aves IT 11 111 Graves --- G II SI! III The Five Great Monarchies of the Ancient Eastern World George Rawlinson A *oct 9 I I THE FIVE GREAT MONARCHIES OF TBI ANCIENT EASTEEN WOKLD; OB, THE HISTORY, GEOGRAPHY, AND ANTIQUITIES OF CHALD.EA, ASSYRIA BABYLON, MEDIA, AND PERSIA. COLLECTED AND ILLU8TRATED FROM ANCIENT AND MODERN SOURCE8. o c By GEOKGE RAWLINSON, M.A, CAMDEN PROFESSOR 01? ANCIENT HIsTORY IN THE UNIVERsITY OK OXFORD; LATE FELLOW AND TUTOR OF EXETER COLLEGE. FOURTH EDITION. IN THREE VOLUMES. —Vol. I. WITH MAPS AND ILLUSTRATIONS. NEW YORK: SCRIBNER AND WELFORD. 1880. THE KE'V YORK PUBLIC LIBRARY 1 ASTOR LENOX AND T1L.DEN FOUNDATIONS jR 1918 I. TO MY BROTHER, HENRY CRESWICKE RAWLINSON, K.C.B., D.C.L., &c. &c. &c, TO WHOSE GENIUS, LABOURS, AND CONSTANT KINDNESS I FEEL MYSELF INDEBTED MORE THAN I CAN EXPRESS, THIS WORK IS DEDICATED, AS A SMALL TOKEN OF GRATEFUL AND AFFECTIONATE REMEMBRANCE. 1 PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. In preparing for the press, after an 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 warmest 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, November, 1870. PREFACE TO THE FIEST EDITION. The history of Antiquity requires from time to time to be 1 e-written. Historical knowledge continually extends, in part om the advance of critical science, which teaches us little by ttle 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 Miiller 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 PREFACE. vfi 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 possible; and in one—Assyria—both the "Arts" and the "Manners" of the people admit of being illustrated very largely from the remains still extant, f 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 Review for July, 1862, Art. III., p. 108.) Are they aware that the Persian inscriptions are accompanied in almost every instance by an Assyrian transcript, and that Assyrian interpretation thus fol1ows upon Persian, without involving any additional " guess-work "? f See Chapters VI. and VII. of the Second Monarchy. viii PREFACE. Mr. Loftus, Mr. Cullimore, and Mr. Birch. He is glad 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 lists these illustrations are carefully distinguished from such as, in one shape or another, have appeared previously, Oxroao, September, 1862. CONTENTS OF VOL. I. THE FIRST MONARCHY. C H A L D M A. CHAPTER L Ginehal View of the Country CHAPTER II. Climate and Productions CHAPTER HI. The People CHAPTER IV. Language and Writing CHAPTER V. Arts and Sciences CHAPTER VI. Manners and Customs CHAPTER VII. Religion CHAPTER VIII. History and Chronology CONTENTS OF VOL. I. THE SECOND MONARCHY. ASSYRIA. CHAPTER L DescripTion of The CounTry 180 CHAPTER II. ClimaTe and ProducTions .. 210 CHAPTER HI. The People 230 CHAPTER IV. The CapiTal 248 CHAPTER V. Language and WriTing 202 CHAPTER VI. ArchiTecTure and oTher ArTs 277 CHAPTER VII. Manners and CusToms 400 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS. 1. Plan of Mugheir ruins (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 (after Oppert) 34 7. Chaldsean reeds, from an Assyrian sculpture (after La.yu.rd) .. .. 87 8. Wild sow and pigs, from Koyunjik (Layard) .. .. .. .. 40 9. Ethiopians (after Prichard) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. S3 10. Cuneiform inscriptions (drawn by the A utltor from bricks in the British Museum) 63, 64 11. Chaldasan tablet (after Layard) 68 12. Signet-cylinder (after Ker Porter) .. .. .. .. .. 69 13. Bowariyeh (after Loftut) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 74 14. Mugheir Temple (ditto) 76 15. Ground-plan of ditto (ditto) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 78 lt,. Mugheir Temple, restored (by the A utltor) .. .. .. .. .. 79 17. Terra-cotta cone, actual size (ifter Loftus) .. .. .. ,. 82 18. Plan and wall of building patterned with cones (after I.oftus) .. .. 83 19. Ground-plan of chambers excavated at Abu-Shahrein (after Taylor) .. 84 20. Brick vault at Mugheir (ditto) 8« 21. Chaldxan dish-cover tombs (ditto) .. .. .. .. .. .. 88 22. Chaldasan jar-coffin (ditto) 89 23. Section of drain (ditto) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 90 24. Chaldsean vases of the first period (drawn by the Author from vases iu the British Museum) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. gj 25. Chaldrean vases, drinking-vessels, and amphora of the second period (ditto) 9* 26. Chaldssan 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 Ker Porter) 94 29. Flint knives (drawn by the Author from the originals in the British Museum) .. .. .. .. .. .. •. - . .. 95 SO. Stone hammer, hatchet, adze, and nail (chiefly after Taylor) .. .. Pa' 31. Chaldsean 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 the Author from the originals in the British Museum) 98 35. Leaden pipe and jar (ditto) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 98 36. Bronze bangles (ditto) 99 Xii LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS. 37. Senkareh table of squares .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 103 38. Costumes of Chaldseans from the cylinders (after Cullimore and Rich) .. 10t, 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 (La.ya.rd) .. .. .. .. .. 137 49. 50. Clay images of Ishtar (after Cvllimore and Layard) .. 139, HO 51. Nebo (drawn by the A uthor from a statue in the British Museum) .. HI 52. Signet of Kurri-galzu, King of Babylon (drawn by the Author from an impression in the possession of Sir H. Rawlmson) .. .. .. 170 53. The Khabour, from near Arban, looking north (after Layard) .. .. 187 54. Koukab (ditto) 1S9 55. Lake of Khatouniyeh (ditto) 190 56. Colossal lion, near Seruj (after Chancy) .. .. .. .. .. 197 57. Plan of the ruins at Nimrud (Calah) (reduced by Oie 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. Boutclter 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) .. .. .. .. 221 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 Layaraj .. 229 78. Bactrian or two-humped camel, from Nimrud (ditto) .. . 230 79. Meaopotamian 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) .. .. .. .. .. 232 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS. xiii Pag8 83. Mule ridden by two women, Koyunjik (after Layard) .. .. .. 233 84. Loaded mule, Koyunjik (ditto) 233 85. Cart drawn by mules, Koyunjik (ditto) .. .. .. .. .. 231 86. Dog modelled in clay, from the palace of Asshur-bani-pal, Koyunjik, (drawn by the Author from the original in the British Museum) .. 234 87. Dog in relief, on a clay tablet, (after Layard) ... .. .. 235 88. Assyrian duck, Nimrud (ditto) .. .. 235 89. Assyrians, Nimrud (ditto) 238 90. Mesopotamian captives, from an Egyptian monument (Wilkinson) .. 338 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. Ruins of Nineveh (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) .. .. .. .. .. .. 263 100. Assyrian seals (after Layard) .. .. .. .. .. .. 264 101. Assyrian clay tablets (ditto) 265 102. Black obelisk, from Nimrud (after Birch) 266 103. Terrace-wall at Khorsabad (after Botta) 278 104. Pavement-slab. from the Northern Palace, KoyuDjik (Feryutton) .. 279 105. 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 Propylamm, 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 Ferguston) 293 114. Sargon in his war-chariot, Khorsabad (after Botta) .. .. .. 294 115. Cornice of temple, Khorsabad (Ferguuon) .. .. .. .. J96 116. Armenian louvre (after Botta) .. .. .. .. .. .. 804 117. Armenian buildings, from Koyunjik (Layard) .. .. .. .. 305 118. Interior of an Assyrian palace, restored (ditto) .. .. .. .. 306 119. Assyrian castle on Nimrud obelisk (drawn by tlie Author from the ori- ginal 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 Fergutton) i!09 123. 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) .. .. .. .. 311 136. Basement portion of an Assyrian temple, North Palace, Koyunjik (drawn bjj tlie A uthor from the original in the BritLsh Museum) .. .. 312 xiv LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS. 127. Porch of the Cathedral, Trent (frora an original sketch made by tlie Author) 31 3 128. Tower of a temple, Koyunjik (after Layard) .. .. .. .. 311 129. Tower of ditto, restored (by the A uthor) 314 130. Tower of great temple at Nimrud (after Layard) .. .. .. 315 131. Basement of temple-tower, Nimrud, north and west sides (ditto) .. 318 132. 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) .. .. .. .. .. 324 138. Masonry and section of platform wall, Ehorsabad (after Bolta) .. 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) .. .. 828 142. Arched drain, South-East Palace, Nimrud (ditto) 329 143. False arch (Greek) 330 144. Assyrian patterns, Nimrud (Layard) .. .. .. .. .. 331 145. Ditto (ditto) 332 146. Bases and capitals of pillars (chiefiy drawn by the Author from bas-reliefs in the British Museum) .. .. .. .. .. .. 333, 334 147. Ornamental doorway, North Palace, Koyunjik (from an unpublished drawing by Mr. Boutcher 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 {drawn 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. King killing a lion, Nimrud (ditto) .. .. . .. .. 347 159. Trees from Nimrud (ditto) 348 160. Trees from Koyunjik (ditto) 349 161. Groom and horses, Khorsabad (ditto) .. .. .. .. .. 350 102. 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 A uthor 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. Boutcher 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 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 lionbitingachariot-wheel.fromtheNorthPalace, Koyunjik (ditto) 358 172. King shooting a lion on the spring, from the North Palace, Koyunjik (ditto) 35!) 173. Lion-hunt in a river, from the North Palace, Koyunjik (ditto) .. 381 174. Bronze lion, from Nimrud (after Layard) 365 175. Fragments of bronze ornamenta of the throne, from Nimrud (ditto) .. 385 176. Bronze casting, from the throne, Nimrud (ditto) .. .. .. 368 177. 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 N.W. Palace, Nimrud (Layard) 308 183. Egyptian head-dresses on bronze dishes, from Nimrud (ditto) .. 389 184. Ear-rings from Nimrud and Khorsabad (ditto) .. .. 371 185. Bronze cubes inlaid with gold, original size (ditto) .. .. .. 372 186. Egyptian scarab (from Wilkituon) .. .. .. .. .. .. 372 187. Fragment of ivory panel, from Nimrud (after Layard) .. .. .. 873 188. Fragment of a lion in ivory, Nimrud (ditto) .. .. .. .. 373 189. Figures and cartouche with hieroglyphics, on an ivory panel, froni the N.W. Palace, Nimrud (ditto) 374 190. Fragment of a stag in ivory, Nimrud (ditto) .. .. .. .. 375 191. Royal attendant, Nimrud (ditto) 370 192. Arcade work, on enamelled brick, Nimrud (ditto) 877 193. 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, amphorae, ftc. (after Birch) 386 201. Funereal urn, from Khorsabad (after BoUa) 386 202. Nestorian and Arab workmen, with jar discovered at Nimrud (Layard) 387 203. Lustral ewer, from a bas-relief, Khorsabad (after Botta) .. .. 887 204. Wine vase, from a bas-relief, Khorsabad (ditto) 388 205. Assyrian day-lamps (after Layard and Birch) 383 206. 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 A uthor) .. .. 892 211. 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. Pags 217. Ann-chair or throne, Khorsabad (after ISolta) .. .. .. .. 394 218. 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) 896 222. 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 ef 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. Eud 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) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 416 212. 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 Sargon, Khorsabad (after Botta) .. 425 249. Greave 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 Page 257. Foot archer of the intermediate equipment, with attendant, time of Sargon, Khorsabad (after Botta) .. .. .. .. .. .. 431 253. Foot archer of the heavy equipment, with attendant, time of Saigon, Khorsabad (ditto) 432 259. Foot spearman of the time of Sargon, Khorsabad (ditto) .. .. 433 260. Shield and greave of a spearman, Khorsabad (ditto) .. .. .. 434 201. 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 Senna- cherib, Koyunjik (ditto) .. .. .. .. .. .. 435 264. Foot archers of the second class, time of Sennacherib, Koyunjik (ditto) 436 265. Belts and head-dreas of a foot archer of the third class, time of Sennacherib, Koyunjik (after Bouteher).. .. .. .. .. 436 266. Mode of carrying the quiver, time of Sennacherib, Koyunjik (from the original in the BritUh 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 Layarct) 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 Laijard) .. 441 273. Iron helmet, from Koyunjik, now in the British Museum (by 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 Botta) 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 yerrha, or large wicker shields (ditto) .. .. .. .. 445 279. Soldier undermining a wall, sheltered by yerrhtm, Koyunjik (ditto) .. 446 2S0. 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 G. Wilkinson) .. 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) .. .. .. .. .. .. 450 239. 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 VOL. L b Xviii LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS. Pag. 293. Quivers of the ordinary character, Koyunjik (from the originals in the British Museum) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 452 294. Quiver with projecting rod, Khorsabad (after Botta) .. .. 453 295. Assyrian covered quivers, Koyunjik (from the originals in the British Museum) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 453 29C. 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 Boutchtr) .. .. .. 456 300. 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 Boideher) 458 806. 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) 459 809. Maces, from the Sculptures.. .. .. .. .. .. ..459 810. Assyrian battle-axes, Koyunjik (from the originals iu the British Museum) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 459 811. Scythian battle-axe (after TexUr) 459 812. Ornamented handles of daggers, Nimrud (after Layard) .. 460 813. Handle of dagger, with chain, Nimrud (ditto) .. .. .. .. 460 314. Sheaths of daggers, Nimrud (ditto) .. .. .. .. .. 461 815. Assyrian standard, Khorsabad (after BotUi) .. .. .. .. 461 316. Soldier swimming a river, Koyunjik (after Layard) .. .. .. 464 317. Royal tent, Koyunjik (from the original in the British Museum) .. 465 818. 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 BotUeher) 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-nuns, Khorsabad and Koyunjik (partly after Botta) .. .. 