driven to defend themselves against superior strength by the w eapon of cunning; but they are perhaps quite as often employed by the strong, as furnishing short cuts to success, and even where the moral standard is low, as being in themselves creditable.4 It certainly was not necessity which made the Assyrians covenant-breakers; it seems to have been in part the wantonness of power—because they "despised the cities and regarded no man;"5 perhaps, it was in part also their im- on the capture of a town "an indiseri- "Captives are occasionally represented minute slaughter appears to have sue- as urged onwards by blows, like tired ceeded; and that the prisoners were cattle; and they are sometimes heavily either impaled or carried away as fettered. But in each case the usage is slaves." (Sin. and its Remains, vol. ii. p 374.) It appears, by the inscriptions, that towns were frequently spared, and that the bulk of the inhabitants were generally left in the place. exceptional. • See above, p. 233. 1 Isaiah xxxiii. 1. r Xahum iii. 1. 'Mr. Vance Smith renders, "full of « Botta, Mrmmient de Nimve, Pt. 83 | treachi,;y and violence.» which u pr0_ and 118. 'Ibid. vol. ii. Pl. 120; Layard, Mo- numents of Nineveh, Second Series, PI. 47. Is it quite certain that these unfcrtu nates bably the real meaning. But the word used is ETl3 "mendacium," not 133 "perfidia." are alive? The Persians and Scythians « See Thucyd. iii. 83. sometimes flayed men after death, in 5 Isaiah xxxiii. 8; "He hath broken order to make use of their skins (Herod. the covenant, he hath despised the cities, iv. 64; v. 25). he regardeth no man." Chap. HI. 245 PRIDE —LUXURY. perfect moral perception, which may have failed to draw the proper distinction between craft and cleverness. Another unpleasant feature in the Assyrian character—hut one at which we can feel no surprise—was their pride. This is the quality which draws forth the sternest denunciations of Scripture, and is expressly declared to have called down the Divine judgments upon the race.6 Isaiah, Ezekiel, and Zepha- niah alike dwell upon it.7 It pervades the inscriptions. With- out being so rampant or offensive as the pride of some Orientals —as, for instance, the Chinese—it is of a marked and decided colour: the Assyrian feels himself infinitely superior to all the nations with whom he is brought into contact; he alone enjoys the favour of the gods; he alone is either truly wise or truly valiant; the armies of his enemies are driven like chaff before him; he sweeps them away, like heaps of stubble; either they fear to fight, or they are at once defeated; he carries his vic- torious arms just as far as it pleases him, and never under any circumstances admits that he has suffered a reverse. The only merit that he allows to foreigners is some skill in the mecha- nical and mimetic arts, and his acknowledgment of this is tacit rather than express, being chiefly known from the recorded fact that he employs foreign artists to ornament his edifices. According to the notions which the Greeks derived from Ctesias,8 and passed on to the Romans, and through them to the moderns generally, the greatest defect in the Assyrian character—the besetting sin of their leading men—was luxu- riousness of living and sensuality. From Ninyas to Sardana- palus—from the commencement to the close of the empire— a line of voluptuaries, according to Ctesias and his followers, held possession of the throne; and the principle was established from the first, that happiness consisted in freedom from all 6 Ezrk. x\x\. 10, 11; "Because thou ncss." hast lifted up thyself in height, and he 7 Isaiah x. 7-14, xxxvii. 24-28; Ezek. hath shot up bis top among the thick - xxxi. 10; Zeph. ii. 15. boughs, and his heart is lifted up in his j * Some idea of notable luxuriousncss height; I have therefore delivered him I attaching to the Assyrians is, perhaps, into the hand of the mighty one of the j earlier than Ctesias. (See Aristoph. Aves, heathen; he shall surely deal with him: | 958, ed. Bothe.) Did it come from the 1 have driven him out for his wicked- | 'haovpioi \6yoi of Herodotus? 246 Chap. III. THE SECOND MONARCHY. cares or troubles, and unchecked indulgence in every species of sensual pleasure.9 This account, intrinsically suspicious, is now directly contradicted by the authentic records which we possess of the warlike character and manly pursuits of so many of the kings. It probably, however, contains a germ of truth. In a flourishing kingdom, like Assyria, luxury must have gradually advanced; and when the empire fell under the combined attack of its two most powerful neighbours, no doubt it had lost much of its pristine vigour. The monuments lend some support to the view that luxury was among the causes which produced the fall of Assyria; although it may be questioned whether, even to the last, the predominant spirit was not warlike and manly, or even fierce and violent. Among the many denunciations of Assyria in Scripture, there is only one which can even be thought to point to luxury as a cause of her downfall; and that is a passage of very doubtful interpretation.1 In general^ it is her violence, her treachery, and her pride that are denounced. When Nineveh repented in the time of Jonah, it was by each man ".turning from his evil way and from the violence which was in their hands."2 When Nahum announces the final de- struction, it is on "the bloody city, full of lies and robbery." In the emblematic language of prophecy, the lion is taken as the fittest among animals to symbolise Assyria, even at this late period of her history.4 She is still " the lion that did tear in pieces enough for his whelps, and strangled for his lioness, and filled his holes with prey, and his dens with ravin." The favourite national emblem, if it may be so called,5 is accepted as the true type of the people; and blood, ravin, and robbery are their characteristics in the mind of the Hebrew prophet . In mental power the Assyrians certainly deserve to be con- sidered as among the foremost of the Asiatic races. They 'See Diod. Sic. ii. 21, § 2. 1 Nahum iii. 4; "Because of the mul- titude of the whoredoms of the well- favoured harlot, the mistress of witch- crafts, that sellcth nations through her whoredoms, and families through her witchcrafts, Behold, 1 am against thee, saith the Ixird." Idolatry is probably the " whoredom" here intended. 2 Jonah iii. 8. 2 Nahum iii. 1. « Ibid. ii. 11-13. 'The frequent occurrence of the lion on the monuments, either in the natural form or with a human head, seems to justify this expression. It must be ad- mitted, however, that the standards bear a different emblem. See below, eh. vii. Chap. III. 247 MENTAL POWER. had not perhaps so much originality as the Chaldaeans, from whom they appear to have derived the greater part of their civilisation; but in many respects it is clear that they sur- passed their instructors, and introduced improvements which gave a greatly increased value and almost a new character to arts previously discovered. The genius of the people will best be seen from the accounts, hereafter to be given, of their lan- guage, their arts, and their system of government. If it must be allowed that these have all a certain smack of rudeness and primitive simplicity, still they are advances upon aught that had previously existed—not only in Mesopotamia—but in the world. Fully to appreciate the Assyrians we should compare them with the much-lauded Egyptians, who in all important points are very decidedly their inferiors. The spirit and progressive character of their art offers the strongest contrast to the stiff, lifeless, and unchanging conventionalism of the dwellers on the Nile. Their language and alphabet are con- fessedly in advance of the Egyptian.8 Their religion is more earnest and less degraded. In courage and military genius their superiority is very striking; for the Egyptians are essentially an unwarlike people. The one point of advantage to which Egypt may fairly lay claim is the grandeur and durability of her architecture. The Assyrian palaces, magnificent as they undoubtedly were, must yield the palm to the vast structures of Egyptian Thebes.7 No nation, not even Kome, has equalled Egypt in the size and solemn grandeur of its buildings. But, except iu this one respect, the great African kingdom must be regarded as inferior to her Asiatic rival—which was indeed "a cedar in Lebanon, exalted above all the trees of the field —fair in greatness and in the length of his branches—so that all the trees that were in the garden of God envjed_Ju»f-Hrid not one was like unto him in his beauty."8 • See Bunsen's Philosophy of History, vol. iii. p. 192; -Egypt, vol. iv. pp. 144, 638, tec . 7 Denon says of Thebes, with equal force and truth : — "On est fatigué d'ecrire, on est fatigue de lire, on est épouvante" de la pensee d'une telle con- ception; on ne peut croire, mcme apres l'avoir vu, a la realité de l'cxistence de tant de constructions n;unics sur un meme point, a leurs dimensions, ii la constance obstinéequ'a exigee leur fabri- cation, aux dépenscs incalculables de tant de sumptuosité." Egypte, vol. ii. p. 226. • Ezck. xxxi. 3-9. 248 Chap. IV. THE SECOND MONARCHY. CHAPTER IV. THE CAPITAL. "Fuit et Ninns, imposita Tigri, ad solis occasum spectana, quondam clarit- sima."—Plin. H. N. vi. 13. The site of the great capital of Assyria had generally been regarded as fixed with sufficient certainty to the tract imme- diately opposite Mosul, alike by local tradition and by the statements of ancient writers,1 when the discovery by modern travellers of architectural remains of great magnificence at some considerable distance from this position, threw a doubt upon the generally received belief, and made the true situation of the ancient Nineveh once more a matter of controversy. When the noble sculptures and vast palaces of Nirnrud w ere first uncovered, it was natural to suppose that they marked the real site; for it seemed unlikely that any mere provincial city should have been adorned by a long series of monarchs with buildings at once on so grand a scale and so richly orna- mented. A passage of Strabo, and another of Ptolemy,8 were thought to lend confirmation to this theory, which placed the Assyrian capital nearly at the junction of the Upper Zab with the Tigris; and for a while the old opinion was displaced, and the name of Nineveh was attached very generally in this country to the ruins at Nimrud. Shortly afterwards a rival claimant started up in the regions further to the north. Excavations carried on at the village of 1 The local tradition is strikingly marked by the Mahometan belief that on the smaller of the two mounds oppo- site Mosul is 11 the tomb of Jonah :" whence the name Nebbi-Yunus. The most important of the ancient authorities is Xenophon (Anab. iii. 4, §§ 10-12). 2 See Layard's Nineveh and its Re- mains, vol. ii. p. 242. Neither passage is correctly represented by Mr. Layard. Ptolemy distinctly places Nineveh—not on the Lycus, as Mr. Layard says—but on the Tigris (Geograph. vi. 1); and Strabo, though he does not actually do the same, certainly does not anywhere" say that it was "near the junction of the two rivers." He says that the Lycus divided Aturia from Arbelitis, and that Nineveh was situated in the middle of the former district (xvi. 1, § 3). Chap. IY. 249 THE CAPITAL. Khorsabad showed, that a magnificent palace and a consider- able town had existed in Assyrian times at that site. In spite of the obvious objection that the Khorsabad ruins lay at the distance of fifteen miles from the Tigris, which according to every writer of weight3 anciently washed the walls of Nineveh, it was assumed by the excavator that the discovery of the capital had been reserved for himself, and the splendid >york representing the Khorsabad bas-reliefs and inscriptions, which was published in France under the title of 'Monument de Ninive,' caused the reception of M. Botta's theory in many parts of the Continent. After a while an attempt was made to reconcile the rival claims by a theory, the grandeur of which gained it acceptance, despite its improbability. It was suggested that the various ruins, which had hitherto disputed the name, were in fact all included within the circuit of the ancient Nineveh; which was described as a rectangle, or oblong square, eighteen miles long and twelve broad. The remains at Khorsabad, Koyunjik' Nimrud, and Keremles marked the four corners of this vast quadrangle,4 which contained an area of 216 square miles— about ten times that of London! In confirmation of this view was urged, first, the description in Diodorus,5 derived probably from Ctesias, which corresponded (it was said) both with the proportions and with the actual distances; and next, the state- ments contained in the book of Jonah,6 which (it was argued) implied a city of some such dimensions. The parallel of Babylon, according to the description given by Herodotus,7 might fairly have been cited as a further argument; since it might have seemed reasonable to suppose that there was no great difference of size between the chief cities of the two kindred empires. 'Herod, i. 193; Nic. Dam. Fr. 9; Arrian. Hilt. Ind. 42; Plin. U. N. vi. 13; Eustath. ad Dionys. Perieg. 988; &c . It is perhaps by a slip of the pen that Diodorus places Nineveh on the Euphrates (ii. 3). 4 See Layard's Nineveh and its Remains, vol. ii. p. 247. 4 Diodorus (1. s. c.) made Nineveh an oblong square 140 stades (18J miles) long, and 90 stades (11J miles) broad. Nimrud is eighteen miles from Koyunjik, and about twelve from Keremles. (Lay- ard, 1. s. c.) e Ch. iii. ver. 3, and ch. iv. vcr. 11. 'Book i. ch. 178. THE SECOND MONARCHY. Chap. IV. Attractive, however, as this theory is from its grandeur, and harmonious as it must be allowed to be with the reports of the Greeks, we have nevertheless to reject it on two grounds, the one historical and the other topographical. The ruins of Khor- sabad, Keremles, Nimrud, and Koyunjik bear on their bricks distinct local titles; and these titles are found attaching to distinct cities in the historical inscriptions. Nimrud, as al- ready observed, is Calah; and Khorsabad is Dur-Sargina, or "the city of Sargon." Keremles has also its own appellation, Dur- * * *, "the city of the God JjZ." Now the Assyrian writers do not consider these places to be parts of Nineveh, but speak of them as distinct and separate cities. Calah for a long time is the capital, while Nineveh is mentioned as a provincial town. Dur-Sargina is built by Sargon not at Nineveh, but "near to Nineveh." Scripture, it must be re- membered, similarly distinguishes Calah as a place separate from Nineveh and so far from it that there was room for " a great city" between them.8 And the geographers, while they give the name of Aturia or Assyria Proper to the country about the one town,9 call the region which surrounds the other by a distinct name, Calachene.1 Again, when the country is closely examined, it is found, not only that there are no signs of any continuous town over the space included within the four sites of Nimrud, Keremles, Khorsabad, and Koyunjik, nor any re- mains of walls or ditches connecting them,2 but that the four sites themselves are as carefully fortified on what, by the theory we are examining, would be the inside of the city as in other directions.3 It perhaps need scarcely be added, unless to meet the argument drawn from Diodorus, that the four sites in 8 Gen. x. 11, 12. We must understand the expression "a great city,'' as qua- lified by the circumstances under which it is used—a great city according to the size of cities in the primeval times. The city in question may probably have oc- cupied the site of the ruins at Selaraiyeh. "Strab. xvi. 1, § 1; Arrian. Exp. Alex. iii. 7; Plin. H. N. v. 12. 'Supra, p. 194. s See the careful surveys of Capt. Jones, published by the Royal Asiatic Society. (Journal, vol. xv.) 3 See the plans of the ruins at Nimrud and Koyunjik (pp. 200 and 253). Koyun- jik, according to the hypothesis, would occupy the north-west angle of the town, and its southern and eastern sides would thus be within the town; but the chief defences arc those on the east. Chap. IV. THEORIES AS TO ITS SIZE, EXAMINED. 251 question are not so placed as to form the "oblong square" of his description,4 but mark the angles of a rhombus very much slanted from the perpendicular. The argument derived from the book of Jonah deserves more attention than that which rests upon the authority of Diodorus and Ctesias. Unlike Ctesias, Jonah saw Nineveh while it still stood; and though the writer of the prophetical book may not have been Jonah himself,5 he probably lived not very many years later.6 Thus his evidence is that of a contemporary, though (it may be) not that of an eye-witness; and, even apart from the inspiration which guided his pen, he is entitled to be heard with the utmost respect. Now the statements of this writer, which have a bearing on the size of Nineveh, are two. He tells us, in one place, that it was "an exceeding great city, of three days' journey;"7 in another, that "in it were more than 120,000 persons who could not discern between their right hand and their left."8 These passages are clearly intended to describe a city of a size unusual at the time; but both of them are to such an extent vague and indistinct, that it is impossible to draw from either separately, or even from the two combined, an exact definite notion. "A city of three days' journey " may be one which it requires three days to traverse from end to end, or one which is three days' journey in circumference, or, lastly, one which cannot be thoroughly visited and explored by a prophet commissioned to warn the inhabitants of a coming danger in less than three days' time. Persons not able to dis- tinguish their right hand from their left may (if taken literally) mean children, and 120,000 such persons may therefore indi- cate a total population of 600,000; or, the phrase may perhaps 4 Diod. Sic. ii. 3. s It has been remarked that "the writer of the hook of Jonah nowhere identifies himself with the prophet." (Vance Smith, Prophecies on Nineveh, p. 252.) "On the contrary, he rather carefully keeps himself distinct, speak- ing of Jonah always in the third person, and not suggesting, by a single word or implication, that he ever thought of being regarded as, at the same time, both writer and subject of the narrative." All this is undoubtedly true, but it does not establish the negative. « The position of the book in the He- brew Canon, between Amos and Micah, shows that its date was regarded as fall- ing between Uzziah (b.c. 808) and Heze- kiah (b.c. 697). Nineveh was not de- stroyed till, at any rate, b.c. 625. 7 Jonah iii. 3. • Ibid. iv. 11. 252 Cuap. IV. THE SECOND MONAECHY. with greater probability be understood of moral ignorance, and the intention would in that case be to designate by it all the inhabitants. If Nineveh was in Jonah's time a city containing a population of 120,000, it would sufficiently deserve the title of "an exceeding great city;" and the prophet might well be occupied for three days in traversing its squares and streets. We shall find hereafter that the ruins opposite Mosul have an extent more than equal to the accommodation of this number of persons. The weight of the argument from the supposed parallel case of Babylon must depend on the degree of confidence which can be reposed in the statement made by Herodotus, and on the opinion which is ultimately formed with regard to the real size of that capital. It would be improper to anticipate here the conclusions, which may be arrived at hereafter, concerning the real dimensions of "Babylon the Great;" but it may be ob- served that grave doubts are entertained in many quarters as to the ancient statements on the subject, and that the ruins do not cover much more than one twenty-fifth of the space which Herodotus assigns to the city. We may, therefore, without much hesitation, set aside the theory which would ascribe to the ancient Nineveh dimensions nine or ten times greater than those of London, and proceed to a description of the group of ruins believed by the best, judges to mark the true site. The ruins opposite Mosul consist of two principal mounds, known respectively as Nebbi-Yunus and Koyunjik. The Ko- yunjik mound, which lies to the north-west of the other, at the distance of 900 yards, or a little more than half a mile, is very- much the more considerable of the two. Its shape is an irre- gular oval, elongated to a point towards the north-east, in the line of its greater axis. The surface is nearly flat; the sides slope at a steep angle, and are furrowed with numerous ravines, worn in the soft material by the rains of some thirty centuries. The greatest height of the mound above the.plain is towards the south-eastern extremity, where it overhangs the small stream of the Khosr; the elevation in this part being about Chap. IV. DESCRIPTION OF THE RUINS. 253 ninety-five feet. The area covered by the mound is estimated at a hundred acres, and the entire mass is said to contain 14,500,000 tons of earth. The labour of a man would scarcely excavate and place in position more than 120 tons of earth in a year; it would require therefore the united exertions of 10,000 men for twelve years, or 2U,000 men for six years, Ruins of Nineveh. I. Palace of Sennacherib. 2, Supposed Tomb of Jonah. to complete the structure.1 On this artificial eminence were raised in ancient times the palaces and temples of the Assyrian monarchs, which are now imbedded in the debris of their own ruins. The mound of Nebbi-Yunus is at its base nearly triangular. 1 See the Journal of the Asiatic Society, vol. xv. p. 326, note *. 254 THE SECOND MOKAECHY. Chap. IV. It covers an area of about forty acres. It is loftier, and its sides are more precipitous, than Koyunjik, especially on the west, where it abutted upon the wall of the city. The surface is mostly flat, but is divided about the middle by a deep ravine, running nearly from north to south, and separating the mound into an eastern and a western portion. The so-called tomb of Jonah is conspicuous on the north edge of the western portion of the mound, and about it are grouped the cottages of the Kurds and Turcomans to whom the site of the ancient Nineveh belongs. The eastern portion of the mound forms a burial- ground, to which the bodies of Mahometans are brought from considerable distances. The mass of earth is calculated at six and a half millions of tons; so that its erection would have given full employment to 10,000 men for the space of five years and a half. , These two vast mounds—the platforms on which palaces and temples were raised—are both in the same line, and abutted, both of them, on the western wall of the city. Their position in that wall is thought to have been determined, not by chance, but by design; since they break the western face of the city into three nearly equal portions.2 The entire length of this side of Nineveh was 13,600 feet, or somewhat more than two and a half miles. Anciently it seems to have immediately overhung the Tigris, which has now moved off to the west, leaving a plain nearly a mile in width between its eastern edge and the old rampart of the city. This rampart followed, apparently, the natural course of the river-bank; and hence, while on the whole it is tolerably straight, in the most southern of the three por- tions it exhibits a gentle curve, where the river evidently made a sweep, altering its course from south-east nearly to south. The western wall at its northern extremity approaches the present course of the Tigris, and is here joined, exactly at right angles, by the northern, or rather the north-western, rampart, 2 Capt. Jones notes that from the from the centre of the Nebbi - Tunus N.W. angle of the city to the centre of mound to the S.W. angle of the city, are the Koyunjik mound, from that to the exactly equal distances. (Journal of Asi- centre of the Nebbi-Yunus mound, and atic Society, vol. w. p. 325.) Chap. IV. 255 REAL EXTENT OF NINEVEH. which runs in a perfectly straight line to the north-eastern angle of the city, and is said to measure exactly 7000 feet.3 This wall is again divided, like the western, but with even more preciseness, into three equal portions. Commencing at the north-eastern angle, one-third of it is carried along com- paratively high ground, after which for the remaining two- thirds of its course it falls by a gentle decline towards the Khosr-Su and Mound of Nebbi-Yunus (after Layard). Tigris. Exactly midway in this slope the rampart is broken by a road, adjoitfing which is a remarkable mound, covering one of the chief gates of the city.'« At its other extremity the western wall forms a very obtuse angle with the souther^ which impends over a deep ravine formed by a winter torrent, and runs in a straight line for about 'Journal of Asiatic Society, vol. xv. p. 322. 4 Ibid. p. 323. 256 CuAr. IV. THE SECOND MONARCHY. 1000 yards, when it meets the eastern wall, with which it forms a slightly acute angle. It remains to describe the eastern wall, which is the longest, and the least regular of the four. This barrier skirts the edge of a ridge of conglomerate rock, which here rises somewhat above the level of the plain, and presents a slightly convex sweep to the north-east. At first it runs nearly parallel to the western, and at right angles to the northern wall; but, after pursuing this course for about three quarters of a mile, it is forced by the natural convexity of the ridge to retire a little, and curving gently inwards it takes a direction much more southerly than at first, thus drawing continually nearer to the western wall, whose course is almost exactly south-east. The entire length of this wall is 16,000 feet, or above three miles. It is divided into two portions, whereof the southern is some- what the longer, by the stream of the Khosr-Su; which, coming from the north-west, finds its way through the ruins of the city, and then runs on across the low plain to the Tigris. The enceinte of Nineveh forms thus an irregular trapezium, or a "triangle with its apex abruptly cut off to the south." 3 The breadth, even in the broadest part — that towards the north—is very disproportionate to the length, standing to it as four to nine, or as 1 to 2-25. The town is thus of an oblong shape, and so far Diodorus truly described it ;6 though his dimensions greatly exceed the truth. The circuit of the walls is somewhat less than eight miles, instead of being more than fifty; and the area which they include is 1800 English acres, instead of being 112,000! It is reckoned that in a populous Oriental town we may compute the inhabitants at nearly, if not quite, a hundred per acre. This allows a considerable space for streets, open squares, and gardens; since it assigns but one individual to every space of fifty square yards. According to such a mode of reckoning, the population of ancient Nineveh, within the enceinte here described, may be estimated at 175,000 souls. No city of Western Asia is at the present day so populous. 4 Journal of the Asiatic Society, vol. xv. p. 324. • Diod. Sic. ii. 3, § 2. Chap. IV. 257 HEIGHT OF THE WALLS. In the above description of the ramparts surrounding Nineveh, no account has been given of their width or height. According to Diodorus the wall wherewith Ninus surrounded his capital was 100 feet high, and so broad that three chariots might drive side by side along the top. Xenophon, who passed close to the ruins on his retreat with the Ten Thousand, calls the height 150 feet, and the width 50 feet.7 The actual greatest height at present seems to be 4G feet;8 but the debris at the foot of the walls are so great, and the crumbled character of the walls themselves is so evident, that the chief modern explorer inclines to regard the computation of Diodorus as probably no exaggera- tion of the truth.9 The width of the walls, in their crumbled condition, is from 100 to 200 feet. The mode in which the walls were constructed seems to have been the following. Up to a certain height—fifty feet, accord- ing to Xenophon1—they were composed of neatly-hewn blocks of a fossiliferous limestone, smoothed and polished on the out- side.2 Above this, the material used was sun-dried brick. The stone masonry was certainly ornamented along its top by a con- tinuous series of battlements or gradines in the same material;3 a/v/vv\ and it is not unlikely that a similar ornamentation crowned the upper brick structure.4 The wall was pierced at irregular Anab. iii. 4, § 10. I assume that I Xenophon's; but, as his estimate of the Mespila of Xenophon is identical twenty feet is exact!'/ correct for the with the ruins opposite Mosul. There stone basement of the walls of Nimrud does not seem to be any reasonable doubt of this. (See Ainsworth, Travels in the Trach of the Ten Thousand, p. 140; Journal of Asiatic Society, vol. xv. p. (Larissa), we may fairly assume that he probably did not much miscalculate here. (Cf. Anab. iii. 4, § 7. with I^iyard's Nineveh and Babylon, pp. 123, 125.) 332.) 2 AiBov £eo-rov Koyxv\iirov. (Anab. 'Journal of Asiatic Society, vol. xv. iii. 4, § 10.) Mr. Ainsworth remarks p. 322. that this fossiliferous stone is the com- Layard, Nineveh and Babylon, p. 660. | mon building material at Mosul, but '- The remains still existing of these for- tifications almost confirm the statement of Diodorus Siculus, that the walls were a hundred feet high," &c. 1 Anab. iii. 4, § 10. The excavations have not yet tested this statement of VOL. I. "does not occur far to the north or to the south, being succeeded by wastes of gypsum." (Travels in the Trach of the Ten Thousmui, p. 140.") 3 Ijiyard. Nin. and Bab., p. 658. 4 Ibid., note. 258 Chap. IV. THE SECOND MONARCHY. intervals by gates, above which rose lofty towers; while towers, probably of lesser elevation, occurred also in the portions of the wall intervening between one gate and another. A gate in the north-western rampart has been cleared by means of excava- tion, the form and construction of which will best appear from the annexed ground-plan. It seems to have consisted of three gateways, whereof the inner and outer were ornamented with colossal human-headed bulls and other figures, while the central B \ .V-" il*alld Gate in the North Wall, Nineveh. one was merely panelled with slabs of alabaster. Between the gateways were two large chambers, 70 feet long by 23 feet wide, which were thus capable of containing a considerable body of soldiers. The chambers and gateways are supposed to have been arched over, like the castles' gates on the bas-reliefs. The gates themselves have wholly disappeared; but the debris which filled both the chambers and the passages contained so much charcoal that it is thought they must have been made, not of bronze, like the gates of Babylon,5 but of wood. The 5 Herod, i. 179. Chap. IV. 510ATS — OUTER DEFENCES. 259 ground within the gateway was paved with large slabs of lime- stone, still bearing the marks of chariot wheels.6 The castellated rampart which thus surrounded and guarded Nineveh did not constitute by any means its sole defence. Out- side the stone basement wall lay on every side a water barrier, consisting on the west and south of natural river courses; on the north and east, of artificial channels into which water was conducted from the Khosr-su. The northern and eastern walls -were skirted along their whole length by a broad and deep moat, into which the Khosr-su was made to flow by occupying its natural bed with a strong dam, carried across it in the line of the eastern wall, and at the point where the stream now enters the enclosure. On meeting this obstruction, of which there are still some remains, the waters divided, and while part flowed to the south-east, and reached the Tigris by the ravine immediately to the south of the city, which is a natural water- course, part turned at an acute angle to the north-West, and, washing the remainder of the eastern and the whole of the northern wall, gained the Tigris at the north-west angle of the city, where a second dam kept it at a sufficient height. Moreover, on the eastern face, which appears to have been regarded as the weakest, a series of outworks were erected for the further defence of the city. North of the Khosr, between the city wall and that river, which there runs parallel to the wall, and forms a sort of second or outer moat, tltfcre are traces of a detached fort of considerable size, which must have greatly strengthened the defences in that quarter. South and south- east of the Khosr, the works are still more elaborate. In the first place, from a point where the Khosr leaves the hills and debouches upon comparatively low ground, a deep ditch, 200 feet broad, was carried through compact silicious conglomerate for upwards of two miles, till it joined the ravine which formed the natural protection of the city upon the south. On either side of this ditch, which could be readily supplied with water from the Khosr at its northern extremity, was built a broad and lofty wall; the eastern one, which forms the outermost of « Layard, Km. and Lab. pp. 120-123. S 2 26o Chap. IV. THE SECOND MONARCHY. Chap. IV. INTERIOR OF THE CITY. the defences, rises even now a hundred feet ahove the bottom of the ditch on which it adjoins. Further, between this outer barrier and the city moat was interposed a species of demi-luue, guarded by a double wall and a broad ditch, and connected (as is thought) by a covered way with Nineveh itself.7 Thus the city was protected on this, its most vulnerable side, towards the centre by five walls and three broad and deep moats; towards the north, by a wall, a moat, the Khosr, and a strong outpost; towards the south, by two moats and three lines of rampart. The breadth of the whole fortification on this side is 2200 feet, or not far from half a mile.8 Such was the site, and such were the defences, of the capital of Assyria. Of its internal arrangements but little can be said at present, since no general examination of the space within the ramparts has been as yet made, and no ancient account of the interior has come down to us. We can only see that the side of the city which was most fashionable was the western, which immediately overhung the Tigris; since here were the palaces of the kings, and here seem also to have been the dwell- ings of the richer citizens; at least, it is on this side, in the space intervening between Koyunjik and the northern rampart, that the only very evident remains of edifices—besides the great mounds of Koyunjik and Nebbi-Yunus—are found.9 The river was no doubt the main attraction ; but perhaps the western side was also considered the most secure, as lying furthest from the quarter whence alone the inhabitants expected to be attacked, namely, the east. It is impossible at present to give any account of the character of the houses or the direction of the streets. Perhaps the time may not be far distant when more systematic and continuous efforts will be made by the enterprise of Europe to obtain full knowledge of all the remains which still lie buried at this interesting site. No such discoveries are indeed to be expected as those which have recently startled the world; but patient explorers would still be sure of an ample reward, were they to glean after Layard in the field from which he swept so magnificent a harvest. 7 Journal of Asiatic Society, vol. xv. p. 322. • Layard, Nin. and Bab. p. 660, note. * See the plan (supra, p. 253); and comp. the Journ. of Asiatic Society, vol. xv. p. 323. 