N 4 \ A HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA ROBERT WILLIAM ROGERS PH.D. (LEIPZIG), LL.D., F.R.G.S., HON. LITT.D. UNIVERSITY OF DUBLIN, PROFESSOR IN DREW THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, MADISON, NEW JERSEY SIXTH EDITION IN TWO VOLUMES, REVISED, LARGELY REWRITTEN, AND ILLUSTRATED VOLUME II THE HISTORY OF BABYLONIA, ASSYRIA, AND CHALDEA THE ABINGDON PRESS NEW YORK CINCINNATI Copyright, 1915, by ROBERT W. ROGERS TO MY WIFE “I give this faulty book to you, For tho’ the faults be thick as dust In vacant chambers, I can trust Y7our woman’s nature kind and true.” Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2017 with funding from Princeton Theological Seminary Library https://archive.org/details/historyofbabylon02unse_2 CONTENTS BOOK II: THE HISTORY OF BABYLONIA CHAPTER 1 Early Sumerian History page Difficulty of the subject . 1 Early cities of Babylonia . 2 Religious impulses of conquest . 3 Early names of Sumerian country . 4 Early inhabitants, Sumerians and Semites . 5,6 Original home of the Sumerians . 7 The first Sumerian ruler, Utug . 8 Mesilim . 9 Lugal-tarsi, Urzage, and Ur-Nina . 10 Akurgal, Eannatum . 11, 12 Enannatum I, Urlumma . 13 Entemena . 14, 15 Later patesis; Lugal-anda . 16 Urukagina; social reforms . 16-19 Umma attacks Lagash . 19 Lugal-zaggisi and his empire . 19-22 En-shag-kush-ana . 22 Sumerian supremacy and civilization . 23, 24 CHAPTER II The Empire of Sargon I The romantic figure of Sargon 1 . 25 Legend of Sargon . 26-28 His first campaigns, Dur-ilu, Kasalla . 28, 29 Campaigns against Susa; famine . 30 Manishtusu, his obelisk, social works . 31 Urumush and Naram-Sin . 32 Naram-Sin’s campaign in Arabia . 33 Anu-banini . 34 vii VI 11 CONTENTS PAGE N aram-Sin as a builder . 34, 35 Shargali-sharri, western invasion . 36 Building operations; works of art. . . 37, 38 The end of the dynasty . 39 Dynasty of Erech . 39, 40 CHAPTER III Babylonian History to the Fall of Larsa Patesis of Lagash . 41 Ur-Bau . 42, 43 Gudea; sources . 43 Gudea’s temple to Ningirsu . 44, 45 Conquest of Anshan . 46 Installation of deities, statue of Lugal-kisalsi . 47 Culmination of Sumerian civilization; Ur dominant . 48 Ur, and its favorable situation . 49 Lugal-kigub-nidudu; Ur-Engur, Dungi . 50 A new empire founded . 51 Great works of Ur-Engur . 52 Reign of Dungi . 53-59 Bur-Sin 1 . 59 Gimil-Sin . 60 Ibi-Sin . 61 Semitic influence; Arad Sin . 62 Ishbi-ura, Idin-Dagan . 63 Libit Ishtar, Ur-Ninib . 64 Bur-Sin II, Iter-kasha, Ellil-bani, Damik-ilishu . 65 Sin-muballit and Damik-ilishu . 66 Kudur-nankhundi and the Elamite raids . 67 Kudur-Mabuk; Eri Aku (Arad-Sin) . 68 Rim-Sin . 69 Summary of Sumerian civilization . 70-72 CHAPTER IV The First and Second Dynasties of Babylon The origin of Babylon; its rise to supremacy . 73, 74 The Amorites and their early threats . 75, 76 Reign of Sumu-abi; Sumu-la-ilu . 77, 78 Zabum, Apil-Sin . 79 Sin-muballit . 80 CONTENTS ix PAGE Hammurapi and his first campaign . 80, 81 Conquest of Rim-Sin . 82, 83 Wide extent of his rule; Amraphel . 83 Arioch, Chedorlaomer, Tidal . 