470 324. Assyrian balutat, 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 Layard) .. .. 475 328. Soldier carrying off 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) .. .. 480 833. Chasuble or outer garment of the king (chiefly after Botta) .. .. 485 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS. XIX Pa/o 334. King in his robes, Khorsabad (after Botta) .. .. .. .. 486 335. Tiaras of the later and earlier periods, Koyunjik and Niinrud (Layard and Boutdter) 487 336. Fillet worn by the king, Niinrud (after Layard) 487 337. Royal sandals, times of Sargon and Asshur-izir-pal (from the originals in the British Museum) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 488 338. Royal 8hoe, time of Sennacherib, Koyunjik (ditto) .. .. .. 488 339. Royal necklace, Nimrud (ditto) 489 3^0. 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 Britinh 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, times of Sennacherib and Asshur-izir-pal, Nimrud and Koyunjik (from the originals in the British Museum) 500 852. Tribute-bearers presented by the chief eunuch, Nimrud obelisk (ditto) 502 853. 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 Boutcher) .. 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) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 515 368. 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) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 520 870. Portion of net showing the arrangement of the meshes and the pegs, Koyunjik (ditto) 520 871. Hunted ibex, flying at full speed, Koyunjik (after Boutcher) .. .. 521 372. Ibex 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 XX LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS. Pago 375. Greyhound and hare, Nimrud (from a bronze bowl in the British Museum) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 683 376. Nets, pegs, and balls of string. Koyunjik (after Bouicher) .. .. 624 377. Man fishing, Nimrud (after Layard) .. .. .. .. .. 525 378. Man fishing, Koyunjik (ditto) .. .. .. .. .. .. 526 379. Man fishing, seated on skin, Koyunjik (from the original in the British Museum) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 527 380. Bear standing, Nimrud (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 633 British Museum) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 534 886. Guitar or tamboura, Koyunjik (ditto) .. .. .. .. .. 534 387. Player on the double pipe, Koyunjik (ditto) .. .. .. .. 634 388. Tambourine player and other musicians. Koyunjik (ditto) .. .. 535 389. Eunuch playing on the cymbals, Koyunjik (after Bouicher) .. .. 536 390. Assyrian tubbuls, or drums, Koyunjik (from the originals in the British Museum) .. .. .. .. .... .. .. .. 537 391. Musician playing the dulcimer, Koyunjik (ditto) .. .. .. 538 392. Roman 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) .. .. .. .. .. .. 641 397. Band of twenty-six musicians, Koyunjik (ditto) .. .. .. .. 542 398. Time-kecpers, Koyunjik (after Bouteher) .. .. .. .. .. 543 399. Assyrian coracle, Nimrud (from the original in the British Museum) .. 546 400. Common oar, time of Sennacherib, Koyunjik (ditto) .. .. .. 647 401. Steering oar, time of Aashur-izir-pal, Nimrud (ditto) .. .. .. 547 402. Early long boat, Nimrud (ditto) 549 403. Liter long boat, Khorsabad (after Botta) .. .. .. .. .. 549 404. Phoenician 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 FuriIusson) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 567 408. Modern Turkish plough (after Sir C. Fellows) 567 409. Modern Arab plough (after C. Niebuhr) 567 410. Ornamental belt or girdle, Koyunjik (from the original in the British Museum) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 569 411. Ornamental cross-belt, Khorsabad (after Botta) .. .. .. .. 569 412. Armleta of As-yrian grandees, Khorsabad (ditto).. .. .. .. 570 413. Head-dresses of various officials, Koyunjik (from the originals in the British Museum) 571 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS. Xxi Vugo 414. Curious mode of arranging the hair, Koyunjik (from the original in the British Museum) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 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) 575 419. Combs in iron and lapis lazuli (from the originals in the British Museum) 575 420. Assyrian joints of meat (from the Sculptures) .. .. .. .. 577 421. Killing the sheep, Koyunjik (after Boutcher) .. .. .. .. 577 422. Cooking meat in caldron, Koyunjik (after Layard) .. .. .. 578 423. Frying, Nimrud (from the original in the British Museum) .. .. 578 424. Assyrian fruits (from the Monuments) .. .. .. .. .. 579 425. Drinkiug scene, Khoreabad (after Botta) .. .. .. . .. 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) .. .. .. .. .. 582 429. 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) .. .. .. .. .. 584 432. 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) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 688 43S. Groom feeding horses, Koyunjik (after Layard) .. .. .. .. 589 439. Groom currycombing a horse, Nimrud (from the original in the British Museum) 539 VOL. T. a / THE FIRST MONARCHY. CHALDiEA. CHAPTER I. GENERAL VIEW OF THE COUNTRY. "Behold the land of the Chaldaeans."—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 i. pp. 77, 78, E. T. VOU L 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 ol 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,8 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 * 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 ijtf, "two," and or or nakr (Heb. "ns), "a river." The form ar belongs to the early Scythic or Cushite Babylonian, and is found in the Ar-malchar of Pliny (H. N. vi. 26), and the Armacales of Abydenus—terms used to designate the A'ahr-malchu (Royal River) of other authors. (See the Fragmenta Hittoricorum Gracoruvi, vol. iv. pp. 283, 284.) '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 Hcrodolu*, vol . ii. p. 6, note '.) Chap. L 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 historians5 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 * Loftus's Chaldam and Susiana, p. 282. * See Strabo, xvi . 1, § 6; Pliny, H. N. vi. 28 ; Ptolemy, v. -20; Beros. ap. Syncell. pp. 28, 29. * See below, pp. 13, 14, &c. 7 Rosa 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.) Similarly Captain Lynch found the bed of the Tigris chauge 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 Kraser's Aisyria 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 1 Loftus, Chaldcea and Susiana, p. 282. 'Sir H. Rawlinson, in the Journal of the Geographical Society, vol. xxvii.p. 186. The increase did not escape the notice of the ancients. It is mentioned 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 Mauritanian it was 50 miles from the sea, and in his own day 120 miles! (Hist. Nat. vi. 27.) Hus would give for the first period a rate of increase exceeding a mile in seven years, and for the second a rate of about a mile a year; or for the whole period, a rate of a mile in 3 J years. 10 Loftus, in Journal of the Geograph- ical Society, vol. xxvi. p. 146. Chap. I. 5 EXTENT OF ANCIENT CHALDzEA—RIVERS. deduct therefore from the estimate of extent grounded upon the existing state of things, a tract of land 130 miles long and some 60 or 70 broad, 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 tban quadrupled by Prussia, and more than octupled by Spain, France, and European 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 the 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 HMenici, vol. ii. p. 473, where the whole area of Euro- pctn Greece, including Thessaly, Acar- nania, iEtolia, Eubcea, and the other littoral islands, is shown to be 22,231 miles. 2 See above, p. 2. 6 Chap. I. THE FIRST 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 tlue 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."8 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 Goljik, 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 * Gen. U. 14, marginal rendering. dentem petit, ni Taurus obstet, in nostra 'See the remark of Mela:—" Occi- maria venturus." (Di Sit. Orb. iii . 8.) Chap. I. DESCRIPTION OF THE EUPHRATES AND TIGRIS. J 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." 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 * In one part of its course, viz., from Kut-el-Amarah at the mouth of the Shat-el-Hie to Hussun Khan's fort, 60 miles lower 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 Kuruah 110, and from Kurnah to El Khitr 115. 'Chesney, Euphrates Expedition, vol. i. pp. 38 and 10. 8 Chap. I. THE FIRST 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.8 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 feet4 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 a low country at Sumei'sat, the affluents almost entirely cease; one, the river of Sajur, is received from the right, in about lat. 36° 40'; and two • Chesney, Euphrates Expedition,v6Li. p. ii. 'Ibid. p. 15. It only attains this width, however, in the season of the floods. Generally it is at Diarbekr about 100 or 120 yards wide. 10 Loftus, Chaldaa and Sutiana, p. 3. 1 Chesney, Euphrates Expedition, vol. i. p. 82; compare Layard, Nineveh and its Remain*, vol. ii. ch. xiii. p. 92. 'The 'Euphrates' steamer, under Lieutenant Lynch, ascended the Tigris nearly to Nimrud in 1838; but was stopped by an artificial bund or dam thrown across the stream near that place. (Chesney, vol. i. p. 32.) The 'Nitocris' in 18 46 attempted the ascent, but was unable to proceed far above Tekrit, from a want of sufficient power. (Nineveh and its Remains, vol. i. ch. v. p. 139.) 'Chesney, vol. i. pp. 53-57. 4 Ibid. p. 62. 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 waters 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 springs, shuts in the Mesopotamian plain upon the east, abounds with springs, which s Strab. xi . 12, § 4 ; 14, §2, &c . * Layard, Nineveh andBabylon,c\x.xy. p. 22. Compare ch. xi. pp. 269, 270. 'Xenophon, Anabasis, iv. 3, § 1. • Layard, Nineveh and Babylon, oh. iii. p. 49. The Bitlia 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. IO Chap. I . THE FIRST MONARCHY. are well supplied during the whole summer from its snows,8 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, Chaldaaand Susiana, p. 308 ; /own. of Geograph. Society, vol. ix. p. 95. Chap. L 11 DWINDLING OF THE EUPHRATES. nor even approaches in its later course to the standard of its earlier greatness. The channel from Kurnah to El Khitr was fotmd 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,8 where large tracts are below its ordinary level. Over these it spreads itself, forming the well-known "Chaldaean marshes,"4 which absorb the chief proportion 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, ofl'ering a strong contrast to the sister stream.6 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 w Euplirates Expedition, vol. i. pp. 59, 60. 1 Layard, Nineveh and Babylon, ch. xxi . p. 475; Loftus, Clicddaa andSusiana, p. 45. 1 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 higher 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. * Arrian, Exped. Alex. vii. 21, 22; Strab. xvi. 1, g§ 11, 12. The "lacus Chaldaici" of Pliny (hist. Nat. vi. 27) refer rather to the marshes on the Lower Tigris. (See the next page.) * Arrian, Exped. Alex. vii. 7 ; Plin. Hist. Not. 1. s. c. * Arrian, vii. 21. 12 Chap. I. THE FIEST MONARCHY. corn-lands of its own accord, but is spread over them by the help of engines."7 Both the Tigris and Euphrates rise many feet each spring, and overflow their banks in various places. The rise is caused by the melting of the snows in the mountain regions from which the two rivers and their affluents spring. As the Tigris drains the southern, and the Euphrates the northern side of the same mountain range, the flood of the former stream is earlier and briefer than that of the latter. The Tigris commonly begins to rise early in March, and reaches its greatest height in the first or second week of May, after which it rapidly declines, and returns to its natural level by the middle of June. The Euphrates first swells about the middle of March, and is not in full flood till quite the end of May or the beginning of June ; it then continues high for above a month, and does not sink much till the middle of July, after which it gradually falls till September. The country inundated by the Tigris is chiefly that on its lower course, between the 32nd and 31st parallels, the territory of the Beni Lam Arabs. The territory which the Euphrates floods is far more extensive. As high up as its junction with the Khabour, that stream is described as, in the month of April, "spreading over the sur- rounding country like a sea."8 From Hit downwards, it inun- dates both its banks, more especially the country above Baghdad (to which it is carried by the Saklawiyeh canal), the tract west of the Birs Nimrud and extending thence by way of Nedjif to Samava, and the territory of the Affej Arabs, between the rivers above and below the 32nd parallel. Its flood is, however, very irregular, owing to the nature of its banks, and the general inclination of the plain, whereof mention was made above.9 If care is taken, the inundation may be pretty equally distri- buted on either side of the stream; but if the river banks are neglected, it is sure to flow mainly to the west, rendering the whole country on that side the river a swamp, and leaving the territory on the left bank almost without water. This state of things may be traced historically from the age of Alexander to 'Herod. i. 193. • Layard, Nineveh and Babylon, p. 297. 'See page 11. Chap, t 13 FLOODING OF THE TWO RIVERS. the present day, and has probably prevailed more or less since the time when Chaldsea received its first inhabitants. The floods of the Tigris and Euphrates combine with the ordinary action of their streams upon their banks to produce a constant variation in their courses, which in a long period of time might amount to something very considerable. It is impossible to say, with respect to any portion of the alluvial plain, that it may not at some former period have been the bed of one or the other river. Still it would seem that, on the whole, a law of compensation prevails, with the result that the general position of the streams in the valley is not very different now from what it was 4000 years ago. Certainly between the present condition of things and that in the time of Alexander, or even of Herodotus, no great difference can be pointed out, except in the region immediately adjoining on the gulf, where the alluvium has grown, and the streams, which were formerly separate, have united their waters. The Euphrates still flows by Hit (Is) and through Babylon ;10 the Tigris passes near Opis,1 and at Baghdad runs at the foot of an embankment made to confine it by Nebuchadnezzar.2 The changes traceable are less in the main courses than in the branch streams, which perpetually vary, being sometimes left dry within a few years of the time that they have been navigable channels.8 The most important variations of this kind are on the side of Arabia. Here the desert is always ready to encroach; and the limits of Chaldaea itself depend upon the distance from the main river, to which some branch stream conveys the Euphrates water. In the most flourishing times of the country, a wide and deep channel, branching off near Hit, at the very commence- ment of the alluvium, has skirted the Arabian rock and gravel for a distance of several hundred miles, and has entered the 10 Herod. i. 179, 180. 