262 Chap. V. THE SECOND MONARCHY. CHAPTER V. LANGUAGE AND WEITING. "Tpappara 'Ao-cripta."—Herod, iv. 87. Theke has never been much difference of opinion among the learned with regard to the language spoken by the Assyrians. As the Biblical genealogy connected Asshur with Eber and Aram,1 while the Greeks plainly regarded the Syrians, Assy- rians, and Babylonians as a single race,2 it was always supposed that the people thus associated must have possessed a tongue allied, more or less closely, to the Hebrew, the Syriac, and the Chaldee. These tongues were known to be dialectic varieties of a single form of speech—the Semitic; and it was consequently the general belief, before any Assyrian inscriptions had been disinterred, that the Assyrian language was of this type, either 'a sister tongue to the three above mentioned, or else identical with some one of them. The only difficulty in the way of this theory was the supposed Medo-Persic or Arian character of a certain number of Assyrian royal names; but this difficulty was thought to be sufficiently met by a suggestion that the ruling tribe might have been of Median descent, and have maintained its old national appellatives, while the mass of the population belonged to a different race.3 Recent discoveries have shown that this last suggestion was needless, as the difficulty which it was intended to meet does not exist. The Assyrian names, which either history or the monuments have handed down to up, are Semitic, and not Arian. It is only among the fabulous accounts of the Assyrian Empire put forth by Ctesias that Arian 1 Gen. x. 21-25. 2 See Herod, vii. 63, and 140; ^sch. Pert. 86; Xen. Cyrop. v. 4, § 51, &c.; Scylax, Peripl. p. 80; Dionys. Perieg. 772; Strab. xvi. 1, §2; Arrian, Fr. 48; Plin. II. X v. 12; Mela, i. 11, for the confusion of Assyrians with Syrians. For the close connexion and almost iden- tification of the Babylonians with the Assyrians, see Herod, i. 106, 178; iii. 92; Strab. 1. s. c.; &c. 'Prichard, Physical History of Stun- hnd, vol. iv. p. 568. Cbap. V. 263 ASSYRIAN LANGUAGE AND WRITING. names, such as Xerxes, Arius, Armamithres, Mithraeus, &c... are to be found. Together with the true names of the Assyrian kings, the mounds of Mesopotamia have yielded up a mass of documents in the Assyrian language, tfroin which it is possible that we may one day acquire as full a knowledge of its structure and vocabu- lary as we possess at present of Greek or Latin. These docu- ments have confirmed the previous belief that the tongue is Semitic. They consist, in the first place, of long inscriptions upon the slabs of stone with which the walls of palaces were panelled, sometimes occupying the stone to the exclusion of any sculpture, sometimes carried across the dress of figures, always carefully cut and generally in good preservation.4 Next in impor- tance to these memorials are the hollow cylinders, or more strictly speaking, hexagonal or octagonal prisms, made in extremely fine and thin terracotta,5 which the Assyrian kings used to de- posit at the corners of temples, inscribed with an account of their chief acts and with numerous religious invocations. These cylinders vary from a foot and a half to three feet in height, and are covered closely with a small writing, which it often requires a good magnifying glass to decipher. A cylinder of Tiglath-Pileser I. (about B.C. 1180) contains thirty lines in a space of six inches, or five lines to an inch, which is nearly as close as the type of the present volume. This degree of close- ness is exceeded on a cylinder of Asshur-bani-pal's (about B.C. 660), where the lines are six to the inch, or as near together as the type of the Edinburgh Review. If the complexity of the Assyrian characters be taken into account, and if it be remem- Assyrian Cylinder. « Occasionally the slabs have been purposely defaced and rendered illegible, pro- bably by kings of another dynasty. s Birch, Ancient l'uttery, p. 144. 264 Chap. V. THE SECOND MONARCHY bered that the whole inscription was in every case impressed by the hand, this minuteness must be allowed to be very surprising. It is not favourable to legibility; and the patience of cuneiform scholars has been severely tried by a mode of writing which sacrifices everything to the desire of crowding the greatest pos- sible quantity of words into the smallest possible space. In one respect, however, facility of reading is consulted, for the inscrip- tions on the cylinders are not carried on in continuous lines Assyrian Seals (after Layard). round all the sides, but are written in columns, each column occupying a side. The lines are thus tolerably short; and the whole of a sentence is brought before the eye at once. Besides slabs and cylinders, the written memorials of Assyria comprise inscribed bulls and lions, stone obelisks, clay tablets, bricks, and engraved seals. The seals generally resemble those of the Chaldaeans, which have been already described ;6 but are somewhat more elaborate, and more varied in their character. * See above, " First Monarchy," ch. iv. p. 68, and ch. v. pp. 93-95. Chap. V. 265 SLABS, CYLINDERS, SEALS, TABLETS. They do not very often exhibit any writing; but occasionally they are inscribed with the name of their owner,7 while in a few instances they show an inscription of some length. The clay tablets are both numerous and curious. They are of various sizes, ranging from nine inches long by six and a half wide, to an inch and a half long by an inch wide, or even less.8 Sometimes they are entirely covered with writing; while sometimes they exhibit on a portion of their surface the Assyrian Clay Tablets (after Layard). impressions of seals, mythological emblems, and the like. Some thousands of them have been recovered; and they are found to be of the most varied character. Many are historical, still more mythological; some are linguistic, some geographic, some again astronomical. It is anticipated that, when they are deci- phered, we shall obtain a complete encyclopaedia of Assyrian science, and shall be able by this means to trace a large portion of the knowledge of the Greeks to an Oriental source. Here is a mine still very little worked, from which patient and cautious investigators may one day extract the most valuable literary 'Layard, Nincieh and Babylon, p. 604, note. 8 Ibid. p. 3-45. 266 Chap. V. THE SECOND MONARCHY. treasures. The stone obelisks are but few, and are mostly in a fragmentary condition. One alone is perfect—the obelisk in black basalt, discovered by Mr. Layard at Ninmul, which has now for many years been in the British Museum. This monu- ment is sculptured on each of its four sides, iu part with writing Black Obelisk, from Nimrud (after Birch). and in part with bas-reliefs. It is about seven feet high, and two feet broad at the base, tapering gently towards the summit, which is crowned with three low steps, or gradines. The in- scription, which occupies the upper and lower portion of each side, and is also carried along the spaces between the bas-reliefs, consists of 210 clearly cut lines, and is one of the most im- portant documents that has come down to us. It gives an Chap. V. 267 WRITING MATERIALS. account of various victories gained by the monarch who set it up, and of the tribute brought him by several princes.9 The inscribed lions and bulls are numerous. They commonly guard the portals of palaces, and are raised in a bold relief on alabaster slabs. The writing does not often trench upon the sculpture, but covers all those portions of the slabs which are not occupied by the animal. It is usually a full account of some particular campaign, which was thus specially commemorated, giving in detail what is far more briefly expressed in the obelisk and slab inscriptions.1 This review of the various kinds of documents which have been discovered in the ancient cities of Assyria, seems to show that two materials were principally in use among the people for literary purposes, namely, stone and moist clay. The monarchs used the former most commonly, though sometimes they condescended for some special object to the coarser and more fragile material. Private persons in their business trans- actions, literary and scientific men in their compositions, em- ployed the latter, on which it was possible to write rapidly with a triangular instrument, and which was no doubt far cheaper than the slabs of fine stone, which were preferred for the royal inscriptions. The clay documents, when wanted for instruction or as evidence, were carefully baked; and thus it is that they have come down to us, despite their fragility, often in as legible a condition, with the letters as clear and sharp, as any legend on marble, stone, or metal that we possess belonging to Greek, or even to Roman times. The best clay skilfully baked, is a material quite as enduring as either stone or metal ;2 resisting many influences better than either of those materials. It may still be asked, did not the Assyrians use other ma- terials also? Did they not write with ink of some kind on paper, or leather, or parchment? It is certain that the Egypt- ians had invented a kind of thick paper many centuries before the Assyrian power arose;3 and it is further certain that the 'Sec the translation by Dr. Hincks in the IhMin University Magazine for October, J 853. 1 Journ. of Asiatic Sot:, vol. xii. p. 441. s Birch, Ancient Pottery, vol. i. p. 2. 5 Wilkinson, in the author's Herodo- tus, vol. ii. p. 320, § 33. 268 Chap. V. THE SECOND MONARCHY. later Assyrian kings had a good deal of intercourse with Egypt. Under such circumstances, can we suppose that they did not import paper from that country? Again, the Persians, we are told, used parchment for their public records.4 Are not the Assyrians, a much more ingenious people, likely to have done the same, at any rate to some extent? There is no direct evidence by which these questions can be determinately an- swered. No document on any of the materials suggested has been found. No ancient author states that the Assyrians or the Babylonians used them.5 Had it not been for one piece of indirect evidence, it would have seemed nearly certain that they were not employed by the Mesopotamian races. In some of the royal palaces, however, small lumps of fine clay have been found, bearing the impressions of seals, and exhibiting traces of the string by which they were attached to documents, while the documents themselves, being of a different material, have pe- rished.6 It seems probable that in these instances some sub- stance like paper or parchment was used; and thus we are led to the conclusion that, while clay was the most common, and stone an ordinary writing material among the Assyrians, some third substance, probably Egyptian paper, was also known, and was used occasionally, though somewhat rarely, for public documents. We may now proceed to consider the style and nature of the Assyrian writing. Derived evidently from the Chaldaean, it is far less archaic in type, presenting no pictorial representations of objects, and but a few characters where the pictorial repre- sentation can be traced. It is in no case wholly rectilinear; and 4 Diod. Sic. ii. 32. As Diodorus' sole torians of Alexander mentioned a stone authority hero is the untrustworthy inscription of Sardanapalus (Arr. Erp. Ctesias. no great dependance can be Al. ii. 5; Strab. xiv. 5, § 9). The east- placed on his statement. | ern tradition that Seth wrote the history 5 This is not a mere negative argu- and wisdom of antediluvian times oti ment. since statements of the nature of burnt and unburnt brick (Layard, Am. the material used do occur, and accord and Bab. p. 347, note), has a similar with the monumental facts. F.pigenes, for instance, spoke of the Babylonians recording their astronomical observa- tions upon baked tiles (" coctilibus later- culis," Plin. //. N. vii. 56), and the his- bearing. * Layard, p. 154; Botta, Letters from Nineveh, p. 27. For a representation of the mark of the string see above, p. 264. Chap. V. 269 CHAEACTKES. indeed preserves the straight line only in a very few characters, as in 1 y for "house," [j^==^ for "gate," for "temple, altar," and for "fish," all which are in the later inscriptions superseded by simpler forms. The wedge niav thus be said to be almost the sole element of the writing— the wedge, however, under a great variety of forms—sometimes greatly elongated, as thus V" , sometimes contracted to a triangle >- , sometimes broadened out , sometimes doubled in such a way as to form an arrow-head ^, and placed in every direction—horizontal, perpendicular, and diagonal. The number of characters is very great. Sir H. Rawlinson, in the year 1851, published a list of 216, or including variants, 066 characters, as occurring in the inscriptions known to him.7 M. Oppert, in 1858, gave 318 forms as those "most in use."8 Of course it is at once evident that this alphabet cannot represent elementary sounds. The Assyrian characters, do, in fact, cor- respond, not to letters, according to our notion of letters, but to syllables. These syllables are either mere vowel sounds, such as we represent by our vowels and diphthongs, or such sounds accompanied by one or two consonants. The vowels are not very numerous. The Assyrians recognise three only as funda- mental—a, i, and u. Besides these they have the diphthongs ai, nearly equivalent to e, and ow, nearly equivalent to o.9 The vowels i and u have also the powers, respectively, of y and v. The consonant sounds recognised in the language are sixteen 7 Journal of Asiatic Society, vol. xiv. 8 Espe'dition actentijioue en Jlesof'otii- mie, tom. ii. livro i. Appendicc ; Catalogue des signes les plus usite'i, pp. 107-120. 9 The vowels must be sounded as in Italian, A as a in "vast"—E as a in "face"—I as e in "me"—O as o in "host"— U as u in " rude." 270 Chap. V. THE SECOND MONARCHY. in number. They are the labial, guttural, and dental tenues, p, k, t; the labial, guttural, and dental mediie, b, g, d; the guttural and dental aspirates, kh (= Heb. n) and th (= Greek 6); the liquids I, m,x n, r; and the sibilants 8, sh (= Heb. e;)> ts ( = Heb. v), and a. The system here is nearly that of the Hebrews, from which it differs only by the absence of the simple aspirate n,2 of the guttural y, and of the aspirated b (j1h). It has no sound which the Hebrew has not. From these sounds, combined with the simple vowels, comes the Assyrian syllabarium, to which, and not to the consonants themselves, the characters were assigned. In the first place, each consonant being capable of two combinations with each simple vowel, could give birth naturally to six simple syllables, each of which would be in the Assyrian system represented by a character. Six characters, for instance, entirely different from one another, represented pa, pi, pu, ap, ip, up; six other?, ka, ki, ku, ak, ik, uk; six others again, ta, ti, tu, at, it, ut. If this rule were carried out in every case the sixteen consonant sounds would, it is evident, produce 96 characters. The actual number, however, formed in this way, is only 75, since there are seven of the consonants which only combine with the vowels in one way. Thus we have, ha, hi, bu, but not ah, ib, ub; ga, gi, gu, but not ag, ig, tig; and so on. The sounds regarded as capable of only one combination are the mediie, b, g,d; the aspirates kh and th; and the sibilants ts and 2. Such is the first and simplest syllabarium: but the Assyrian system does not stop here. It proceeds to combine with each simple vowel sound two consonants, one preceding the vowel and the other following it. If this plan were followed out to the utmost possible extent, the result would be an addition to the syllabarium of 768 sounds, each having its proper character, which would raise the number of characters to between eight and nine hundred! Fortunately for the student, phonetic laws 1 The Assyrians confounded the sounds j * There is a character representing of m and t, as the Ont'lcs did those of /» the soft breathing '; but none, appa- and /3. (See Huttmann's LexihtjHS, p. rentl}", for the rough breathing \ 84, and p. 189, E. T.) Chap. V. 271 CHARACTERS. and other causes have intervened to check (his extreme luxu- riance; and the combinations of this kind which are known to exist, instead of amounting to the full limit of 768, are under 150. The known Assyrian alphabet is, however, in this way raised from 80, or, including variants, 100, to between 240 and 230 characters. Further, there is another kind of character, quite different from these, which Orientalists have called "determinatives." Certain classes of words have a sign prefixed or suffixed to them, most commonly the former, by which their general character is indicated. The names of gods, of men, of cities, of tribes, of wild animals, of domestic animals, of metals, of months, of the points of the compass, and of dignities, are thus accompanied. The sign prefixed or suffixed may have oiiginally represented a word; but when used in the way here spoken of, it is believed that it was not sounded, but served simply to indicate to the reader the sort of word which was placed before him. Thus a single perpendicular wedge, ^', indicates that the next word will be the name of a man; such a wedge, preceded by two horizontal ones, » y , tells us to expect the appellative of a god; while other more complicated combinations are used in the remaining instances. There are about ten or twelve cha- racters of this description. Finally, there are a certain number of characters which have been called " ideographs," or " monograms." Most of the gods, and various cities and countries are represented by a group of wedges, which is thought not to have a real phonetic force, but to be a conventional sign for an idea, much as the Arabic nu- merals, 1, 2, 3, &c., are non-phonetic signs representing the ideas, one, two, three, &c. The known characters of this de- scription are between twenty and thirty. The known Assyrian characters are thus brought up nearly to three hundred! There still remain a considerable number which are either wholly unknown, or of which the meaning is 272 Chap. V. THE SECOND MONARCHY. known, while the phonetic value cannot at present be deter- mined. M. Oppert's Catalogue contains fourteen of the former and fifty-nine of the latter class. It has been already observed, that the monumental evidence accords with the traditional belief in regard to the character of the Assyrian language, which is unmistakably Semitic. Not only does the vocabulary present constant analogies to other Semitic dialects, but the phonetic laws and the grammatical forms are equally of this type. At the same time the language has peculiarities of its own, which separate it from its kindred tongues, and constitute it a distinct form of Semitic speech, not a mere variety of any known form. It is neither Hebrew, nor Arabic, nor Phoenician, nor Chaldee, nor Syriac, but a sister tongue to these, having some analogies with all of them, and others, more or fewer, with each. On the whole, its closest relationship seems to be with the Hebrew, and its greatest di- vergence from the Aramaic or Syriac, with which it was yet, locally, in immediate connection. To attempt anything like a full illustration of these state- ments in the present place would be manifestly unfitting. It would be to quit the province of the historian and archaeologist, in order to enter upon that of the comparative philologer or the grammarian. At the same time a certain amount of illus- tration seems necessary, in order to show that the statements above made are not mere theories, but have a substantial basis. The Semitic character of the vocabulary will probably be felt to be sufficiently established by the following lists:— NOUNS SUBSTANTIVE. Abu, " a father." Compare Hob. 2tt, ;Arabic aboit. Urnmu, "a mother." Comp. Heb. DN, and Arabic urn. Akhu, " a brother." Comp. Heb. PIN, T1X. Pal or bal, " a son." Comp. Syriac bar, and perhaps Hub. ]3. llu, "God." Comp. Heb. bit, tfbtji; Arabic Allah. Sarru, " a king." Comp. Heb. X'. Malik, " a prince." Comp. Heb. "q^D, and Arabic malik. Bilu, "a lord." Comp. Heb. bj?3. Nitu, " a man." Comp. Heb. B'1JK, "a mortal," and Chald. Q'Eb, "women." Chap. V. 273 THE VOCABULARY SEMITIC. Dayan, "a judge." Comp. Heb. t^, from fn, judicare. Sumu, "a name." Comp. Heb. DC\ Sami, " heaven." Comp. Heb. D^OE', " the heavens." IHtit, " the earth." Comp. Heb. p«. Shamas, " the sun." Comp. Heb. £73!?. Tsin, " the moon." 0itnp. Syriac sin. Marrat, 8r rarraf, "the sea." Comp. Arabic bahr, " a lako"(?). Or may the root be "ID, " bitter"? Comp. Lat. mare, a-murus. Nahar, " a river." Comp. Heb. and Arabic nahr. Yumu, " day." Comp. Heb. Dr. Hama, " the world." Comp. Heb. D}1J?. •Jr, " a city." Comp. Heb. TJ?. Bit, "a house." Comp. Heb. TV3. Bab, " a gate." Comp. Chald. H33, and Arabic bah. Liean, " a tongue," or " language." Comp. Heb. :Chald. Jmr, " a place." Comp. Chald. "lrlK. JUYiu, " death." Comp. Heb. n'lD. Stmi, " a horse." Comp. Heb. DID. ADJECTIVES. liahu. " great." Comp. Heb. 3"1; whence the well-kuowu Eabbi (K3"!), "a great one, a doctor." Tabu, "good." Comp. Chald. 30, and Heb. 310. Bashu, " bad." Comp. Heb. t^SD, " a base one," from C"13, " to bo ashamed.'' Madut, " many." Comp. Heb. 184D, " exceedingly." Biik, " far, wide." Comp. Heb. pirn. NUMERALS. [The Tortris marked with an asterisk are conjectural.] Irhtin, "one" (raasc.). Comp. Heb. 'fCT, in TJ'JPn'-"?, "eleven." IWut, "one"(fcm.). Comp. Heb. Jinx. Shanai, "two" (mase.). Comp. Heb. D}JE', *JB>. ShaU-hat, " three" (masc.). Comp. Heb. nC^>C\ SAton, "three" (fem.). Comp. Heb. .irbat, 1- four" (masc.). Comp. Heb. nj?3")K. Arba, " four" (fem.). Comp. Heb. V3")K. Khamthat, " five" (masc.). Comp. Heb. iltl'pn. Khamieh, " five " (fem ). Comp. Heb. E'Dn. Sluithat, " six " (masc). Comp. Heb. IIE't'. S«wn, "six" (fem.). Comp. Heb. L';t?. * Subii, " seven" (masc.). Comp. Heb. HV3K'. VOL. I. T 274 Chap. V. THE SECOND MONARCHY. Shibi, " seven " (fem.). Comp. Heb. $nt?. Shamnat* "eight" (masc.). Comp.Heb. Djbt?. Tuhit* " nine" (masc.). Comp. Heb. DJ?B'n. Titki* " nine" (fem.). Comp. Heb. yB'n.' Isrit, " ten" (masc.). Comp. Heb. ilX^. liri, " ten " (fem.). Comp. Heb. W.' Israi, " twenty." Comp. Heb. Dn£v.' Shila$hai, " thirty." Comp. Heb. D'C'^E'. Ir&aV, " forty." Comp. Heb. D»1«-1K.' Khamthai, "fifty." Comp. Heb. D'B'pn. Shiehai, " sixty." Comp. Heb. D*e!B'. SAtfxu, " seventy." Comp. Heb. D\S?3t^. Shamnai* "eighty." Comp. Heb. D;:bS'. 27«Aa/, "ninety." Comp. Heb. CWfl. JWat, or Jii, " a hundred." Comp. Heb. HXO. PRONOUNS. [The forms marked with an asterisk are conjectural.] Anaku, " I." Heb. »3iK. .4«a, " thou" (masc.). Heb> rWX. Atti* " thou" (fem.). Heb. RK. Sftu, "he." Heb. Mil. fifti, "she." Heb. N'n. Andkhni(1), "we.'- Heb. -UrUN. JHun * "ye" (masc.). Heb. Dm. 4«. Shatur, " to write." Oomp. Chald. KHX', " a written contract." Tmlxit, " to hold, possess." Comp. Heb. TUV, "a bundle;" Arab, tsabat, "to hold tight;" Chald. DrUS, " tongs." t ; • ADVERBS, CONJUNCTIONS, &c V, " nnd." Heb. -1 or J. La, or aZ, " not." Heb. I7. I.apani, " before the fnce of." Heb. ^S^N. TMi, "by favour of." Heb. 'Hat, " except." Chald. Adi, '- until." Heb. "1J?. Ki, 11 if." Heb. '3. It remains to notice briefly some of the chief grammatical laws and forms. There is one remarkable difference between the Assyrian language and the Hebrew, namely, that the former has no article. In this it resembles the Syriac, which is likewise deficient in this part of speech. Assyrian nouns, like Hebrew ones, are all either masculine or feminine. Feminine nouns end ordinarily in -ai or -it, as Hebrew ones in -eth, -i£h, -uth, or -ah. There is a dual number, as in Hebrew, and it has the same limited use, being applied almost exclusively to those objects which form a pair. The plural masculine is commonly formed by adding -i -ani to the singular—terminations which recal the Hebrew addition of ; but sometimes by adding -id or -uii, to which there is no analogy in Hebrew.3 The plural feminine is made by changing -it into -et, and -at into at, or (if the word does not end in t), by adding -at. Here again there is resemblance to, though not identity with, the Hebrew, which forms the feminine plural in -oth (rfr-). 'The nearest approach to an analogy is to be found in those Hebrew nouns which adopt the feminine termination for their plurals, as 3X "a father," Ti)2tt "fathers." But in Assyrian the masculine plural termination -ut is not identical with the feminine, which is -et or -at. T 2 276 Chap. V. THE SECOND MONARCHY. Assyrian, like Hebrew, adjectives, agree in gender and num- ber with their substantives. They form the feminine singular in -at, the plural masculine in -i and -ut, the plural feminine in -at aud -et. In Assyrian, as in all other Semitic languages, the posses- sive pronouns are expressed by suffixes. These suffixes are, for the first person singular, -ya, or -it/a (Heb. ';); for the second person singular masculine, -ka (Heb. \); for the second person singular feminine, -ki (Heb. %); for the third person singular masculine, -shu (Heb. 1-); for the third person singular feminine, -sha (Hob. BH); for the first person plural, -n (Heb. «-); for the second person plural masculine, -kun (Heb. ;for the second person plural feminine, -h'n (Heb. !?"); for the third person plural masculine, shun (Heb. 2;); for the third person plural feminine, shin (Heb. 1;). The resemblance, it will be seen, is in most cases close, though in only one is there complete identity. Assyrian verbs have five principal, and four secondary, voices. Only two of these—the kal and the niphal—are exactly iden- tical with the Hebrew. The pael, however, corresponds nearly to the Hebrew piel, and the aphel to the Hebrew hiphil. ln addition to these we find enumerated the shaphil, the iphteal, the iphtdal, the istaphal, and the itaphal. Several of-these are well known forms in Chaldee. It is peculiar to Assyrian to have no distinctions of tense. The same form of the verb serves for the present, the past, and the future. The only distinctions of mood are an imperative and an inlfinitive, besides the indicative. There is also, in each voice, one participle. The verbs are conjugated by the help of pronominal suffixes and prefixes, chiefly the latter, like the future (present) tense in Hebrew. The suffixes and prefixes are nearly identical with those used in Hebrew. For further particulars on this interesting subject the student is referred to the modest but excellent work of M. Oppert, entitled 'Elemens de la Grammaire Assyrienne,' * from which the greater portion of the above remarks are taken. 4 "Elgmms, &c." par M. Jules Oppert. Paris, Imprimerie Tinporiale, 1SC0. Chap. VI. 2/7 ARCHITECTURE. CHAPTER VI. ARCHITECT UEE AND OTHER ARTS. "Architect multanim artium solertes."—Mos. Choh. (De Assyriis) i. 15. The luxury and magnificence of the Assyrians, and the ad- vanced condition of the arts among them which such words imply, were matters familiar to the Greeks and ltomans; who, however, had little ocular evidence of the fact, but accepted it upon the strength of a very clear and uniform tradition. More fortunate than the nations of classical antiquity, whose compa- rative proximity to the time proved no advantage to them, we possess in the exhumed remains of this interesting people a mass of evidence upon the point, which, although in many respects sadly incomplete, still enables us to form a judgment for ourselves upon the subject, and to believe—on better grounds, than they possessed—the artistic genius and multiform in- genuity of the Assyrians. As architects, as designers, as sculp- tors, as metallurgists, as engravers, as upholsterers, as workers in ivory, as glassblowers, as embroiderers of dresses, it is evident that they equalled, if they did not exceed, all other Oriental nations. It is the object of the present chapter to give some account of their skill in these various respects. Something is now known of them all; and though in every case there are points still involved in obscurity, and recourse must therefore be had upon occasion to conjecture, enough appears certainly made out to justify such an attempt as the present, and to supply a solid groundwork of fact valuable in itself, even if it be insufficient to sustain in addition any large amount of hypo- thetical superstructure. The architecture of the Assyrians will naturally engage our attention at the outset. It is from an examination of their edi- fices that we have derived almost all the knowledge which we 278 Chap. VI. THE SECOND MONARCHY. possess of their progress in every art; and it is further aa architects that they always enjoyed a special repute among their neighbours. Hebrew and Armenian united with Greek tradition in representing the Assyrians as notable builders at a very early time. When Asshur " went forth out of the land of Shinar," it was to build cities, one of which is expressly called "a great city." 1 When the Armenians had to give an account of the palaces and other vast structures in their country, they ascribed their erection to the Assyrians.2 Similarly, when the Greeks sought to trace the civilisation of Asia to its source, io i'u tut 40 fi0 f.*t. Terrace-wall at Khorsabad. they carried it back to Ninus and Semiramis, whom they mad the founders, respectively, of Nineveh and Babylon,3 the two chief cities of the early world. Among the architectural works of the Assyrians, the first place is challenged by their palaces. Less religious, or more servile, than the Egyptians and the Greeks, they make their temples insignificant in comparison with the dwellings of their kings, to which indeed the temple is most commonly a sort of appendage. In the palace their art culminates—there every effort is made, every ornament lavished. If the architecture of 1 Gen. x. 12. 2 Mos. Choren. i. 15. * Diod. Sic. ii. 3 and 5. Cuap. VI . PALACE PLATFORMS. 279 the Assyrian palaces be fully considered, very little need be said on the subject of their other buildings. The Assyrian palace stood uniformly on an artificial platform. Commonly this platform was composed of sun-dried bricks in regular layers; but occasionally the material used was merely earth or rubbish, excepting towards the exposed parts—the sides and the surface—which were always either of brick or of stone. In most cases the sides were protected by massive stone Pavement-slab, from the Northern Palace, Koyunjik. masonry, carried perpendicularly from the natural ground to a height somewhat exceeding that of the platform, and either made plain at the top or else crowned with stone battlements cut into gradines. The pavement consisted in part of stone slabs, in part of kiln-dried bricks of a large size, often as much as two feet square. The stone slabs were sometimes inscribed, sometimes ornamented with an elegant pattern. (See above.) Occasionally the terrace was divided into portions at different elevations, which 28o Chap. VI. THE SECOND MONARCHY. were connected by staircases or inclined planes. The terrace communicated in the same way with the level ground at its base, being (as is probable) sometimes ascended in a single place, sometimes in several. These ascents were always on the side where the palace adjoined upon the neighbouring town, and were thus protected from hostile attack by the town-walls. Where the palace abutted upon the walls or projected beyond them—and the palace was always placed at the edge of a town, for the double advantage, probably, of a clear view and of fresh air—the plat- form rose perpendicularly or nearly so; and generally a water protection, a river, a moat, or a broad lake, lay at its base, thus rendering attack, except on the city side, almost impossible. The platform appears to have been, in general shape, a rect- It must not be supposed, however, that the rectangle was always exact. Sometimes its outline was broken by angular projections and indentations, as in the annexed plan (p. 281),4 where the shaded parts represent actual discoveries. Sometimes it grew to be irregular, by the addition of fresh portions, as new kings arose who determined on fresh erections. This is the case at Nimrud, where- the platform broadens towards its lower or southern end,5 and still more at Koyunjik and Nebbi Yunus,0 where the rectangular idea has been so overlaid as to have almost wholly disappeared. Palaces were commonly placed near one edge of the mound—more especially near the river edge—probably for the better enjoyment of the prospect, and of the cool air over the water. 'The plan is borrowed, by permission, indentation is fonnd also in the Ferse- from Mr. Fergusson's excellent work, politan platform (see p. 239). The J'aluces of A'iaeceh and Persepolis 5 See the plan, supra, p. 200. Restored. Mr. Fergusson remarks that 0 See above, p. 253. this feature of alternate projection and J Lower Terrace. Upper Terrace. angle, or where it had different elevations, to have been com- posed of rectangles. The mound of Khorsabad, which is of this latter character, resembles a gigantic T. Chap. VI. COURTS AND HALLS. 28l The palace itself was composed of three main elements, courts, grand halls, and small private apartments. A palace has usually from two to four courts, which are either square or oblong, and vary in size according to the general scale of the building. In the north-west palace at Kimrud, the most ancient Plan of the Palace of Sargon, Khorsabad (after Fergusson). of the edifices yet explored, one court only has been found, the dimensions of which are 120 feet by 90. At Khorsabad, the palace of Sargon has four courts. Three of them are nearly square, the largest of these measuring 180 feet each way, and the smallest about 120 feet; the fourth is oblong, and must have been at least 250 feet long and 150 feet wide. The palace of Senna- 282 Chap. VL THE SECOND MONARCHY. cherib at Koyunjik, a much larger edifice than the palace of Sargon, has also three courts, which are respectively 93 feet by 84, 12-4 feet by 90, and 154 feet by 125. Esar-haddon's palace at Nimrud has a court 220 feet long and 100 wide.7 These courts were all paved either with baked bricks of large size, or with stone slabs, which were frequently patterned.8 Sometimes the courts were surrounded with buildings; sometimes they abutted upon the edge of the platform: in this latter case they were protected by a stone parapet, which (at least in places) was six feet high. The grand halls of the Assyrian palaces constitute their most remarkable feature. Each palace has commonly several. They are apartments narrow for their length, measuring from three to five times their own width, and thus having always some- what the appearance of galleries. The scale upon which they are built is, commonly, magnificent. In the palace of Asshur- izir-pal at Nimrud, the earliest of the discovered edifices, the great hall was 160 feet long by nearly 40 broad. In Sargon's palace at Khorsabad the size of no single room was so great; but the number of halls was remarkable, there being no fewer than five of nearly equal dimensions. The largest was 116 feet long, and 33 wide; the smallest 87 feet long, and 25 wide. The palace of Sennacherib at Koyunjik contained the most spacious apartment yet exhumed. It was immediately inside the great portal, and extended in length 180 feet, with a uniform width of 40 feet. In one instance only, so far as appears, was an attempt made to exceed this width. In the palace of Esar- haddon, the son of Sennacherib, a hall was designed, intended to surpass all former ones. Its length was to be 165 feet, and its width 62; consequently it would have been nearly one-third larger than the great hall of Sennacherib, its area exceeding 10,000 square feet. But the builder who had designed this grand structure appears to have been unable to overcome the 7 Mr. Layard calls this court a "hall" (Nineveh and Babylon, p. 654); but no one can compare his plan of Esar-had- don's Nimrud palace (No. 3, opp. p. 655) with M. Botta's plans of Khorsabad, and his own plans of Koyunjik, without see- ing at once that the great space is really an inner court. 