85 Administration of Hammurapi ; code of laws . 86-89 Building operations . 90 The golden age; Samsu-iluna . 91-95 Abeshu (Ebishum) . 95, 96 Ammiditana . 96 Ammisaduga, Samsuditana . 97, 98 CHAPTER V The Kassite Dynasty Conquest of Babylon by the Kassites . 99-101 List of the Kassite kings; Gandish . 102 First six Kassite kings . 103 Tashshigurumash ; Agum II . 104, 105 Conquests of Agum II . 106, 107 Lacuna . 108, 109 The Assyrian commonwealth . 110 Naharina, Mitanni . 111-113 Kardunyash . 113 Karaindash I, contact with Assyria . 114, 115 Kadashman-Ellil . 116, 117 Kurigalzu II . 118, 119 Burnaburiash II . .119, 120 Karaindash II . 120, 121 Nazibugash (Shuzigash), Kurigalzu III . 121 Nazi-Maruttash, Kadashman-Turgu . 122 Invasion of Babylon by Tukulti-Ninib . 123, 124 Adad-shum-usur, Meli-Shipak II . 125 End of the Kassite dynasty . 126 CHAPTER VI The Dynasty of Isin Origin of the dynasty unknown . . 127 Marduk-shapik-zerim . 128 Nebuchadrezzar I . 129, 130 Marduk-nadin-akhe and Tiglathpileser I . 130, 131 Itti-Marduk-balatu, Marduk-shapik-zer-mati . 131, 132 X CONTENTS BOOK III: THE HISTORY OF ASSYRIA CHAPTER I The Beginnings of Assyria page Early rulers styled Patesi . 133 Meaning of the word; settlement at Asshur . 134 The city’s fine site; temple of Ashur . 135 Ushpia, Kikia early patesis . . . 136 Shalim-akhum, llu-shuma . 137 Irishum, Ikunum . 138 Shamshi-Adad 1 . 139 Ashir-nirari I, Ashir-rim-nisheshu . 140 Bel-kapkapu, Bel-bani . 141 Puzur-Ashir I, Ashirbelnisheshu . 142 Invasion of Thutmosis III, Shaushatar, king of the Mitanni . . . 143 Ashur-uballit II marries daughter to Karaindash II . 144 Friendly relations with Egypt . 145 Ellil-nirari . 146 Arik-den-ilu . 147 Adad-nirari 1 . 148, 149 Shalmaneser 1 . 150-154 Tukulti-Ninib 1 . 154-157 The progress of Assyria . 158, 159 The decline of Assyria . 160 Ashurdan, Mutakkil-Nusku . 161 Ashur-rish-ishi . 161-163 Tiglathpileser I succeeds to the throne . 164 CHAPTER II Tiglathpileser I and His Sons Sources for his reign . 165 Campaign against the Mushke . 166-168 War against Kummukh . 168-170 Campaigns in Kharia, Qurkhi, Nairi . 171 The successes in the Nairi territories . 172 Aramaeans; Musri . 173 Summary of his five campaigns . . 174, 175 His works of peace . 175, 176 Shamshi-Adad IV . 176-178 Period of silence . 178, 179 CONTENTS xi CHAPTER III The Increase of Assyrian Power Over Babylonia page Dynasty of the Sea Lands . 180, 181 Dynasty of Bazi . 181 Elamite ruler of Babylonia . 182 Characteristics of this forty-six year period . 183 Nabu-mukin-apli . 184 Aramaean movements . 185-187 Formation of the Hebrew kingdom . 188 Ashurnazirpal II, Shalmaneser II, Tiglathpileser III . 189 Ashurdan II, Adad-nirari III, Tukulti-Ninib II . 190 Campaigns of Tukulti-Ninib II . 191, 192 CHAPTER IV The Reign of Ashurnazirpal State of the kingdom on his accession . 193 Historical material . 194 Campaign into land of Numme . 195 Kirruri, Qurkhi . 196 Kummukh, Bit Khalupe . 197, 198 Campaigns of ferocity . 199 Northwestern campaigns . 200, 201 A note of construction, Atlila . 