1 Ibid. i. 189 ; Xen. Anal, ii. 4, § 25. The site of Opia is probably marked by the ruins at Khafaji. (See the remarks of Sir H. Rawlinson in the author's Herodotus, vol. i . p. 326, note 8.) 2 Sir H. Rawlinson, Commentary on the Cuneiform Inscription* of Assyria and Babylonia, p. 77, note. 'Loftus, Chaldceaand Susiana,?. 112. Some rather considerable changes in the bed of the Tigris are thought to be trace- able a little below Samarah. (See Journal of Geographical Society, vol. ix. p. 472.) THE FIRST MONARCHY. Chai*1. Persian Gulf by a mouth of its own.4 In this way the extent of Chaldaea has been at times largely increased, a vast tract being rendered cultivable, which is otherwise either swamp or desert. Such are the chief points of interest connected with the two great Mesopotamian rivers. These form, as has been already observed, the only marked and striking characteristics of the country, which, except for them, and for one further feature, which now requires notice, would be absolutely unvaried and uniform. On the Arabian side of the Euphrates, 50 miles south of the ruins of Babylon, and 25 or 30 miles from the river, is a fresh-water lake of very considerable dimensions—the Bahr-i- Nedjif, the "Assyrium stagnum " of Justin.6 This is a natural basin, 40 miles long, and from 10 to 20 miles broad, enclosed on three sides by sandstone cliffs, varying from 20 to 200 feet in height, and shut in on the fourth side—the north-east—by a rocky ridge, which intervenes between the valley of the Euphrates and this inland sea. The cliffs are water-worn, pre- senting distinct indications of more than one level at which the water has rested in former times.6 At the season of the inunda- tion this lake is liable to be confounded with the extensive floods and marshes, which extend continuously from the country west of the Birs Nimrud to Samava. But at other times the distinction between the Bahr and the marshes is very evident, the former remaining when the latter disappear altogether, and not diminishing very greatly in size even in the driest season. The water of the lake is fresh and sweet, so long as it communi- cates with the Euphrates; when the communication is cut off it .becomes very unpalatable, and those who dwell in the vicinity are no longer able to drink it. This result is attributed to the connexion of the lake with rocks of the gypsiferous series.7 It is obvious that the only natural divisions of Chaldaea proper are those made by the river-courses. The principal tract must 4 Shapur Dholactuf, in the fourth | known as Khandak Sabur, or "Shapur's century of our era, either cut or re- | ditch." The present name is Ktrreh opened this canal. He is said to have i Saideh. intended it as a defence against the * Jurtin, xviii. 3, § 2. Arabs. In Arabian geography it is | * Loftus, p. 50. 'Ibid., Lie. Chap. L 15 DIVISION OF THE COUNTRY. always have been that which intervenes between the two streams. This was anciently a district some 300 miles in length, varying from 20 to 100 miles in breadth, and perhaps averaging 50 miles, which must thus have contained an area of about 15,000 square miles. The tract between the Euphrates and Arabia was at all times smaller than this, and in the most flourishing period of Chaldaea must have fallen short of 10,000 square miles. We have no evidence that the natural division of Chaldaea here indicated was ever employed in ancient times for political purposes. The division which appears to have been so employed was one into northern and southern Chaldaea, the first extending from Hit to a little below Babylon, the second from Niffer to the shores of the Persian Gulf. In each of these districts we have a sort of tetrarchy, or special pre-eminence of four cities, such as appears to be indicated by the words—" The beginning of his kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar."8 The southern tetrarchy is composed of the four cities, Ur or Hur, Huruk, Nipur, and Larsa or Larancha, which are probably identified with the Scriptural "Ur of the Chaldees," Erech, Calneh, and Ellasar.3 The northern consists of Babel or Babylon, Borsippa, Cutha, and Sippara, of which all except Borsippa are mentioned in Scripture.10 Besides these cities the country contained many others, as Chilmad, Dur-Kurri-galzu, Ihi or Ahava, Rubesi, Duran, Tel-Humba, &c. It is not possible at present to locate with accuracy all these places. We may, however, in the more important instances, fix either certainly, or with a very high degree of probability, their position. Hur or Ur, the most important of the early capitals, was * Gen. x. 10. The sacred historian per- haps further represents the Assyrians as adopting the Babylonian number on their emigration to the more northern regions:—" Out of that land went forth As&hur, and builded Nineveh, and the city Rehoboth, and Calah, and Resen." (Gen. x. 11, 12.) • In three out of these four cases, the similarity of the name forms a sufficient | ground for the identification. In the fourth case the chief ground of identifi- cation is a statement in the Talmud that Nopher was the site of the Calneh of Nimrod. 10 Sippara is the Scriptural Sephar- vaim. The Hebrew term has a dual ending, because there were two Sipparss, one on either side of the river. 16 Chap. L THE FIRST MONARCHY. situated on the Euphrates, probably at no great distance from its mouth. It was probably the chief commercial emporium in the early times; as in the bilingual vocabularies its ships are mentioned in connexion with those of Ethiopia.1 The name is found to have attached to the extensive ruins (now about six miles from the river, on its right bank, and nearly opposite its junction with the Shat-el-Hie) which are known by the name of Mugheir, or "the bitumened."2 Here, on a dead flat, broken only by a few sand-hills, are traces of a considerable town, con- sisting chiefly of a series of low mounds, disposed in an oval shape, the largest diameter of which runs from north to south, and measures somewhat more than half a mile. The chief building is a temple, hereafter to be more particularly described, which is a very conspicuous object even at a considerable dis- tance, its greatest height above the plain being about seventy feet.8 It is built in a very rude fashion, of large bricks, cemented with bitumen, whence the name by which the Arabs designate the ruins. About thirty miles from Hur, in a north-westerly direction, and on the other side of the Euphrates, from which it is distant eight or nine miles, are the ruins of a town, called in the inscrip- tions Larrak, or Larsa, in which some of the best Orientalists have recognised at once the Biblical Ellasar,4 the Laranchae of Berosus,5 and the Larissa of Apollodorus, where the king held his court who sent Memnon to the siege of Troy.8 The identi- fication is perhaps doubtful; but, at any rate, we have here the remains of a second Chaldaean capital, dating from the very earliest times. The ruins, which bear now the name of Sen- kereh or Sinkara, consist of a low circular platform, about four and a half miles in circumference, rising gradually from the level of the plain to a central mound, the highest point of which attains an elevation of seventy feet above the plain itself, and is 1 Sir H. Rawlinson, in the Journal of the Geographicai Society, vol. xxvii. p. 185. * Mr. Taylor, in the Journal of the Asiatic Society, vol. xv. p. 260. Sir H. Rawlinson prefers the derivation of Um-qir, "the mother of bitumen." * Loftus, Vluddna and Susiana, p. 128. 4 Gen. xiv. 1. 5 Beros. ap. Synceli, Chronographia, p. 39. 8 Apollod. SMiotheca, ii. 4, § 4. Chap. I. 17 CHIEF CITIES-UK, NOW MUGHEIH. Plan of Mugheir Ruins. H H H H. 2s46" yards round. a a a. Platform ou which the housO a is built. a. House cleared. 6. Pavemeut at edge of platform a, li feet below surface. c. Tomb mound. d " g h k I Points at which excavations were m1ule by Mr. Loftus. //// Comparatively opan space of very low mounds. VOL. I. c i8 Chap. L THE FIRST MONARCHY. distinctly visible from a distance of fifteen miles.7 The material used consists of the ordinary sun-dried and baked bricks; and the basement platforms bear the inscriptions of the same king who appears to have been the original founder of the chief buildings at Ur or Mugheir. Fifteen miles from Larsa, in a direction a little north of west, and on the same side of the river, are ruins considerably more extensive than those of either Ur or Larsa, to which the natives apply the name of Warka, which is no doubt a corruption of the original appellation. The Erech, or Orech,8 of the Hebrews, which appears as Huruk in the cuneiform geographical lists, became known to the Greeks as Oichoe;9 and this appella- tion, probably continuing in use to the time of the Arab conquest, was then corrupted into Urka or Warka, in which shape the name given by Nimrod still attaches to the second of his cities. The ruins stand in lat. 31° 19', long. 45° 40', about four miles from the nearest bend of the Euphrates, on its left or east bank. They form an irregular circle, nearly six miles in circumference, which is denned by the traces of an earthen rampart, in some places forty feet high. A vast mass of undu- lating mounds, intersected by innumerable channels and ravines, extends almost entirely across the circular space, in a direction, which is nearlynorth and south, abutting at either end upon the rampart. East and west of this mass is a comparatively open space, where the mounds are scattered and infrequent; while outside the rampart are not only a number of detached hillocks marking the site of ancient buildings, but in one direction— towards the east—the city may be traced continuously by means of ruined edifices, mounds, and pottery, fully three miles beyond the rampart into the desert. The greatest height of the ruins is about 100 feet; their construction is very rude and primitive, the date of some buildings being evidently as early as that of the most ancient structures of either Mugheir or Senkereh.10 Sixty miles to the north-west of these ruins, still on the left 'Loftus, p. 244. • Strab. xvi. 1, § 6; Ptol. v. *20, • The LXX translators express the p. 137. See also Pliny, Hist. Aat. Hebrew by 'Op** vi- 27- " VP- 102-170. Chap. L 19 ERECH, NOW WARKA. or eastern bank of the Euphrates, but at the distance of thirty miles from its present course, are the remains of another . . 11 1 v cw-w So-. teaa Scale of 1/arrls. Ruiu9 of Warka (Erech). A. Bowariyeh. j C. Parthian ruin. B. Woswas. I 1). Kditice of city, the only Chaldaean ruins which can dispute, with those already described, the palm of antiquity. They consist of a number of separate and distinct heaps, which seem to be c 2 20 Chap. I. THE FIRST MONARCHY. the remains of different buildings, and are divided into two nearly equal groups by a deep ravine or channel 120 feet wide, apparently the dry bed of a river which once ran through the town.1 Conspicuous among the other hillocks is a conical heap, occupying a central position on the eastern side of the river-bed, and rising to the height of about seventy feet above the general level of the plain.2 Further on in this direction is a low continuous mound, which seems to be a portion of the outer wall of the city. The ruins are of con- siderable extent, but scarcely so large as those at either Sen- kereh or Warka. The name which now attaches to them is Niffer; and it appears, from the inscriptions at the place, that the ancient Semitic appellation was but slightly different.8 This name, as read on the bilingual tablets, was Nipur; and as there can be little doubt that it is this word which appears in the Talmud as Nopher/4 we are perhaps entitled, on the authority of that treasure-house of Hebrew traditions, to identify these ruins with the Calneh of Moses,5 and the Calno of Isaiah.6 About sixty-five miles from Niffer, on the opposite side of the Euphrates, and in a direction only slightly north of west, are the remains of the ancient Borsippa. These consist of little more than the ruins of a single building—the great temple of Merodach—which was entirely rebuilt by Nebuchadnezzar. They have been sometimes regarded as really a portion of the ancient Babylon;7 but this view is wholly incompatible with the cuneiform records, which distinctly assign to the ruins in question the name of Borsip or Borsippa, a place known with 1 Layard, Ninerch and Babylon, ch. xxiv. p. 551. Boats smeared with bitu- men, and similar to those still in use in Lower Mesopotamia, are said to be occasionally found, beneath the soil, in this ravine. 2 Loftus, p. 101. * In the early Scythic or Cushite Babylonian the name of the city is represented by the same characters as are used for the god Belus, though of course with a different determinative; and it thus seems highly probable that we have the vernacular pronunciation of the name in the BtX/3); of Ptolemy, which he joins with Bd/wtro and Atyova, precisely as the inscriptions are joined Borsip, Nipur, and Cutha or Tiggaba. Nipur b given in the bilin- gual tablets as the Semitic translation of the Scythic Bilu. * See above, page 15, note 5 Gen. x. 10. s Isaiah x. 9. 