5 Sec the woodcut on p. 279. Ciiap. VI . 283 CHAMBEES. difficulty of carrying a roof over so vast an expanse. He was therefore obliged to divide his hall by a wall down the middle; which, though he broke it in an unusual way into portions, and kept it at some distance from both ends of the apartment, still had the actual effect of subdividing his grand room into four apartments of only moderate size. The halls were-paved with sun-burnt brick. They were ornamented throughout by the elaborate sculptures, now so familiar to us, carried generally in a single, but sometimes in a double line, round the lour walls of the apartment. The sculptured slabs rested on the ground, and clothed the walls to the height of 10 or 12 feet. Above, for a space which we cannot positively fix, but which was certainly not less than four or five feet,9 the crude brick wall was continued, faced here with burnt brick enamelled on the side towards the apartment, pleasingly and sometimes even bril- liantly coloured.1 The whole height of the walls was probably from 15 to 20 feet. By the side of the halls, or at their ends, and opening into them, or some- times collected together into groups, with no hall near, are the smaller chambers of which mention has been already made. These chambers are in every case rect- angular: in their proportions they vary from squares to narrow- oblongs, 90 feet by 17, 85 by 16, 80 by 15, and the like. When they are square, the side is never more than about 25 feet. They are often as richly decorated as the halls, but sometimes are merely faced with plain slabs or plastered; while occasionally they have no facing at all, but exhibit throughout the crude brick. This, however, is unusual. The number of chambers in a palace is very large. In Hall of Esar-haddon's Palace, Nimrud. (After Fergusson.) 9 As much as four feet of the wall has sometimes been found standing (Fer- gusson's Palaces, p. 267). 1 See the specimens of enamelled bricks in Mr. Layard's Monuments of Nineveh, 1st Series, Plates 84 to 86. 284 Cn.tr. VI. THE SECOND MONARCHY. Sennacherib's palace at Koynnjik, where great part of the build- ing remains still unexplored, the excavated chambers amount to sixty-eight—all, be it remembered, upon the ground floor. The space covered by them and by their walls exceeds 40,000 square yards. As Mr. Fergusson observes," the imperial palace of Sennacherib is, of all the buildings of antiquity, surpassed in magnitude only by the great palace-temple of Karnak; and when we consider the vastness of the mound on which it was raised, and the richness of the ornaments with which it was adorned, it is by no means clear that it was not as great, or at least as expensive, a work as the great palace-temple at Thebes."2 Elsewhere the excavated apartments are less numerous; but in no case is it probable that a palace contained on its ground floor fewer than forty or fifty chambers. The most striking peculiarity which the ground-plans of the palaces disclose is the uniform adoption throughout of straight and parallel lines. No plan exhibits a curve of any kind, or any angle but a right angle. Courts, chambers, and halls, are, in most cases, exact rectangles; and even where any variety occurs, it is only by the introduction of squared recesses or pro- jections, which are moreover shallow and infrequent. "When a palace has its own special platform, the lines of the building are further exactly parallel with those of the mound on which it is placed; and the parallelism extends to any other detached buildings that there may be anywhere upon the platform.3 When a mound is occupied by more palaces than one, sometimes this law still obtains, as at Nimrud,4 where it seems to embrace at any rate the greater number of the palaces; sometimes, as at Koyunjik,5 the rule ceases to be observed, and the ground- plan of each palace seems formed separately and independently, with no reference to any neighbouring edifice. 2 Handbook of Architecture, vo1 . i. p. 176. 3 See the plan of Sargon's palace at Khorsabad, supra, p. 281. 4 See the plan of the iSimrud platform in Layard's Nineveh and Babylon, opp. p. 655. According to it, iill the palaces on the platform would have their walls parallel to one another and to the sides of the platform; but Captain Jones's survey shows that the platform itself is irregular, so that Mr. Layard's repre- sentation appears to be inexact. 5 The walls of the palace excavated by Mr. Loftus are not parallel with those of the edifice exhumed by Mr. Layard. Chap. VI . IRREGULARITY —WANT OF PASSAGES. 28$ Apart from this feature, the buildings do not affect much regularity.6 In courts and facades, to a certain extent, there is correspondence; but in the internal arrangements, regularity is decidedly the exception. The two sides of an edifice never correspond; room never answers to room; doorways are rarely in the middle of walls; where a room has several doorways, they are seldom opposite to one another, or in situations at all cor- responding. There is a great awkwardness in the communications. Very few corridors or passages exist in any of the buildings. Groups of rooms, often amounting to ten or twelve, open into one an- other; and we find comparatively few rooms to which there is any access, except through some other room. Again, whole sets of apartments are sometimes found, between which and the rest of the palace all communication is cut off by thick walls. Another peculiarity in the internal arrangements is the number of doorways in the larger apartments, and their apparently needless multiplication. We constantly find two or even three doorways leading from a court into a hall, or from one hall into a second. It is difficult to see what could be gained by such an arrangement. The disposition of the various parts of a palace will probably be better apprehended from an exact account of a single build- ing than from any further general statements. For this pur- pose it is necessary to select a specimen from among the various edifices that have been disentombed by the labours of recent excavators. The specimen should be, if possible, complete; it should have been accurately surveyed, and the survey should have been scientifically recorded; it should further stand single and separate, that there may be no danger of confusion between its remains and those of adjacent edifices. These requirements, though nowhere exactly met, are very nearly met by the build- ing at Khorsabad, which stands on a mound of its own, unmixed with other edifices, has been most carefully, examined, and most excellently represented and described, and which, though not « Compare the observations of M. Botto, Monument de Ninive, vol. v. p. 64. 286 C'HAr. VI. THE SECOND MONARCHY. i completely excavated, has been excavated with a nearer approach to completeness than any other edifice in Assyria. The Khorsabad building—which is believed to be a palace built by Sargon, the son of Sennacherib—will therefore be selected for minute description in this place, as the palace most favourably circumstanced, and the one of which we have, on the whole, the most complete and exact knowledge.7 The situation of the town, whereof the palace of Sargon formed a part, has been already described in a former part of this volume.8 The shape, it has been noted, was square, the angles facing the four cardinal points. Almost exactly in the centre of the north-west wall occurs the palace platform, a huge mass of crude brick, from 20 to 30 feet high, shaped like a T, the upper limb lying within the city walls, and the lower limb (which is at a higher elevation) projecting beyond the line of the walls to a distance of at least 500 feet. At present there is a considerable space between the ends of the wall and the palace mound;9 but anciently it is probable that they either abutted on the mound, or were separated from it merely by gate- ways. The mound, or at any rate the part of it which projected beyond the walls, was faced with hewn stone,10 carried perpen- dicularly from the plain to the top of the platform and even beyond, so as to form a parapet protecting the edge of the platform. On the more elevated portion of the mound—that which projected beyond the walls—stood the palace, consisting of three groups of buildings, the principal group lying towards the mound's northern angle. On the lower portion of the plat- form were several detached buildings, the most remarkable being a huge gateway, or propylaeum, through which the entrance lay to the palace from the city. Beyond and below this, on the level of the city, the first or outer portals were placed,1 giving entrance to a court in front of the lower terrace. 7 See Fcrgusson's Palaces, pp. 234, 23"). B Supra, pp. 203, 204.' 0 The Khosr-Su, which runs on this side of the Khorsabad ruins, often over- flows its banks, and pours its waters against the palace mound. The gaps north and south of the mound may have been caused by its violence. 10 See the woodcut, supra, p. 278. 1 These portals were discovered bv M. Place, M. liotta's successor at Mosul. I cannot find that any representations of them have been published. Plan of the Palace of Sargon, Khorsabad (after Fergusson). 288 ClIAl". VI. THE SECOND MOKARCHY. - it E r k c A visitor approach- ing the palace had in the first place to pass through these portals. They were ornamented with colossal humau- headed bulls on either side, and probably spanned by an arch above, the archivolte being covered with enamelled bricks dis- posed in a pattern. Keceived within the portals, the visitor found himself in front of a long w.all of solid stone masonry, the revetement of the lower terrace, which rose from the outer court to a height of at least twenty feet. Either an inclined way or a flight of steps— probably the latter— must have led up from the outer court to this terrace. Here the visitor found another portal or propvloeum of a magnificent cha- racter. Midway in the south-east side of the lower terrace, and about fifty feet from its edge, stood this Chap. VI. 289 THE GREAT POETAL. grand structure, a gateway ninety feet in width, and at least twenty-five in depth, having on each side three winged bulls of gigantic size, two of them fifteen feet high, and the third nine- teen feet. Between the two smaller bulls, which stood back to back, presenting their sides to the spectator, was a colossal figure strangling a lion—the Assyrian Hercules, according to most writers. The larger bulls stood at right angles to these figures, withdrawn within the portal, and facing the spectator. The space between the bulls, which is nearly twenty feet, was (it is probable) arched over.8 Perhaps the archway led into a chamber, beyond which was a second archway and an inner portal, as marked in Mr. Fergusson's plan; but this is at pre- sent uncertain.3 Besides the great portal, the only buildings as yet discovered on this lower platform, are a suite of not very extensive apart- ments. They are remarkable for their ornamentation. The walls are neither lined with slabs, nor yet (as is sometimes the case) painted; but the plaster of which they are composed is formed into sets of half pillars or reedings, separated from one another by pilasters with square sunk panels.4 The former kind of ornamentation is found also in Lower Chaldaea, and has been already represented;5 the latter is peculiar to this build- ing. It is suggested that these apartments formed the quarters of the soldiers who kept watch over the royal residence.6 About 300 feet from the outer edge of the lower terrace, the upper terrace seems to have commenced. It was raised pro- bably about ten feet above the lower one. The mode of access has not been discovered, but is presumed to have been by a flight of steps, not directly opposite the propylaeum, but some- what to the right, whereby entrance was given to the great court, into which opened the main gateways of the palace itself. The court was probably 250 feet long by 160 or 170 feet wide. - The widest Assyrian arch actually discovered is carried across a space of about 15 feet (infra, p. 301). 'Mr. Fcrgusson argues for the exist- ence of a chamber and a second gateway, from the analogy of the Persepolitan ruins (Palaces of Nineveh, p. 246); but this analogy cannot be depended on. * Fcrgusson, Handbook of ArcJutecture, vol. i. p. 172. * Supra, p. 83. 6 Fergusson, Handbook, 1. s. c. VOL. I. U 290 Chap. VI. THE SECOND MONARCHY. The visitor, on mounting the steps, perhaps passed through another propykeum (b in the plan); after which, if his business was with the'monarch, he crossed the full length of the court, leaving a magnificent triple entrance, which is thought to have led to the king's hareem, on his left, and making his way to the public gate of the palace, which fronted him when he mounted the steps. The hareem portal, which he passed, resembled in the main the great propylaeum of the lower platform; but, being triple, it was still more magnificent, exhibiting two other entrances on either side of the main one, guarded each by a single pair of winged bulls of the smaller size. Along the hareem wall, from the gateway to the angle of the court, was a row of sculptured bas-reliefs, ten feet in height, representing King and attendants, Khorsabad. the monarch with his attendant guards and officers. The facade occupying the end of the court was of inferior grandeur. Sculp- tures similar to those along the hareem wall adorned it; but its centre showed only a single gateway, guarded by one pair of the larger bulls, fronting the spectator, and standing each in a sort of recess, the character of which will be best understood by the ground-plan on the next page. Just inside the bulls was the great door of the palace, a single door made of wood— apparently of mulberry7—opening inwards, and fastened on the inside by a bolt at bottom, and also by an enormous lock. This door gave entrance into a passage, 70 feet long and about 10 feet wide, paved with large slabs of stone, and adorned on either side with inscriptions and with a double row of sculptures, repre- 7 Botta, Monument de Ninive, vol. v. p. 48. Chap. VI. 291 THE FIEST AND SECOND COURTS. seating the arrival of tribute and gifts for the monarch. All the figures here faced one way, towards the inner palace court, into which the passage led. M. Botta believes that the passage was uncovered;8 while Mr. Fergusson9 imagines that it was vaulted throughout. It must in any ease have been lighted from above; for it would have been impossible to read the inscriptions, or even to see the sculptures, merely by the light admitted at the two ends. From the passage in question—one of the few in the edifice —no doorway opened out either on the right hand or on the left. The visitor necessarily proceeded along its whole extent, as he saw the figures proceeding in the sculptures, and, passing through a second portal, found himself in the great inner court LINK OF FACADE of the palace, a square of about 150 or 160 feet, enclosed on two sides—the south-east and the south-west—by buildings, on the other two sides reaching to the edge of the terrace, which here gave upon the open country. The buildings on the south- east side, looking towards the north-west, and adjoining the gateway by which he had entered, were of comparatively minor importance. They consisted of a few chambers suitable for officers of the court, and were approached from the court by two doorways, one on either side of the passage through which he had come. To his left, looking towards the north-east, were the great state apartments, the principal part of the palace, forming a facade, of which some idea may perhaps be lbrmed from the representation on page 293. The upper part of this e Botta, Monument de Ninive, vol. v. p. 69. • Palaces of Nineveh, p. 259. u 2 292 Chap. VI . THE 6EC0KD MONARCHY. representation is indeed purely conjectural; and when we come to consider the mode in which the Assyrian palaces were roofed and lighted, we shall perhaps find reason to regard it as not very near the truth; but the lower part, up to the top of the sculp- tures, the court itself, and the various accessaries, are correctly given, and furnish the only perspective view of this part of the palace which has been as yet published. The great state apartments consisted of a suite of ten rooms. Five of these were halls of large dimensions; one was a long and somewhat narrow chamber, and the remaining four were square or slightly oblong apartments of minor consequence. All of them were lined throughout with sculptures. The most important seem to have been three halls en suite (VIII. V. and II. in the plan), which " are, both in their external and internal decorations, by far the most splen- did of the whole palace."1 The first lay jnst within the north-east facade, and ran parallel to it . It was entered by three doorways, the central one ornamented exter- nally with two colossal bulls of the largest size, one on either side within the entrance, and with two pairs of smaller bulls, back to back, on the projecting pylons; the side ones guarded by winged genii, human or hawk-headed. The length of the chamber was 116' feet Cinches, and its breadth 33 feet. Its sculptures represented the monarch receiving prisoners, and either personally or by deputy punishing them.2 We may call it, for distinction's sake, "the Hall of Punishment," The second hall (V. in the plan) ran parallel with the first, but did not extend along its whole length. It measured from end to end about 86 feet, and from side to side 21 feet 6 inches. Two doorways led into it from the first chamber, and two others King punishing prisoners, Khorsabad. 1 Palaces of Ninerfh, p. 261. 8 In one ease the monarch is in the act of driving a spear or javelin into the head of a captive with one hand, while with the other he holds him by a thong attached to a ring passed through his under lip. In another case an exe- cutioner flays a captive (or criminal) who is fastened to a wal1 . 294 Chap. VI . THE SECOND MONAECHY. led from it into two large apartments. One communicated with a lateral hall (marked VI. in the plan), the other with the third hall of the suite which is here the special object of our attention. This third hall (II. in the plan) was of the same length as the first, but was less wide by about three feet. It opened by three doorways upon a square court, which has been called "the Temple Court," from a building on one side of it, which will be described presently. Sargon in his war-chariot, Khorsabad. The sculptures of the second and third halls represented in a double row, separated by an inscribed space about two feet in width, chiefly the wars of the monarch, his battles, sieges, recep- tion of captives and of spoil, &c. The monarch himself appeared at least four times, standing in his chariot, thrice in calm pro- cession, and once shooting his arrows against his enemies. Besides these, the upper sculptures on one side exhibited sacred ceremonies. Chap. VL 295 THE TEMPLE COURT. Placed at right angles to this primary suite of three halls were two others, one (IV. in the plan)3 of dimensions little, if at all, inferior to those of the largest (No. VIII.), the other (VI. in the plan)4 nearly of the same length, but as narrow as the narrowest of the three (No. V.). Of these two lateral halls the former communicated directly with No. VIII., and also by a narrow passage room (III. in the plan) with No. II. The other had direct communication both with No. II. and No. V., but none with No. VIII. With this hall (No. VI.) three smaller chambers were connected (Nos. IX. XI. and XII.); with the other lateral hall, two only (Nos. III. and VII.). One chamber attached to this block of buildings (I. in the plan) opened only on the Temple Court. It has been suggested that it contained a staircase;1 but of this there is no evidence. The Temple Court—a square of 180 feet—was occupied by buildings on three sides, and open on one only—that to the north-west. The state apartments closed it in on the north- east, the temple on the south-west; on the south-east it was bounded by the range of buildings called " Priests' Kooms" in the plan, chambers of less pretension than almost any that have been excavated. The principal facade here was that of the state apartments, on the north-east. On this, as on the opposite side of the palace, were three portals; but the two fronts were not of equal magnificence. On the side of the Temple Court a single pair of bulls, facing the spectator, guarded the middle portal; the side portals exhibited only figures of genii, while the spaces between the portals were occupied, not with bulls, but merely with a series of human figures, resembling those in the first or outer court, of which a representation has been already given. Two peculiarities marked the south-east facade. In the first place, it lay in a perfectly straight line, unbroken by any projection, which is very unusual in Assyrian architecture. • This hall opened on the north- 1 4 The sculptures here were all peace- western terrace, and stood so near its able. The king occurred three times, edge that two of its sides have fallen. with the sacred flower in his left hand, Internally it was adorned with a single receiving presents or tribute, row of sculptures, representing the king j 4 Fergusson's Palaces, p. 263. receiving prisoners. 296 Chap. VI. THE SECOND MONARCHY. In the second place, as if to compensate for this monotony in its facial line, it was pierced by no fewer than five doorways, all of considerable width, and two of them garnished with bulls, namely, the second and the fourth. The bulls of the second gateway were of the larger, those of the fourth were of the smaller size; they stood in the usual manner, a little withdrawn within the gateways and looking towards the spectator. Of the curious building which.closed in the court on the third or south-west side, which is believed to have been a temple,6 the remains are unfortunately very slight. It stood so near the edge of the terrace that the greater part of it has fallen into the plain. Less than half of the ground-plan is left, and only a few feet of the elevation. The building may originally have been a square, or it may have been an oblong, as represented in the plan. It was approached from the court by a flight of stone steps, probably six in number, of which four remain in place. This flight of steps was placed directly opposite to the central door of the south-west palace facade. From the level of the court to that of the top of the steps, a height of about six feet, a solid platform of crude brick was raised as a basis for the temple; and this was faced, probably throughout its whole extent, with a solid wall of hard black basalt, orna- mented with a cornice in grey limestone, of which the accompanying woodcuts are representations. Above this the external work has dis- appeared. Internally, two chambers may be traced, floored with a mixture of stones and chalk; and round one of these are some fragments of bas-reliefs, representing sacred subjects, cut on the same black basalt as that by which the platform is cased, and sufficient to show that the same style of ornamentation prevailed here as in the palace. The principal doorway on the north-west side of the Temple • Botta, Monument de Mnive, vol. v. p. 53 j Fcrgusson, Palaces of Nineveh, p. 292; Layard, Nincveh and Babylon, p. 130. Cornice of temple, Khorsabad. Chap. VI. 297 THE HAREEM COURT. Court communicated, by a passage, with another and similar doorway (d on the plan), which opened into a fourth court, the smallest and least ornamented of those on the upper platform. The mass of building, whereof this court occupied the centre, is believed to have constituted the hareem or private apartments of the monarch.7 It adjoined the state apartments at its northern angle, but had no direct communication with them. To enter it from them the visitor had either to cross the Temple Court and proceed by the passage above indicated, or else to go round by the great entrance (X. in the plan) and obtain admission by the grand portals on the south-west side of the outer court. These latter portals, it is to be observed, are so placed as to command no view into the Hareem Court, though it is opposite to them. The passages by which they gave entrance into that court must have formed some such angles as those marked by the dotted lines in the plan, the result being that visitors, while passing through the outer court, would be unable to catch any sight of what was going on in the Hareem Court, even if the great doors happened to be open. Those admitted so far into the palace as the Temple Court were more favoured or less feared. The doorway (d) on the south-east side of the Hareem Court is exactly opposite the chief doorway on the north-west side of the Temple Court, and there can be no reasonable doubt that a straight passage connected the two. It is uncertain whether the Hareem Court was surrounded by buildings on every side, or open towards the south-west. M. Botta believed that it was open;8 and the analogy of the other courts would seem to make this probable. It is to be regretted, how- ever, that this portion of the great Ehorsabad ruin still remains so incompletely examined. Consisting of the private apart- ments, it is naturally less rich in sculptures than other parts; and hence it has been comparatively neglected. The labour would, nevertheless, be well employed which should be devoted to this part of the ruin, as it would give us (what we do not now possess) the complete ground-plan of an Assyrian palace. It is 'Fergusson, Palaces of Nineveh, p. 254; Layard, Nineveh and Babylon, p. 646. * Monument de Ninice, vol. v. p. 42; and compare the plan, vol. i. pi. 6. 298 Chap. VI . THE SECOND MONAECHY. earnestly to be hoped that future excavators will direct their efforts to this easily attainable and interesting object. The ground-plans of the palaces, and some sixteen feet of their elevations, are all that fire and time have left us of these remarkable monuments. The total destruction of the upper portion of every palatial building in Assyria, combined with the want of any representation of the royal residences upon the bas- reliefs, reduces us to mere conjecture with respect to their height, to the mode in which they were roofed and lighted, and even to the question whether they had or had not an upper story. On these subjects various views have been put forward by persons entitled to consideration; and to these it is proposed now to direct the reader's attention. In the first place, then, had they an upper story? Mr. Layard and Mr. Fergusson decide this question in the affirmative. Mr. Layard even goes so far as to say that the fact is one which "can no longer be doubted."9 He rests this conclusion on two grounds—first, on a belief that " upper chambers" are mentioned in the Inscriptions, and secondly, on the discovery by himself, in Sennacherib's palace at Koyunjik, of what seemed to be an inclined way, by which he supposes that the ascent was made to an upper story. The former of these two arguments must be set aside as wholly uncertain. The interpretation of the archi- tectural inscriptions of the Assyrians is a matter of far too much doubt at present to serve as a groundwork upon which theories can properly be raised as to the plan of their buildings. With regard to the inclined passage, it is to be observed that it did not appear to what it led. It may have conducted to a gallery looking into one of the great halls, or to an external balcony overhanging an outer court; or it may have been the ascent to the top of a tower, whence a look-out was kept up and down the river. Is it not more likely that this ascent should have been made for some exceptional purpose, than that it should be the only specimen left of the ordinary mode by which one half of a palace was rendered accessible? It is to be remembered that • Nineveh and Babylon, p. 650. Coip. VI. ARGUMENTS RESPECTING AN UPPER STORY. 299 no remains of a staircase, whether of stone or of wood, have been found in any of the palaces, and that there is no other instance in any of them even of an inclined passage.1 Those who think the palaces had second stories, believe these stories to have been reached by staircases of wood, placed in various parts of the buildings, which were totally destroyed by the conflagrations in which the palaces perished. But it is at least remarkable that no signs have been found in any existing walls of rests for the ends of beams, or of anything implying staircases. Hence M. Botta, the most careful and the most scientific of recent excavators, came to a very positive conclusion that the Khor- sabad buildings had had no second story,2 a conclusion which it would not, perhaps, be very bold to extend to Assyrian edifices generally. It has been urged by Mr. Fergusson that there must have been an upper story because, otherwise, all the advantage of the commanding position of the palaces, perched on their lofty plat- forms, would have been lost.3 The platform at Khorsabad was protected, in the only places where its edge has been laid bare, by a stone wall or parapet six feet in height. Such a parapet continued along the whole of the platform would effectually have shut out all prospect of the open country both from the platform itself, and also from the gateways of the palace, which are on the same level. Nor could there well be any view at all from the ground-chambers, which had no windows, at any rate within fifteen feet of the floor. To enjoy a view of anything but the dead wall skirting the mound, it was necessary (Mr. Fergusson thinks) to mount to a second story, which he in- geniously places, not over the ground-rooms, but on the top of the outer and party walls, whose structure is so massive that their area falls (he observes) but little short of the area of the ground-rooms themselves.4 This reasoning is sufficiently answered, in the first place, by observing that we do not know whether the Assyrians appreciated 1 The inclined passage of Asshur-bani- * Monument de Ninive, vol. v. p. 62. pal's palace at Koyunjik was not in the | 3 Palaces of Nineceh, p. 275. palace, but led from the level of the city 1 * Ibid, up to it. I 300 Chap. VI. THE SECOND MONARCHY. the advantage of a view or raised their palace platforms for any such object. They may have constructed them for security only, or for greater dignity and greater seclusion. They may have looked chiefly to comfort, and have reared them in order to receive the benefit of every breeze, and at the same time to be above the elevation to which gnats and mosquitoes commonly rise.5 Or there may be a fallacy in concluding, from the very slight data furnished by the excavations of M. Botta,6 that a palace platform was, in any case, skirted along its whole length by a six-foot parapet. Nothing is more probable than that in places the Khorsabad parapet may have been very much lower than this; and elsewhere it is not even ascertained that any parapet at all edged the platform. On the whole we seem to have no right to conclude, merely on account of the small portions of parapet wall uncovered by M. Botta, that an upper story was a necessity to the palaces. If the Assyrians valued a view, they may easily have made their parapets low in places: if they eared so little for it as to shut it out from all their halls and terraces, they may not improbably have dispensed with the advantage altogether. The two questions of the roofing and lighting of the Assyrian palaces are so closely connected together that they will most conveniently be treated in combination. The first conjecture published on the subject of the roofing was that of M. Flandin, who suggested that the chambers generally—the great halls, at any rate—had been ceiled with a brick vault. He thought that the complete filling up of the apartments to the height of fifteen or twenty feet was thus best explained; and he believed that there were traces of the fallen vaulting in the debris with which the apartments were filled. His conjecture was combated, soon after he put it forth, by M. Botta,7 who gave it as his opinion—first, that the walls of the chambers, notwithstanding their great thickness, would have been unable, considering their s That this was one of the objects held | * The parapet wall was observed at in view by the Babylonians when they most in two places. (See the shaded erected their Temple platforms, is con- parte, marked a a on the plan, p. 281.) jectured by M. Fresnel. (Journal Asi- 1 7 Monument de Ninive, vol. v. pp. atique, Juin 1853, pp. 528-531.) I 65-67. Chap. VI . 301 ROOFING OF PALACE8. material, to sustain the weight, and (still more to bear) the lateral thrust, of a vaulted roof; and, secondly, that such a roof, if it had existed at all, must have been made of baked brick or stone—crude brick being too weak for the purpose—and when it fell must have left ample traces of itself within the apartments, whereas, in none of them, though he searched, could he find any such traces. On this latter point M. Botta and M, Flandin— both eye-witnesses—were at variance. M. Flandin believed that he had seen such traces, not only in numerous broken fragments of burnt brick strewn through all the chambers, but in occasional masses of brickwork contained in some of them—actual portions, as he thought, of the original vaulting. M. Botta, however, observed—first, that the quantity of baked brick within the chambers was quite insufficient for a vaulted roof; and, secondly, that the position of the masses of brickwork noticed by M. Flandin was always towards the sides, never towards the centres of the apartments; a clear proof that they had fallen from the upper part of the walls above the sculptures, and not from a ceiling covering the whole room. He further observed that the quantity of charred wood and charcoal within the chambers, and the calcined appearance of all the slabs, were pheno- mena incompatible with any other theory than that of the de- struction of the palace by the conflagration of a roof mainly of wood.8 To these arguments of M. Botta may be added another from the improbability of the Assyrians being sufficiently advanced in architectural science to be able to construct an arch of the width necessary to cover some of the chambers. The principle of the arch was, indeed, as will be hereafter shown,9 well known to the Assyrians; but hitherto we possess no proof that they were capable of applying it on a large scale. The widest arch which has been found in any of the buildings is that of the Khorsabad town-gate uncovered by M. Place,10 which spans a space of (at most) fourteen or fifteen feet. But the great halls of the Assyrian 'Monument de A'inire, vo1 . v. p. 68. • Infra, pp. 327-330. "Jounvil Atiatique, Rapport de M. Mohl pour Aout 1853, p. 150; Fcr- gusson, Handbvok of Architecture, p. 302 Chap. VI. THE SECOND MONARCHY. palaces have a width of twenty-five, thirty, and even forty feet. It is at any rate uncertain whether the constructive skill of their architects could have grappled successfully with the difficulty of throwing a vault over so wide an interval as even the least of these. M. Botta, after objecting, certainly with great force, to the theory of M. Flandin, proceeded to suggest a theory of his own. After carefully reviewing all the circumstances, he gave it as his opinion that the Khorsabad building had been roofed throughout with a flat, earth-covered roofing of wood. He observed that some of the buildings on the bas-reliefs had flat roofs, that flat roofs are still the fashion of the country, and that the cUbris within the chambers were exactly such as a roof of that kind would be likely, if destroyed by fire, to have produced.1 He further noticed that on the floors of the chambers in various parts of the palace, there had been discovered stone rollers, closely resembling those still in use at Mosul and Baghdad, for keeping close-pressed,and hard the earthen surface of such roofs; which rollers had, in all probability, been applied to the same use by the Assyrians, and, being kept on the roofs, had fallen through during the conflagration.2 The first difficulty which presented itself here was one of those regarded as most fatal to the vaulting theory, namely, the width of the chambers. Where flat timber roofs prevail in the East, their span seems never to exceed twenty-five feet.3 The ordinary chambers in the Assyrian palaces might, undoubtedly, therefore, have been roofed in this way, by a series of horizontal beams laid across them from side to side, with the ends resting upon the tops of the side walls. But the great halls seemed too wide to have borne such a roofing without supports. Accord- ingly, M. Botta suggested that in the greater apartments a single or a double row of pillars ran down the middle, reaching to the roof and sustaining it.4 His theory was afterwards warmly embraced by Mr. Fergusson, who endeavoured to point out the exact position of the pillars in the three great halls of Sargon at 1 Monument de Ninive, vol. v. pp. 71, 72. * Ibid. p. 72. * Fergusson, Palaces of Nineveh, p. 276. 