202 Tribute collecting . 203-205 Victory in Suri . 205, 206 Nabu-apal-iddin and his work in Sippar . 207 Ashurnazirpal suppresses revolts . 208, 209 Organization of tribute payments . 210, 211 The standing army and its use . 211, 212 The great western campaign . 212-217 Kummukh, Kirkhi . 218 Works of peace; Calah . 219-221 CHAPTER V Shalmaneser III to Ashur-nirari II Sources for the reign . 222, 223 The army; the Aramaean question . 223, 224 Western Aramaean states, Hamath, Damascus . 225 Description of western campaign, Monolith inscription . 226-228 Xll CONTENTS PAGE Course of the campaign to Qarqar . 229 The battle of Qarqar . 230, 231 Campaigns of 849, 846, 842 . 231, 232 Campaign of 839 . 234 Urartu . 235-239 Campaign against Namri, and Media . 239-241 Attack upon Babylonia . 241-243 Building operations . 243-245 Artistic work . 245, 246 Temple building . 246-248 Troubled end of the great reign . 248-250 Shamshi-Adad V and his first campaign . 250 The lands of Nairi . 251 To the Mediterranean; Media, Babylonia . 252 Fighting in Babylonia . 253, 254 Sammuramat (Semiramis) . 254 Adad-nirari IV attacks Damascus . 255 Against the Medes, and Babylonia . 256 Building operations . . 257 Sammuramat mentioned again . 258 Decline in Assyrian power; Shalmaneser IV . 259 Ashurdan III . 260 Eclipse of 763 B. C . 261 Ashur-nirari V ; rebellion in Calah . 262 CHAPTER VI The Reigns of Tiglathpileser IV and Shalmaneser V The great change in 746 . 263, 264 Humble origin of Tiglathpileser IV . 265 The vandalism of Esarhaddon; sources of this reign . 266, 267 The first campaigns into Babylonia, Nabonassar. . . 268 Great victory in Babylonia . 269, 270 Campaigns in the east . 271-273 The development of Urartu . 273 Tiglathpileser attacks the northern problem . 274-277 The attack upon Arpad . 277-279 Campaign into the lands of Nairi . 279 Azariah of Yaudi, leader of a coalition . 280 Tiglathpileser attacks . 281-283 Aramaean revolts . 283, 284 'The campaign against Urartu and its failure . 284, 285 In the west, Ashdod, Gaza . 285-287 CONTENTS xm PAGE The danger to western Asia . 288 The Syro-Ephraimitic war . 289 Ahaz secures Assyrian help . 290 Tiglathpileser invades Samaria . 291 Israel subjugated; Arabia invaded . 292, 293 Damascus taken . 293 Peace in Babylonia . 294 Disturbance in Babylonia . 295 Babylonia invaded (731) . 296 Balasu (Belesys), Merodach-baladan . 297 Tiglathpileser proclaimed in Babylon (Pulu, Poros) . 298, 299 Building operations . 299, 300 Estimate of his career . 300, 301 Shalmaneser V succeeds . 301, 302 Hoshea, and the west . 302, 303 Troubled conditions in Egypt . 303-305 Hoshea intrigues with Sibe . 306, 307 Hoshea rebels . 307 Shalmaneser invades Israel . 308 Estimate of Shalmaneser’s reign . 309, 310 CHAPTER VII The Reign of Sargon II Sargon’s family origin . 311 The political situation at the beginning of his reign . 312 The sources for his reign . 313 The Fall of Samaria . 314 Colonization of the territory . 315 Sargon begins assault on Babylon, but fails . 316, 317 Rebellion in Hamath . 318, 319 Campaigns in Urartu . 