'Rich, Second Memoir on Babylon, p. 32 ; Heeren, Asiatic Nations, vol. ii. p. 172 ; Ker Porter, Travels, vol. ii. p. 379. See also Oppert's map, entitled "Babylon Antiqua," in his Expedition, scientifique en Mcsopotamie, Paris, Gide, 1858. Chap. L 2I SECONDARY CITIES. certainty to have been distinct from, though in the neighbour- hood of, the capital.8 A remnant of the ancient name appears to be contained in the modern appellation, Birs-Nimrud or Birs-i-Nimrud, which does not admit of any explanation from the existing language of the country.9 Fifteen miles from thence, to the north-east, chiefly but not entirely on the left or east bank of the Euphrates, are the remains of " Babylon the Great," which have been so frequently described by travellers, that little need be said of them in this place. The chief ruins cover a space about three miles long, and from one to two broad, and consist mainly of three great masses : the first a square mound, called " Babil" by the Arabs, lying towards the north at some distance from the other re- mains; the second or central mound, a pile called the " Kasr" or Palace; and the third, a great irregular heap lying towards the south, known as the "mound of Amram," from a tomb which crowns its summit. The "Kasr " and " Amram " mounds are enclosed within two lines of rampart, lying at right angles to each other, and forming, with the river, a sort of triangle, within which all the principal ruins are comprised, except the mound called "Babil." Beyond the rampart, towards the north, south, and east, and also across the river to the west, are various smaller detached ruins, while the whole ground, in every direction, is covered with fragments of brick and with nitre, the sure marks of former habitations. The other cities of ancient Chaldaea which may be located with an approach to certainty, are Cutha, now Ibrahim, fifteen miles north-east by north of Hymar • Sippara or Sepharvaim, which was at Sura, near Mosaib on the Euphrates, about twenty miles above Babylon by the direct route; and Dur-Kurri-galzu, now Akkerkuf.on the Saklawiyeh canal, six miles from Baghdad, and thirty from Mosaib, in a direction a little west of north. Ihi, or Ahava, is probably Hit, ninety miles above Mosaib, on the right bank of the river; Chilmad may be Kalwadha, near Baghdad; and Rubesi is perhaps Zerghul, near the left bank of 8 Berosus, Fr. 14; Strab. xvi. 1, § 7 ; Justin, xii. 13; Steph. Byz. ad voc . * Rich, Firtt Memoir, p. 31, note. 22 Chap. L THE FIBST MONARCHY. the Shat-el-Hie, a little above its confluence with the Euphrates. Chaldaean cities appear likewise to have existed at Hymar, ten miles from Babylon towards the east; at Sherifeh and Im Khithr, south and south-east of Hymar; at Zibbliyeh,10 on the line of the Nil canal, fifteen miles north-west of Niffer; at Delayhim and Bismiya, in the Affej marshes, beyond Niffer, to Akkerkuf. the south-east; at Phara and Jidr, in the same region, to the south-west and south-east of Bismiya; at Hammam," sixteen miles south-east of Phara, between the Aflej and the Shatra marshes; at Tel-Ede, six miles from Hammam, to the south- south-west; at Tel-Medineh and Tel-Sifr, in the Shatra marshes, 10 Layard, Nineveh and Babylon, p. 569. Mr. Loftus suggests that the re- mains here are of a later date. (Chaldcea and Svtiana, p. 85.) Sir H. Rawlinson regards the existing buildings at Akker- kuf and Hammam as also of the Parthian age, though occupying the sites of earlier Chaldsean cities. 11 Hammam is thought to be the Gulaba of the Cuneiform Inscriptions (Loftus, p. 113); but this identification is uncertain. Chap. L 23 SECONDARY CITIES. to the south-east of Tel-Ede and the north-east of Senkereh; at Yokha, east of Hammam, and Nuffdyji, north of Warka; at Harimiam. Lethami, near Nifi'er; at Iskhuriyeh, north of Zibbliyeh, near the Tigris; at Tel-Kheir and Tel-Dhalab, in the upper part of lel-Ede. 24 Ctur. I. THE FIRST MONARCHY. the alluvium, to the north of Akkerkuf; at Duair, on the right bank of the Euphrates, south of Ililleh and south-east of the Birs-Nimrud; at Jeb Mehari, south of the Bahr-i-Nedjif; at Mai Battush, near Swaje; at Tel-el-Lahm, nine or ten miles south of Suk-es-Sheioukh, and at Abu Shahrein, in the same neighbourhood, on the very border of the Arabian desert.1 Further investigation will probably add largely to this catalogue, for many parts of Babylonia are still to some extent unexplored. This is especially true of the tract between the Shat-el-Hie and the lower Tigris,2 a district which, according to the geographers, abounds with ruins. No doubt the most extensive and most striking of the old cities have been visited; for of these Euro- peans are sure to hear through the reports of natives. But it is more than probable that a number of the most interesting sites remain unexplored, and even unvisited; for these are not always either very extensive or very conspicuous. The process of gradual disintegration is continually lowering the height of the Chaldaean ruins; and depressed mounds are commonly the sign of an ancient and long-deserted city.3 Such remains give us an insight into the character of the early people, which it is impossible to obtain from ruins where various populations have raised their fabrics in succession upon the same spot. The cities here enumerated may not perhaps, in all cases, have existed in the Chaldaean period. The evidence hitherto obtained connects distinctly with that period only the following —Babylon, Ur or Hur, Larrak or Larsa, Erech or Huruk, Calneh or Nopher, Sippara, Dur-Kurri-galzu, Chilmad, and the places now called Abu Shahrein and Tel-Sifr.4 These sites, it will be observed, were scattered over the whole territory from the extreme south almost to the extreme north, and show the extent of the kingdom to have been that above assigned to it.5 They are connected together by a similarity in building arrange- 1 See Fraser's Metopotamia and As- ryria, pp. 150-155; Ainsworth's Jie- scarc/iet in Metopotamia, p. 127 and p. 177 ; Horn and Lynch, in Journal of Geographical Society, vol. ix. pp. 443 et seq.; Lofiua' Chaldcea and Sutiana, pas- sim ; and Journal of Geographical Society, vol. xxvi. pp. 133-144. 2 This distric t has been visited by Mr. Taylor, but its marshy character makes it very difficult to explore at all completely. * Loftus, Chaldaa and Sutiana, p. 251. * Ibid. p. 435. 6 See page 3. Chap. L BOEDER COUNTRIES—ARABIA, ASSYRIA. 25 ments and materials, in language, in form of type and writing, and sometimes in actual names of monarchs. The most ancient, apparently, are those towards the south, at Warka, Senkereh, Mugheir, and Niffer; and here, in the neighbourhood of the sea, which then probably reached inland as far as Suk-es-Sheioukh, there is sufficient reason to place the primitive seat of Chaldaean power. The capital of the whole region was at first Ur or Hur, but afterwards became Nipur, and finally Babel or Babylon. The geography of Chaldaea is scarcely complete without a glance at the countries which adjoin upon it. On the west, approaching generally within twenty or thirty miles of the present course of the Euphrates, is the Arabian Desert, consisting in this place of tertiary sand and gravels, having a general elevation of a few feet above the Mesopotamian plain, and occasionally rising into ridges of no great height, whose direction is parallel to the course of the great stream. Such are the Hazem and the Qassaim, in the country between the Bahr-i- Nedjif and the Persian Gulf, low pebbly ridges which skirt the valley from the Bahr to below Suk-es-Sheioukh. Further west the desert becomes more stony, its surface being strewn with numerous blocks of black granite, from which it derives its appellation of Hejerra.6 No permanent streams water this region; occasional "wadys" or torrent-courses, only full after heavy rains, are found; but the scattered inhabitants depend for water chiefly on their wells, which are deep and numerous, but yield only a scanty supply of a brackish and unpalatable fluid. No settled population can at any time have found subsistence in this region, which produces only a few dates, and in places a poor and unsucculent herbage. Sandstorms are frequent, and at times the baleful simoom sweeps across the entire tract, destroying with its pestilential breath both men and animals.7 Towards the north Chaldaea adjoined upon Assyria. From the foot of that moderately lofty range already described,8 which the Greeks call Masius, and the modern Turks know as Jebel Tur and Karajah Dagh, extends, for above 300 miles, a plain of • See the Journal of the Royal Asiatic 'See the elder Niebuhr's Detcription Society, vol. xv. p. 404. de F Arabic, pp. 7, 8. 'See p. 9. 26 Chap. I. THE FIRST MONARCHY. low elevation, slightly undulating in places, and crossed about its centre by an important limestone ridge, known as the Sinjar hills, which have a direction nearly east and west, beginning about Mosul, and terminating a little below Rakkah. This tract differs from the Chaldsean lowland, by being at once less flat and more elevated. Geologically it is of secondary forma- tion, while Chaldsea proper is tertiary or post-tertiary. It is fairly watered towards the north, but below the Sinjar is only very scantily supplied. In modern times it is for nine months in the year a desert, but anciently it was well inhabited, means having apparently been found to bring the whole into cultiva- tion. As a complete account of this entire region must be given in another part of the present volume, this outline (it is thought) may suffice for our present purpose. Eastward of Chaldsea, separated from it by the Tigris, which in its lower course is a stream of more body than the Euphrates, was the country known to the Jews as Elam,9 to the early Greeks as Cissia,1 and to the later Greeks as Susis or Susiana.2 This territory comprised a portion of the mountain country which separates Mesopotamia from Persia; but it was chiefly composed of the broad and rich flats intervening between the mountains and the Tigris, along the courses of the Kerkhah, Kuran, and Jerahi rivers. It was a rich and fertile tract, re- sembling Chaldsea in its general character, with the exception that the vicinity of the mountains lent it freshness, giving it cooler streams, more frequent rains, and pleasanter breezes. Capable of maintaining with ease a dense population, it was likely, in the early times, to be a powerful rival to the Mesopotamian kingdom, over which we shall find that in fact it sometimes exercised supremacy. = On the south Chaldsea had no neighbour. Here a spacious sea, with few shoals, land-locked, and therefore protected from the violent storms of the Indian Ocean, invited to commerce, offering a ready communication with India and Ceylon, as well as with Arabia Felix, Ethiopia, and Egypt. It is perhaps to * Dan. viii. 2. 1 .cEschylus, Perscc, 123; Herodotus, v. 52. •Strabo, xv. 3, § 12. Chap. L 27 MARITIME POSITION OF CHALIXEA. this circumstance of her geographical position, as much as to any other, that ancient Chaldsea owes her superiority over her neighbours, and her right to be regarded as one of the five great monarchies of the ancient world. Commanding at once the sea, which reaches here deep into the land, and the great rivers by means of which the commodities of the land were most conveniently brought down to the sea, she lay in the highway of trade, and could scarcely fail to profit by her position. There is sufficient reason to believe that Ur, the first capital, was a great maritime emporium; and if so, it can scarcely be doubted that to commerce and trade, at the least in part, the early development of Chaldaean greatness was owing. 28 Char II. THE FIRST MONARCHY. CHAPTER II. CLIMATE AND PRODUCTIONS. "Ager totius Asiae fertilissimus."—Plin. R. N. vi. 26. Lower "Mesopotam1a, or Chaldaea, which lies in the same latitude with Central China, the Punjab, Palestine, Marocco, Georgia, Texas, and Central California, has a climate the warmth of which is at least equal to that of any of those regions. Even in the more northern part of the country, the district about Baghdad, the thermometer often rises during the summer to 120" of Fahrenheit in the shade;1 and the inhabitants are forced to retreat to their serdubs or cellars,3 where they remain during the day, in an atmosphere which, by the entire exclusion of the sun's rays, is reduced to about 101/. Lower down the valley, at Zobair, Busrah, and Mohammrah, the summer temperature is still higher;8 and, owing to the moisture of the atmosphere, consequent on the vicinity of the sea, the heat is of that peculiarly oppressive character which prevails on the sea-coast of Hindustan, in Ceylon, in the West Indian islands, at New Orleans, and in other places whose situation is similar. The vital powers languish under this oppression, which produces in the European a lassitude of body and a prostration of mind that wholly unfit him for active duties. On the Asiatic, however, these influences seem to have little effect. The Cha'b Arabs, who at present inhabit the region, are a tall and warlike race, strong-limbed, and muscular;4 they appear to enjoy the climate, and are as active, as healthy, and as long-lived as any tribe of their nation. But if man by long residence becomes thoroughly inured to the intense heat of 1 Loftus, Chaldcea and Suttana, p. 9. 2 Che8uey, Euphrates Expedition, vol. i. p. 106. 'Loftus, p. 280. Thin traveller found the temperature at Mohammrah, in June, 1850, to rise often to 124° of Fahrenheit in the shade. 4 Ibid. p. 285. Chap. II. 29 CLIMATE OF CHALDiEA—TEMPERATURE. these regions, it is otherwise with the animal creation. Camels sicken, and birds are so distressed by the high'temperature that they sit in the date-trees about Baghdad, with their mouths open, panting for fresh air.5 The evils proceeding from a burning temperature are aug- mented in places under the influence of winds, which, arising suddenly, fill the air with an impalpable sand, sometimes circling about a point, sometimes driving with furious force across a wide extent of country. The heated particles, by their contact with the atmosphere, increase its fervid glow, and, penetrating by the nose and mouth, dry up the moisture of the tongue, parch the throat, and irritate or even choke the lungs.6 Earth and sky are alike concealed by the dusty storm, through which no object can be distinguished that is removed many yards; a lurid gleam surrounds the traveller, and seems to accompany him as he moves; every landmark is hid from view; and to the danger of suffocation is added that of becoming bewildered and losing all knowledge of the road. Such are the perils encoun- tered in the present condition of the country. It may be doubted, however, if in the times with which we are here concerned the evils just described had an existence. The sands of Chaldaea, which are still progressive and advancing, seem to have reached it from the Arabian Desert, to which they properly belong: year by year the drifts gain upon the alluvium, and threaten to spread over the whole country.7 If we may calculate the earlier by the present rate of progress, we must conclude that anciently these shifting sands had at any rate not crossed the Euphrates. If the heat of summer be thus fierce and trying, the cold of winter must be pronounced to be very moderate. Frost, indeed, is not unknown in the country;8 but the frosts are only slight. Keen winds blow from the north, and in the morning the ground is often whitened by the congelation of the dew; the Arabs, impatient of a low temperature, droop and flag; but there is at 3 Ixiftus, p. 9, note. * I bid. p. 241; Layard, Nineveh and Babylon, p. 546. 