4 Monument, itc., vol. v. p. 69. Chap. VI. 303 LIGHTING OF PALACES. Khorsabad.5 It seems, however, a strong and almost a fatal objection to this theory, that no bases of pillars have been found within the apartments, nor any marks on the brick floors of such bases or of the pressure of the pillars. M. Botta states that he made a careful search for bases, or for marks of pillars, on the pavement of the north-east hall (No. VIII.) at Khorsabad, but that he entirely failed to discover any* This negative evidence is the more noticeable as stone pillar-bases have been found in wide doorways, where they would have been less necessary than in the chambers, as pillars in doorways could have had but little weight to sustain. M. Botta and Mr. Fergusson, who both suppose that in an Assyrian palace the entire edifice was roofed in, and only the courts left open to the sky, suggest two very different modes by which the buildings may have been lighted. M. Botta brings light in from the roof by means of wooden louvres, such as are still employed for the purpose in Armenia and parts of India,7 whereof he gives the representation which is reproduced on the next page. Mr. Fergusson introduces light from the sides, by supposing that the roof did not rest directly on the walls, but on rows of wooden pillars placed along the edge of the walls both internally towards the apartments and externally towards the outer air. The only 5 Palaces of Nineveh, p. 262; Hand- book of Architecture, p. 171. e Monument de Ninive, p. 70. Com- pare Layard, Nineveh and Babylon, pp. 649, 6"i0. It must further be noted, as throwing considerable doubt on the whole spirit of Mr. Fergusson's Assyrian re- storations, that their essence consists in giving a thoroughly columnar character, both internally and externally, to Assy- rian buildings, whereas one of the most remarkable features in the remains is the almost entire absence of the column. A glance at the restoration already given from Mr. Fergusson (supra, p. 293), or at that, by the same ingenious gentle- man, which forms the frontispiece to Mr. Layard's Nineveh and Babylon, will show the striking difference, and (as it seems to me) the want of harmony in his restorations between the basement story of a palace, which is all that we can reconstruct with any certainty, and the entire remainder of the edifice. Mr. Fergusson supports his view that the column was really thus prominent in Assyrian buildings by the analogy of Susa and Persepolis; but the columnar edifices at those places arc on an entirely different plan from that of an Assyrian palace. Those buildings had no solid walls at all (Loftus, Chatdaa and Susiana, pp. 374, 375), but lay entirely open to the air; they were mere groves of pillars supporting a flat roof—convenient sum- mer residences. The evidence of the remains seems to be that there was a strong contrast between Assyrian and Persian architecture, the latter depend- ing almost wholly on the column, and elaborating it as much as possible; the former scarcely allowing the column at all, and leaving it almost in its primitive condition of a mere post. (Sec below, p. 310.) 'Fergusson, Palaces of Nineveh, p. 269. 304 Chap. VI THE SECOND MONARCHY. ground for this supposition, which is of a very startling character, seems to be the occurrence in a single bas-relief, representing a city in Armenia, of what is regarded as a similar arrangement. But it must be noted that the lower portion of the building, repre- sented opposite, bears no resemblance at all to the same part of an Assyrian palace, since in it perpendicular lines prevail, whereas, in the Assyrian palaces, the lower lines were almost wholly horizontal; and that it is not even certain that the upper por- Armenian loucre (after Botta). tion, where the pillars occur, is an arrangement for admitting light, since it may be merely an ornamentation. The difficulties attaching to every theory of roofing and lighting which places the whole of an Assyrian palace under covert, has led some to suggest that the system actually adopted in the larger apartments was that hypiethral one which is gene- rally believed to have prevailed in the Greek temples,8 and 8 Mr. Fergusson disallows the hypae- thral system even here (True J'rinciples of Beauty, p. 381); but later writers do not seem converted by his arguments. (See the article on Temflvm in Smith's Dictionary of Greek and Homan Anti- quities, p. 1105, 2nd edition; and com- pare Mr. Falkener's Dadalus, Introduc- tion, pp. 18-20.) Chai\ VI. 305 LIGHTING OF PALACES. which was undoubtedly followed in the ordinary Roman house. Mr. Layard was the first to put forward the view that the larger halls, at any rate, were uncovered, a project- ing ledge, sufficiently wide to afford shelter and shade, being car- ried round the four sides of the apart- ment, while the centre remained open to the sky.9 The objections taken to this view are —first, that far too much heat and light would thereby have been admitted into the palace; secondly, that in the rainy sea- son far too much rain would have come in for comfort; and, thirdly, that the pave- ment of the halls, being mere sun-dried brick, would, under such circumstances, have been turned into mud.1 If these ob- jections are not re- moved, they would be, at any rate,greatly MfflMI Armenian buildings (from Koyunjik). lessened by supposing the roofing to have extended to two- thirds or three-fourths of the apartment, and the opening to 9 Ninevch and its Remains, vol. i. p. 259. Compare Nineveh and Babylon, p. 647; and see also the restoration of an Assyrian interior in his Monuments of VOL. I. Ninereh, 1st series, Pl. 2, from which the illustration overleaf is taken. 1 Fergusson, Palaces of Ninereh, p. 270. CiIAP. VI. 307 PALACES LIGHTED FEOM THE ROOFS. have been comparatively narrow. We may also suppose that on very bright and on very rainy days carpets or other awnings were stretched across the opening, which furnished a tolerable defence against the weather. On the whole, our choice seems to lie—so far as the great halls are concerned—between this theory of the mode in which they were roofed and lighted, and a supposition from which archieologists have hitherto shrunk, namely, that they were actually spanned from side to side by beams. If we remember that the Assyrians did not content themselves with the woods produced in their own country, but habitually cut timber in the forests of distant regions, as for instance of Amanus, Hermon, and Lebanon, which they conveyed to Nineveh, we shall perhaps not think it impossible that they may have been able to ac- complish the feat of roofing in this simple fashion even chambers of thirteen or fourteen yards in width. Mr. Layard observes that rooms of almost equal width with the Assyrian halls are to this day covered in with beams laid horizontally from side to side in many parts of Mesopotamia, although the only timber used is that furnished by the indigenous palms and poplars.2 May not more have been accomplished in this way by the Assyrian architects, who had at their disposal the lofty firs and cedars of the above-mentioned regions? If the'halls were roofed in this way, they may have been lighted by louvres;3 or the upper portion of the walls, which is now destroyed, may have been pierced by windows, which are of frequent occurrence, and seem generally to be somewhat high placed, in the representations of buildings upon the sculptures. (See overleaf.) It might have been expected that the difficulties with respect to Assyrian roofing and lighting which have necessitated this long discussion, would have received illustration, or even solution from the forms of buildings which occur so frequently on the bas-reliefs. But this is not found to be the actual result. The forms are rarely Assyrian, since they occur commonly 2 Nineveh and its Pemiint, vol. ii. pp. 259, 260. 'Such as that represented above, p. 304. x 2 3o8 Chap. VI. THE SECOND MONARCHY. Assyrian castle (Nimrud obelisk). in the sculptures which represent the foreign campaigns of the kings; and they have the appearance of being to a great extent conventional, being nearly the same, whatever country is the object of attack. In the few cases where there is ground for regarding the building as native and not foreign, it is never palatial, but belongs either to sacred or to domestic architecture. Thus the monumental repre- sentations of Assyrian build- ings which have come down to us, throw little or no light on the construction of their palaces. As, however, they have an interest of their own, and will serve to illustrate in some degree the domestic and sacred ar- chitecture of the people, some of the most remarkable of them will be here introduced. The representation No. I. is from a slab at Khorsabad. It is placed on the summit of a hill, and is regarded by M. Botta as an altar. No. II. is from the same slab. It No. I.-Assyrian altar (?) from a bas-relief, stancl8 ftt the {oQt „f the liflj Khorsabad. crowned by No. I. It has been called a "fishing pavilion;"4 but it is most probably a small temple, since it bears a good deal of resemblance to other representations which are undoubted temples, as (particularly) to No. V. (p. 310). No. III., which is from Lord Aberdeen's black stone, is certainly a temple, since it is accompanied by a priest, a sacred tree, and an ox for sacrifice.5 The representation No. IV. is also thought to be a temple. It is of earlier date than any of 4 Fcrgusson, Handbook of Architecture, p. 179. 5 See the representation in Mr. Fer- gusson's Palaces of Nineveh Restored, p. 298. This black stone is of the time of Esar-haddon. Cuap. VI. 309 ASSYRIAN TEMPLES. No. H.—Assyrian temple (Khorsabad). want of symmetry is curious, and unusual. Irregular as are the palaces of the Assyrian kings, there is for the most part no want of regularity in their sacred build- ings. The two specimens here adduced (No. II. and No. III.) are proof of this; and such remains of actual temples as exist are in accordance with the sculptures in this particular. The right-hand aisle in No. IV., having nothing correspondent to it on the other side, is thus an anomaly in Assyrian sacred architecture. The patterning of the pillars with chevrons is No. m.-As^rfan temple, also remarkable; and their capitals are fr°m ^o"1 Aberdeen's altogether unique.8 No. V. is a tem- ple of a more elaborate character. It is from the sculptures • On this point, see below, pp. 333, 334. 3io Chak VI. THE SECOND MONARCHY. of Asshur-bani-pal, the son of Esar-haddon, and possesses several features of great interest. The body of the temple is a columnar structure^ exhibiting at either corner a broad pilaster surmounted by a capital composed of two sets of volutes placed one over the other. Between the two pilasters are two pillars rest- ing upon very extraordinary rounded bases, and crowned by capitals not unlike the Corinthian. We might have supposed the bases mere figments of the sculptor, but for an independent evidence of the actual employment by the Assyrians of rounded pillar-bases. Mr. Layard discovered at Koyunjik a set of "circular pedestals," whereof he gives the No. IV.—Assyrian temple (Nimrud). No V.—Assyrian temple (North Palace, Koyunjik). representation which is figured on the next page. They appeared to form part of a double line of similar objects, extending from the edge of the platform to an entrance of the palace, and pro- bably (as Mr. Layard suggests) supported the wooden pillars of a CHAr. VI. 311 PILLAR BASES. covered way by which the palace was approached on this side. Above the pillars the temple (No. V.) exhibits a heavy cornice or entablature projecting considerably, and finished at the top with a row of gradines. (Compare No. II.) At one side of this main building is a small chapel or oratory, also finished with gradines, against the wall of which is a repre- sentation of a king, stand- ing in a species of frame arched at the top. A road leads straight up to this royal tablet, and in this road within a little distance of the king stands an altar. The temple occupies the top of a mound, which is covered with trees of two different Circular pillar-base, Koyunjik (after Layard). kinds, and watered by rivulets. On the right is a "hanging garden," artificially elevated to the level of the temple by means of masonry supported on an arcade, the arch here used being not the round arch but a pointed one. No. VI. (overleaf) is unfortunately very imperfect, the entire upper portion having been lost. Even, however, in its present mutilated state it represents by far the most magnificent building that has yet been found upon the bas-reliefs. The facade, as it now stands, exhibits four broad pilasters and four pillars, alternating in pairs, excepting that, as in the smaller temples, pilasters occupy both corners. In two cases, the base of the pilaster is carved into the figure of a winged bull, closely resembling the bulls which commonly guarded the outer gates of palaces. In the other two the base is plain—a piece of negligence, probably, on the part of the artist. The four pillars all exhibit a rounded base, nearly though not quite similar to that of the pillars in No. V.; and this rounded base in every case rests upon the back of a walking lion. We might perhaps have imagined that Cdap. VI. 313 riLLARS SUPPORTED ON ANIMALS. this was a mere fanciful or mythological device of the artist's, on a par with the representations at Bavian, where figures, supposed to be Assyrian deities, stand upon the backs of animals resembling dogs.7 But one of M. Place's ar- chitectural discoveries seems to make it possible, or even probable, that a real feature in Assyrian building is here represented. M. Place found the arch of the town gate- way, which he exhumed at Khorsabad, to spring from the backs of the two bulls which guarded it on either side.8 Thus the lions at the base of the pillars may be real architectural forms, as well as the winged bulls which support the pilasters. The lion was undoubtedly a sacred animal, emblematic of divine power, and specially assigned to Nergal, the As- syrian Mars, the god at once * 1 » t. .- „. Porch of the Cathedral, Trent. of war and ot hunting. His introduction on the exteriors of buildings was common in Asia Minor; but no other example occurs of his being made to sup- port a pillar, excepting in the so-called Byzantine architecture of Northern Italy. No. Vila, (overleaf) introduces us to another kind of Assyrian temple, or perhaps it should rather be said to another feature of Assyrian temples—common to them with Babylonian 7 See Layard's Monuments of Nineveh, 2nd series, Pl. 51 ; and compare Nineveh and Babylon, p. 208. A similar treat- ment of divine figures is common upon the Cylinders. (See Cullimore's Cylinders, Nos. 19, 20, 30, 55, 96, &c.) It is found likewise in Cappadocia. (See Van Len- nep's Travels in Little Known parts of Asia Minor, vol. ii. p. 118. 'Journal Asiati/ue, Aoflt 1853, p. 150; Fergusson, Handbook of Architec- ture, vol. i. p. 173. 314 Chap. VI. THE SECOND MONARCHY. —the tower or ziggurai. This appears to have been always built in stages, which probably varied in number—never, however, so far as appears, exceeding seven. The sculptured * No. Til a.—Tower of a temple, Koyunjik (after Layard). example before us, which is from a bas-relief found at Koyunjik, distinctly exhibits four stages, of which the topmost, owing to the destruction of the upper portion of the tablet, is imperfect. It is not unlikely that in this instance there was above the fourth a fifth stage, consisting of a shrine like that which at Babylon crowned the great temple of Belus.9 The complete elevation would then have been nearly as in No. VlI b. No. VII &.-Tower of temple (restored.) Tlle following features are worthy of remark in this temple. The basement story is panelled with indented rectangular 0 Herod, i. 181. Chap. Xf. TEMPLE TOWERS OR ZIGGURATS. recesses, as was the case at Nimrud,1 and at the Birs;2 the remainder are plain, as are most of the stages in the Birs temple. Up to the second of these squared recesses on either side there runs what seems to be a road or path, which sweeps away down the hill whereon the temple stands in a bold curve, each path closely matching the other. The whole building is perfectly symmetrical, except that the panelling is not quite uniform in width nor arranged quite regularly. On the second Tower of Great Temple at Nimrud (after Layard). stage, exactly in the middle, there is evidently a doorway, and on either side of it a shallow buttress or pilaster. In the centre of the third story, exactly over the doorway of the second, is a squared niche. In front of the temple, but not exactly opposite its centre, may be seen the propylam, consisting of a squared doorway placed under a battlemented wall, between two towers also battlemented. It is curious that the paths do not lead to the propylaea, but seem to curve round the hill. Remains of ziggurats similar to this have been discovered at Khorsabad, at Nimrud, and at Kileh-Sherghat . The conical 'Sec the illustration, overleaf. * Journal of the Asiatic Society, vol. xvii. p. 13. — Chap. VT 317 TEMPLE TOWERS. mound at Khorsabad explored by M. Place was found to contain a tower in seven stages;3 that of Nimrud, which is so striking an object from the plain,4 and which was carefully examined by Mr. Layard, presented no positive proof of more than a single stage ; but, from its conical shape, and from the general analogy of such towers, it is believed to have had several stages. Mr. Layard makes their number five, and crowns the fifth with a circular tower terminating in a heavy cornice;5 but for this last there is no authority at all, and the actual number of the stages is wholly uncertain. The base of this ziggurat was a square, 167 feet 6 inches each way, composed of a solid mass of sun-dried brick, faced at bottom to the height of twenty feet with a wall of hewn stones, more than eight feet and a half in thickness. The outer stones were bevelled at the edges, and on the two most conspicuous sides the wall was ornamented with a series of shallow recesses (see opposite page), arranged without very much attention to regularity. The other two sides, one of which abutted on and was concealed by the palace mound, while the other faced towards the city, were perfectly plain. At the top of the stone masonry was a row of gradines, such as are often represented in the sculptures as crowning an edifice.6 Above the stone masonry the tower was continued at nearly the same width, the casing of stone being simply replaced by one of burnt brick of inferior thickness. It is supposed that the upper stages were constructed in the same way. As the actual present height of the ruin is 140 feet, and the upper stages have so entirely crumbled away, it can scarcely be supposed that the original height fell much short of 200 feet.7 The most curious of the discoveries made during the exami- nation of this building, was the existence in its interior of a species of chamber or gallery, the true object of which still remains wholly unexplained. This gallery was 100 feet long, 12 feet high, and no more than six feet broad. It was arched or 'Fergusson, Handbook of Architecture, p. 172. I have been unable to obtain any detailed account of this building. 'Supra, p. 202. i Nineveh and Babylon, plan opp. p. 123; Monuments of Nineveh, 2nd scries, frontispiece. (See the woodcut, p. 315.) * See woodcut No. V. on p. 310. 7 Layard, Nineveh and Babylon, p. 129; com p. l)iod. Sic. ii. 7. 3i8 Chap. VI. THE SECOND MONARCHY. A vaulted at top, both the side walls and the vaulting being of sun-dried brick. Its position was exactly half-way between the tower's northern and southern faces, and with these it ran parallel, its height in the tower being such that its floor was exactly on a level with the top of the stone masonry, which again was level with the terrace or platform, whereupon the Nimrud palaces stood. There was no trace of any way by which the gallery was intended to be entered; its walls showed no signs of inscription, sculpture, or other ornament; and absolutely nothing was found in it. Mr. Layard, prepossessed with an opinion derived from several confused notices in the classical writers,8 believed the tower to be a sepulchral monu- ment, and the gallery to be the tomb in which was originally deposited "the embalmed body of the king."9 To account for the complete disappearance, not only of the body, but of all the ornaments and vessels found commonly in the Mesopotamian tombs, he suggested that the gallery had been rifled in times long anterior to his visit; and he thought that he found traces, both internally and externally, of the tunnel by which it had Ground Plan of Nimrud Tower. * Xenophon and Ctcsias both noticed this remarkable edifice. (Anab. iii. 4, § 9.) Xenophon calls it a "pyramid," but shows that it more resembled a tower by saying that its height (200 ft.) was double its width at the base, which he estimates at 100 ft. He gives no account of the purpose for which it was intended. Ctcsias, who enormously exaggerates its size, making it 10 stadia wide and 9 stadia (more than a mile!) high, was the first to give it a sepulchral character. He said that it was built by Semiramis over the body of her husband, Ninus. He placed it, however, if we may believe Diodorus (ii. 7), at Nineveh, and upon the Euphrates! Next to these writers, Amyutas, one of the historians of Alex- ander, noticed the edifice. He called it the tomb of Sardanapalus; and, like Ctesias, placed it at Nineveh (ap. Athen. Veipn. xii. 4, § 11). Ovid no doubt in- tended the same building by his "bust* Nini," which, however, according to him, lay in the vicinity of Babylon (.Mrfa- morph. iv. 88).- 0 Nineveh and Babylon, p. 128. Chap. VI. 319 GROUND PLANS OF TEMPLES. been entered. But certainly, if this long and narrow vault was intended to receive a body, it is most extraordinarily shaped for the purpose. What other sepulchral chamber is there any- where of so enormous a length? Without pretending to say what the real object of the gallery was,1 we may feel tolerably sure that it was not a tomb. The building which contained it A. Outer court. b. Main entrance, guarded by winged linns. e. l'ronao$ or vestibule, d. Passage leading from vestibule into temple. «. Cell of temple. /. Shrine, pavi-d with a single g g. Priests' apartment*. h. Second entrance to temple. A. Outer court. b. Main entrance, guarded by lions (not winged). c. Cell of temple. d. Shrine, paved with a single stone. e. Small closet (vestry f). /. Priests' apartment. Ground Plans of Temples, Nirarud (after Layard). was a temple-tower, and it is not likely that the religious feelings of the Assyrians would have allowed the application of a religious edifice to so utilitarian a purpose. Besides the ziggurat or tower, which may commonly have been surmounted by a chapel or shrine, an Assyrian temple had always a number of basement chambers, in one of which 1 It may perhaps have had a religious bearing; and similar galleries may perhaps exist under all temple-towers. 320 Chap. VI. THE SECOND MONARCHY. was the principal shrine of the god. This was a square or slightly oblong recess at the end of an oblong apartment, raised somewhat above its level; it was paved (sometimes, if not always) with a single slab, the weight of which must occasion- ally have been as much as thirty tons.2 One or two small closets opened out from the shrine, in which it is likely that the priests kept the sacerdotal garments and the sacrificial utensils.3 Sometimes the cell of the temple, or chamber into which the shrine opened, was reached through another apart- ment, corresponding to the Greek pronaos. In such a case, care seems to have been taken so to arrange the outer and inner doorways of the vestibule, that persons passing by the outer doorway should not be able to catch a sight of the shrine.4 Where there was no vestibule, the entrance into the cell or body of the temple seems to have been placed at the side, instead of at the end, probably with the same object.4 Besides these main parts of a temple, a certain number of chambers are always found, which appear to have been priests' apartments. The ornamentation of temples, to judge by the few specimens which remain, was very similar to that of palaces. The great gateways were guarded by colossal bulls (?) or lions (see oppo- site), accompanied by the usual sacred figures, and sometimes covered with inscriptions. The -entrances and some portions of the chambers were ornamented with the customary sculptured slabs, representing here none but religious subjects. No great proportion of the interior, however, was covered in this way, the walls being in general only plastered and then painted with figures or patterns. Externally, enamelled bricks were used as a decoration wherever sculptured slabs did not hide the crude brick.6 Much the same doubts and difficulties beset the subjects of ! The single slab which filled the re- cess (/ in ground-plan, No. I.) in the greater of the two Nimrud temples, was 21 ft. long, 16 ft. 7 in. broad, and 1 ft. 1 in. thick. It contained thus 375 cubic feet of stone, and must have weighed nearly, if not quite, 30 tons. (See Layard's Nineveh and Babylon, p. 352.) 3 Ibid. p. 357. 4 Note the position of the doorways, b and d, in ground-plan No. I. 5 See ground-plan No. II., entrance b. 0 Layard, Nineveh and Babylon, p. 359. 322 Chap. VI. THE SECOND MONARCHY. the roofing and lighting of the temples as those which have been discussed already in connection with the palaces. Though the span of the temple-chambers is less than that of the great palace halls, still it is considerable, sometimes exceeding thirty feet.7 No effort seems made to keep the temple-chambers narrow, for their width is sometimes as much as two-thirds of their length. Perhaps, therefore, they were hypaethral, like the temples of the Greeks. All that seems to be certain is that what roofing they had was of wood,8 which at Nimrud was cedar, brought probably from the mountains of Syria. Assyrian Village (Koyunjik). Of the domestic architecture of the Assyrians we possess absolutely no specimen. Excavation has been hitherto confined to the most elevated portions of the mounds which mark the sites of cities, where it was likely that remains of the greatest interest would be found. Palaces, temples, and the great gates which gave entrance to towns, have in this way seen the light; but the humbler buildings, the ordinary dwellings of the people, remain buried beneath the soil, unexplored and even unsought for. ln this entire default of any actual speci- 'The chamber marked e in ground-plan No. I. (p. 319) was 47 ft. long by 31 ft. wide. (Layard, A'imveh and Babylon, p 352.) * Ibid. p. 357. Chap. VI. 323 DOMESTIC ARCHITECTURE. men of an ordinary Assyrian house, we naturally turn to the sculptured representations which are so abundant and represent so many different sorts of scenes. Even here, however, we obtain but little light. The bulk of the slabs exhibit the wars of the kings in foreign countries, and thus place before us foreign rather than Assyrian architecture. The processional slabs, which are another large class, contain rarely any building at all, and, where they furnish one, exhibit to us a temple rather than a house. The hunting scenes, representing wilds far from the dwellings of man, afford us, as might be expected, no help. Assyrian buildings, other than temples, are thus most rarely plaeed before us. In one case*, indeed, we have an Assyrian city, which a foreign enemy is passing; but the only Village near Aleppo (after Layard). edifices represented are the walls and towers of the exterior, and the temple (No. VI. p. 312) whose columns rest upon lions. In one other we seem to have an unfortified Assyrian village;9 and from this single specimen we are forced to form our ideas of the ordinary character of Assyrian houses. It is observable here, in the first place, that the houses have no windows, and are, therefore, probably lighted from the roof; next, that the roofs are very curious, since, although flat in some instances, they consist more often either of hemi- spherical domes, such as are still so common in the East, or of steep and high cones, such as are but seldom seen anywhere. Mr. Layard finds a parallel for these last in certain villages of Northern Syria, where all the houses have conical roofs, built • Layard, Monuments of Nineveh, Pl. 17. A portion of this village is represented in the woodcut, p. 322. y 2 324 Chap. VI THE SECOND MONAECHY. of mud, which present a very singular appearance.1 Both the domes and the cones of the Assyrian example have evidently an opening at the top, which may have admitted as much light into the houses as was thought necessary. The doors are of two kiuds, square at the top, and arched; they are placed commonly towards the sides of the houses. The houses them- selves seem to stand separate, though in close juxtaposition. The only other buildings of the Assyrians which appear to require some notice are the fortified enceintes of their towns. The simplest of these consisted of a single battlemented wall, carried in lines nearly or quite straight along the four sides of the place, pierced with gates and guarded at the angles, at the gates, and at intervals along the curtain, with projecting towers, raised not very much higher than the walls, and (appa- rently) square in shape. In the sculptures we sometimes find rwvi 1 wsos, or dart, was nearly 'Layard, Monuments of Nineveh, 2nd four feet. Series, Pl. 41. Compare infra, p. 464. * The Koman pilum, which is com- monly called a javelin, exceeded six feet. VOL. L See Wilkinson, Ancient Egyptians, 1st Series, vol. i. pp. 304, 305. 2 G 45° THE SECOND MONARCHY. Chap. VIL necessarily remained. The bend of the bow, thus strung, was slight . When full drawn, however, it took the shape of a half- stringing the bow (Koyunjik). moon, which shows that it must have possessed great elasticity. The bow was known to be full drawn when the head of the arrow touched the archer's left hand. Assyrian curved bow. The Assyrian angular bow was of smaller size than the curved one. It was not often carried unless as a reserve by those who also possessed the larger and better weapon. Assyrian angular bow. Bows were but seldom unstrung. When not in use, they were carried strung, the archer either holding them by the middle with his left hand, or putting his arm through them, and letting Chap. VII. 4Si BOWS — QUIVERS. them rest upon his shoulder,8 or finally carrying them at his back in a bow-case. The bow-case was a portion of the quiver, as frequently with the Greeks,7 and held only the lower half of the bow, the upper portion projecting from it. Quivers were carried by foot and horse archers at their backs, in a dia- gonal position, so that the arrows could readily be drawn from them over the right shoulder. They were commonly slung in this position by a strap of their own, attached to two rings, one near the top and the other near the bottom of the quiver, which the archer slipped over his left arm and his head. Some- times, however, this strap seems to have been wanting, and the quiver was either thrust through one of the cross-belts, or Mode of carrying the bow in i bow-case (Koyunjik). Peculiar mode of carrying the quiver (Koyunjik). attached by a strap which passed horizontally round the body a little above the girdle.8 The archers who rode in chariots carried their quivers at the chariot's side, in the manner which has been already described and illustrated.9 'Mr. Layard says that the warrior carried the bow upon his shoulders, "having first passed his head through it." (Nin. and its Remains^ vol. ii. p. 342.) This may have been the case sometimes, but generally both ends of the bow are seen on the same side of the head. 7 See Dictionary of Greek and Soman Antiquities, p. 126, 2nd edition. 8 See the woodcut, p. 437. 'Supra, pp. 412 and 414. 2 g 2 452 Chap. VII. THE SECOND MONARCHY. The ornamentation of quivers was generally elaborate. Ro- settes and bands constituted their most usual adornment; but sometimes these gave place to de- signs of a more artistic character, as wild bulls, griffins, and other mythic figures. Several examples of a rich type have been already given in the representations of cha- riots,10 but none exhibit this pecu- liarity. One further specimen of a chariot quiver is therefore appended, which is among the most tasteful hitherto discovered. The quivers of the foot and horse archers were less richly adorned than those of the bowmen who rode in chariots, but still they were in almost every case more or less pat- terned. The rosette and the band here too constituted the chief re- source of the artist, who, however, often introduced with good effect other well-known ornaments, as the guilloche, the boss and cross, the zigzag, &c. Sometimes the quiver had an ornamented rod attached to it, which projected beyond the arrows and terminated in a pomegranate blos- som or other similar carving. To this rod were attached the rings .. M, <—j .,„, which received the quiver strap, a ^-^ ^ tripletasselhangingfromthematthe Quiver, of the ordinary character. of attachment. The Strap was probably of leather, and appears to have been twisted or plaited. Quiver, with rich ornamentation (Nimrud). 