'Loftus, pp. 81, 82. 8 Layard, Nineveh and Babylon, l.s.c.; Loftus, Chaldwa and Susiana, p. 73; Fraaer, Travels, vol. ii. pp. 37 and 47. Chap. II. 31 FERTILITY AND WEALTH OF CHALDiEA. before him as he advances, and at once provokes and mocks his thirst. The fertility of Chaldsa in ancient times was proverbial. "Of all countries that we know," says Herodotus, " there is none that is so fruitful in grain. It makes no pretension, indeed, of growing the fig, the olive, the vine, or any other tree of the kind; but in grain it is so fruitful as to yield commonly two hundred-fold, and when the production is at the greatest, even three hundred-fold. The blade of the wheat-plant and of the barley-plant is often four fingers in breadth. As for the millet and the sesame, I shall not say to what height they grow, though within my own knowledge; for I am not ignorant that what I have already written concerning the fruitfulness of Babylonia must seem incredible to those who have not visited the country."8 Theophrastus, the disciple of Aristotle, remarks —" In Babylon the wheat-fields are regularly mown twice, and then fed off with beasts, to keep down the luxuriance of the leaf; otherwise the plant does not run to ear. When this is done, the return, in lands that are badly cultivated, is fifty-fold; while, in those that are well farmed, it is a hundred-fold."4 Strabo observes—" The country produces barley on a scale not known elsewhere,for the return is said to be three hundred-fold. All other wants are supplied by the palm, which furnishes not only bread, but wine, vinegar, honey, and meal."8 Pliny follows Theophrastus, with the exception that he makes the return of the wheat-crop, where the land is well farmed, a hundred and fifty-fold.8 The wealth of the region was strikingly exhibited by the heavy demands which were made upon it by the Persian kings, as well as by the riches which, notwithstanding these demands, were accumulated in the hands of those who adminis- tered its government. The money-tribute paid by Babylonia and Assyria to the Persians was a thousand talents of silver (nearly a quarter of a million of our money) annually;7 while » Herodotus, i. 193. • Theophrast. Hist. Plant. viii. 7. 5 Strabo, xvi. 1, § 14. Compare Xen. Anab. ii. 3, §§ 14-16. • Pliny, Hi!t. Nat. xviii. 17. 'Herodotus, iii. 92. If we set aside the Indian gold tribute, this was one- ninth of the whole tribute of the empire. 32 Chap. II. THE FIRST MONARCHY. the tribute in kind was reckoned at one-third part of the contri- butions of the whole empire.8 Yet, despite this drain on its resources, the government was regarded as the best that the Persian king had to bestow, and the wealth accumulated by Babylonian satraps was extraordinary. Herodotus tells us of a certain Tritantaechmes, a governor, who, to his own knowledge, derived from his province nearly two bushels of silver daily! This fortunate individual had a stud of sixteen thousand mares, with a proportionate number of horses.9 Another evidence of the fertility of the region may be traced in the fear of Artaxerxes Mnemon, after the battle of Cunaxa, lest the Ten Thousand should determine to settle permanently in the vicinity of Sit- tace upon the Tigris.1 Whatever opinion may be held as to the exact position of this place, and of the district intended by Xenophon, it is certain that it was in the alluvial plain,2 and so contained within the limits of the ancient Chaldaea. Modern travellers, speaking of Chaldaea in its present con- dition, express themselves less enthusiastically than the ancients; but, on the whole, agree with them as to the natural capabilities of the country. "The soil," says one of the most judicious, "is extremely fertile, producing great quantities of rice, dates, and grain of different kinds, though it is not cultivated to above half the degree of which it is susceptible."8 "The soil is rich," says another," not less bountiful than that on the banks of the Egyptian Nile."4 "Although greatly changed by the neglect of man," observes a third," those portions of Mesopotamia which are still cultivated, as the country about Hillah, show that the region has all the fertility ascribed to it by Herodotus."6 There is a general recognition of the productive qualities of the dis- trict, combined with a general lamentation over the existing "Herodotus, i. 192. This proportion appears excessive. Perhaps Babylonia really supplied one-third of the grain which the court consumed. sIbid. l . s. c. 1 Xen. Anab. ii. 4, § 22. s Ibid. § 13. Compare Ainsworth, Retreat of the Ten Thousand, pp. 105- 114. He regards the district intended as that between the Shat-Eidha and the bend of the Tigris, in lat. 34°. I should place it lower down, below Baghdad, near the ruins of Ctesiphon. 'Rich, First Memoir, p. 12. * Lof tus, Chaldcea and Susiana, p. 14. 5 Chesney, Euphrates Expedition, vol. ii. p. 602. Chap. II. MODERN NEGLECT OF CULTIVATION. 33 neglect and apathy which allow such gifts of Nature to run to waste. Cultivation, we are told, is now the exception, instead of the rule. "Instead of the luxuriant fields, the groves and gardens of former times, nothing now meets the eye but an arid waste."6 Many parts of Chaldsea, naturally as productive as any others, are at present pictures of desolation. , Large tracts are covered by unwholesome marshes, producing nothing but enormous reeds; others lie waste and bare, parched up by the fierce heat of the sun, and utterly destitute of water; in some places, as has been already mentioned, sand-drifts accumulate, and threaten to make the whole region a mere portion of the desert. The great cause of this difference between ancient and modem Chaldsea is the neglect of the water-courses. Left to them- selves, the rivers tend to desert some portions of the alluvium wholly, which then become utterly unproductive; while they spread themselves out over others, which are converted thereby into pestilential swamps. A well-arranged system of embank- ments and irrigating canals is necessary in order to develop the natural capabilities of the country, and to derive from the rich soil of this vast alluvium the valuable and varied products which it can be made to furnish. Among the natural products of the region two stand out as pre-eminently important—the wheat-plant and the date-palm. According to the native tradition,7 wheat was indigenous in Chaldsea; and the first comers thus found themselves provided by the bountiful hand of Nature with the chief necessary of life. The luxuriance of the plant was excessive. Its leaves were as broad as the palm of a man's hand, and its tendency to grow leaves was so great that (as we have seen8) the Babylonians used to mow it twice and then pasture their cattle on it for a while, to keep down the blade and induce the plant to run to ear. The ultimate return was enormous: on the most moderate com- putation9 it amounted to fifty-fold at the least, and often to a 'Loftus, 1. s. c. 'Berosus, Fr. 1. "See p. 31. * That of Theophrastus, the professed naturalist . See above, p. 31, note \ VOL. I. D 34 Chap. II. THE FIRST MONARCHY. hundred-fold. The modern Oriental is content, even in the case of a rich soil, with a ten-fold return.1 The date-palm was at once one of the most valuable and one of the most ornamental products of the country. "Of all vegetable forms," says the greatest of modern naturalists, " the palm is that to which the prize of beauty has been assigned by Palms. the concurrent voice of nations in all ages."2 And though the date-palm is in form perhaps less graceful and lovely than some of its sister species, it possesses in the dates themselves a beauty which they lack. These charming yellow clusters, semi-trans- parent, which the Greeks likened to amber,3 and moderns com- pare to gold,4 contrast, both in shape and tint, with the green 1 Geograpli. Journ. vol. ix. p. 27. Com- p. 20, E. T. pare Niebuhr, Description de t Arabic, 'Xen. Anab. ii. 3, § 15; Philostrat. p. 134. 7ft. ApoUon. Tyan. i. 21. - Humboldt, Aspects of Nature, vol. ii. 4 Loftus, Chaldeca and Susiana. p. 25. Chap. II. 35 BEAUTY OF THE DATE-PALM. feathery branches beneath whose shade they hang, and give a richness to the landscape they adorn which adds greatly to its attractions. And the utility of the palm has been at all times proverbial. A Persian poem celebrated its three hundred and sixty uses.6 The Greeks, with more moderation, spoke of it as furnishing the Babylonians with bread, wine, vinegar, honey, groats, string and ropes of all kinds, firing, and a mash for fattening cattle.6 The fruit was excellent, and has formed at all times an important article of nourishment in the country. It was eaten both fresh and dried, forming in the latter case a delicious sweetmeat.7 The wine, "sweet but headachy,"8 was probably not the spirit which it is at present customary to distil from the dates, but the slightly intoxicating drink called lagby in North Africa, which may be drawn from the tree itself by decapitating it, and suffering the juice to flow.9 The vinegar was perhaps the same fluid corrupted, or it may have been obtained from the dates. The honey was palm-sugar, likewise procurable from the sap. How the groats were obtained we do not know; but it appears that the pith of the palm was eaten formerly in Babylonia, and was thought to have a very agreeable flavour.10 Ropes were made from the fibres of the bark; and the wood was employed for building and furniture.1 It was soft, light, and easily worked; but tough, strong, and fibrous.2 The cultivation of the date-palm was widely extended in Chaldaea, probably from very early times. The combination of sand, moisture, and a moderately saline soil, in which it delights,8 was there found in perfection, more especially in the lower country, which had but recently been reclaimed from the sea . Even now, when cultivation is almost wholly laid aside,a thick forest of luxuriant date-trees clothes the banks of the Euphrates • Strabo, xvi. 1,§ 11 'Ibid. 'Xen. A nab. 1. 8. c. "The peasantry in Babylonia now principally subsist on dates pressed into cakes." Rich, First Memoir, p. 59, note. •'HJi) pir, KtipaSaXylt Si. Xen. Anab. 1. a. o. • Hamilton's Wanderingt in North Africa, ch. xiv. pp. 189, 190. 10 Xen. Anab. ii. 3, § 16. 1 Theophrast. Hitt. Plant, ii . 7 ; p. 66. 'Ibid. v. 4 and 6. * Theophrast. Hist. Plant, ii. 7 ; p. 64 j Plin. IT. IV. xiii. i. 3<5 Chap. II. THE FIRST MONARCHY. on either side, from the vicinity of Mugheir to its embouchure at the head of the Persian Gulf.4 Anciently the tract was much more generally wooded with them. "Palm-trees grow in num- bers over the whole of the flat country," says one of the most observant and truthful of travellers—Herodotus.8 According to the historians of Julian, a forest of verdure extended from the upper edge of the alluvium, which he crossed, to Mesene and the shores of the sea.6 When the Arabian conquerors settled themselves in the lower country, they were so charmed with the luxuriant vegetation and the abundant date-groves, that they compared the region with the country about Damascus, and reckoned it among their four earthly paradises.7 The propaga- tion of the date-palm was chiefly from seed. In Chaldaea, how- ever, it was increased sometimes from suckers or offshoots thrown up from the stem of the old tree ;8 at other times by a species of cutting, the entire head being struck off with about three feet of stem, notched, and then planted in moist ground.9 Several varieties of the tree were cultivated ; but one was esteemed above all the rest, both for the size and flavour of the fruit. It bore the name of "Royal," and grew only in one place near Babylon.10 Besides these two precious products, Chaldfea produced ex- cellent barley, millet, sesame, vetches, and fruits of all kinds.1 It was, however, deficient in variety of trees, possessing scarcely any but the palm and the cydrass. Pomegranates, tamarisks, poplars, and acacias are even now almost the only trees be- sides the two above mentioned, to be found between Samarah and the Persian Gulf. The tamarisk grows chiefly as a shrub along the rivers, but sometimes attains the dimensions of a tree, as in the case of the "solitary tree" still growing upon the ruins of Babylon.2 The pomegranates with their scarlet flowers, and the acacias with their light and graceful foliage. 4 Lof tus, Chaldaa and Susiana, p. 127 and p. 277; Ainsworth, Travels in the Track of the Ten Thoutand, p. 105. 4 Herod. i. 193. 8 Amm. Marc. xxiv. 3; Zosim. iii. pp. 173-9. 'Sir H. Rawlinson, in the Journal of the Geographical Society, vol. xxvii.p. 186. 8 Theophrast. Hist. Plant. ii. 2 ; p. 53. • Ibid. a 7 ; p. 64. 10 Ibid. p. 67. 1 Berosus, Fr. 1, § 2 ; Herod. i. 193. 2 Rich, First Memoir, p. 26; Heeren. Asiatic Nations, vol. ii. p. 158 ; Ains- worth, Researches in Assyria, Babylonia, and Chaldcea, p. 125. Chap. II. 37 USE OF REEDS FOR HOUSES AND BOATS. ornament the banks of the streams, generally intermingled with the far more frequent palm, while oranges, apples, pears, and vines are successfully cultivated in the gardens and orchards. Chaldsean reeds, from an Assyrian sculpture (after Layard). Among the vegetable products of Chaldaea must be noticed, as almost peculiar to the region, its enormous reeds. These, which are represented with much spirit in the sculptures of Senna- cherib, cover the marshes in the summer-time, rising often to 38 Chap. II . THE FIRST MONARCHY. the height of fourteen or fifteen feet.8 The Arabs of the marsh region form their houses of this material, binding the stems of the reeds together, and bending them into arches, to make the skeleton of their buildings; while, to form the walls, they stretch across from arch to arch mats made of the leaves. From the same fragile substance they construct their terradas or light boats, which, when rendered waterproof by means of bitumen, will support the weight of three or four men.4 In mineral products Chaldsea was very deficient indeed. The alluvium is wholly destitute of metals, and even of stone, which must be obtained, if wanted, from the adjacent coun- tries. The neighbouring parts of Arabia could furnish sandstone and the more distant basalt; which appears to have been in fact transported occasionally to the Chaldsean cities.6 Probably, however, the chief importation of stone was by the rivers, whose waters would readily convey it to almost any part of Chaldsea from the regions above the allu- vium. This we know to have been done in some cases ;6 but the evidence of the ruins makes it clear that such importation was very limited. The Chaldseans found, in default of stone, a very tolerable material in their own country; which produced an inexhaustible supply of excellent clay, easily moulded into bricks, and not even requiring to be baked in order to fit it for the builder. Exposure to the heat of the summer sun hardened the clay sufficiently for most purposes, while a few hours in a kiln made it as firm and durable as freestone, or even granite. Chaldsea, again, yielded various substances suitable for mortar. Calcareous earths abound on the western side of the Euphrates towards the Arabian frontier;7 while everywhere a tenacious slime or mud is easily procurable, which, though imperfect as a cement, can serve the purpose, and has the advantage of being always at hand. Bitumen is also produced largely in some 'Ainsworth, Researches, p. 129; Layard, Nineveh and Babylon, p. 553. Mr. Loftussays "12 or 14 feet." (CAai- dcea. and Susiana, p. 105.) * layard, pp. 522-524. • Ibid. p. 528. 'Xenophon states that millstones were supplied to Babylon from a place which he calls Pylso (Felujiah ?), on the middle Euphrates. (Anab. i. 5, § 5.) 'Rich, Pint Memoir, p. 65. Chap. II. 39 WILD BEASTS. parts, particularly at Hit, where are the inexhaustible springs which have made that spot famous in all ages.8 Naphtha and bitumen are here given forth separately in equal abundance; and these two substances, boiled together in certain proportions, form a third kind of cement, superior to the slime or mud, tut inferior to lime-mortar. Petroleum, called by the Orientals mumia, is another product of the bitumen-pits.9 The wild animals indigenous in Babylonia appear to be chiefly the following:—the lion, the leopard, the hysena, the lynx, the wild-cat, the wolf, the jackal, the wild-boar, the buffalo, the stag, the gazelle, the jerboa, the fox, the hare, the badger, and the porcupine. The Mesopotamian lion is a noble animal. Taller and larger than a Mount St. Bernard dog, he wanders over the plains their undisputed lord, unless when an European ventures to question his pre-eminence. The Arabs tremble at his approach, and willingly surrender to him the choicest of their flocks and herds. Unless urged by hunger, he seldom attacks man, but contents himself with the destruction of buffaloes, camels, dogs, and sheep. When taken young, he is easily tamed, and then manifests considerable attachment to his master.1 In his wild state he haunts the marshes and the banks of the various streams and canals, concealing himself during the day, and at night wandering abroad in search of his prey, to obtain which he will approach with boldness to the very skirts of an Arab encampment. His roar is not deep or terrible, but like the cry of a child in pain, or the first wail of the jackal after sunset, only louder, clearer, and more prolonged. Two "Thothmea III. brought bitumen from Hit to Egypt about B.C. 1400. (See Sir G. Wilkinson's Historical Notice of Eyypt in the Author's Herodotus, vol. ii. p. 360.) Herodotus mentions Hit. as the great place for bitumen, about B.C. 450 (Herod. i. 179). Isidore of Charax takes notice of its bitumen- springs, about B.C. 150 (Mam. Panh. p. 5). Shortly afterwards its name was made to include a notice of the bitumen; and thus it is called Ihi-da-kira in the Talmud, Idi-cara in Ptolemy, and Dacira by the historiansof Julian—kier or yhier () being the Arabic term for bitu- men. * Rich, First Memoir, pp. 63-4. 1 Mr. Layard gives an amusing ac- count of a tame lion which was given him by Osinan Pasha, commandant of Hillah (JVtn. and Bab. p. 487). Sir H. Rawlinson had a tame lion for some yean at Baghdad, which was much attached to him, and finally died at his feet, not suffering the attendants to remove him. 40 Chap. II. THE FIRST MONARCHY. varieties of the lion appear to exist: the one is maneless, while the other has a long mane, which is black and shaggy. The former is now the more common in the country; but the latter, which is the fiercer of the two,2 is the one ordinarily represented upon the sculptures. The lioness is nearly as much feared as the lion; when her young are attacked, or when she has lost them, she is perhaps even more terrible. Her roar is said to be deeper and far more imposing than that of the male.3 Wild-sow and pigs, from Koyunjik. The other animals require but few remarks. Gazelles are plentiful in the more sandy regions; buffaloes abound in the marshes of the south, where they are domesticated, and form the chief wealth of the inhabitants;4 troops of jackals are common, while the hyaena and wolf are comparatively rare; the wild-boar frequents the river banks and marshes, as depicted in the Assy- rian sculptures.; "hares abound in the country about Baghdad; porcupines. and badgers are found in most places; leopards, lynxes, wild-cats, and deer, are somewhat uncommon. Chaldaea possesses a great variety of birds. Falcons, vultures, kites, owls, hawks and crows of various kinds, franco!ins or * The inhabitants call the maneless lions " tme believers," those with manes ghaouraor " infidels." The former, they say, will spare a Mussulman if he prays, the latter never. (Layard, Nin. and Bab. p. 487, note.) A similar distinc- tion, I leam from Sir Gardner Wilkin- son, is made at Cairo between the green and the black crocodile. * Loftu8, Chaldcea and Susiana, p. 259. 4 Layard, Nineveh and Babylon, p. 566. Chap. II. BIRDS—FISH—DOMESTIC ANIMALS. 41 black partridges, pelicans, wild-geese, ducks, teal, cranes, herons, kingfishers, and pigeons, are among the most common. The sand-grouse (Pterqcles arenariv*s) is occasionally found, as also are the eagle and the bee-eater. Fish are abundant in the rivers and marshes, principally barbel and carp, which latter grow to a great size in the Euphrates. Barbel form an im- portant element in the food of the Arabs inhabiting the Affej marshes, who take them commonly by means of a fish-spear.5 In the Shat-el-Arab, which is wholly within the influence of the tides, there is a species of goby, which is amphibious. This fish lies in myriads on the mud-banks left uncovered by the ebb of the tide, and moves with great agility on the ap- proach of birds. Nature seems to have made the goby in one of her most freakish moods. It is equally at home in the earth, the air, and the water; and at different times in the day may be observed swimming in the stream, basking upon the surface of the tidal banks, and burrowing deep in the mud.6 The domestic animals are camels, horses, buffaloes, cows and oxen, goats, sheep, and dogs. The most valuable of the last mentioned are greyhounds, which are employed to course the gazelle and the hare. The camels, horses, and buffaloes are of superior quality; but the cows and oxen seem to be a very inferior breed.7 The goats and the sheep are small, and yield a scanty supply of a somewhat coarse wool.8 Still their flocks and herds constitute the chief wealth of the people, who have nearly forsaken the agriculture which anciently gave Chaldaea its pre-eminence, and have relapsed very generally into a nomadic or semi-nomadic condition. The insecurity of property consequent upon bad government has in a great measure caused this change, which renders the bounty of Nature useless, and allows immense capabilities to run to waste. The present con- dition of Babylonia gives a most imperfect idea of its former state, which must be estimated not from moder n statistics, but * Layard, Nineceli andSabylon, p. 567. I 'Chesney, Euphrates Expedition, vol. "Ainsworth, Researches,pp. 135,138; i. p. 108. Fraser, Mesopotumia and Assyria, p. 373. i a Layard, Nineveh and Babylon, p. 506. 42 Chap. IT. THE FIRST MONARCHY. from the accounts of ancient writers and the evidences which the country itself presents. From them we conclude that this region was among the most productive upon the face of the earth, spontaneously producing some of the best gifts of God to man, and capable, under careful management, of being made one continuous garden. Chap. Ill 43 EARLY INHABITANTS. CHAPTER III THE PEOPLE. "A mighty nation, an ancient nation."—Jebem. t. 15. That the great alluvial plain at the mouth of the Euphrates and Tigris was among the countries first occupied by man after the Deluge, is affirmed by Scripture,1 and generally allowed by writers upon ancient history.2 Scripture places the original occupation at a time when language had not yet broken up into its different forms, and when, consequently, races, as we now understand the term, can scarcely have existed. It is not, however, into the character of these primeval inhabitants that we have here to inquire, but into the ethnic affinities and cha- racteristics of that race, whatever it was, which first established an important kingdom in the lower part of the plain—a kingdom which eventually became an empire. According to the ordinary theory, this race was Aramaic or Semitic. "The name of Aramaeans, Syrians, or Assyrians," says Niebuhr, " com- prises the nations extending from the mouth of the Euphrates and Tigris to the Euxine, the river Halys, and Palestine. They applied to themselves the name of Aram, and the Greeks called them Assyrians, which is the same as Syrians (?). Within that great extent of country there existed, of course, various dialectic differences of language; and there can be little doubt but that in some places the nation was mixed with other races."8 The early inhabitants of Lower Mesopotamia, however, he considers to have been pure Aramaeans, closely akin to the Assyrians, from whom, indeed, he regards them as only separate politically.4 1 Gen. xi. 1-9. * Heeren, Asiatic Nations, vol. ii. p. 130; Sir H. Rawlinson, in the Journal of the Asiatic Society, vol. xv. p. 232; Yaux, Nineveh and Penepolit, p. 6; Chesney, Euphrates Expedition, vol. ii. p. 18: Lenonnant, Histoirc ancUnne de VOrient, vol. ii. p. 5; Sto. * Niebuhr, Lectures on Ancient His- tory, vol. i. p. 12, E. T. * Ibid. p. 11 : "We shall begin with the Assyrians ; but with those of Baby- lon; not, like Justin, with those of Nineveh." 44 Chap. III. THE FIRST MONARCHY. Similar views are entertained by most modern writers.5 Baron Bunsen, in one of his latest works,6 regards the fact as completely established by the results of recent researches in Babylonia. Professor M. Muller, though expressing himself with more caution, inclines to the same conclusion.7 Popular works, in the shape of Cyclopaedias and short general histories, diffuse the impression. Hence a difficulty is felt with regard to the Scriptural statement concerning the first kingdom in these parts, which is expressly said to have been Cushite or Ethiopian. "And Cush begat Nimrod: (he began to be a mighty one in the earth; he was a mighty hunter before the Lord; wherefore it is said, Even as Nimrod, the mighty hunter before the Lord ;) and the beginning of his kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar."8 According to this passage the early Chaldaeans should be Hamites, not Semites—Ethio- pians, not Aramaeans; they should present analogies and points of connexion with the inhabitants of Egypt and Abyssinia, of Southern Arabia and Mekran.not with those of Upper Mesopo- tamia, Syria, Phoenicia, and Palestine. It will be one of the objects of this chapter to show that the Mosaical narrative conveys the exact truth—a truth alike in accordance with the earliest classical traditions, and with the latest results of modern comparative philology. It will be desirable, however, before proceeding to establish the correctness of these assertions, to examine the grounds on which the opposite belief has been held so long and so con- fidently. Heeren draws his chief argument from the supposed character of the language. Assuming the form of speech called Chaldee to be the original tongue of the people, he remarks that it is "an Aramaean dialect, differing but slightly from the proper Syriac."9 Chaldee is known partly from the Jewish Scriptures, in which it is used occasionally,1 partly from the 5 Heeren, As. Nat. vol. ii. p. 145; Prichard, Physical History of Mankind, vol. iv. p. 668; Kitto, Biblical Cyclo- pcedia, vol. i. p. 275. * Philosophy of Universal History, vol. i. p. 193. 7 Languages of the Seat of War, pp. 24, 25 (first edition). • Gen. x. 8-10. • As. Nat. 1. g. c. 1 The portions of the Old Testament written in the so-called Chaldee arc Ezra, iv. 8 to vi. 18, and vii. 12-26; Chap. III. SEMITIC THEORY EXAMINED. 45 Targums (or Chaldaean paraphrases of different portions of the Sacred Volume), some of which belong to about the time of the Apostles, and partly from the two Talmuds, or collections of Jewish traditions, made in the third and fifth centuries of our era. It has been commonly regarded as the language of Babylon at the time of the Captivity, which the Jews, as captives, were forced to learn, and which thenceforth took the place of their own tongue. But it is extremely doubtful whether this is a true account of the matter. The Babylonian language of the age of Nebuchadnezzar is found to be far nearer to Hebrew than to Chaldee, which appears therefore to be mis- named, and to represent the western rather than the eastern Aramaic. The Chaldee argument thus falls to the ground; but in refuting it an admission has been made which may be thought to furnish fully as good proof of early Babylonian Semitism as the rejected theory. It has been said that the Babylonian language in the time of Nebuchadnezzar is found to be far nearer to Hebrew than to Chaldee. It is, in fact, very close indeed to the Hebrew. The Babylonians of that period, although they did not speak the tongue known to modern linguists as Chaldee, did certainly employ a Semitic or Aramaean dialect, and so far may be set down as Semites. And this is the ground upon which such modern philologists as still maintain the Semitic character of the primitive Chaldaeans principally rely.2 But it can be proved, from the inscriptions of the country, that between the date of the first establishment of a Chaldaean kingdom and the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, the language of Lower Mesopotamia underwent an entire change. To whatever causes this may have been owing—a subject which will be hereafter investigated3— the fact is certain; and it entirely destroys the force of the argument from the language of the Babylonians at the later period. Another ground, and that which seems to have had the chief Daniel, ii. 4 to vii. 28 ; and Jeremiah, HUtory, pp. 193 and 201; Miillei, x. 10. There is also a Chaldee gloss in Langruagtt, &c. 1. s. o. Genesis xxxi. 47. * See below, ch. iv. pp. 61-69. 