19 Supra, pp. 412, 414, and 416. Chap. VII. 453 , QUIVERS. It is uncertain whether the material of the quivers was wood or metal. As, however, no remains of quivers have been dis- covered in any of the ruins, while helmets, shields, daggers, spear-heads, and arrow-heads have been found in tolerable abun- dance, we may perhaps assume that they were of the more fragile substance, which would account for their destruction. Quiver with projecting rod (Khorsabad). In this case their ornamentation may have been either by carving or painting,1 the bosses and rosettes being perhaps in some cases of metal, mother-of-pearl, or ivory. Ornaments of this kind were discovered by hundreds at Nimrud in a chamber which contained arms of many descriptions.2 Quivers have in some cases a curious rounded head, which seems to have been a lid or cap used for covering the arrows.3 They have also, occasionally, instead of this, a kind of bag4 at their top, which falls back- wards and is ornamented with tassels. Both these constructions, however, are exceptional, a very large majority of the quivers being open and having the feathered ends of the arrows projecting from them. Assyrian covered quivers (Koyunjik). 1 In the Khorsabad sculptures the quivers not unfrequently showed traces of paint. The colour was sometimes red, sometimes blue. (Sec pp. 363, 364.) 2 Layard, Ninevch and Babyhn, p. 177. 'The lid was probably attached to the back of the quiver by a hinge, and was made so that it could stand open. The Assyrian artists generally represent it in this position. The quiver, of which it was the top, must also have been round. 4 Possibly this bag may be the upper part of a bow-case attached to the quiver, which, being made of a flexible material, fell back when the bow was removed. Such a construction was common in Egypt. (Wilkinson, Ancient Egyptians, 1st Series, vol. i. pp. 345-347.) Chap. VII. 455 ARROWS. sidered decisive, since the Assyrian artists, from their small knowledge of perspective, would have been unable to represent all three feathers. So far as we can judge from the representa- tions, it would seem that the feathers were glued to the wood Assyrian arrow. exactly as they are with ourselves. The notch was somewhat large, projecting beyond the line of the shaft—a construction rendered necessary by the thickness of the bowstring, which was seldom less than that of the arrow itself. The mode of drawing the bow was peculiar. It was drawn neither to the ear, nor to the breast, but to the shoulder. In the older sculptures the hand that draws it is represented in a curiously cramped and unnatural position,8 which can scarcely be supposed to be true to nature. But in the later bas-reliefs greater accuracy seems to have been attained, and there we probably see the ex- act mode in which the shooting was ac- tually managed. The arrow was taken be- low the feathers by the thumb and fore-finger of the right hand, the fore-finger bent down upon it in the way represented in the accompanying woodcut, and the notch being then placed upon the string, the arrow was drawn backwards by the thumb and fore-finger only, the remaining three fingers taking no part in the operation. The bow was grasped by the left hand between the finders and the muscle of the thumb, the thumb itself being raised, and the arrow made to pass between it and the bow, by which means it was kept in place and prevented from slipping. Mode of drawing the bow (Koyunjik). 1 Supra, p. 429. 456 THE SECOND MONARCHY. Chap. VII. The arrow was then drawn till the cold metal head touched the lore-finger of the left hand, upon which the right hand quitted its hold, and the shaft sped on its way. To save the left arm Guard worn by an archer (Koyunjik). from being bruised or cut by the bowstring, a guard, often simply yet effectively ornamented, was placed upon it, at one end passing round the thumb and at the other round the arm a little above the elbow. The Assyrians had two kinds of spears, one a comparatively short weapon, varying from five to six feet in length, with which they armed a portion of their foot soldiers, the other a weapon nine or ten feet long, which was carried by most of Bronze spear-head from JJimrud. their cavalry.1 The shaft seems in both cases to have been of wood, and the head was certainly of metal, either bronze or iron.2 It was most usually diamond-shaped, but sometimes the side angles were rounded off, and the contour became that of an elongated pear. In other instances, the jambs of the spear-head were exceedingly short, and the point long and tapering. The upper end of the shaft was sometimes weighted,3 1 See above, pp. 425 and 426. 2 Both bronze and iron spear-heads were found at Nimrud. (Layard, Nm. and Bab. p. 194.) 3 See the illustration on p. 434. Chap. VII. 457 SPEARS —SWORDS. and it was often carved into some ornamental form, as a fir-cone or a pomegranate blossom, while in the earlier times it was further occasionally adorned with streamers. The spear of the Spear-heads, from the Sculptures. Ornamented ends of spear-shafts (Nimrud). Assyrians seems never to have been thrown, like that of the Greeks, but was only used to thrust with, as a pike. The common sword of the Assyrians was a short straight weapon, like the sword of the Egyptians, or the acinaces of the Persians.4 It was worn at the left side, generally slung by a belt of its own which was passed over the right shoulder, but sometimes thrust through the girdle or (apparently) through the armour.5 It had a short rounded handle, more or less orna- mented, but without any cross-bar or guard,6 and a short blade which tapered gradually from the handle to the point. The swordsman commonly thrust with his weapon, but he could cut Ornamented handle of short sword (Khorsabad). * Representations of the Persian aci- n'ices will be given in a future volume. The reader may likewise consult the author's Herodotus, vol. iv. pp. 52, 53. 8 Botta, Monument de Ninice, vol. ii. Pl. 99. • Mr. Layard says (Nineveh and its Remains, vol. ii. p. 298) that the swords had often a cross-bar made of two lions' heads, with part of the neck and shoulders. But a careful examination of the monuments, or even of Mr. Layard's own drawings, will (I thiuk) convince any one that the ornament in question is part of the sheath. It is never seen on a drawn sword. 458 Chap. VI t. THE SECOND MONARCHY. with it likewise, for it was with this arm that the Assyrian warrior was wont to decapitate his fallen enemy. The sheath of Sheathed sword (Koyunjik). the sword was almost always tastefully designed, and sometimes possessed artistic excellence of a high order. The favourite ter- minal ornament consisted of two lions clasping one another, with their heads averted and their mouths agape. Above this, patterns in ex- Omamented handle of longer sword cellent taste usually adorned the (Nimrud). ." . scabbard, which moreover exhibited occasionally groups of figures, sacred trees, and other mytho- logical objects. • Instead of the short sword, the earlier warriors had a weapon of a considerable length. This was invariably slung at the side by a cross-belt passing over the shoulder. In its ornamentation it closely resembled the later short sword, but its hilt was longer and more tasteful. One or two instances occur where the sword of an Assyrian warrior is represented as curved slightly. The sheath in these cases is plain, and terminates in a button. Assyrian curved sword (Khorsabad). The Assyrian mace was a short thin weapon, and must either have been made of a very tough wood, or—and this is more probable—of metal. It had an ornamented head, which was sometimes very beautifully modelled, and generally a strap or string at the lower end, by which it could be grasped with 460 Chap. VH- THE SECOND MONARCHY. our own knights in the middle ages, having a single blade, and a mere ornamental point on the other side of the haft. The dagger was worn by the Assyrian kings at almost all times in their girdles, and was further often assigned to the Ornamented handles of daggers (N imrud). Handle of dagger, with chmin (Ximrud). mythic winged beings, hawk-headed or human-headed, which occur so frequently in the sculptures; but it seems to have been very seldom carried by subjects.9 It had commonly a straight handle, slightly concave, and very richly chased, ex- hibiting the usual Assyrian patterns, rosettes, chevrons, guil- loches, pine-cones, and the like. Sometimes, however, it was still more artistically shaped, being cast into the form of a horse's head and neck. In this case there was occasionally a chain attached at one end to the horse's chin, and at the other to the bottom of his neck, which, passing outside the hand, would give it a firmer hold on the weapon. The sheaths of daggers seem generally to have been plain, or nearly so, but occasionally they terminated in the head of an animal, from whose mouth depended a tassel. Though the Assyrian troops were not marshalled by the aid of standards, like the Roman and the Egyptian, yet still a kind 0 I distinguish between the dagger understood as not making this distinc- and the short sword. The place of the tion. former is on the right side; and it is The only place, so far as I know, worn invariably in the girdle. The I where a subject carries a dagger, is on place of the latter is by the left hip, and the slab represented by Mr. Layard in it hangs almost always from a cross-belt. \ his 1st Series of Monuments, P1 . 23, When Mr. Layard says that " the dagger 1 where it is borne by one of the royal appears to have been carried by all, both I attendants. In Pl. 31, the hunter who in time of peace and war" (Nineveh and I bears two daggers in his girdle is un- its Jlemams, vol. ii. p. 342), he must be | doubtedly the monarch himself. 462 Chap. VH. THE SECOND MONARCHY. troops to the enemy and keeping in the rear, to add their weight to the charge, the weaker and more imperfectly pro- tected. It was not really left for Cyaxares the Mede to "be the first to organise an Asiatic army—to divide the troops into companies and form distinct bodies of the spearmen, the archers, and the cavalry."1 The Assyrian troops were organised in this way, at least from the time of Sennacherib, on whose sculptures we find, in the first place, bodies of cavalry on the march unaccompanied by infantry;2 secondly, engagements where cavalry only are acting against the enemy ;3 thirdly, long lines of spearmen on foot marching in double file, and sometimes divided into companies;4 and fourthly, archers drawn up together, but similarly divided into companies, each distin- guished by its own uniform.5 We also meet with a corps of pioneers, wearing a uniform and armed only with a hatchet,* and with bodies of slingers, who are all armed and clothed alike.7 If, in the battles and the sieges of this time, the troops seem to be to a great extent confused together, we may account for it, partly by the inability of the Assyrian artists to represent bodies of troops in perspective,8 partly by their not aiming at an actual, but rather at a typical representation of events,9 and partly also by their fondness for representing, not the prepara- tion for battle or its first shock, but the rout and flight of the enemy' and their own hasty pursuit of them. -—> The wars of the Assyrians, like those of ancient Rome, con- sisted of annual inroads into the territories of their neighbours, 1 Herod, i. 103: Uparos l\6xurt Kara re Chap. VII. 463 MODE OF WARFARE. repeated year after year, till the enemy was exhausted, sued for peace, and admitted the suzerainty of the more powerful nation. The king in person usually led forth his army, in spring or early summer, when the mountain passes were opened, and, crossing his own borders, invaded some one or other of the adjacent countries. The monarch himself invariably rode forth in his chariot, arrayed in his regal robes, and with the tiara upon his head; he was accompanied by numerous attendants, and gene- rally preceded and followed by the spearmen of the Royal Guard, and a detachment of horse-archers. Conspicuous among the attendants were the charioteer who managed the reins, and the parasol-bearer, commonly a eunuch, who, standing in the chariot behind the monarch, held the emblem of sovereignty over his head. A bow-bearer, a quiver-bearer, and a mace- bearer were usually also in attendance, walking before or behind the chariot of the king, who, however, did not often depend for arms wholly upon them, but carried a bow in his left hand, and one or more arrows in his right, while he had a further store of the latter either in or outside his chariot. Two or three led horses were always at hand, to furnish a means of escape in any difficulty. The army, marshalled in its several corps, in part preceded the royal cortege, in part followed at a little distance behind it.10 On entering the enemy's country, if a wooded tract presented itself, the corps of pioneers was thrown out in advance, and cleared away the obstructions. When a river was reached too deep to be forded, the horses were detached from the royal and other chariots by grooms and attendants; the chariots themselves were embarked upon boats and rowed across the stream; while the horses, attached by ropes to a post near the stern of the boat, swam after it. The horses of the cavalry were similarly drawn across by their riders. The troops, both cavalry and infantry, and the attendants, a very numerous body, swam the stream, generally upon inflated skins,1 1 which they placed "Compare the Persian practice (lie- rod, vii. 40; Q. Curt. iii. 3). "It is very seldom that we find a swimmer represented as bold enough to dispense with the support of a skin. Instances, however, do occur. (See Layard, Monuments, 1st Series, Pis. 1C and 33.) Chap. VII. 465 CAMPS AND TENTS. Royal tent (Koyunjik). nearly similar in construction and form, the royal tent being perhaps distinguished from the others by a certain amount of ornamentation, and by a slight superiority of size. The ma- terial used for the covering was probably felt.5 All the tents were made open to the sky in the centre, but closed in at either extremity with a curious semicircular top. The two tops were of unequal size. Inter- nally, either both of them, or at any rate the larger ones, were supported by a central pole, which threw out branches in different directions resemb- ling the branches of a tree or the spokes of a parasol. Some- times the walls of the tent had likewise the support of poles, which were kept in place by ropes passed obliquely from the top of each to the ground in front of them, and then firmly secured by pegs. Each tent had a door, square-headed, which was placed at the side, near the end which had the smaller covering. The furni- ture of tents consisted of tables, couches, footstools, and domestic utensils of various kinds. Ordinary tent (Koyunjik). Interior of tent (Koyunjik). Pis. 63 and 77; 2nd Series, Pis. 24, 36, and 50). But in his latest work (AViktcA and BMylon, p. 230) he takes the view adopted in the text, that they are really "fortified camps and not cities." No one will hesitate to admit this conclu- sion who compares with the enclosures the actual plan of a walled city (Badaca) in Pl. 4U of Mr. Layard's Monuments, VOL. I. 2nd Scries. 5 Felt was used by the Scythians for their tent-coverings(Herod, iv. 73,75); as it is by the Calmucks at the present day. It is one of the simplest of manufactures, and would readily take the rounded form, which is so remarkable in the roofs of the Assyrian tents. 2 H 466 Chap. VII. THE SECOND MONARCHY. Within the fortified enclosure, but outside the tents, were the chariot and horses of the monarch, an altar where sacrifice could be made, and a number of animals suitable for food, as oxen, sheep, and goats.6 It appears that occasionally the advance of the troops was along a road.7 Ordinarily, however, they found no such con- venience, but had to press forward through woods and over mountains as they best could. Whatever the obstructions, the chariot of the monarch was in some way or other conveyed across them, though it is diificult to suppose that he could have always remained, as he is represented, seated in it. Probably 1 i King walking in a mountainous country—chariot following supported by men (from an Obelisk in the British Museum). he occasionally dismounted and made use of one of the led horses, by which he was always accompanied, while sometimes he even condescended to proceed on foot.9 The use of palan- quins or litters seems not to have been known to the Assyrians, though it was, undoubtedly very ancient in Asia; but the king 0 These are often represented in the bas-reliefs. (See Layard. Monuments, 2nd Series, Pis. 24 and 36. Compare the passage from Judith above quoted, p. 464, note '.) 7 A road seems to be intended in the bas-relief of which Mr. Layard has given a representation in his Monuments of Nineveh, 1st Series. Pl . 81. According to the rendering of Sir H. Kawlinson, Tiglath-Pileser I. calls himself "the opener of the roads of the countries." (Inscription, p. 30, § ix.) * The probabilities of the case alone would justify these conclusions, which are further supported by the Inscriptions (Inscription of Tiglath-Pileser I. p. 30. § viii.; Journal of Asiatic Society, vol. xix. pp. 139,140, 8ec.), and by at least one bas-relief (see the above representation). Chap. VII . 467 BATTLES. was sometimes carried on men's shoulders, seated on his throne, in the way that we see the enthroned gods borne in many of the sculptures.9 The first object in entering a country was to fight, if possible, a pitched battle with the inhabitants. The Assyrians were always confident of victory in such an encounter, being better armed, better disciplined, and perhaps of stronger frames than any of their neighbours.10 There is no evidence to show how their armies were drawn up, or how the troops were handled in an engagement; but it would seem that in most cases, after a longer or a shorter resistance, the enemy broke and fled, some- times throwing away his arms, at other times fighting as he retired, always vigorously pursued both by horse and foot, and sometimes driven headlong into a river.1 Quarter was not very often given in a battle. The barbarous practice of re- warding those who carried back to camp the heads of foemen prevailed; and this led to the massacre in many cases even of the wounded, the disarmed, and the unresisting, though occasionally quarter was given, more especially to generals and other leading personages whom it was of importance to take alive. Even while the engagement continued, it would seem that soldiers might quit the ranks, decapitate a fallen foe, and carry off his head to the rear, without incurring any reproof;2 and it is certain that, so soon as the engagement was over, the whole army turned to beheading the fallen, using for this purpose the short sword, which almost every warrior carried at his left side. A few, unable to obtain heads, were forced to be content with gathering the spoils of the slain and of the fled, especially their arms, such as quivers, bows, helmets, and the# like; while their more fortunate comrades, proceeding 'Layard, Monuments, 1st Series, Pl. 65. Mr. Fox Talbot supposes palanquins to be mentioned more than once in an inscription of Sennacherib {Journal of Asiatic Society, vol. xix. pp. 152, 153, 173, &e.); but Sir H. Kaw linson does not allow this translation. u See p. 239. 1 Layard, Monuments, 2nd Series, Pl. 46. * See particularly Layard's Monuments, 1st Series, Pl. 70. 2 H 2 468 Chap. VII. THE SECOND MONARCHY. to an appointed spot in the rear,3 exhibited the tokens of their valour, or of their good luck, to the royal scribes, who took an exact account of the amount of the spoil, and of the number of the enemy killed. When the enemy could no longer resist in the open field, he usually fled to his strongholds. Almost all the nations with whom the Assyrians waged their wars possessed fortified cities, or castles, which seem to have been places constructed with a good deal of skill, and possessed of no inconsiderable strength. run ana rv\ loaf a 7TS 3 at nam [571 Fortified place, belonging to an enemy of the Assyrians (Nirarud). According to the representations of the sculptures, they were all nearly similar in character, the defences consisting of high battlemented walls, pierced with loopholes or windows towards their upper part, and flanked at intervals along their whole course by towers. Often they possessed two or more enceintes, which in the bas-reliefs are represented one above the other; and in these cases the outermost circuit wa3 sometimes a mere plain continuous wall, as in the above woodcut. They were entered by large gateways, most commonly arched, and closed 3 Sometimes a tent was set apart for the purpose, and the heads were piled in one corner of it. (Layard, Monuments, 2nd Scries, Pl. 45.) Chap. VII. 469 SIEGES. Gateway of castle (Koyunjik). by two huge gates or doors, which completely filled up the aperture. Ocaasionally, however, the gateways were square- headed, as in the subjoined illustra- tion, where there occurs,, moreover, a very curious ornamentation of the battlements.4 These fortified places the Assyrians attacked in three principal ways. Sometimes they endeavoured to take them by escalade, advancing for this purpose a number of long ladders against different parts of the walls, thus distracting the enemy's attention and seeking to find a weak point. Up the ladders proceeded companies of spearmen and archers in combination, the spearmen invariably taking the lead, since their large shields afforded them a protection, which archers advancing in file up a ladder could not have. Meanwhile from below a constant dis- charge was kept up by bowmen and slingers, the former of whom were generally protected by the gerrhon, or high wicker shield, held in front of them by a comrade. The besieged endeavoured to dislodge and break the ladders, which are often represented in fragments;5 or, failing in this attempt, sought by hurling down large stones, and by discharges from their bows and slings, to precipitate and destroy their assailants. If finally they were unable by these means to keep the Assyrians from reaching the topmost round of the ladders, they had recourse to their spears, and man to man, spear to spear, and shield to shield, they still struggled to defend themselves. The Assyrians always repre- sent the sieges which they conduct as terminating successfully; but we may be tolerably sure that in many instances the invader 4 Mr. Layard regards this ornamenta- tion as produced by a suspension from the battlements of the shields of the garrison, and suggests that it illustrates the passage in Ezekiel with respect to Tyre: "The men of Arvad with thine army were upon thy walls round about, and the Gammadims were in thy towers; they hanij?d their shields upon thy walls round about." (Ninetxh and its Remains, vol. ii. p. 388.) 4 Layard, Monuments, 2nd Series, Pl. 21. 472 Chap. VII. THE SECOM) MONARCHY. their engines up these, thus bringing them on a level with the upper and weaker portions of the defences. Of this nature pro- bably were the mounds spoken of in Scripture as employed by the Babylonians4 and Egyptians,6 as well as the Assyrians,6 in their sieges of cities. The intention was not so much to pile up the mounds till they were on a level with the top of the walls as to work the batter- ing-ram with greater advan- tage from them. A similar use was made of mounds by the Peloponnesian Greeks, who nearly succeeded in taking Plataea in this way.7 The mounds were not always composed entirely of earth; the upper portion was often made of several layers of stone or brick, arranged in regular order, so as to form a sort of paved road, up which the rams might be dragged with no great diffi- culty. Trees, too, were sometimes cut down and built into the mound.8 Besides battering-rams, the Assyrians appear to have been acquainted with Assyrian balistw (Nimrud). . it i an engme resembling the catapult, or rather the balisia9 of the Romans. This engine, 4 Jer. vi. 6, xxxii. 24, xxxiii. 4, &c. 5 Ezek. xvii. 17. • 2 Kings xix. 32; Is. xxxvii. 33. The Jews themselves were acquainted with this mode of siege as early as the time of David. (2 Sam. xx. 15.) 7 Thucyd. ii. 76. * Sec the above woodcut, and com- tare Mr. Layard's Monuments, 2nd Scries, Pl. 18. So Thucydides speaks of the Peloponnesian mound as com- posed of earth, stones, and wood. ('E1fxf- povv 8i v\-ny is awri fcal \ldovs *al yi)y. Thucyd. ii. 75.) • The term "catapult" was properly applied to the engine which threw darts; that which threw stones was called balista. 474 Chap. VII. THE SECOND MONARCHY. tection of a shield altogether, and, trusting to his helmet and coat of mail, which covered him at all vital points, pursued his labour without paying any attention to the weapons aimed at him by the enemy.13 Occasionally the efforts of the besiegers were directed against the gates, which they endeavoured to break open with axes, or to set on fire by an appli- cation of the torch. From this latter circum- stance we may gather that the gates were ordinarily of wood, not, like those of Babylon14 and Veii,15 of brass. In the hot climate of Southern Asia wood becomes so dry by ex- posure to the sun that the most solid doors may readily be ignited and consumed.1 When at last the city or castle was by some of these means reduced, and the garrison con- sented to surrender itself, the work of de- molition, already begun, was completed. m \ Generally the place was set on fire; some- I I times workmen provided with pickaxes and 1 j other tools mounted upon the ramparts and M J towers, hurled down the battlements, broke implement used in the breaches in the walls, or even levelled the whole building. Vengeance was further taken by the destruction of the valuable trees in the vicinity, more especially the highly prized date-palms, which were cut with hatchets half through their stems at the distance of about two feet from the ground, and then pulled or pushed down. Other trees were either treated similarly, or denuded of their branches.2 Occasionally the destruction was of a less wanton and vengeful character. Timber-trees were cut down for transport to Assyria, where they were used in the construc- destruction of cities (Khorsabad). 13 Layard, Monuments, 1st Series, Pl. 19. "Herod, i. 179; Diod. Sic. ii. 8, § 7. 15 Plutarch, Vit. Camill. 12. 1 In the Anghan war one of the gates of the city of Caudahar was ignited from the outside by the Affghanecs, and was entirely consumed in less than an hour. 2 Sec Mr. Layard's Monuments, 2nd Series, Pl. 40. 476 Chap. Vn. THE SECOND MONAECHY. The houses of the city were also commonly plundered, and everything of value in them was carried off. Long files of men, each bearing some article of furniture out of the gate of a captured town, are frequent upon the bas-reliefs, where -we like- wise often observe in the train of a returning army carts laden with household stuff of every kind, alternating with long strings of captives. All the spoil seems to have been first brought by the individual plunderers to one place, where it was carefully sorted and counted in the presence and under the superintendence of royal scribes, who took an exact inventory of the whole before it was carried away by its captors. Scales were used to determine the weight of articles made of the precious metals,' which might otherwise have been subjected to clipping. We may conclude from these practices that a certain proportion of the value of all private spoil was either due Seribe, taking account of the spoil to the royal treasury, or required (Khoreabad). to be paid to the gods in acknow- ledgement of their aid and protection. Besides the private spoil, there was a portion which was from the first set apart exclusively for the monarch. This consisted especially of the public treasure of the captured city, the gold and silver, whether in bullion, plate, or ornaments, from the palace of its prince, and the idols, and probably the other valuables, from the temples. The inhabitants of a captured place were usually treated with more or less of severity. Those regarded as most responsible for the resistance or the rebellion were seized; generally their hands were manacled either before them or behind their backs, while sometimes fetters were attached to their feet,1 and even 0 See Mr. Layard's Nineveh and its Remains, vol. ii. ]i. 377, and compare a representation on the broken black obelisk of Asshur-izir-pal, now in the British Museum. 1 See Mr. Layard"s Kinerch and its Remains, vol. ii. p. 376. 478 Chap. VII. THE SECOND MONARCHY. whom held him by a cord round his neck, while the other, seizing his back hair in one hand, struck him a furious blow upon the head with a mace which he held in the other.7 It must have been rarely, if ever, that a second blow was needed. Decapitation was less frequently practised. The expression indeed, " I cut off their heads," is common in the Inscriptions;8 but in most instances it evidently refers to the practice, already noticed,9 of collecting the heads of those who had fallen in battle. Still there are in- stances, both in the Inscrip- tions 1 and in the sculptures,1 of what appears to have been a formal execution of cap- tives by beheading. In these cases the criminal, it would seem, stood upright, or bend- ing a little forwards, and, the executioner, taking him by a lock of hair with his left hand, struck his head from his shoulders with a short sword, which he held in his right. It is uncertain whether a punishment even more barbarous than these was not occasionally resorted to. In two or three bas-reliefs executioners are represented in the act of flaying prisoners with a knife. The bodies are extended upon the. ground or against a wall, to which they are fastened by means of four pegs attached by strings or thongs to the two wrists and the two ankles. The executioner leans over the victim, and with his knife detaches the skin from the flesh.3 One would trust that this operation was not performed until life was Swordsman decapitating a prisoner (Koyunjik). 'Another mode of executing with the mace is represented in Mr. Layard's Nineveh and liabykn, p. 458. * See the Inscription of Tiglath-Pi- lesir I. pp. 24 and 50; Assyriin Texts, pp. 11, 30, &c. * Supra, p. 467. 1 Assyrian Texts, 1. 8. c. 2 See particularly the slab in the British Museum, entitled " Execution of the King of Susiana." * For a representation sec Mr. Layard's Nineveh and Babylon, p. 45". Chap. VII. TREATMENT OF CAPTIVES. 479 extinct. We know that it was the practice of the Persians,4 and even of the barbarous Scythians,5 to flay the corpses, and not the living forms, of criminals and of enemies; we may hope, therefore, that the Assyrians removed the skin from the dead, to use it as a trophy or as a warning,6 and did not inflict so cruel a torture on the living. Sometimes the punishment awarded to a prisoner was mutila- tion instead of death. Cutting off the ears close to the head, blinding the eyes with burning-irons, cutting off the nose, and plucking out the tongue by the roots, have been in all ages favourite Oriental punishments.7 We have distinct evidence that some at least of these cruelties were practised by the Assyrians. Asshur-izir-pal tells us in his great Inscription that he often cut off the noses and the ears of prisoners; while a slab of Asshur-bani-pal, the son of Esarhaddon, shows a captive in the hands of the torturers, one of whom holds his head firm and fast, while another thrusts his hand into his mouth for the purpose of tearing out the tongue.8 The captives carried away by the conquerors consisted of men, women, and children. The men were formed into bands, under the conduct of officers, who urged them forward on their way by blows, with small regard to their sufferings. Commonly they were conveyed to the capital, where they were employed by the monarehs in the lower or higher departments of labour, according to their capacities. The skilled workmen were in request to assist in the ornamentation of shrines and palaces, while the great mass of the unskilled were made use of to quarry and drag stone, to raise mounds, make bricks, and the 4 Herod, v. 25: ^Ziffifirnv datnAcifr I on which his son had succeeded him, KafiBvrrris, ffrpd£as oir«8e ipt xaaav j nnd so to deter the son from imitating tV iyBpanryitriy. And again, a little the corruption of his father, further on: rov biroKrtlvas airtBtipt, | 7 See Herod, iii. 69, 154; vii. 18; "flayed after he had slain." Xen. Anab. i. 9, § 13; Amm. Marc. 4 Herod. Iv. 64: Uo\ol Si avSpwv xxvii. 12; Procop. De Bell. Pers. i. 11; ixQp&v 8e(tas X^Pas vtKpwv Jerem. xxxix. 7, &c.; and compareBris- i6vrwv o7ro5e i'fafrfs. avrotfft uvv£t ' son, De Retjn. Pers. ii. pp. 334, 335. Kii mpai rtav Qaptrpiwv irotrvvrai. | 8 The whole slab is engraved by Mr. 'The Scythians used the skins of I Ijiyard in his Monuments, 2nd Series, their enemies as trophies. When Cam- i Pl. 47. A portion of it is also given in byses had Sisamnes flayed, it was to his Nineceh and Babylon, p. 458. cover with his skin the seat of justice, j 480 Chap. VII. THE SECOND MONARCHY. like.9 Sometimes, instead of being thus employed in task- work in or near the capital, the captives were simply settled in new regions, where it was thought that they would maintain the Assyrian power against native malcontents.10 Thus Esar- haddon planted Babylonians, Susanchites, Dehavites, Elamites, and others in Samaria,1 1 while Sargon settled his Samaritan captives in Gauzanitis and in " the cities of the Medes." M The women and children carried off by the conquerors were treated with more tenderness than the men. Sometimes on foot, Female captives, with children (Koyunjik). but often mounted on mules,13 or seated in carts drawn by bullocks or asses,14 they followed in the train of their new masters, not always perhaps unwilling to exchange the monotony of domestic life at home for the excitement of a new and unknown condition in a fresh country. We seldom see them exhibiting any signs of grief. The women and children are together, and the mothers lavish on their little ones the usual caresses and kind offices, taking them in their laps, giving them the breast, carrying them upon their shoulders, or else leading them by the hand. At intervals they were allowed to stop and rest; and it was not even the practice to deprive them of such portion of their household stuff as they might have contrived to secure 6 See Tiglath-Pileser Inscription, col. vi. 1. 85; Assyrian Texts, pp. 2, 7, &c. "Ibid. p. 4. "Ezra, iv. 2 and 9. 12 2 Kings, xviii. 11. "See p. 233. 