1 Bunsen, Philotophy of Univertal 46 Chap. III. THE FIRST MONARCHY. weight with Niehuhr, is the supposed indentity or intimate con- nexion of the Babylonians with the Assyrians. That the latter people were Semites has never been denied; and, indeed, it is a point supported by such an amount of evidence as renders it quite unassailable. If, therefore, the primitive Babylonians were once proved to be a mere portion of the far greater Assyrian nation, locally and politically, but not ethnically separate from them, their Semitic character would thereupon be fully established. Now that this was the belief of Herodotus must be at once allowed. Not only does that writer regard the later Babylonians as Assyrians—" Assyrians of Babylon," as he expresses it4—and look on Babylonia as a mere "district of Assyria,"5 but, by adopting the mythic genealogy, which made Ninus the son of Belus,6 he throws back the connexion to the very origin of the two nations, and distinctly pronounces it a connexion of race. But Herodotus is a very weak authority on the antiquities of any nation, even his own; and it is not surprising that he should have carried back to a remote period a state of things which he saw existing in his own age. If the later Babylonians were, in manners and customs, in religion and in language, a close counterpart of the Assyrians, he would naturally suppose them descended from the same stock. It is his habit to transfer back to former times the condition of things in his own day. Thus he calls the inhabitants of the Peloponnese before the Dorian invasion "Dorians,"7 regards Athens as the second city in Greece when Croesus sent his embassies,8 and describes as the ancient Persian religion that corrupted form which existed under Artaxerxes Longimanus.9 He is an excellent authority for what he had himself seen, or for what he had laboriously collected by inquiry from eye- witnesses; but he had neither the critical acumen nor the linguistic knowledge necessary for the formation of a trust- worthy opinion on a matter belonging to the remote history of a distant people. And the opinion of Herodotus as to the ethnic identity of the two nations is certainly not confirmed by other 1 Herod. i. 177. •Ibid. ch. 106. • Ibid. i. 56. "Ibid. ch. 7. • Ibid. iil 16. T Ibid. vi. 53. Chap. III. 47 CUSHITE ORIGIN OF THE CHALDEANS. ancient writers. Berosus seems to have very carefully dis- tinguished between the Assyrians and the Babylonians or Chaldaeans, as may be seen even through the doubly-distorting medium of Polyhistor and the Armenian Eusebius.1 Diodorus Siculus made the two nations separate and hostile in very early times.2 Pliny draws a clear line between the "Chaldsean races," of which Babylon was the head, and the Assyrians of the region above them.8 Even Herodotus in one place admits a certain amount of ethnic difference; for, in his list of the nations forming the army of Xerxes, he mentions the Chaldseans as serving with, but not included among, the Assyrians.4 The grounds, then, upon which the supposed Semitic character of the ancient Chaldseans has been based, fail, one and all; and it remains to consider whether we have data sufficient to justify us in determinately assigning them to any other stock. Now a large amount of tradition—classical and other—brings Ethiopians into these parts, and connects, more or less dis- tinctly, the early dwellers upon the Persian Gulf with the inhabitants of the Nile valley, especially with those upon its upper course. Homer, speaking of the Ethiopians, says that they were "divided," and dwelt "at the ends of earth, towards the setting and the rising sun."5 This passage has been variously apprehended. It has been supposed to mean the mere division of the Ethiopians south of Egypt by the river Nile, whereby some inhabited its eastern and some its western bank.6 Again, it has been explained as referring to the east and west coasts of Africa, both found by voyagers to be in the possession of Ethiopians, who were " divided" by the vast extent of continent that lay between them.7 But the most satisfactory explanation is that which Strabo gives from Ephorus,8 that the Ethiopians were considered as occupying all the south coast both of Asia and Africa, and as " divided" by the Arabian Gulf (which sepa- rated the two continents) into eastern and western—Asiatic and 1 Euseb. Chron. Can. i. 4 and 5 ; pp. 17-21 ; ed. Mai. 2 Diod. Sic. ii. 1, § 7. • Plin. H. N. vi. 26. 4 Herod, vii. 63. s Hom. Od. i. 23, 24— AMtorat, toI Stxfib ttSabertu ftrxaroi 01 i>iv Svaopivov 'Treplovos, oi 5' diao»rof. • Strab. i. 2, § 25. 'Ibid. § 26. 8 Ibid. 8§ 26-31, 48 Chap. III. THE FIRST MONARCHY. African. This was an "old opinion" of the Greeks, we are told; and, though Strabo thinks it indicated their ignorance, we may perhaps be excused for holding that it might not im- probably have arisen from real, though imperfect, knowledge. The traditions with respect to Memnon serve very closely to connect Egypt and Ethiopia with the country at the head of the Persian Gulf. Memnon, King of Ethiopia, according to Hesiod9 and Pindar,1 is regarded by ^Eschylus as the son of a Cissian woman,2 and by Herodotus and others as the founder of Susa.8 He leads an army of combined Susianians and Ethiopians to the assistance of Priam, his father's brother, and, after greatly distinguishing himself, perishes in one of the battles before Troy.4 At the same time he is claimed as one of their monarchs by the Ethiopians upon the Nile,5 and identified by the Egyptians with their king, Amunoph III.,6 whose statue became known as " the vocal Memnon." Sometimes his expe- dition is supposed to have started from the African Ethiopia, and to have proceeded by way of Egypt to its destination.7 There were palaces, called "Memnonia," and supposed to have been built by him, both in Egypt and at Susa;8 and there was a tribe, called Memnones, near Meroe9 Memnon thus unites the Eastern with the "Western Ethiopians; and the less we regard him as an historical personage, the more must we view him as personifying the ethnic identity of the two races. The ordinary genealogies containing the name of Bel us point in the same direction, and serve more definitely to connect the Babylonians with the Cushites of the Nile. Pherecydes, who is an earlier writer than Herodotus, makes Agenor, the son of Neptune, marry Damno, the daughter of Belus, and have issue Phoenix, Isaea, and Melia, of whom Melia marries Danaus, and 'Hesiod. Theogon. 984: "iUlwova 1 Pind. Nem. iii. 62, 63. * Ap. Strab. xv. 3, § 2. * Herod. v. 54. Compare Strab. L 8. c.; Diod. Sic. ii. 22, § 3. 4 Diod. Sic. L s. c.; Pausan. x. 31, § 2; Cephalion ap. Euseb. Chron. Can. i. 15, §5. 5 Diod. Sic. ii. 22, § 4. "Euseb. Chron. Can. ii. p. 278 ; Syn- cellus, Chronograph. p. 151, C. Compare Strab. xvii. 1, § 42 ; andPlin. H. N. v. 9. 'Demetrius ap. Athea. Deipnosoph. Xv. p. 680, A. 8 Herod. v. 53; Strab. xv. 3, § 2, xvii. 1, § 42 ; Diod. Sic. L s. c.; Pliru II. N. L s. c . • Alex. Polyhist. Fr. Ill ; Plin. H. A\ vi. 30. Chap. III. 49 CUSHITE ORIGIN OF THE CHALDEANS. Isaea iEgyptus.1 Apollodorus, the disciple of Eratosthenes, expresses the connection thus:—" Neptune took to wife Libya (or Africa), and had issue Belus and Agenor. Belus married Anchinoe, daughter of Nile, who gave birth to iEgyptus, Danaus, Cepheus, and Phineus. Agenor married Telephassa, and had issue Europa, Cadmus, Phcenix, and Cilix."2 Eupo- lemus, who professes to record the Babylonian tradition on the subject, tells us that the first Belus, whom he identifies with Saturn, had two sons, Belus and Canaan. Canaan begat the progenitor of the Phoenicians (Phcenix ?); who had two sons, Chum and Mestraim,the ancestors respectively of the Ethiopians and the Egyptians.3 Charax of Pergamus spoke of iEgyptus as the son of Belus.4 John of Antioch agrees with Apollo- dorus, but makes certain additions. According to him, Neptune aad Libya had three children, Agenor, Belus, and Enyalius or Mars. Belus married Sida, and had issue ./Egyptus and Danaus; while Agenor married Tyro, and became the father of five children—Cadmus, Phcenix, Syrus, Cilix, and Europa.5 Many further proofs might be adduced, were they needed, of the Greek belief in an A&iatic Ethiopia, situated somewhere between Arabia and India, on the shores of the Erythifean Sea. Herodotus twice speaks of the Ethiopians of Asia," whom he very carefully distinguishes from those of Africa, and who can only be sought in this position. Ephorus, as we have already seen, extended the Ethiopians along the whole of the coast washed by the Southern Ocean. Eusebius has preserved a tradition that, in the reign of Amenophis III., a body of Ethiopians migrated from the country about the Indus, and settled in the valley of the Nile.7 Hesiod and Apollodorus, by making Memnon, the Ethiopian king, son of the Dawn (Hoy;)? imply their belief in an Ethiopia situated to the east rather than to the south of Greece. These are a few out of the manly similar notices which it would be easy to produce from classical 1 Pherecyd. Fr. 40. 'Apollodor. Bibliotliec. ii. I, § 4. * See the Fragments of Polyhistor in MiiUer's Fr. But. Orac. vol iii. p. 212; Fr. 3. VOL. J. 'Charax ap. Steph. Byz. s.v. Afyvrros. 5 Johann. Antiochen. Fr. 6, § 15. "Herod. iii. 94; vii. 70. 'Euaeb. Chron. Can. ii. p. 278. 8 Hesiod, L s. c.; ApolJod. iii. 12, § 4. E J 50 THE FIRST MONARCHY. Chap. III. writers, establishing, if not the fact itself, yet at any rate a full belief in the fact on the part of the best informed among the ancient Greeks. The traditions of the Armenians are in accordance with those of the Greeks. The Armenian Geography applies the name of Cash, or Ethiopia, to the four great regions, Media, Persia, Susiana or Elymai's, and Aria, or to the whole territory between the Indus and the Tigris.9 Moses of Chorene, the great Armenian historian, identifies Belus, King of Babylon, with Nimrodwhile at the same time he adopts for him a genea- logy only slightly different from that in our present copies of Genesis, making Nimrod the grandson of Gush, and the son of Mizraim.2 He thus connects, in the closest way, Babylonia, Egypt, and Ethiopia Proper, uniting moreover, by his identifi- cation of Nimrod with Belus, the Babylonians of later times, who worshipped Belus as their hero-founder, with the primitive population introduced into the country by Nimrod. The names of Belus and Cush, thus brought into juxtaposi- tion, have remained attached to some portion or other of the region in question from ancient times to the present day. The tract immediately east of the Tigris was known to the Greeks as Cissia (Kicrcria) or Cossaea (Kocraala), no less than as Elymai's or Elam. The country east of Kerman was named Kusan throughout the Sassanian period.3 The same region is now Beloochistan, the country of the Belooches or Beliis, while adjoining it on the east is Cutch, or Kooch, a term standing to Gush as Belooch stands to Belus. Again, Cissia or Cossaea is now Khuzistan, or the land of Khuz (j^), a name not very remote from Cush; but perhaps this is only a coincidence. To the traditions and traces here enumerated must be added, is of primary importance, the Biblical tradition, which is de- livered to us very simply and plainly in that precious docu- ment the 'Toldoth Beni Noah,' or 'Book of the Generations of the Sons of Noah/ which well deserves to be called " the most • Mos. Choren. Genyraph. pp. 363-5. 1 Mos. CUoren. Hist. Arnien. i . 6; pp. 19, 20. 1 Ibid. i . 4 ; p. 12. * Journal of Asiatic Society vol. XV. p. 233. Chap. III. ANCIENT CHALDEAN LANGUAGE, CUSHITE 51 authentic record that we possess for the affiliation of nations."4 "The sons of Ham," we are told, "were Cush, and Mizraim, and Phut, and Canaan And Cush begat Nimrod And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar." Here a primitive Babylonian kingdom is assigned to a people distinctly said to have been Cushite by blood,5 and to have stood in close con- nexion with Mizraim, or the people of Egypt, Phut, or those of Central Africa, and Canaan, or those of Palestine. It is the simplest and the best interpretation of this passage to under- stand it as asserting that the four races — the Egyptians, Ethiopians, Libyans, and Canaanites—were ethnically con- nected, being all descended from Ham; and further, that the primitive people of Babylon were a subdivision of one of these races, namely of the Cushites or Ethiopians, connected in some degree with the Canaanites, Egyptians, and Libyans, but still more closely with the people which dwelt anciently upon the Upper Nile. The conclusions thus recommended to us by the consentient primitive traditions of so many races, have lately received most important and unexpected confirmation from the results of lin- guistic research. After the most remarkable of the Mesopo- tamian mounds had yielded their treasures, and supplied the historical student with numerous and copious documents bear- ing upon the history of the great Assyrian and Babylonian empires, it was determined to explore Chaldaea Proper, where mounds of less pretension, but still of considerable height, 4 Journal of Asiatic Society, vol. xv. p. 230. * " And Cush begat Nimrod," Gen. x. S. Baron Bunsen says in one work, * * Nimrod is called a Cushite, which means a man of the land of Cush" (Pltilot. of Univ. Hut. vol. i p. 191), and proceeds to argue that he was only a Cushite "geographically," because he, or the people represented by him, so- journed for some time in Ethiopia. In another {Egypt's Place, &c., vol. iv. p. 412), he admits that this view con- tradicts Gen. x. 8, and allows that "the compiler of our present Book of Genesis" must have meant to derive Nimrod by descent from Ham; but this "com- piler" was, he thiuks, deceived by the resemblance of to Nimrod was not an Ethiopian, but a Cossian or Cosssean ; i.e. (he says) a Turanian who conquered Babylon from the mountain country east of Mesopotamia. Of course, if we are at liberty to regard the "com- piler" of Genesis as "mistaken" when- ever his statements conflict with our theories, while at the samo time wo ignore linguistic facts, we may speculate upon ancient history and ethnography much at our pleasure. 