14 See pp. 234 and 243. Chap. VII. 483 NAVAL EXPEDITION'S. series of reliefs discovered at Khorsabad we may conclude that more than two hundred years before the earlier of these two occasions, the Assyrians had conceived the idea and even suc- ceeded in carrying out the plan,12 of reducing islands near the coast by moles. Unlike the Chaldaeans, whose "cry was in their ships,"13 the Assyrians seem very rarely to have adventured themselves upon the deep. If their enemies fled to islands which could not be reached by moles, or to lands across the sea, in almost every instance they escaped. Such escapes are represented upon the sculptures,14 where we see the Assyrians taking a maritime town at one end, while at the other the natives are embarking their women and children, and putting to sea, without any pursuit being made after them. In none of the bas-reliefs do we observe any seagoing vessels with Assyrians on board; and history tells us of but two or three expeditions by sea in which they took part. One of these was an expedition by Sennacherib against the coasts of the Persian Gulf, to which his Chaldaean enemies had fled. On this occasion he brought shipwrights from Phoenicia to Assyria, and made them build him ships there, which were then launched upon the Tigris, and conveyed down to the sea. With a fleet thus constructed, and probably manned, by Phoenicians, Sennacherib crossed to the opposite coast, defeated the refugees, and, embarking his prisoners on board, returned in triumph to the mainland.15 Another expedition was that of Shalmaneser IV. against the island Tyre.16 Assyrians are said to have been personally engaged in it; but here again we are told that they embarked in ships furnished to them by the Phoenicians, and manned chiefly by Phoenician sailors. 12 Unless they had been successful, I "Menander ap. Joseph. Ant. Jvd. they would not, we may be sure, have made the construction of the mole the subject of a set of bas-reliefs. "Isaiah xliii. 14. 14 See the description in Mr. Layard's Monuments, 1st Series, p. 16, and com- pare Nineceh and its Jtemains, vol. ii. iz. 14, § 2. It has been thought that Sargon attacked Cyprus. (Oppert, In- scriptions des Sargonkles, p. 19.) But his monument found at Idalium does not prove that he carried his arms there. By the inscription it appears that the tablet was carved at Babylon, and con- p. 384. veyed thence to Cyprus by Cyprian en- 1' Journal nf the Asiatic Society, vol. voys. xix. p. 154. 2 i 2 484 Chap. VIL THE SECOND MONARCHY. When a country was regarded as subjugated, the Assyrian monarch commonly marked the establishment of his sovereignty by erecting a memorial in some conspicuous or important situa- tion within the territory conquered, as an enduring sign of his having taken possession. These memorials were either engraved on the natural rock or on solid blocks of stone cut into the form of a broad low stele. They contained a figure of the king, usually enclosed in an arched frame, and an inscription of greater or less length, setting forth his name, his titles, and some of his exploits. More than thirty such memorials are mentioned in the extant Inscriptions, and the researches of recent times have recovered some ten or twelve of them.1 They uniformly represent the king in his sacerdotal robes, with the sacred collar round his neck, and the emblems of the gods above his head, raising tl»e right hand in the act of adoration, as if he were giving thanks to Asshur and his guardian deities on account of his successes. It is now time to pass from the military customs of the Assyrians to a consideration of their habits and usages in time of peace, so far as they are made known to us either by his- torical records or by the pictorial evidence of the bas-reliefs. And here it may be convenient to treat separately of the public life of the king and court, and of the private life of the people. In Assyria, as in most Oriental countries, the key-stone of the social arch, the central point of the system, round which all else revolved, and on which all else depended, was the monarch. "L'etat, c'est moi" might have been said with more truth by an Assyrian prince than even by the "Grand Monarque" whose dictum it is reported to have been. Alike in the historical 1 To this class belong the rock sculp- 1 been found at Kurkh, 20 miles below turps, five or six in number, at the Nahr- i Diarbekr, recording the exploits of el-Kelb. There is another of the same ] Asshur-izir-pal, and his son, Shalma- charocter at Bavian, a third at Egil, neser II. They were discovered by Mr. on the main Tigris stream above Diar- John Taylor in 1862, and are now in bekr, and there are two others at the the British Museum. The Egil and sources of the eastern Tigris, or river of 1 Supnat tablets were also discovered by Supnat. Two block memorials have j Mr. Taylor. Chap. VII. ORDINARY COSTUME OF THE KING. 485 notices, and in the sculptures, we have the person of the king presented to us with consistent prominence, and it is con- sequently with him that we most naturally commence the present portion of our inquiry. The ordinary dress of the monarch, in time of peace was a long flowing robe, reaching to the ankles, elaborately patterned and fringed, over which was worn, first, a broad belt, and then a species of open mantle, or chasuble, very curiously contrived. This consisted mainly of two large flaps, both of which were commonly rounded, though sometimes one of them was square at bottom.8 These fell over the robe in front and behind, leaving the sides open, and so exposing the under dress to view. The two flaps must have been sewn together at the Chasuble, or outer garment of the king. places marked with the dotted lines a b and c d,3 the space from a to c being left open, and the mantle passed by that means over the head. At d g there was commonly a short sleeve (h), which covered the upper part of the left arm, but the right arm was left free, the mantle falling on either side of it. Sometimes, besides the flaps, the mantle seems to have had two pointed wings attached to the shoulders (a f b and c e h in the woodcut), which were made to fall over in front. Occa- sionally there was worn above the chasuble a broad diagonal 1 Lay arc!, Monwncnts, 1st Series, Pl. mainly from the work of M.Botta (Monu- 34. The squared flap is always that meat de Ninue, vol. v. p. 84). But the which is worn behind. author has slightly modified both M. 3 The account and the representation Botta's theory and his illustration, of this complicated garment are taken 486 Cha?. VH THE SECOND MONARCHY. Lelt, ornamented with a deep fringe, and sometimes there depended at the back of the dress a species of large hood.4 The special royal head-dress was a tall mitre or tiara, which at first took the shape of the bead, but rose above it to a certain height in a gracefully curved line, when it was covered in with a top, flat, like that of a hat, but having a projection towards the centre, which rose up into a sort of apex or peak, not however pointed, but either rounded or squared off. The tiara was gene- rally ornamented with a succession of bands, between which were com- monly patterns more or less elabo- rate. Ordinarily the lowest band, instead of running parallel with the others, rose with a gentle curve towards the front, allowing room for a large rosette over the fore- head, and for other similar ornaments. If we may trust the representations on the enamelled bricks, supported as they are to some extent by the tinted reliefs, we may say that the tiara was of three colours, red, yellow, and white.5 The red and white alternated in broad bands; the ornaments upon them were yellow, being probably either embroidered on the material of the head-dress in threads of gold, or composed of thin gold plates which may have been sewn on. The general material of the tiara is likely to have been cloth or felt; it can scarcely have been metal, if the deep crimson tint of the bricks and the reliefs is true. In the early sculptures the tiara is more depressed than in the later, and it is also less richly ornamented. It has seldom more than two bands, viz. a narrow one at top, and at bottom a King in his robes. 4 See Mr. Layard's Ninereh and its Remains, vol. ii. opp. p. 7. • See Botta's Monument, vol. i. Pl. 12, and vol. ii. Pl. 155. 488 Chap. VH. THE SECOND MONAECHY. Koyal sandal itime of Sargon). The sandals worn were of two kinds. The simplest sort had a very thin sole and a small cap for the heel, made apparently of a number of strips of leather3 sewn together. It was held in place by a loop over the great toe, attached to the fore part of the sole, and by a string which was laced backwards and forwards across the instep, and then tied in a bow. The Other kind of saudal had a very different sort of sole; it was of considerable thickness, especially at the heel, from which it gradually tapered to the toe. Attached to this was au upper leather which protected the heel and the whole of the side of the foot, but left the toes and the instep exposed. A loop fastened to the sole3 received the great toe, and at the point where the loop was inserted two straps were also made fast, which were then carried on either side the great toe to the top of the foot, where they crossed each other, and, passing twice through rings attached to the edge of the upper leather, were finally fastened, probably by a buckle, at the top of the instep. The shoe worn by the later kings was of a coarse and clumsy make, very much rounded at the toe, patterned with rosettes, crescents, and the like, and (apparently) laced in front. In this respect it differed from the shoe of the queen, which will be represented presently,4 and also from the shoes worn by the tribute-bearers. The accessory portions of the royal costume were chiefly belts, necklaces, armlets, bracelets, and ear-rings. Besides the Royal sandal (time of Asshur-izir-pal). Koyal shoe (time of Sennacherib). 2 At Khorsabad these strips were sometimes coloured alternately red and blue. More often the entire sandal had a reddish tint . M. Botta observes that a sandal shaped exactly like this is worn to the present day in the Mount Sinjar, and in other parts of Mesopotamia. !Monument, vol. v. p. 85.) * This loop has been regarded as a mere twist of the strap round the great toe; but I find it sometimes clearly re- presented as springing from the sole. Thus only would it add much to the hold of the foot on the sandal. 4 Infra, p. 493. Chap. VII. OEDINAEY COSTUME OF THE KING. 489 belt round the waist, in which two or three highly ornamented daggers were frequently thrust, and the broad fringed cross-belt, of which mention was made above,5 the Assyrian monarch wore a narrow cross-belt passing across his right shoulder, from which his sword hung at his left side. This belt was sometimes patterned with rosettes. It was worn over the front flap of the chasuble, but under the back flap, and was crossed at right angles by the broad fringed belt, which was passed over the right arm and head so as to fall across the left shoulder. The royal necklaces were of two kinds. Some consisted merely of one or more strings of long lozenge-shaped beads slightly chased and connected by small links, ribbed perpen- dicularly. The other kind was a band or collar, perhaps of gold, on which were hung a number of sacred emblems: as the crescent or emblem of the Moon- God, Sin; the four-rayed disk, the em- blem of the Sun-God, Shamas; the six- rayed or eight-rayed disk, the emblem of Gula, the Sun-Goddess; the horned cap, perhaps the emblem of the king's guardian genius; and the double or triple bolt, which was the emblem of Vul, the Royal coIlar (Nimrud)- god of the atmosphere. This sacred collar was a part of the king's civil and not merely of his sacerdotal dress; as appears from the fact that it was sometimes worn when the king was merely receiving prisoners.6 The monarch wore a variety of armlets. The most common was a plain bar of a single twist, the ends of which slightly overlapped each other. A more elegant kind was similar to this, except that the bar terminated in animal heads carefully wrought, among which the heads of rams, horses, and ducks were the most common. A third sort has the appearance of being composed of a number of long strings or wires, confined at inter- s See p. 485. 6 See Mr. Layard, Monuments, 1st Series, Pl. 82, 49Q Chap. YTL THE SECOND MONARCHY. vals of less than an inch by cross bands at right angles to the wires. This sort was carried round the arm twice, and even then its ends overlapped considerably. It is probable that all the arm- lets were of metal, and that the appearance of the last was given to it by the workman in imitation of an earlier and ruder armlet of worsted or leather. The bracelets of the king, like his armlets, were sometimes mere bars of metal, quite plain and without ornament- More often, however, they were ribbed and Royal armieu (Khorwbad). adorned with a large rosette at the centre. Sometimes, instead of one simple rosette, we see three double rosettes, between which project small points, Royal bracelets (Khorsabad and Koyunjik). Royal bracelet (Khorsabad). shaped like the head of a spear. Occasionally these double rosettes appear to be set on the surface of a broad bar, which is chased so as to represent brickwork. In no case can we see how the bracelets were fastened; perhaps they were elastic and Mere slipped over the hand.7 Specimens of royal ear-rings have been already given in an earlier chapter of this volume.8 The most ordinary form in the more ancient times was a long drop, which was sometimes deli- 'Roman bracelets were sometimes fastened with catches. (Sec Dictionary 0/ Antiquities, p. 13fi, 2nd ed.) But more often they were left open, like the Assyrian armlets, and merely clung to the arm. • P. 371. 492 Chap. YIL THE SECOND MONARCHY. iug to the ankles; but this was almost entirely concealed under an ample outer robe, which was closely wrapped round the form and kept in place by a girdle. A deep fringe, arranged in two rows, one above the other, and carried round the robe in curved sweeps at an angle with the horizontal line, is the most striking feature of this dress, which is also remarkable for the manner in which it confines and conceals the left arm, while the right is left free and exposed to view. A representation of a king thus apparelled will be found in an earlier part of this work,1 taken from a statue now in the British Museum. It is peculiar in having the head uncovered, and in the form of the implement borne in the right hand. It is also incomplete as a representa- tion, from the fact that all the front of the breast is occupied by an inscription. Other examples 2 show that the tiara was com- monly worn as a part of the sacerdotal costume ; that the sacred collar3 adorned the breast, necklaces the neck, and bracelets the two arms; while in the belt, which was generally to some extent knotted, were borne two or three daggers. The mace seems to have been a necessary appendage to the costume, and nas always grasped just below its head by the left hand. We have but one representation of an Assyrian queen. Despite the well-known stories of Semiramis and her manifold exploits, it would seem that the Assyrians secluded their female5 with as rigid and watchful a jealousy as modern Turks or Persians. The care taken with respect to the direction of the passages in the royal hareem has been noticed already.4 B is quite in accordance with the spirit thus indicated, and with the general tenor of Oriental habits, that neither in inscriptions5 nor in sculptured representations do the Assy- rians allow their women to make more than a most rare and 1 See p. 340. 2 Particularly the slab engraved by Mr. Layard in his Monuments, 1st Series, Pl. 25, with which compare the figure in an arched frame represented in the same author's A'ineveh and Babylon, opp. p. 351. * For a representation of the sacred collBr, see above, p. 489. * See p. 297. 4 Mention of an Assyrian worn31 has been found as yet in only scriptions, one being that on the dap'' cate statues of Nebo now in the Brte" Museum, and the other being > tat**- inscription belonging to the reign of tW last known king. 494 Chap. VH. THE SECOTTD MONARCHY. the bottom in an elaborate way, and elsewhere patterned with rosettes, over which she wore a fringed tunic or frock descending half-way between the knees and the feet . In addition to these two garments, she wore upon her back and shoulders a light cloak or cape, patterned (like the rest of her dress) with ro- settes and edged with a deep fringe. Her feet were encased in shoes of a clumsy make, also patterned. Her ornaments, be- sides the crown upon her head, were ear-rings, a necklace, and bracelets. Her chair was cush- ioned, and adorned with a dra- pery which hung over the back. Her feet rested on a handsome footstool, also cushioned. Enlarged figureof thequeen (Koyunjik). Qn ^ ^ fa>m ^ description is taken the royal pair seem to be refreshing them- selves with wine. Each supports on the thumb and lingers of the right hand a saucer or shallow drinking-cup, probably of some precious metal, which they raise to their lips simnl- 1 taneously, as if they were pledging one another. The scene of the entertainment is the palace-garden; for trees grow on either side of the main figures, while over their heads a vine hangs its festoons and its rich clusters. By the side of the royal couch, and in front of the queen, is a table covered with » table-cloth, on which are a small box or casket, a species of shallow bowl which may have held incense or perfume of some kind, and a third article frequently seen in close proximity to the king, but of whose use it is impossible to form a conjecture. At the couch's head stands another curious article, a sort ol tall vase surmounted by a sugarloaf, which probably represents an altar. The king bears in his left hand the lotus or sacred flower, while the queen holds in hers what looks like a modern Chap. V1I . 495 THE ROYAL ATTENDANTS. fan. All the lower part of the monarch's person is concealed beneath a coverlet, which is plain, except that it has tassels at the corners and an embroidered border. The officers in close attendance upon the monarch varied according to his employment. In war he was accompanied by his charioteer, his shield-bearer or shield-bearers, his groom, his Royal parasol (Nimrud). Royal parasol (Koyunjik). quiver-bearer, his mace-bearer, and sometimes by his parasol- bearer. In peace the parasol-bearer is always represented as in attendance, except in hunting expeditions, or where he is re- 496 Chap. VII THE SECOND MONARCHY. placed by a fan-bearer. The parasol, which exactly resembled that still in use throughout the East, was reserved exclusively for the monarch. It had a tall and thick pole, which the bearer grasped with both his hands, and in the early times a somewhat small circular top. Under the later kings the size of the head was considerably enlarged, and, at the same time, a curtain or flap was attached, which, falling from the edge of the parasol, more effectually protected the monarch from the sun's rays. The head of the parasol was fringed with tassels, and the upper extremity of the pole commonly terminated in a flower or other ornament. In the later time both the head and the curtain which depended from it were richly patterned. If we may trust the remains of colour upon the Khorsabad sculptures, the tints preferred were red and white, which alternated in bands upon the parasol as upon the royal tiara. There was nothing very remarkable in the dress or quality of the royal attendants. Except the groom, the charioteer, and the shield-bearers, they were in the early times almost invariably eunuchs; but the later kings seem to have preferred eunuchs for the offices of parasol-bearer and fan-bearer only. The dress of the eunuchs is most commonly a long fringed gown, reaching from the neck to the feet, with very short sleeves, and a broad belt or girdle confining the gown at the waist. Sometimes they have a cross-belt also; and occasionally both this and the girdle round the waist are richly fringed.1 The eunuchs commonly wear ear-rings, and sometimes armlets and bracelets; in a few- instances they have their necks adorned with necklaces, and their long dresses elaborately patterned.2 Their heads are either bare,3 or at most encircled with a fillet. A peculiar physiognomy is assigned to this class of persons— the forehead low, the nose small and rounded, the lips full, the chin large and double, the cheeks bloated. They are generally 1 See p. 290 and p. 292. M. Botta supposes that both fringes were attached to the cross-belt (Monument de A'mire, vol. v. p. 86^; but in that case the lower of the two would scarcely have terminated, as it does, horizontally. J See Mr. Layard's Monuments, 1st Series, P1 . 5. 3 See the illustration In p. 237, and compare below, pp. 498, 502, 506, and 507. Chap. VII. 497 ROYAL ATTENDANTS. represented as shorter and stouter than the other Assyrians. Though placed* in confidential situations about the person of the monarch, they seem not to have held very high or im- pleads of Eunuchs (Nimrud). portant offices. The royal Vizier is never a eunuch, and eunuchs are rarely seen among the soldiers; they are scribes, cooks, musicians, perhaps priests;4 they are grooms-in-waiting, huntsmen, parasol-bearers, and fan-bearers; but it cannot be said with truth that they had the same power in Assyria which they have commonly possessed in the more degraded of the Oriental monarchies. It is perhaps a sound interpretation of the name Rabsaris in Scripture to understand it as titular, not appellative,5 and to translate it "the Chief Eunuch" or- " the Master of the Eunuchs;" and if so, we have an instance of the employment by one Assyrian king of a person of this class on an embassy to a petty sovereign; but the sculptures are far from bearing out the notion that eunuchs held the same high position in the Assyrian court as they have since held generally in the East,6 where they have not only continually filled the 4 This point will be considered in the i. p. 590. chapter on the Religion of the Assyrians. • This is Mr. Layard's view. (Nineveh s See Smith's Biblical Dictionary, vol. and Us Remains, vol. ii. p. 325.) VOL. I. 2 K 498 Chap. VIl. THE SECOND MONABCHY. highest offices of state, but have even attained to sovereign power. On the contrary, their special charge seems rather to have been the menial offices about the person of the monarch, which imply confidence in the fidelity of those to whom they are intrusted, but not submission to their influence in the con- duct of state affairs. And it is worthy of notice that, instead of becoming more influential as time went on, they appear to have become less so; in the later sculptures the royal attend- ants are far less generally eunuchs than in the earlier ones;7 and the difference is most marked in the more important offices." It is not quite certain that the Chief Eunuch is represented upon the sculptures. Perhaps we may recognise him in an attendant, who commonly bears a fan, but whose special badge of office is a long fringed scarf or band, which hangs down below his middle both before him and behind him, being passed over the left shoulder. This officer appears, in one bas-relief, alone in front of the king; in another, he stands on the right hand of the Vizier, level with him, facing the king as he drinks; in a third, he receives prisoners after a battle; while in another part of the same sculpture he is in the king's camp preparing the table for his master's supper. There is always a good deal of ornamentation about his dress, which otherwise nearly re- The Chief Eunuch (?)—Nimrud. semmeg that of the inferior royal attendants, consisting of a long fringed gown or robe, a girdle 'See especially the slabs of Asshur- bani-pal (Layard, Monuments, 2nd Series, Pis. 47 to 49), where less than half the royal attendants are eunuchs. * From the time of Sennacherib down- wards the king's quiver-bearer and mace- bearer, two attendants very close to his person, cease to be eunuchs. Thelast chief eunuch recorded as holding the office of eponym belongs to the reign of Tiglath- Pileser U. Chap. VLT. THE VIZIER. 499 fringed or plain, a cross-belt generally fringed, and the scarf already described. His head and feet are generally bare, though sometimes the latter are protected by sandals.9 He is found only upon the sculptures of the early period. Among the officers who have free access to the royal person, there is one who stands out with such marked prominence from the rest that he has been properly recognised as the Grand Vizier or prime minister10—at once the chief counsellor of the monarch, and the man whose special business it was to signify and execute his will. The dress of the Grand Vizier is more rich than that of any other person except the monarch;11 and there are certain portions of his apparel which he and the king have alone the privilege of wearing. These are, principally, the tasselled apron and the fringed band depending from the fillet, the former of which is found in the early period only,12 while the latter belongs to no particular time, but throughout the whole series of sculptures is the distinc- tive mark of royal or quasi-royal authority. To these two may be added the long ribbon or scarf, with double streamers at the ends, which depended from, and perhaps fastened, the belt15—a royal orna- ment worn also by the vizier in at least one representation.14 The Chief garment of the Vizier Hettl-dressoftheYmer(Khorsabad) is always a long fringed robe, reaching from the neck to the • See below, p. 502. 10 Layard's Nineveh and its Remains, vol. ii. p. 327. M. Botta suggests that this prominent officer is "un Mage" (Monument, vol. v. p. 86); but he ap- pears in scenes which have no religious character. 11 Sometimes, where the king and the vizier appear together, the robe of the vizier is even richer in its ornamenta- tion than that of the monarch. (See Layard, Monuments, 1st Series, Pl. 23.) 12 Layard, Monuments, 1st Series, Fls. 12 and 23. There is one bas-relief whtre the tasselled apron is worn, not only Ly the Vizier, but also by the Chief Eu- nuch and other principal attendants. See below, p. 502. 13 Sec above, p. 491, and compare the illustration opposite. "Layard, Monuments, 1st Series, Pl. 12. 2 K 2 500 THE SECOND MONARCHY. Chap. YD feet. This is generally trimmed with embroidery at the top. round the sleeves, and round the bottom. It is either seen to be confined by a broad belt round the waist, or else is covered from the waist to the knees by two falls of a heavy and deep fringe. In this latter case a broad cross-belt is worn over the left shoulder, and the upper fall of fringe hangs from the cross- belt. A fillet is worn upon the head, which is often highly Costume of the Vizier. Costume of the Vizier. (Time of Sennacherib.) (Time of Asshur-izir-pal.) ornamented.1 The feet are sometimes bare, but more often are protected by sandals, or (as in the accompanying representation) by embroidered shoes. Ear-rings adorn the ears; bracelets, sometimes accompanied by armlets, the arms. A sword is generally worn at the left side. The Vizier is ordinarily represented in one of two attitudes. Either he stands with his two hunds joined in front of him, the 1 Sec the woodcut on preceding page. Chap. VII. ROYAL FAN-BEARERS. right hand in the left, and the fingers, not elapsed, but left loose—the ordinary attitude of passive and respectful attention, in which officers who carry nothing await the orders of the king—or he has the right arm raised, the elbow bent, and the right hand brought to a level with his mouth, while the left hand rests upon the hilt of the sword worn at his left side. In this latter case it may be presumed that we have the attitude of conversation, as in the former we have that of attentive listening. Where the Vizier assumes this energetic posture, he is commonly either introducing prisoners or bringing in spoil to the king. When he is quiescent, he stands before the throne to receive the king's orders, or witnesses the ceremony with which it was usual to conclude a successful hunting expe- dition. The pre-eminent rank and dignity of this officer is shown, not only by his participation in the insignia of royal authority,2 but also and very clearly by the fact, that, when he is present, no one ever intervenes between him and the king. He has the undisputed right of precedence, so that he is evidently the first subject of the crown. He, and he alone, is seen addressing the monarch. He does not always accompany the king on his military expeditions; but, when he attends them, he still maintains his position,3 having a dignity greater than that of any general, and so taking the entire direction of the prisoners and of the spoil. The royal fan-bearers were two in number. They were invariably eunuchs. Their ordinary position was behind the monarch, on whom they attended alike in the retirement of private life and in religious and civil ceremonies. On some occasions however one of the two was privileged to leave his station behind the king's chair or throne, and, advancing in front, to perform certain functions before the face of his master. He handed his master the sacred cup and waited to receive it back,4 at the same time diligently discharging the ordinary duties of his office by keeping up a current of air and chasing 'Supra, p. 499. 5 See Mr. Layanl's Monuments, 1st Series, Pis. 63 and 77; 2nd Series, Pl. 23. * Monuments, 1st Series, Pl. 12. S02 Chap. VII. THE SECOND MONARCHY. away those plagues of the East—the flies. The fan-bearer thus privileged wears always the long tasselled scarf, which seems to have been a badge of office, and may not improbably mark him for the Chief Eunuch.5 In the absence of the Vizier, or some- times in subordination to him,6 he introduced tribute-bearers to the king, reading out their names and titles from a scroll or tablet which he held in his left hand. Tribute-bearers presented by the Chief Eunuch (Nimrud obelisk). The fan carried by these attendants seems in most instances to have been made of feathers. It had a shortish handle, which was generally more or less ornamented, and frequently termi- nated in the head of a ram or other animal. The feathers were sometimes of great length, and bent gracefully by their own weight, as they were pointed slantingly towards the monarch. Occasionally a comparatively short fan was used, and the feathers were replaced by a sort of brush, which may have been made of horse-hair, or possibly of some vegetable fibre.7 The other attendants on the monarch require no special notice. With regard to their number, however, it may be observed that, although the sculptures generally do not repre- sent them as very numerous, there is reason to believe that 4 Supra, p. 498. • See the Black Obelisk. First Side (Monuments of Nineveh, 1st Series, Pl. 53), where the king is faced by the vizier in the topmost compartment, and immediately below by this official, repre- sented as in the woodcut above. 7 The short brush-fan belongs to the earlier, the long feather fen to the later, period. (See the woodcuts on p. 493, above, and p. 515.) Chap. VII. 503 COURT CEREMONIAL. they amounted to several hundreds. The enormous size of the palaces can scarcely be otherwise accounted for: and in one sculpture of an ex- ceptional character, where the artist seems to have aim ed at representing his subject in full, we can count above seventy attendants present with the monarch at one time.8 Of these less than one-half are eunuchs; and these wear the long robe with the fringed belt and cross-belt. The other attend- ants wear in many cases the same costume; sometimes, however, they are dressed in a tunic and greaves, like the soldiers.9 There can be no doubt that the court ceremonial of the Assyrians was stately and imposing. The monarch seems indeed not to have affected that privacy and seclusion which forms a predominant feature of the ceremonial observed ^in most Oriental monarchies.10 He showed himself very freely to his subjects on many occasions. He superintended in person the accomplishment of his great works.11 In war and in the chase he rode in an open chariot, never using a litter, though Fans or fly-flappers (Nimrud and Koyunjik). 8 Monuments of Nineveh, 2nd Scries, Pis. 47 to 49. * Still they do not seem to be soldiers. They carry neither spears, shields, nor bows, and they stand with the hands joined—an attitude peculiar to the royal attendants. Herodotus ascribed the invention of this practice to Dei'oces, his first Median king (i. 99). Diodorus believed that it had prevailed in Assyria at a much earlier date (ii. 21). But in this he was certainly mistaken. On its general prevalence in the East, see Bris- son, De Reg. Pers. Princ. i. p. 23; and compare Gibbon, Decline and Fall, ch. xlii. (vol. ii. p. 95, Smith's edition). 11 Layard, Monuments of A'ineceh, 2nd Series, Pis. 12 and" 15. 504 Chap. VTI. THE SECOND MONARCHY. litters were not unknown to the Assyrians.'2 In his expeditions he would often descend from his chariot, and march or fight on foot like the meanest of his subjects. But though thus fami- liarizing the multitude with his features and appearance, he was far from allowing familiarity of address. Both in peace and war he was attended by various officers of state, and no one had speech of him except through them. It would even seem as if two persons only were entitled to open a conversation with him—the Vizier and the Chief Eunuch. When he received them, he generally placed himself upon his throne, sitting, while they stood to address him. It is strongly indicative of the haughty pride of these sovereigns that they carried with them in their distant expeditions the cumbrous thrones1 whereon they were wont to sit when they dispensed justice or received homage. On these thrones they sat, in or near their fortified camps, when the battle or the siege was ended, and thus sitting they received in state the spoil and the prisoners. Behind them on such occasions were the two fan-bearers, while near at hand were guards, scribes, grooms, and other attendants. In their palace halls undoubtedly the ceremonial used was stricter, grander, and more imposing. The sculptures, however, furnish no direct evidence on this point, for there is nothing to mark the scene of the great processional pieces. In the pseudo-history of Ctesias the Assyrian kings were represented as voluptuaries of the extremest kind, who passed their whole lives within the palace, in the company of their concubines and their eunuchs, indulging themselves in per- petual ease, pleasure, and luxury.2 We have already seen how the warlike character of so many monarchs gives the lie to these statements, so far as they tax the Assyrian kings with sloth and idleness.3 It remains to examine the charge of over-addiction 12 See below, p. 588. outside the walls of a town supposed to For representations of these thrones be Lachish. (Layard, Ninereh and Baby- see pp. 393, 394. Sargon's throne is represented as carried by two attend- ants on his triumphant return from an expedition. (Botta, Monument de Ninive, vol. i. Pl. 18.) Sennacherib sits on his throne to receive captives /on, pp. 150-152.) Instances of kings sitting on their thrones inside their fortified camps will be found in Mr. Layard's Monuments, 1st Series, Pis. 63 and 77. * Diod. Sic. ii. 21, 23. * See above, pp. 462-484. Chap. VII. PRIVATE LIFE OF THE KING. to sensual delights, especially to those of the lowest and grossest description. Now it is at least remarkable that, so far as we have any real evidence, the Assyrian kings appear as mono- gamists. In the inscription on the god Ncbo, the artist dedi- cates his statue "to his lord Vul-lush (?) and his lady, Sammu- ramit."4 In the solitary sculptured representation of the private life of the king,5 he is seen in the company of one female only. Even in the very narrative of Ctesias, Xinus has but one wife, Semiramis;6 and Sardanapalus, notwithstanding his many concubines, has but five children, three sons and two daughters.7 It is not intended to press these arguments to an extreme, or to assume, on the strength of them, that the Assy- rian monarchs were really faithful to one woman. They may have had—nay, it is probable that they had—a certain number of concubines; but there is really not the least ground for believing that they carried concubinage to an excess, or over- stepped in this respect the practice of the best Eastern sove- reigns. At any rate they were not the voluptuaries which Ctesias represented them. A considerable portion of their lives was passed in the toils and dangers of war; and their peaceful hours, instead of being devoted to sloth and luxury in the retirement of the palace, were chiefly employed, as we shall presently see, in active and manly exercises in the field, which involved much exertion and no small personal peril. The favourite occupation of the king in peace was the chase of the lion. In the early times he usually started on a hunting expedition in his chariot, dressed as when he went out to war, and attended by his charioteer, some swordsmen, and a groom holding a led horse. He carried a bow and arrows, a sword, one or two daggers, and a spear, which last stood in a rest made for it at the back of the chariot.8 Two quivers, each containing an axe and an abundant supply of arrows, hung from the chariot 4 Sec the author's Herodotus, vol. i. p. 382, note!, 2nd ed. 5 Supra, p. 493. M. Lenormant ap- pears to have mistaken the eunuchs who are in attendance, playing on instru- ments or fanning the king, for the other members of his hareem (Manuel, vol. ii. p. 122). « Diod. Sic. ii. 4, § 1; 7, § 1. 