52 Chap. III. THE FIRST MONARCHY. marked the sites of a number of ancient cities. The excavations conducted at these places, especially at Nifier, Senkereh, Warka, and Mugheir, were eminently successful. Among their other unexpected results was the discovery, in the most ancient remains, of a new form of speech, differing greatly from the later Babylonian language, and presenting analogies with the early language of Susiana, as well as with that of the second column of the Achaemenian inscriptions. In grammatical structure this ancient tongue resembles dialects of the Turanian family, but its vocabulary has been pronounced to be "decidedly Cushite or Ethiopian; "6 and the modern languages to which it approaches the nearest are thought to be the Mahra of Southern Arabia and the Galla of Abyssinia. Thus comparative philology appears to confirm the old traditions. An Eastern Ethiopia instead of being the invention of bewildered ignorance,7 is rather a reality which henceforth it will require a good deal of scepticism to doubt; and the primitive race which bore sway in Chaldaea Proper is with much probability assigned to this ethnic type. The most striking physical characteristics of the African Ethiopians were their swart complexions, and their crisp or frizzled hair. According to Herodotus the Asiatic Ethiopians were equally dark, but their hair was straight and not frizzled." Probably in neither case was the complexion what we understand by black, but rather a dark red-brown or copper-colour, which is the tint of the modern Gallas and Abyssinians, as well as of the Cha'b and Montefik Arabs and the Belooches. The hair was no doubt abundant; but it was certainly not woolly like that of the negroes. There is a marked distinction between the negro hair and that of the Ethiopian race, which is sometimes straight, sometimes crisp, but never woolly. This distinction is carefully marked in the Egyptian monuments, as is also the "Sir H. Rawlinson, in the author's Herodotus, voL i p. 442. '"The Bible mentions but one Kush, ^Ethiopia; an Asiatic Kush exists only in the imagination of the interpreters, and is the child oi their despair." Bunsen, Philosophy of Univ. Hist. vol. i p. 191. See on the other hand Sir H. Rawlinson'g article in the Journal of the Asiatic Society, voL xv. art. ii.; and compare especially Kzek. xxxviii. 5. 8 Herod. vii . 70. Chap. DDL PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF CUSHITE RACES. 53 distinction between the Ethiopian and negro complexions; whence we may conclude that there was as much difference between the two races in ancient as in modern times. The African races descended from the Ethiopians are on tho whole a handsome rather than an ugly people. Their figure is slender and well shaped; their features are regular, and have some delicacy; the forehead is straight and fairly high; the nose long, straight, and fine, but scarcely so prominent as that of Europeans; the chin is pointed and good. The principal defect is in the mouth, which has lips too thick and full for beauty, though they are not turned out like a negro's.9 We do not Ethiopians (after Prichard). possess any representations of the ancient people which can be distinctly assigned to the early Cushite period. Abundant hair has been noticed in an early tomb j1 and this in the later Baby- lonians, who must have been descended in great part from the earlier, was very conspicuous ;2 but otherwise we have as yet no direct evidence with respect to the physical characteristics of the primitive race.8 That they were brave and warlike, in- genious, energetic, and persevering, we have ample evidence, which will appear in later chapters of this work ; but we can do little more than conjecture their physical appearance, which, • See Prichard'a Physical Hist, of pare Herod. i. 195. Mankind, vol. ii. p. 44. * Skeletons have been found in abun- 1 Loftus, ChaUlma and Susiana, p. 202. dance, but they have undergone no * See the Cylinders, passim; and com- scientific examination. 54 Chap. III. THE FIRST MONARCHY. however, we may fairly suppose to have resembled that of other Ethiopian nations. When the early inhabitants of Chaldaea are pronounced to have belonged to the same race with the dwellers upon the Upper Nile, the question naturally arises, which were the pri- mitive people, and which the colonists? Is the country at the head of the Persian Gulf to be regarded as the original abode of the Cushite race, whence it spread eastward and westward, on the one hand to Susiana, Persia Proper, Carmania, Gedrosia, and India itself; on the other to Arabia and the east coast of Africa? Or are we to suppose that the migration proceeded in one direction only—that the Cushites, having occupied the country immediately to the south of Egypt, sent their colonies along the south coast of Arabia, whence they crept on into the Persian Gulf, occupying Chaldaea and Susiana, and thence spreading into Mekran, Kerman, and the regions bordering upon the Indus? Plausible reasons may be adduced in support of either hypothesis. The situation of Babylonia, and its proximity to that mountain region where man must have first " increased and multiplied " after the Flood, are in favour of its being the original centre from which the other Cushite races were derived. The Biblical genealogy of the sons of Ham points, however, the other way; for it derives Nimrod from Gush, not Cush from Nimrod. Indeed this document seems to follow the Hamites from Africa—emphatically " the land of Ham "4— in one line along Southern Arabia to Shinar or Babylonia, in another from Egypt through Canaan into Syria. The antiquity of civilization in the valley of the Nile, which preceded by many centuries that even of primitive Chaldaea, is another argument in favour of the migration having been from west to east; and the monu- ments and traditions of the Chaldroans themselves have been thought to present some curious indications of an East African origin.8 On the whole, therefore, it seems most probable that the race designated in Scripture by the hero-founder Nimrod, * Ps. lsxviii. 51 ; cv. 23, 2" ; cvi. 22. Egypt is called Chcmi in the native in- scriptions. 5 See tbe Essay of Sir H. Rawlinson, in the author's I/erodolu.i, vol. i . p. 442, note (1st edition). Chap. III. 55 THE AKKAD, OR BURBUR, TURANIANS. and among the Greeks by the eponym of Belus, passed from East Africa, by way of Arabia, to the valley of the Euphrates, shortly before the opening of the historical period. Upon the ethnic basis here indicated, there was grafted, it would seem, at a very early period, a second, probably Turanian, element, which very importantly affected the character and composition of the people. The Burbur, or Akkad, who are found to have been a principal tribe under the early kings, are connected by name, religion, and in some degree by language, with an important peopleof Armenia,called Burbu r and Urarda, the Alarodians (apparently) of Herodotus.6 It has been con- jectured that this race at a very remote date descended upon the plain country, conquering the original Cushite inhabitants, and by degrees blending with them, though the fusion remained incomplete to the time of Abraham. The language of the early inscriptions, though Cushite in its vocabulary, is Turanian in many points of its grammatical structure, as in its use of post- positions, particles, and pronominal suffixes; and it would seem, therefore, scarcely to admit of a doubt that the Cushites of Lower Babylon must in some way or other have become mixed with a Turanian people. The mode and time of the commixture are matters altogether beyond our knowledge. We can only note the fact as indicated by the phenomena, and form, or abstain from forming, as we please, hypotheses with respect to its accompanying circumstances. Besides these two main constituents of the Chaldaean race, there is reason to believe that both a Semitic and an Arian element existed in the early population of the country. The subjects of the early kings are continually designated in the inscriptions by the title of kiprat-arbat, " the four nations," or aria liswn, "the four tongues." In Abraham's time, again, the league of four kings seems correspondent to a fourfold ethnic division, Cushite, Turanian, Semitic, and Arian, the chief authority and ethnic preponderance being with the Cushites.7 'See an Essay by the same writer in (he fourth volume of the same work, jip. 250-254 (1st edition). 7 Chedor-lao mer, by his leadership of the Elamites or Susianians, should be a Cushite; Tidal, king of nations, i.e. of 56 Chap. III. 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—Khaldi 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, Sir H. Rawlinson in the first volume of or Turanian ; Arioch recalls the term the author's Herodotus. vol. i. Essay vi. "Arian," while Amraphel is a name § 21, note' (second edition). cast in a Semitic mould. See a note by 'Berosus, Fr. i. §§ 5, 6, 11, &a Chap. III. 57 CHALDJiAN THEORY OF GESENIU3. 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 dominant race in the lower Mesopota.mian 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 Lowth, "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 Chaldaea,ns 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 Esaiam, win. 13, and Geschichte der Hebr. Sprache, pp. 63, 64; Heeren, Atiatic Nations, voL li. p. 147; Niebuhr, Lectures on Ancient History, voL i. p. 20, note; Winer, Sealwbrterbuch, vol. i. p. 218; Kitto, Biblical Cyclnpadia, vol. i. p. 408, Ac. Mr. Vaux (Diet. of Antiquities, vol. i . p. 601) with good reason questions the common opinion. 1 As that Nebuchadnezzar might be the Sclavonic sentence Nebyekad zenur tzar, or "De coelo missus dominus,"— that Merodach might be the Persian mar- dale, "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. 2 Isaiah xxiii. 13. 58 Chap. III. THE FIRST MONARCHY. passage of Scrip Lure was thought to have an important bear- ing 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."8 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 Chaldaeans 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 Chaldeans,"6 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,"8 and " the beauty of the Chaldees' excellency."1 The Chaldaeans are thus in Isaiah, as elsewhere 3 Habakkuk i. 6-10. 4 Job i . 17. 'Gen. xi . 28 and 31. "Isaiah xlvii. 1 and 5. 'Isaiah xiii. 19. 8 Ibid. xiv. 6. • Ibid. xlvii. 5. 1 Ibid. xiii. 19. Chap. III. 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 Chaldpeans, 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 indentified 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 Midian, an Arabian, and an Assyrian.2 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 Chaldflaans, 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 • Berosus, Fr. 11 and 12. 'See Niebuhr, Lectures on A ncient History, vol. i. p. 20, note; and Prichard, Physical History of Mankind, vol. iv. pp. 563, 564. 6o Chap. III. THE FIRST MONARCHY. 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 coaree 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, ml fm. Chap. IV. 6l LANGUAGE AND WRITING. CHAPTER IV. LANGUAGE AND WRITING. "Ypimiaxa nal yXCiaaa Xa\Satuv."—Das. 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 over the Kiprat-arbat, or "Four Races." These " Four Races" are called sometimes the Arba Limn, 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 Galla 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 Dmrir, "God." Compare Turkish Tengri. Atta, "father." Compare Turkish atta. Etea is "father" in the Wolaitsa (Abyssinian) dialect. Si>, "brother." Compare Wolaitsa and Woratta isha. f:2 Chap. IV. THE FIRST MONARCHY. Tur, "a youth," "a son." Compare the tur-khan of the Parthians Turanians), 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. Hum, "a town." Compare Heb. ys- Ar, "a river." Compare Heb. ms, Arab. rn.hr. Gabri, " a mountain." Compare Arabic jabal. Ki, "the earth." Kitigi, "a country." San, "the sun." Kha, "afish"(?). Kurra, "ahorse." Compare Arabic gurra. Guski, "gold." Compare Galla ucrie. Guski means also "red" and "the evening." Babar, "silver," "white," "the morning." Compare Agau ber, Tigre burrur. Zabar, "copper." Compare Arabic sifr. Hurud, "iron." Ctimpare Arabic hadid. Zakad, "the head." Compare Gonga toko. Kat, "the hand." Compare Gonga kiso. Si, "the eye." Pi, "the ear." Compare Magyar fiil. Gida, "great." Compare Galla guda. Tura, "little." Compare Gonga tu and Galla Una. Kelga, "powerful." Ginn, "firet," Mis, "many." Compare Agau minch or mcneh. Gar, "to do." Egir, "after." Compare Hhamara (Abyssinian) igrui. 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 bi. "he"), or ani (compare Galla enni, "he"), the third person plural by bUnini. The accusative case in nouns is marked by a postposition, L;u, 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, Libnan, seem to be plural forms from Chna, Yavan, and Liban. Chap. IV. 63 LANGUAGE OF THE CHALD.EANS. 3nl person. ki-ni-ta (with him) fct-nini-fa (with them) 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 :— 1st person. 2nd person. Sing. ki-mu-ta ki-zu^ta (with me) (with thee) Plur. ki-mi-ta Id-zu-nini-ta (with us) (with you) 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 Chalda?ans 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 'i'i 1 There is. I believe, a near parallel t.i this peculiarity in the Ostiak. [It has been compared with our own use of euch 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 Jri and la have separately the meaning of " with."] 64 Chap. IV. THE FIRST MONARCHY. L——. Bli "is*? 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, origin- ally 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- 2 The bricks in question were found p. 169.) at Warka, the ancient Hurvk or Erech. * See Oppert's Expedition icientfjique (See LoftUs, Chaldcea and Suriana, en Mitopolamie, tom. ii. p. 62. Chap. IV. 65 WRITING OF THE CHALD2EANS. wards reduced to four) clearly represent the thumb and the four fingers. So the character ordinarily representing "a house" * Y *s evidently formed from the original | |, the ground-plan of a house; and that denoting "the sun" , comes from £,, through J^^' an(* , original <^, 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 posts, bars, and hinges in » 33 y the ordinary character.4 1 Another curious example of the pictorial origin of the letters is furnished by the character ^^i^Y , 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 | E. It has been con- jectured that the object here represented is "a sarcophagus."6 But 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 4 It has been conjectured 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 of a bee, the Egyptian emblem of sovereignty. (See Ménant, Briquet