7 Ibid. ii. 26, § 8. 8 See p. 344. Chap. VII. 507 LION-HUNTING. usual for the king to enjoy the sport on foot. He carried a straight sword, which seems to have been a formidable weapon; it was strong, very broad, and two feet or a little more in length. Two attendants waited closely upon the monarch, one of -whom carried a bow and arrows, while the other was commonly provided with one or two spears. From these attendants the king took the bow or a spear at pleasure, usually commencing the attack with his arrows, and finally despatching the spent King, with attendant, stabbing a lion (Koyunjik). animal with sword or spear, as he deemed best. Sometimes, but not very often, the spearman in attendance carried also a shield, and held both spear and shield in advance of his master to protect him from the animal's spring.10 Generally the monarch faced the danger with no such protection, and received the brute on his sword or thrust him through with his pike. Perhaps the sculptures exaggerate the danger which he affronted at such moments; but we can hardly suppose that there was not a good deal of peril incurred in these hand-to-hand con- tests.11 10 Sec the illustration, p. 359. 11 In an inscription appended to one of his sculptures, Asshur-bani-pal says —-" I, Asshur-bani-pal, king of the na- tions, king of Assyria, in my great courage fighting on foot with a lion, Chap. VII. 509 LION-HUNTING. At other times, when it was felt that the natural chase of the animal might afford little or no sport, the Assyrians (as above stated) called art to their assistance, and, having obtained a supply of lions from a distance, brought them in traps or cages to the hunting-ground, and there turned them out before the monarch. The walls of the cage were made of thick spars of wood, with interstices between them, through which the lion could both see and be seen: probably the top was entirely covered with boards, and upon these was raised a sort of low hut or sentry-box, just large enough to contain a man, who, Lion let out of trap (Koyunjik). when the proper moment arrived, peeped forth from his con- cealment and cautiously raised the front of the trap, which was a kind of drop-door working in a groove. The trap being thus opened, the lion stole out, looking somewhat ashamed of his confinement, but doubtless anxious to vent his spleen on the first convenient object. The king, prepared for his attack, saluted him, as he left his cage, with an arrow, and, as he advanced, with others, which sometimes stretched him dead upon the plain, sometimes merely disabled him, while now and then they only goaded him to fury. In this case he would spring at the royal chariot, clutch some part of it, and in his THE SECOND MONARCHY. Chap. VII . agony grind it between his teeth,1 or endeavour to reach the inmates of the car from behind.2 If the king had descended from the car to the plain, the infuriated beast might make his spring at the royal person, in which case it must have required a stout heart to stand unmoved, and aim a fresh arrow at a vital part while the creature was in mid-air, especially if (as we some- times see represented) a second lion was following close upon the first and would have to be received within a few seconds* It would seem that the lions on some occasions were not to be goaded into making an attack, but simply endeavoured to escape Hound held in leash (Koyunjik). by flight. To prevent this, troops were drawn up in a double line of spearmen and archers round the space within which the lions were let loose, the large shields of the front or spear- man line forming a sort of wall, and the spears a chevaux de /rise, through which it was almost impossible for the beasts to break. In front of the soldiers attendants held hounds in leashes, which either by their baying and struggling frightened 1 See the illustration, p. 358. j 'As in the slab of Asshur-bani-pal. 2 Such attempts are common both in from which the representation is taken the earlier and the later sculptures. (See ou p. 359. pp. 344 and 347.) 512 Chap. VII. THE SECOND MONARCHY. up cubs, she is even thought to be actually the more dangerous of the two.9 Next to the chase of the lion and lioness, the early Assyrian monarchs delighted in that of the wild bull. It is not quite certain what exact species of animal is sought to be expressed by Wounded lioness (Koyunjik). the representations upon the sculptures; but on the whole it is perhaps most probable that the Aurochs or European bison (Bos urus of naturalists) is the beast intended.10 At any rate it was an animal of such strength and courage that, according to the Assyrian belief, it ventured to contend with the lion. Fight of lion and bull (Nimrud). The Assyrian monarchs chased the wild bull in their chariots without dogs, but with the assistance of horsemen, who turned • Loftus, pp. 259-262. 10 The Aurochs is still found in the Caucasus. Its fore-parts arc covered by a sort of frizzled wool or hair, which "forms a beard or small mane upon the throat" (Encycl. Brit, ad voc. Mam- malia, vol. xiv. p. 215). Such a mane is often represented upon the sculptures. (Layard, Monuments, 1st Series, Pis. 32, 46, &c.) Its horns are placed low, and are very thick. Its shoulders are heavy and of great depth. In height it mea- sures six feet at the shoulder, and is between ten and eleven feet in length from the nose to the insertion of the tail. All these characteristics seem to me to agree well with the sculptured bulls of the Assyrians, which are far less like the wild buffalo (Bos bubalas). Chap. VII. 513 BULL-HUNTING. the animals when they fled, and brought them within the monarch's reach.1 1 The king then aimed his arrows at them, and the attendant horsemen, who were provided with bows, seem to have been permitted to do the same. The bull seldom fell until he had received a number of wounds; and we some- times see as many as five arrows still fixed in the body of one that has succumbed.12 It would seem that the bull, when pushed, would, like the lion, make a rush at the king's chariot, in which case the monarch seized him by one of the horns and gave him the coup de grace with his sword. King hunting the wild bull (Nimrud). The special zest with which this animal was pursued 1 may have arisen in part from its scarcity. The Aurochs is wild and shy; it dislikes the neighbourhood of man, and has retired before him till it is now found only in the forests of Lithuania, Carpathia, and the Caucasus. It seems nearly certain that, in the time of the later kings, the species of wild cattle previously hunted, whatever it was, had disappeared from Assyria alto- gether; at least this is the only probable account that can be given of its non-occurrence in the later sculptures, more "See Mr. Layard's Monuments, 1st j him prancing among reeds, reposing, Series, Pl. 48, fig. 6. I fighting with the lion, charging the 12 Tbid. Pl. 11. king's chariot, wounded and falling, 1 The pursuit of the wild bull is reprc- fallen, and lastly laid out in state for sented with more frequency and in i the final religious ceremony, No such greater detail upon the enrly sculptures elaborate series illustrates the chase of than even that of the lion. In the the rival animal. (See Mr. Layard s Nimrud series we see the bull pursued Monuments, 1st Series, Pis. 11, 12, 32, by chariots, horsemen, and footmen, i 43, 44, 45, 46, 48, and 49.) both separately and together. Wc observe VOL. I. 2 L 5H Chap. VIL THE SECOND MONARCHY. especially in those of Asshur-bani-pal, the son of Esar-haddon, which seem intended to represent the chase under every aspect known at the time. We might therefore presume it to have been, even in the early period, already a somewhat rare animal. And so we find in the Inscriptions that the animal, or animals, which appear to represent wild cattle,2 were only met with in outlying districts of the empire—on the borders of 8yria and in the country about Harran—and then in such small numbers3 as to imply that even there they were not very abundant. When the chase of the nobler animals—the lion and the wild bull—had been conducted to a successful issue, the hunters returned in a grand procession to the capital, carrying with them as trophies of their prowess the bodies of the slain. These were borne aloft on the shoulders of men, three or four being required to carry each beast. Having been brought to an appointed spot, they were arranged side by side upon the ground, the heads of all pointing the same way; and the monarch, attended by several of his principal officers, as the Vizier, the Chief Eunuch, the fan-bearers, the bow and mace bearers, and also by a number of musicians, came to the place, and solemnly poured a libation over the prostrate forms, first however (as it would seem) raising the cup to his own lips.' It is probable that this ceremony had to some extent a religious character. * There are two animals mentioned similar use of that term seems to have in the Tiglath-Pileser Inscription which been known in Kgypt (Layard, Ninereh have been thought to represent wild and its Remains, vol. ii. p. 429), yet the cattle. These are hunted respectively in Hebrew term "Rim" appears, from a the Hittite country, i.e. Northern Syria, and in the neighbourhood of Harran. (fnscription, pp. 54 and 56, 1st column.) Sir H. Rawlinson translates, in the two places, "wild bulls" and "wild buffa- loes." Dr. Hincks agrees in the former rendering, while in the latter passage he suggests'"elephants." But elephants i animal.) comparison of the passages in which it occurs, almost certainly to mean an animal of the ox kind. (Sea especially Is. xxxiv. 17, where it is joined with the domestic bull, and Job xxxix. 9-12, where the questions derive their force from an implied comparison with that seem not to be able to exist in the wild state more than a very few degrees out- side the tropics. The Assyrian word in the first of the two passages is read as "Rim," and the animal should therefore be identical with the DN*I or D'T of Holy Scrip- 3 Four "Rims" only are mentioned as slain. Of the other animal ten were slain and four taken. Of lions on the same expedition Tiglath-Pileser slew a hundred and twenty. 'This appears from the sculpture represente I by Mr. Layard in his Monu- ture. Although the Arabs give the j mmU, 1st Scries, Pl. 12, where the core- name of Jlaim to a large antelope, and a j mony is performed over a bull. 5l6 THE SECOND MONAECHY. Chap. VII. The hunters are represented as finding the wild asses in herds, among which are seen a certain number of foals. The king and his chief attendants pursue the game on horseback, armed with bows and arrows, and discharging their arrows as Hound chasing a wild ass colt (Koyunjik). they go. Hounds also—not now held in leash, but free—join in the hunt, pressing on the game, and generally singling out some one individual from the herd, either a young colt, or some- times a full-grown animal. The horsemen, occasionally, brought down the asses with their shafts; when their archery failed of success, the chase depended on the hounds, which are represented as running even the full-grown animal to a stand, and then Dead wild ass (Koyunjik). worrying him till the hunters came up to give the last blow. Considering the speed of the full-grown wild ass, which is now regarded as almost impossible to take,8 we may perhaps con- 'Layard, Nineveh and Babylon, p. 270, note. Si8 Chap. VH. THE SECOND MONARCHY. not merely in hunting, but in warfare.1 It is doubtful, how- ever, if the Assyrian practice approached at all closely to any of these. The noose, if it may be so called, was of a very peculiar kind. It was not formed by means of a slip-knot at the end of a single cord, but resulted from the interlacing of two ropes one with the other. There is great difficulty in understanding how the ropes were got into their position. Cer- tainly no single throw could have placed them round the neck of the animal in the manner represented, nor could the capture have been effected, according to all appearance, by a single hunter. Two persons, at least, must have been required to com- bine their efforts, one before and one behind the creature which it was designed to capture. Hound chasing a doe (Koyunjik). Deer, which have always abounded in Assyria,8 were either hunted with dogs, or driven by beaters into nets, or sometimes shot with arrows by sportsmen. The woodcut on this page represents a dog in chase of a hind, and shows that the hounds 1 See Herod, vii. 85, and the author's I tians, 1st Series, vol. iii. p. 15. note ad loc. vol. iv. p. 75. Compare 2 See above, p. 225; and compare Fausan. i. 21, § 8; Suidas ad voc. ffupi, 1 Layard's Nineveh and its fiemaitw, vol. ii. and Sir G. Wilkinson's Ancient Egyp- j p. 431. Chap. VII. 5 19 CHASE OF THE DEER. which the Assyrians used for this purpose were of the same breed as those employed in the hunt of the lion and of the wild ass.3 In the woodcut below we have a stricken stag, which may, perhaps, have been also hard pressed by hounds, in the Hunted stag taking the water (Koyunjik). act of leaping from rocky ground into water. It is interesting to find this habit of the stag, with which the modern English sportsman is so familiar, not merely existing in Assyria, but noticed by Assyrian sculptors, at the distance of more than twenty-five centuries from our own time. When deer were to be taken by nets, the sportsman began by setting in an upright position, with the help of numerous poles and pegs, a long, low net, like the BUtvov of the Greeks.4 1 Supra, pp. 510, 516, and 517. 4 For representations of the Hktvov see Dr. Smith's Dictionary of Greek and Roman A ntv/uities, p. 989. 2nd ed.; and for descriptions of its use cf. Virg. JEa. iv. 121; Eurip. Bacch. 821-832; iElian. Hist. An. xii. 46; Opplan. Cyneget. iv 120, &c. Nets of a similar construction were used for the same purpose by the Egyptians. (Wilkinson, Ancient Ei)'jp- tuins, 1st Series, vol. iii. pp. 4-7.) Chap. VII. 521 CHASE OF THE IBEX. traces, occupied the space by which it had entered, and the net itself was not sufficiently visible for the deer to rise at it and clear it by a leap. In the chase of the ibex or wild goat, horsemen were em- ployed to discover the animals, which were generally found in herds, and to drive them towards the sportsman, who waited in No. I. Hunted ibex flying at full speed. ambush until the game appeared within bowshot.5 An arrow was then let fly at the nearest or the choicest animal, which often fell at the first discharge. The sport was tame compared with many other kinds, and was pro- bably not much af- fected by the higher orders. The chase of the gazelle is not shown , . , No. II. Ibex transfixed with arrow—falling. on the sculptures. In modern times they are taken by the greyhound and the falcon, separately or in conjunction, the two being often trained to hunt together.1 They are somewhat difficult to run down with 5 On the slab from which the ibexes represented above are taken, the king and an attendant are seen crouching as the herd approaches, in such a way as to make it evident that the intention was to represent them as lying in am- bush. 1 Sec Mr. Layard's Nineveh and Bahy- lon, pp. 481-483. 522 Chap. VH. THE SECOND MONARCHY. Sportsman carrying a gazelle (Khorsabad). dogs only, except immediately after they have drunk water in hot weather.2 That the Assyrians sometimes captured them, appears by a huntinfr- scene which Mr. Layard discovered at Khorsabad, where an attendant is re- presented carrying a ga- zelle on his shoulders, and holding a hare in his right hand.' As gazelles are very abundant both in the Sinjar country and in the district between the Tigris and the Zagros range,4 we may suppose that the Assyrians sometimes came upon them unawares, and transfixed them with their arrows before they could make their escape. They may also have taken them in nets, as they were accustomed to take deer ;s but we have no evidence that they did so. The hare is seen very commonly in the hands of those who attend upon the huntsmen.6 It is always represented as very small in proportion to the size of the men, whence we may perhaps conclude that the full-grown animal was less esteemed than the leveret . As the huntsmen in these representations have neither nets nor dogs, but seem to obtain their game solely by the bow, we must presume that they were expert enough to strike the hare as it ran. There is no difficulty in making such a supposition as this, since the Assyrians have left us an evidence of their skill as marksmen, which implies even greater dexterity. The game which they principally sought in the districts where they occa- * See Mr. Layard's Nineceh and Baby- lon, p. 482, note. 3 Monuments of Nineveh, 2nd Series, Pl. 32. The slab itself is in the British Museum. 4 Nineceh and Babylon, pp. 130, 268, ias. 5 Supra, p. 520. * Botta, Monument de Ninive, vol ii. Pis. 108, 110, and 111; Layard, Monu- ments, 2nd Series, PI. 32. The hare is always carried by the hind legs, exactly as we carry it See the representation on p. 226 of this volume. Chap. VII. 525 FISHING. 110 part in it, but merely drives in his chariot through the woods where the sportsmen are amusing themselves.1 Persons, how- ever, of a good position, as appears from their dress and the number of their attendants, indulged in the sport, more espe- cially eunuchs, who were probably those of the royal house- hold. It is not unlikely that the special object was to supply the royal table with game.2 The Assyrians do not seem to have had much skill as fisher- men. They were unacquainted with the rod, and fished by J 0 \ y No. I. Man fishing (Nimrud). means of a simple line thrown into the water, one end of which was held in the hand. No float was used, and the bait must consequently have sunk to the bottom, unless prevented from so doing by the force of the stream. This method of fishing 1 Botta, Pis. 108 to 114. These sculp- tures were all in one room, and form a series from which two slabs only are missing. 2 Hares and partridges were among the delicacies with which Sennacherib's servants were in the habit of furnishing his tabic, as we may gather from the procession of attendants represented at Koyunjik in the inclined passage. (See Layard, Monuments, 2nd Series, Pl.9, and compare Mneceh and Babylon, p. 338.) Chap. VII. 527 BEAR AND OSTRICH HUNTING. drew the fish from the water.7 Now and then the fisherman was provided with a plaited basket, made of rushes or flags, which was fastened round his neck with a string, and hung at his back, ready to receive the produce of his exertions. It does not appear that angling was practised by the Assy- rians in the way that the monuments show it to have been practised in Egypt, as an amusement of the rich.8 The fisher- men are always poorly clothed, and seem to have belonged to the class which worked for its living. It is remarkable that we Man fishing, seated on skin (Koyunjik). do not anywhere iu the sculptures see nets used for fishing; but perhaps we ought not to conclude from this that they were never so employed in Assyria.9 The Assyrian sculptors repre- sented only occasionally the scenes of common everyday life; and we are seldom justified in drawing a negative conclusion as to the peaceful habits of the people on any point from the mere fact that the bas-reliefs contain no positive evidence on the subject. A few other animals were probably, but not certainly, chased by the Assyrians, as especially the ostrich and the bear. The gigantic bird, which remained in Mesopotamia as late as the 'Sec the woodcut in Mr. Layard's phoclcs joins it with ship-building, Nineveh and Babylon, p. 231. ploughing, trap-making, and horse- 'Wilkinson, p. 52, Pl. 341. Com- breaking. (Antia. 347.) Solomon ccr- pare his remarks, pp. 53 and 54. tainly knew of the practice (Eccl. ix. 0 The use of nets for fishing seems to 12), as did Homer! Odga. xxii. 384-386). have been a very early invention. So- | It was of great antiquity in Kgypt. 528 Chap. VII. THE SECOND MONARCHY. time of Xenophon,10 was well known to the Assyrian artists, who could scarcely have represented it with so much success.1 Of the other amusements and occupations of the Assyrians our knowledge is comparatively scanty; hut some pages may be here devoted to their music, their navigation, their com- merce, and their agriculture. On the first and second of these a good deal of light is thrown hy the monuments, while some interesting facts with respect to the third and fourth may be gathered hoth from this source and also from ancient writers. That the Babylonians, the neighbours of the Assyrians, and, in a certain sense, the inheritors of their empire, had a passion for music, and delighted in a great variety of musical instru- ments, has long been known and admitted. The repeated men- tion by Daniel, in his third chapter, of the " cornet, flute, harp, sackbut, psaltery, dulcimer, and all kinds of music "3—or, at any rate, of a number of instruments for which those terms were once thought the best English equivalents—has familiarised us with the fact, that in Babylonia, as early as the sixth century B.C., musical instruments of many different kinds were in use. It is also apparent from the Book of Psalms, that a variety of instruments were employed by the Jews.4 And we know that in 10 Xen. Annb. i. 5, § 2. izir-pnl. See below, ch. ix. 1 See the woodcuts on p. 228. * Verses 5, 7, 10, and 15. 2 The chase of the ostrich seems to be 4 See especially Ps. cl., where the mentioned in the inscriptions of Asshur- trumpet, psaltery, harp, timbrel, pipe(?., Bear standing, from a bronze bowl (Nimrud). unless its habits had been ob- served and described by hunters.2 The bear is much less frequent upon the remains than the os- trich; but its occurrence and the truthfidness of its delineation where it occurs, indicate a fami- liarity which may no doubt be due to other causes, but is pro- bably traceable to the intimate knowledge acquired by those who hunted it. Chap. VII. 529 MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS. Egypt as many as thirteen or fourteen different kinds were common.5 In Assyria, if there was not so much variety as this, there were at any rate eight or nine quite different sorts, some stringed, some wind, some merely instruments of percussion. In the early sculptures, indeed, only two or three musical instruments are represented. One is a kind of harp, held between the left arm and the side, and played with one hand by means of a quill or plectrum. Another is a lyre, played by the hand; while a third is apparently a cymbal. But in the later times we see—besides these instru- ments—a harp of a differ- ent make played with both hands, two or three kinds of lyre, the double pipe, the guitar or cithern, the tambourine, a nameless instrument, and more than one kind of drum. The harp of the early ages was a triangular in- strument, consisting of a horizontal board which seems to have been about three feet in length, an upright bar inserted into one end of the board, com- monly surmounted by an imitation of the human hand, and a number of , , Ancient Assyrian harp and harper (Nimruu). strings which crossed dia- gonally from the board to the bar, and, passing through the organ (?), and cymbal are all mentioned together. Compare Ps. xxxiii. 2; xcii. 3; xcviii. 5, 6, &c. 5 Wilkinson, Ancient Egyptians, 1st Series, vol. ii. pp. 253-327.' The instru- ments enumerated are the dam'Aioka VOL. L drum, cymbals, cylindrical maces, the trumpet, the long drum, the harp, the lyre, the guitar, the flute, the single and double pipe, the tambourine, and the sistrum. 2 M 530 Chap.VH. THE SECOND MONARCHY. latter, hung down some way, terminating in tassels of no great size. The strings were eight, nine, or ten in number, and (appa- rently) were made fast to the board, but could be tightened or relaxed by means of a row of pegs inserted into the upright bar, round which the strings were probably wound. No difference is Later Assyrian harps and harpers (Koyunjik). apparent in the thickness of the strings; and it would seem therefore that variety of tone was produced solely by difference of length. It is thought that this instrument must have been sus- pended round the player's neck.6 It was carried at the left side, 6 Layard, Nineveh and its Remains, vol. ii. p. 412. The conjecture is probable, though no means of suspension are seen on the sculptures. Chap. VII. HAEPS AND LYRES. and was played (as already observed) with a quill or plectrum held in the right hand, while the left hand seems to have been employed in pressing the strings so as to modify the tone, or stop the vibrations, of the notes. The performers on this kind of harp, and indeed all other Assyrian musicians, are universally represented as standing while they play. The harp of later times was constructed, held, and played differently. It was still triangular,7 or nearly so; but the frame now consisted of a rounded and evidently hollow1 sounding- board, to which the strings were attached with the help of pegs, and a plain bar whereto they were made fast below, and from which their ends depended like a fringe. The number of strings was greater than in the earlier harp, being sometimes as many as seventeen. The instrument was carried in such a way that the strings were perpendicular and the bar horizontal, while the sounding-board projected forwards at an angle above the player's head. It was played by the naked hand without a plectrum; and both hands seem to have found their employment in pulling the strings. Three varieties of the lyre are seen in the Assyrian sculptures. One of them is triangular, or nearly so, and has only four strings, which, being carried from one side of the triangle to the other, parallel to the base, are neces- sarily of very unequal length. Its frame is apparently of wood, very simple, and entirely devoid of ornament. This sort of lyre has been found only in the latest Triangular lyre (Koyunjik). sculptures.2 Another variety nearly resembles in its general shape the 'The Egyptians had a triangular harp (Wilkinson, p. 280), which is not unlike the Assyrian. And St. Jerome says that the Hebrew harp (1133) re- sembled the Greek delta, which is an argument that it also was of this shape. 1 The board is commonly pierced with two or more holes, like the sounding- board of a guitar. 1 The above representation is from a slab discovered by Mr. Loftus in the palace of Asshur-bani-pal, the son of Esar-haddon. It is the only instance of a triangular lyre in the sculptures, unless the lyres of the so-called Jewish captives in the British Museum are intended to be triangular, which is un- certain. See below, p. 540. 2 m 2 534 Chap. VII. THE SECOND MONAECHY. disciple.8 We may conclude from this that they at any rat* learnt the invention from Asia; and in their decided preference of the double over the single pipe we may not improbably have a trace of the influence which Assyria exercised over Asiatic, and thus even over Greek, music. Guitar or tamboura (Koyunjik). Player on the double pipe Koyunjik'. The Assyrian double pipe was short, probably not exceeding ten or twelve inches in length.9 It is uncertain whether it was really a single instrument consisting of two tubes united by a common mouth-piece, or whether it was not composed of two quite separate pipes, as was the case with the double pipes of the Greeks and Romans. ■ Plutarch. De MusicA, p. 1135, F. I sical were probably even longer. In 0 The Egyptian pipes seem to have Phoenicia a very short pipe was used, varied from seven to fifteen or eighteen which was called t/ingrus. (Athen. Pcipn. inches. (Wilkinson, p. 308.) The clas- j iv. p. 174, F.) Chap. VII. TAMBOUKINES AND CYMBALS. 535 The two pipes constituting a pair seem in Assyria to have been always of the same length, not, like the Roman " right" and "left pipes," of unequal length, and so of different pitches.10 They were held and played, like the classical, one with either hand of the performer. There can be little doubt that they were in reality quite straight, though sometimes they have been awkwardly represented as crooked by the artist. Tambourine player, and other musicians (Koyunjik). The tambourine of the Assyrians was round, like that in com- mon use at the present day, not square, like the ordinary Egyptian.1 1 It seems to have consisted simply of a skin stretched on a circular frame, and to have been destitute alto- gether of the metal rings or balls which produce the jingling sound of the modern instrument. It was held at bottom by the left hand in a perpendicular position, and was struck at the side with the fingers of the right. "Sec Pliny, H. N. xvi. 36. 11 Wilkinson, pp. 235, 240, and 329. 536 Ciup. YH THE SECOND MONARCHY. Assyrian cymbals closely resembled those in common use throughout the East at the present day.12 They consisted of two hemispheres of metal, pro- bably of bronze, running off to a point, which was elongated into a bar or handle. The player grasped a cymbal in each hand, and either clashed them together horizontally, or else, holding one cup-wise in his left, brought the other down upon it perpendicularly with his right Two drums are represented on the Assyrian sculptures. One is a small instrument resem- bling the tubbul now frequently Eunuch playing on the cymbals d b Eastern dancing-girls." (Koyunjik). » . The other is of larger size, like the tubbul at top, but descending gradually in the shape of an inverted cone, and terminating almost in a point at bottom. Both were carried in front, against the stomach of the player, attached, apparently, to his girdle; and both were played in the same way, namely, with the fingers of the open hands on the top.14 A few instruments carried by musicians are of an anomalous appearance, and do not admit of identification with any known species. One, which is borne by a musician in a processional scene belonging to the time of Sennacherib, resembles in shape a bag turned upside down. By the manner in which it is held, Ave may conjecture that it was a sort of rattle—a hollow square box of wood or metal, containing stones or other hard substances which produced a jingling noise when shaken. But the purpose 12 They arc probably identical with the "high-sounding cymbals" Q bub* nyiin) of Scripture. The "loud cyin- ba'lg" (INSd "b'ib'S) were merely cas- tanets "Layard, Nineveh and Babylon, p 455. 14 For representations of these drums, sec opposite, Chap. VII. 539 BANDS OF MUSIC. No. I. Roman trumpet (Column of Trajan). and as an ordinary horn would have been of great use in giving signals to workmen engaged as the labourers are upon the sculpture, it seems best to ^ regard the object in ques- tion as such a horn—an instrument of great power, but of little compass—more suitable therefore for sig- nal-giving than for con- certs.4 Passing now from the in- struments of the Assyrians to the general features and character of their music, we may observe, in the first No. II. Assyrian trumpet (Layard). No. III. Portion of an Assyrian trumpet. place, that while it is fair to suppose them acquainted with each form of the triple symphony,5 there is only evidence that they knew of two forms out of the three—viz. the harmony of instruments, and that of instruments and voices in com- bination. Of these two they seem greatly to have preferred the concert of instruments without voices; indeed, one instance alone shows that they were not wholly ignorant of the more complex harmony.6 Even this leaves it doubtful whether they themselves practised it; for the singers and musicians repre- sented as uniting their efforts are not Assyrians, but Susianians, who come out to greet their conquerors, and do honour to the new sovereign who has been imposed on them, with singing, playing, and dancing. Assyrian bands were variously composed. The simplest consisted of two harpers. A band of this limited number seems 4 The trumpet was employed by the Greeks and Romans, and also by the Jews, chiefly for signals. (See Diet, of (jr. and Morn. Antiq. ad voc. TUBA, and Biblical Dictionary, ad voc. CORNET.) 'See Rollin, Ancient History, vol. ii. p. 254. 0 See Ninereh and Babylon, p. 455. It may perhaps be thought that the scene where the king is represented as pouring a libation over four dead lions (supra, p. 515, furnishes a second instance of the combination of vocal with instru- mental music. But a comparison of that scene with parallel representations on a larger scale in the Nimrud series convinces me that it is merely by a neglect of the artist that the two musi- cians are given only one harp. 544 Chap. Vli. THE SECOND MONARCHY. civil or of a military character, bands were also very generally employed, consisting of two, three, four, five, or possibly more/ musicians. Cymbals, the tambourine, and the instrument which has been above regarded as a sort of rattle, were peculiar to these processional occasions: the harp, the lyre, and the double pipe had likewise a place in them. In actual war, it would appear that music was employed very sparingly, if at all, by the Assyrians. No musicians are ever represented in the battle-scenes; nor are the troops accom- panied by any when upon the march. Musicians are only seen conjoined with troops in one or two marching processions, apparently of a triumphal character. It may consequently be doubted whether the Assyrian armies, when they went out on their expeditions, were attended, like the Egyptian and Roman armies,9 by military hands. Possibly, the musicians in the pro- cessional scenes alluded to belong to the court rather than to the camp, and merely take part as civilians in a pageant, wherein a share is also assigned to the'soldiery. In proceeding, as already proposed,10 to speak of the naviga- tion of the Assyrians, it must be at once premised that it is not as mariners, but only as fresh-water sailors, that they come within the category of navigators at all. Originally an inland people, they had no power, in the earlier ages of their history, to engage in any but the secondary and inferior kind of navi- gation; and it would seem that, by the time when they suc- ceeded in opening to themselves through their conquests a way to the Mediterranean and the Indian Ocean, their habits bad become so fixed in this respect that they no longer admitted of change. There is satisfactory evidence which shows that tbey left the navigation of the two seas at the two extremities of their empire to the subject nations—the Phoenicians and the Babylonians,11 contenting themselves with the profits without * The fragmentary character of the sculptures renders it often doubtful whether the actual number of the per- formers may not have considerably ex- ceeded the number at present visible. • Wilkinson, vol. ii. pp, 260, 261; Liv. i. 43; Sueton. Tit Jut § 32; Anna. Marc. xxiv. 4; &c. 10 Supra, p. 528. 11 The evidence is not merely nega- tive. It is positively stated by Hero- dotus that in the time of Assyrian 55° Chap. TIL THE SECOND MONARCHY. extreme rapidity of the Mesopotamian rivers, on which sailing boats are still un- common. The un- failing strength of rowers was needed in order to meet and stem the force of the currents, aud this strength being pro- vided in abundanee, it was not thought necessary to hus- Phoenician bircmc (Koyunjik). , , ., , v ' J' band it or eke it out by the addition of a second motive power. Again, the boats, being intended only for peaceful purposes, were unprovided with beaks, another invention well known to the Assyrians, and fre- quently introduced into their sculptures in the representations of Phoenician vessels. In the Assyrian biremes the oars of the lower tier were worked through holes in the vessel's sides.4 This arrangement would, of course, at once supply a fulcrum and keep the oars in their places. But it is not so easy to see how the oar of a common row-boat, or the uppermost tier of a bireme, ob- tained their purchase on the vessel, and were prevented from slipping along its side. Assyrian vessels had no rullocks, and in general the oars are represented as simply rested without any support on the upper edge of the bulwark. But this can scarcely have been the real practice; and one or two representations, where a support is provided, may be fairly regarded as show- ing what the practice actually was. In the figure of a kufa, or round boat, already given,5 it will be Oar kept in place by pegs (Koyunjik). 4 See the representation, p. 361. • Supra, p. 546. ^ Chap. VII. S5i COMMERCE. seen that one oar is worked by means of a thong, like the Tpcyirb<; or TpoTTcoTT)p of the Greeks, which is attached to a ring in the bulwark. In another bas-relief,6 several of the oars of similar boats are represented as kept in place by means of two pegs fixed into the top of the bulwark and inclined at an angle to one another. Probably one or other of these two methods of steadying the oar was in reality adopted in every instance. ^ With regard to Assyrian commerce, it must at the outsefc^be remarked that direct notices in ancient writers of any real authority are scanty in the extreme. The Prophet Nahum says indeed, in a broad and general way, of Nineveh—" Thou hast multiplied thy merchants above the stars of heaven;"7 and Ezekiel tells us more particularly that Assyrian merchants, along with others, traded with Tyre "in blue clothes, and broidered work, and in chests of rich apparel."8 But, except these two, there seem to be no notices of Assyrian trade in any contemporary or guasai-contemporary author. Herodotus, writing nearly two hundred years after the empire had come to an end, mentions casually that "Assyrian wares" had in very ancient times been conveyed by the Phoenicians to Greece, and there sold to the inhabitants.9 He speaks also of a river traffic in his own day between Armenia and Babylon along the course of the Euphrates,10 a fact which indirectly throws light upon the habits of earlier ages. Diodorus, following Ctesias, declares that a number of cities were established from very ancient times on the banks of both the Tigris and the Euphrates, to serve as marts for trade to the merchants who imported into Assyria the commodities of Media and Paraetacene.11 Among the most important of these marts, as we learn from Strabo, weg^e, 8 Layard, Monuments, 2nd Series, Pis. 12, 13. The entire bas-relief, of which Mr. Layard has represented parts, may be seen in the British Museum. • Nahum iii. 16. • Ezek. xxvii. 23, 24: "Haran and Canneh and Eden, the merchants of Sheba, Asshur, and Chilmad, were thy merchants. These were thy merchants in all sorts of things [or, excellent things], in blue clothes [or, foldings], and broidered work, and in chests of rich apparel, bound with cords, and made of cedar, among thy merchandise." In Ezek. xxvii. 6, the Asshurites (Dnt^NTia) are said to have made the Tyrians "benches of ivory;" but it is doubtful if the Assyrians are intended. (Com- pare Gen. xxv. 3.) e Herod, i. 1. 10 Ibid. i. 194. (Compare 185.) 11 Diod. Sic. ii. 11. 556 Chap. YTI. THE SECOND MONARCHY. time to accumulate, so that when Nineveh was taken there was "none end" of the store.7 It has been suggested8 that "mines of gold were probably once worked within the Assyrian dominions," although no gold is now known to be produced anywhere within her limits. But perhaps it is more probable that, like Judaea9 and Phoenicia,10 she obtained her gold in a great measure from commerce, taking it either from the Phoenicians, who derived it both from Arabia11 and from the West African coast,12 or else from the Babylonians, who may have imported it by sea from India.13 Tin, which has not been found in a pure state in the remains of the Assyrians, but which enters regularly as an element into their bronze, where it forms from one-tenth to one-seventh of the mass,14 was also, probably, an importation. Tin is a compa- ratively rare metal. Abundant enough in certain places, it is not diffused at all widely over the earth's surface. Neither Assyria itself nor any of the neighbouring countries are known to have ever produced this mineral. Phoenicia certainly im- ported it, directly or indirectly, from Cornwall and the Scilly Isles, which therefore became first known in ancient geography as the Cassiterides or "Tin Islands."15 It is a reasonable sup- position that the tin, wherewith the Assyrians hardened their bronze, was obtained by their merchants from the Phoenicians16 in exchange for textile fabrics and (it may be) other commo- dities. If so, we may believe that in many instances the pro- 'The whole passage in Nahum runs thus—" Take ye the spoil of silver, take the spoil of yoUl: for there is none end of the store, the abundance of every precious thing." 8 Layaril, Ninevch and its Remains, vol. ii. p. 416. '1 Kings ix. 28, x. 11 ; Job xxii. 24. 10 Ezek. xxvii. 22. 11 The "merchants of Sheba" who "occupied" in the fairs of Tyre with "chief of all spices, and with all precious stones and gold" (Ezck. /. c.), were undoubtedly Arabians—i.e. Sa- baeans of Yemen, (Heeren, Asiatic Na- tions, vol. ii. p. 98, E. T.; Poole in Smith's Biblical Dictionary, vol. i. p. 94, ad voc. j Arabia.) 12 Through the Carthaginians, their I colonists, who were the actual traders in this quarter. (See Herod, iv. 196.) » Supra, p. 101. 14 Sec the results of Dr. Percy's analysis of Assyrian bronzes in Mr. Layard's Nincveh and Babylon, Appendix, pp. 670-672. 15 Compare Herod, iii. 115; Posidon. Fr. 48; Polyb. iii. 57, § 3; Diod. Sic . v. 22 and 38: Strab. iii. p. 197; Plin. H. N. iv. 22; Tima?us ap. Plin. iv. 16; Pomp. Mel. iii. 6; Solin. 26. According to Diodorus and Strabo, the Phoenicians likewise obtained tin from Spain. 1s Layard, Nineveh and Babylon, p. 191. 5<5o Cnxr. VH. THE SECOND MONARCHY. obtained from Arabia." Cinnamon, which was used bv the 7 * Jews from the time of the Exodus,17 and which was early imported into Greece by the Phoenicians,1 who received it from the Arabians,8 can scarcely have been unknown in Assyria when the Hebrews were familiar with it. This precious spice must have reached the Arabians from Ceylon or Malabar, the most accessible of the countries producing it.3 Muslins, shawls, and other tissues are likely to have come by the same route as the cinnamon; and these may possibly have been among the "blue clothes and broidered work and rich apparel," which the merchants of Asshur carried to Tyre in "chests, bound with cords and made of cedar-wood."4 Dyes, such as the Indian lacca,5 raw cotton, ebony and other woods, may have come by the same line of trade; while horses and mules are likely to have been imported from Armenia,6 and slaves from the country between Armenia and the Halys river.7 If from the imports of Assyria we pass to her exports, we leave a region of uncertain light to enter upon one of almost total darkness. That the "wares of Assyria" were among the commodities which the Phoenicians imported into Greece at a very early period, we have the testimony of Herodotus;8 but he leaves us wholly without information as to the nature of the wares themselves. No other classical writer of real authority touches the subject; and any conclusions that we may form upon it must be derived from one of two sources, either general probability, or the single passage in a sacred author which 16 Herod, iii. 107: 'Ev !i rairn |Vj? I p. 208, E. T.). 'Apofli'77] \i$avnn6s lari fieiyf xaPea,y 1 * Ezekiel tells us that Armenia (Togar- vaatwv rpv6fievos. Virg. Georg. ii. 117: 1 mah) traded with Phoenicia in "horses, "Solis est thurea virga Sabafis." 1 horsemen, and mules "—or, more cor- "Ex. xxx. 23. 1 Herod, iii. 111. 2 Ibid. 'Herodotus thought that cinnamon was a product of Arabia (iii. 107). But in this he was probably mistaken. (See Pliny, H. N. xii. 19.) No true cinnamon rectly, in "carriage-horses, riding- horses, and mules" (Hitzig, Comment. ad voc.). In such articles Assyria would be likely to be at least as good a cus- tomer as Phoenicia. 'Tubal and Meshech (the Tibareni seems to grow nearer Europe than Ceylon 1 and Moschi) "traded the persons of and Malabar. 4 Ezek. xxvii. 24. The conjecture is made by Vincent (Periplus, vol. i. p. 62). 5 See Heeren (Asiatic Natiuae, vol. ii. men" in the market of Tyre (Ez. xxvii. 13). Their position in Assyrian times was between Armenia and the Halys. « Herod, i. 1: ♦opWa 'Aaaipia, Chap. VII. EXPORTS. S^r • gives us a certain amount of authentic information.9 From the passage in question, which has been already quoted at length,10 we learn that the chief of the Assyrian exports to Phoenicia were textile fabrics, apparently of great value, since they were most carefully packed in chests of cedar-wood secured by cords. These fabrics may have been "blue cloaks,"11 or "em- broidery,"12 or "rich dresses" of any kind,13 for all these are mentioned by Ezekiel; but we cannot say definitely which Assyria traded in, since the merchants of various other countries are joined in the passage with hers. Judging by the monu- ments, we should conclude that at least a portion of the embroidered work was from her looms and workshops; for, as has been already shown, the embroidery of the Assyrians was of the most delicate and elaborate description.1* She is also likely to have traded in rich apparel of all kinds, both such as she manufactured at home and such as she imported from the far East by the lines of traffic which have been pointed out. Some of her own fabrics may possibly have been of silk, which in Roman times was a principal Assyrian ex- port.15 Whether she exported her other peculiar productions, her transparent and coloured glass, her exquisite metal bowls, plates, and dishes, her beautifully carved ivories, we cannot say. They have not hitherto been found in any place be- yond her dominion,16 so that it would rather seem that she produced them only for home consumption. Some ancient notices appear to imply a belief on the part of the Greeks and Komans that she produced and exported various spices. Horace speaks of Assyrian nard,17 Virgil of Assyrian amo- • Ezek. xxvii. 23, 24. 10 Supra, p. 551, note *. 11 Neither the "clothes" of the Au- thorised Version, which is the rendering in the text, nor the "foldings" of the | 1 4 Pp. 397, 398. margin, seems to give the true meaning, j is Pliny, U. -V. xi. 22 and 23. Gdlom (D'l^J) is from D^J "to wrap j 10 The silver bowls found in Cypri together," and means "that' in which a I are "° exception for Cyprus must be "The rare word D'OIIS is explained by R. Salomon as "a general name for beautiful garments in Arabic." SoKim- chi. (See Buxtorf ad voc.) man wraps himself," "a cloak." Buxtorf translates by "pallium." (Lex. ad voc.) "Jlikmah (riCp"V) is the word used. from Ep"1, "to embroider.'' VOL. L 2 0 regarded as within the dominions of Assyria. (See p. 370, note 2.) "Hor. Vd. ii. 11, 16: "Assyriftquc nardo." 562 THE SECOND MONARCHY. Chap. VII mum,™ Tibullus of Assyrian odours generally.19 iEschylus has an allusion of the same kind in his Agamemnon.20 Euripides81 and Theocritus,22 who mention respectively Syrian myrrh and Syrian frankincense, probably use the word "Syrian" for "Assyrian."23 The belief thus implied is not, however, borne out by inquiry. Neither the spikenard (Nardostachys Jata- mansi), nor the amomum (Amomum Cardamomum), nor the myrrh tree (Balsamodendron Myrrha), nor the frankincense tree (BosweMa thurifera), nor any other actual spice,24 is pro- duced within the limits of Assyria, which must always have imported its own spices from abroad, and can only have supplied them to other countries as a carrier. In this capacity she may very probably, even in the time of her early greatness, have conveyed on to the coast of Syria the spicy products of Arabia and India, and thus have created an impression, which after- wards remained as a tradition, that she was a great spice-pro- ducer as well as a spice-seller. In the same way, as a carrier, Assyria may have exported many other commodities. She may have traded with the Phoenicians, not only in her own products, but in the goods which she received from the south and east, from JBactria, India, and the Persian Gulf—such as lapis - lazuli, pearls, cinnamon, muslins, shawls, ivory, ebony, cotton. On the other hand, she may have conveyed to India, or at least to Babylon, the productions which the Phoenicians brought to Tyre and Sidon from the various countries bordering upon the Medi- terranean Sea and even the Atlantic Ocean—as tin, hides, pottery, oil, wine, linen. On this point, however, we have at 18 Virg. Eel. iv. 25: "AaetyrlQin vulgb nascetur amomum." '• Tibull. Eleg. i. 3, 7: "Hon soror, Assyrios clueri qua? dedat odorea." "jEschyl. Again. 1. 1285: Ov Svpior ayiff/ta ^fiao-if Aey«i5. !1 Eurip. Bacch. 1. 144: Svpi'ac Kairvos. "Theocr. Idyli. xv. 114: Supuu 5i fivpia xpvati' aAa/3a?rpa. "On the indifferent use of the terms 1 "Syrian" and "Assyrian" by the Greeks, see the author's Herodotus, vol. iv. p. 51, 2nd edition. ** There are many spicy shrubs and plants in Assyria, such as those noticed by Xenophon (Anab. i. 5, § 1); but, I I believe, none of the plants which pro- duce the spices of commerce. (See Mr. Ainsworth's Researches in Assyria, &c., p. 34.) Strabo, however, it must be admitted, distinctly asserts that ammnvm 1 was produced in Mesopotamia Proper | (xvi. p. 10U0). Chap. VII. 563 AGRICULTURE. present no evidence at all; and, as it is not the proper office of an historian to indulge at any length in mere conjecture, the consideration of the commercial dealings of the Assyrians may be here brought to a close. On the agriculture of the Assyrians a very few remarks will be offered. It has been already explained that the extent of cultivation depended entirely on the conveyance of water.1 There is good reason to believe that the Assyrians found a way to spread water over almost the whole of their territory. Either by the system of kanats or subterranean aqueducts, which has prevailed in the East from very early times,8 or by an elaborate network of canals, the fertilising fluid was conveyed to nearly every part of Mesopotamia, which shows by its innumerable mounds, in regions which are now deserts, how large a popu- lation it was made to sustain under the wise management of the great Assyrian monarchs.' Huge dams seem to have been thrown across the Tigris in various places, one of which (the Au-ai) still remains,4 seriously impeding the navigation. It is formed of large masses of squared stones, united together by cramps of iron. Such artificial barriers were intended, not (as Strabo believed4) for the protection of the towns upon the river from a hostile fleet, but to raise the level of the stream in order that its water might flow off into canals on one bank or the other, whence they could be spread by means of minor channels over large tracts of territory. The canals themselves 'See pp. 214, 215. vol. i. p. 8. In his Nineveh and Babylon, * Herodotus indicates some knowledge Mr. Layard throws some doubt upon the of the system when he relates that Cam- real purpose of this work, which he in- byses' army, in its passage across the , clines to regard as the wall of a town, desert between Syria and Egypt, was in | rather than a dam for purposes of irri- part supplied with water by means of gation (p. 466). But Captain Jones pipes derived from a distant river which ! thinks the work was certainly a "great conducted the fluid into cisterns (iii. 9). \ dam." (Journal of the Asiatic Society, Polybius says that the plan was widely 1 vol. xv. p. 343.) adopted by the Persians in the time of 5 Strab. xvi. 1, § 9. This seems to their empire (x. 28, § 3). Strabo says , have been the conjecture of the Greeks that the pipes and reservoirs (avpiYT'S who accompanied Alexander. They and bSptia) of Western Asia were popu- found the dams impede their own ships, larly ascribed to Semiramis (xvi. 1, § 2). and could not see that they served any 3 Layard, Nincreh and its Remains, , other purpose, since the irrigation vol. i. p. 314; Nineveh and Babylon, pp. system had gone to ruin as the Persian 241-246. I Empire declined. (See Arrian, i'xp. * Layard, Nineveh and its Remains, 1 Alex. vii. ".) 2 o 2 564 Chap. VII. THE SECOND MONABCHY. have in most cases been gradually filled up. In one instance, however, owing either to the peculiar nature of the soil or to some unexplained cause, we are still able to trace the course of an Assyrian work of this class, and to observe the manner and principles of its construction. In the tract of land lying between the lower course of the Great Zab River and the Tigris, in which was situated the im- portant town of Calah (now Nimrud), a tract which is partly alluvial, but more generally of secondary formation, hard gravel, sandstone, or conglomerate, are the remains of a canal un- doubtedly Assyrian,6 which was carried for a distance of more than five-and-twenty miles from a point on the Khazr or Ghazr Su, a tributary of the Zab, to the south-eastern corner of the Nimrud ruins. Originally the canal seems to have been derived from the Zab itself, the water of which was drawn off, on its northern bank, through a short tunnel—the modern Negoub— and then conducted along a cutting, first by the side of the Zab, and afterwards in a tortuous course across the undulating plain, into the ravine formed by the Shor-Derreh torrent. The Zab, when this part of the work was constructed, ran deep along its northern bank, and sending a portion of its waters into the tunnel maintained a constant stream in the canal. But after a while the river abandoned it3 north bank for the opposite shore; and, water ceasing to flow through the Negoub tunnel, it became necessary to obtain it in some other way. Accordingly the canal was extended northwards, partly by cutting and partly by tunnelling, to the Ghazr Su at about two miles above its mouth, and a permanent supply was thenceforth obtained from that stream.7 The work may have been intended in part to supply Calah with mountain-water;8 but the remains 0 The Assyrian inscription found by Mr. Layard in the tunnel at Negoub, of which he copied a portion imperfectly before its destruction (Nineveh and its Remains, vol. i. p. 80;, sufficiently proves this. 'See the Jourruil of the Asiatic Society, vol. xv. pp. 310, 311. 'Captain Jones regards this as its sole object (Asiatic Society's Journal, 1. s. c.); but Mr. Layard is probably right in his view that irrigation was at least one purpose which the canal was intended to subserve (Nineveh and its Remains, vol. i. p. 81). Several canals for irrigation seem to have been made by Sennacherib (Nineceh and Babylon, p. 212;. Chap. VII. 56'i CANALS. of dams and sluices along its course9 sufficiently show that it was a canal for irrigation also. From it water was probably derived to fertilise the whole triangle lying south of Nimrud between the two streams, a tract containing nearly thirty square miles of territory, mostly very fertile, and with careful cultivation well capable of supporting the almost metropolitan city on which it abutted. Chart of the district about Nimrud, showing the course of the ancient canal and conduit. In Assyria it must have been seldom that the Babylonian system of irrigation could have been found applicable, and the water simply derived from the rivers by side-cuts, leading it off from the natural channel.10 There is but little of Assyria * These are " ingeniously formed from the original rock left standing in the centre." (Jones, ut supra.) 19 Irrigation of this simple kind is applicable to parts of Eastern Assyria, between the Tigris and the mountains. (See Layard, Nineveh and Babylon, p. 224.) 565 THE SECOND MONARCHY. Chap. VIL which is flat and alluvial; the land generally undulates, and most of it stands at a considerable height above the various streams. The water therefore requires to be raised from the level of the rivers to that of the lands before it can be spread over them, and for this purpose hydraulic machinery of one kind or another is requisite. In cases where the kandt or subterranean conduit was employed, the Assyrians probably (like the ancient and the modern Persians11) sank wells at intervals, and raised the water from them by means of a bucket and rope, the latter working over a pulley.12 Where they could obtain a bank of a convenient height overhanging a river, they made use of the hand-swipe,13 and with its aid lifted the water into a tank or reservoir, whence they could distribute it over their fields. In some instances, it would seem, they brought water to the tops of hills by means of aqueducts, and then constructing a number of small channels, let the fluid trickle down them among their trees and crops." They may have occasionally, like the modern Arabs,15 em- ployed the labour of an animal to raise the fluid; but the monuments do not furnish us with any evidence of their use of this method. Neither do we find any trace of water-wheels, such as are employed upon the Orontes and other swift rivers, whereby a stream can itself be made to raise water for the land along its banks.1 According to Herodotus, the kinds of grain cultivated in Assyria in his time were wheat, barley, sesame, and millet.8 As these still constitute at the present day the principal agricultural products of the country,3 we may conclude that 11 For the ancient practice see Polyb. i vol. i. pp. 353, 354. 1. s. c.; for the modern compare Mai- I 1 Stanley, Sinai and Palestine, p. 400. colm. History of Persia, vol. i. p. 14; Chesney, Euphrates Expedition, vol. ii. p. 657. 12 Sec the representation on p. 404. 13 See Layard's Monuments, 2nd Series, Abulfeda says that the Orontes acquired its name of El Jsi, "the rebel," from its refusal to water the lands unless compelled by water-wheels iTahl. Syr. pp. 149, 150, ed. Kohler). The wheels Pl. 15; and compare above, p. 215. upon the Rhone below Geneva will be 14 An instance of this mode of irriga- \ familiar to most readers, tion appears on a slab of the Lower 3 Herod, i. 193. Empire, part of which is represented on I 3 Layard, Nineveh and its Semains, p. 310. vol. li. p. 423. 14 Layard, Nineveh and its Semains, j 574 Chap. YII. THE SECOND MONARCHY. rors;18 but, unlike them, it is perfectly plain, even the handle being a mere flat bar.17 We have also a few combs. One of these is of iron, about three and a half inches long, by two inches broad in the mid- dle. It is double, like a modern small-tooth comb, but does not present the feature, common in Egypt,18 of a difference in the size of the teeth on the two sides. The very ancient use of this toilet article iu Mesopotamia is evidenced by the fact, Necklace of flat beads (British Museum). already noticed,19 that it was one of the original hieroglyphs, whence the later letters were derived. Another comb is of lapis-lazuli, and has only a single row of teeth. The small vases of alabaster or fine clay, and the small glass bottles which have been discovered in tolerable abundance,20 were also in all pro- bability intended chiefly for the toilet. They would hold the perfumed unguents which the Assyrians, like other Orientals,21 were doubtless in the habit of using, and the dyes wherewith they sought to increase the beauty of the countenance.22 No doubt the luxury of the Assyrian women in these and other respects was great and excessive. They are not likely to have fallen short of their Jewish sisters either in the refine- ments or in the corruptions of civilisation. When then we hear of "the tinkling ornaments" of the Jewish women in Isaiah's ,6 See Wilkinson's Ancient Egyptians, 1st Series, vol. iii. pp. 585, 586; and Smith's Dictionary of Antiquities, ad voc. SrECULUM, p. 1053, 2nd col. 17 A handle of a mirror found by Mr. Layard at Nimrud was slightly orna- mented (Monuments, 1st Series, Pl. 96, fig. 11). "Wilkinson, 1st Series, vol. iii. p. 380. •9 Supra, p. 65. » Supra, p. 390. 11 As the Persians (Elin. If. A', xiii. 1), the Egyptians (Juv. xv. 50), the Parthians iPlin. If. N. xiii. 2), the Syrians (Athen. Deipn. xii. 35; Hor. ii. 7, l. 8), and the Jews (Heel. ix. 8; Luke vii. 46, &c.). "Diod. Sic. ii. 23, § 1. In some of the bas-reliefs both the upper and the under eyelids are painted black. See above, p. 364; and compare Layard's Monuments, 1st Series, Pl. 92. 5;s Chap. VH. THE SECOND MONARCHY. was then, no doubt, paunched, after which it was placed— either whole, or in joints—in a huge pot or caldron, and, a fire being lighted under- neath, it was boiled to such a point as suited the taste of the king. While the boiling progressed, some portions were perhaps fried on the fire below. Mutton appears to have been the favourite meat in the camp. At the court there would be a supply of venison, antelope's flesh, hares, partridges, and other game, varied perhaps occa- sionally with such delicacies as the flesh of the wild ox and the onager. Fish must have been an article of food in Assyria, or the monuments would not have presented us with so many instances of fishermen.18 Locusts were also eaten, and were accounted a delicacy, as is proved by their occurrence among the choice dainties of a banquet, which the royal atten- dants are represented in one bas-relief as bringing into the palace of the king.19 Fruits, as was natural in so hot a climate, were highly prized; among those of most repute were pomegranates, grapes, citrons,80 and, apparently, pineapples.21 There is reason to believe that the Assyrians drank wine very Frying (Nimrud). "See above, pp. 525, 526, and 527. 10 Layard, Monuments, 2nd Series, Pis. 8 and 9; Am. and Bab. p. 338. Mr. Layard notes that "the locust has ever been an article of food in the East, and is still sold in the markets of many towns in Arabia." He quotes Burck- hardt (Aotfi un the Bedouins, p. 269) with respect to the way they are pre- pared. A recent traveller, who tasted them fried, observes that they are " like what one would suppose fried shrimps," and "by no means bad." (See Yule's Mission to the Court of At a, p. 114.) "Plin. H. N. xii. 3. 91 The representation is so exact that I can scarcely doubt the pineapple being intended. Mr. Layard expresses himself on the point with some hesita- tion. (Am. and Bab. p. 338.) Cuap. VII. 579 ARRANGEMENT OF BANQUETS. freely. The vine was cultivated extensively, in the neighbour- hood of Nineveh and elsewhere;1 and though there is no doubt that grapes were eaten, both raw and dried, still the main purpose of the vineyards Assyrian fruits. (From the Monuments.) was unquestion- ably the production of wine. Assyria was "a laud of corn and wine," emphatically and before all else.8 Great banquets seem to have been frequent at the court,3 as at the courts of Babylon and Persia,4 in which drinking was practised on a large scale. The .Ninevites generally are reproached as drunkards by Nahum.5 In the banquet-scenes of the sculptures, it is drinking and not eating that is represented. Attendants dip the wine-cups into a huge bowl or vase, which stands on the ground and reaches as high as a man's chest,6 and carry them full of liquor, to the guests, who straightway fall to a carouse. The arrangement of the banquets is curious. The guests, who are in one instance some forty or fifty in number,7 instead of being received at a common table, are divided into messes of four, who sit together, two and two, facing each other, each mess having its own table and its own attendant. The guests are all clothed in the long tasseled gown, over which they wear the deeply fringed belt and cross-belt. They have samlals on their feet, and on their arms armlets and bracelets. They sit on high stools, from which their legs dangle; but in no case have they footstools, which would apparently have been a great convenience. Most of the guests are bearded men, but inter- mixed with them we see a few eunuchs.8 Every guest holds in 1 Supra, p. 567. 8 2 Kings xviii. 32. I at the time of M. Botta's discoveries, 3 Diod. Sic. ii. 20: Botta, Monument, I while many slabs were even then so Pis. M to 67, and 107 to 114. ;injured that their subject could not be 4 Dan. v. 1; Esther i. 3; Herod, ix. made out. Along the line of wall occu- 110. pied by the banqueting scene, there was 5 Nahum, i. 10. "While they are ample room for twenty more guests. drunken as drunkards, they shall be 'In M. Flandin's drawings this does devoured, as stubble fully dry." - not appear; but M. Botta is confident « This vase is represented p. 388. that it was so in the sculptures them- 7 Forty guests were still to be traced selves (Monument, vol. v. p. 131). 2 p 2 580 Chap. VII. THE SECOND MONARCHY. his right hand a wine-cup of a most elegant shape, the lower part modelled into the form of a lion's head, from which the cup itself rises in a graceful curve. They all raise their cups to a level with their heads, and look as if they were either pledging each other, or else one and all drinking the same toast. Both the stools and the tables are handsome, and tastefully, though not very richly, ornamented. Each table is overspread with a table-cloth, which hangs down on either side opposite the guests, but does not cover the ends of the table, which are thus fully exposed to view. In their general make the tables exactly resemble that used in a banc/uet-scene Ornamental wine- b„ a kmor 0f a ]afer date,9 but their ornainenta- cup (Khorsabad). .... . , r , tion is much less elaborate. Un each ot them appears to have been placed the enigmatical article of which meution has been already made as a strange object generally • See the representation, p. 493. Chap. VII. 581 FESTAL MUSIC AND FLOWERS. accompanying the king.10 Alongside of it we see in most instances a sort of rude crescent.11 These, objects have probably, both of them, a sacred import, the crescent being the emblem of Sin, the Moon-God,12 while the nameless article had some unknown religious use or meaning. In the great banqueting scene at Khorsabad, from which the above description is chiefly taken, it is shown that the Assyrians, like the Egyptians and the Greeks in the heroic times,13 had the enter- tainment of music at their grand feasts and drinking bonts. At one end of the long series of figures repre- senting guests and attendants was a band of performers, at least three in number, two of whom certainly played upon the lyre.14 The lyres were ten-stringed, of a square shape, and hung round the player's neck by a string or riband. The Assyrians also resembled the Greeks and Romans15 in introducing flowers into their feasts. We have no evidence that they wore garlands, or crowned themselves with chaplets of flowers, or scattered roses over their rooms; but still they appre- ciated the delightful adornment which flowers furnish. In the long train of attendants represented at Koyunjik as bringing the Attendant bringing flowers to a banquet (KoyunjikJ. 10 Supra, p. 494. "M. Botta speaks as if the objects had been different on the different tables (Monument, vol. v. p. 131); but M. Flan- din's drawings show siarcely any variety. The condition of the slabs was very bad, and the objects on the tables could scarcely ever be distinctly made out. "See supra, p. 124, and vol. ii. p. 18. 11 For the Egyptian practice, see Wilkinson's Ancient Egyptians, lstSeries, vol. ii. p. 'I'll; for that of the Greeks, compare Hom. Od. i. 150-155; Athen. Ueipn. xiv. 6, &c. "One of these has been already represented, supra, p. 532. The figure of the third musician was so much injured that his instrument could not be made out. There was room for two or three more performers. (Botta, Pl. 67.) "Athen IMipn. xv. 10; Hor. Od. iii. 19, 1. 22, i. 37, 1. 15, Ov. Fast. v. 337, &c. 582 Chap. VU. THE SECOND MONARCHY. materials of a banquet into the palac e of the king, a considerable number bear vases of flowers. These were probably placed on stands, like those which are often seen supporting jars,16 and dispersed about the apartment in which the feast was held, but not put upon the tables. We have no knowledge of the ordinary houses of the Assyrians other than that which we derive from the single representation which the sculptures furnish of a village certainly Assyrian." It appears from this specimen that the houses were small, isolated from one another, and either flat-roofed, or else covered in with a dome or a high cone. They had no windows, but must have been lighted from the top, where, in some of the roofs, an aperture is discernible. The doorway was generally placed towards one end of the house; it was sometimes arched, but more often square-headed. The doors in Assyrian houses were either single, as commonly with ourselves, or folding (fores or valves), as with the Greeks and Romans, and with the modern Fi ench and Italians. Folding- doors were the most common in palaces.1 They were not hung upon hinges, like modern doors, but, like those of the classical nations,2 turned upon pivots. At Khorsabad the pavement slabs in the doorways showed everywhere the holes in which these pivots had worked, while in no instance did the wall at the side present any trace of the insertion of a hinge.3 Hinges, however, in the proper sense of the term, were not unknown to the Assyrians; for two massive bronze sockets found atNimrud, which weighed more than six pounds each, and had a diameter of about five inches,4 must have been designed to receive the hinges of a door or gate, hung exactly as Socket of hinge (Nimrud). gateg are now hung among ourselves. The folding-doors were fastened by bolts, which were shot into the pavement at the point where the two doors met; but in the case See pp. 3S7 and S96. 17 See p. 322, where this village is re- presented. 1 See Botta, Monument de finive, vols, i. and ii. passim. * Diet, of Greek and Soman Antiqui- ties, ad voc. Cardo. 'Botta, vol. v. p. 45. 'Layard, Ninev,h and Babylon, p. 163. I I 1 1