320, 321 Fall of Carchemish . 321, 322 Further colonizations in Syria; the Samaritans . 322 Great campaigns in Urartu . 323-327 Tribute collection in Arabia . 328 Campaign against Rusas of Urartu (714) . 328-330 Urartu (Chaldia) and civilization . 331, 332 Rebellion in Media . 332 Tabal, and Cilicia . 333 Egyptian plotting in Syria . 334, 335 General results of Saigon’s reign . 336 Problems in Babylonia, Merodach-baladan . 336-339 XIV CONTENTS PAGE Sargon attacks . 339-341 Sargon shakkanak (governor) of Babylon . 341 Victory in Babylonia . 342, 343 Que, Urartu . 344, 345 Ellipi (Ishpabara) . " . 345 The migration of Gomer . 346, 347 Works of peace in Sargon’ s reign . 348-351 CHAPTER VIII The Reign of Sennacherib Sources for the reign . 352, 353 A new policy in Babylonia . 354-359 The schemes of Merodach-baladan . 357 Invasion of Babylonia . 358, 359 Median campaign . 360 The great invasion of the west . 361-373 New difficulties in Babylonia . 373-375 Military operations in Cilicia . 375, 376 Campaign to destroy the Chaldeans . 377 Sennacherib in Elam . 378 Mushezib-Marduk, king in Babylon . 379 Battle of Khalule . 380 Babylon taken and destroyed . 381-383 Invasion of Arabia; Tirhaka . 384 Pestilence and retreat . 385, 386 Failure of western campaign ; death of Sennacherib . 387 Works of peace; Nineveh . 388-392 CHAPTER IX The Reign of Esarhaddon Sources for the reign . 393, 394 Esarhaddon as governor of Babylon, change of policy . 394, 395 Rebuilding of Babylon . 396 Chaldean and Elamite difficulties . 397-399 First western campaign . 400-402 Booty from Sidon . 403 Siege of Tyre . 404-406 Invasion of Egypt . 407, 408 The great victory, plunder of Memphis . 40S CONTENTS xv PAGE Reorganization of the government . 409 Campaign against Melukhkha . 410, 411 Changes in Aribi . 411, 412 Indo-European migrations . 412-416 Threatening movements of these invaders . 417, 418 Esarhaddon’s forceful action . 419 Rebellion in Assyria; new invasion of Egypt . 420 Arrangements for the succession . 421-423 Death of Esarhaddon, his career . 423, 424 Works of peace . 424-426 CHAPTER X The Reign of Ashurbanipal Sources for the reign . 427, 428 Expedition into Elam . . . 429 Difficulties with Egypt . 430-432 Pacification by force . 433 Tanut-Amon (Tandamani) . 434, 435 Difficulty of ruling Egypt . 435, 436 Tyre surrenders . 437 Embassy from Lydia . 438 Cimmerian victory over Gyges . 439 Akhsheri of Man; Elam . 439, 440 Elamite campaign . 441 The Gambuli . 442 Shamash-shum-ukin ruling in Babylonia . 443, 444 His rebellion . 445 The unwise manner of it . 446, 447 Open war by Shamash-shum-ukin . 448 Ashurbanipal’ s dream . 449 Shamash-shum-ukin dies; Ashurbanipal enters Babylon . 450 Terrible punishment of the Babylonians . 451 Elam invaded . 452-456 Savage treatment of Elamites . 456, 457 Punishment of Arabians . 458-460 Manasseh of Judah . 460 Urartu on friendly terms with Assyria . 461 Great works of peace . 462 The library . 463 Achievements in sculpture . 464 Ceremonies for victory; death . 465 Commerce and culture . 466-468 xvi CONTENTS PAGE CHAPTER XI The Fall op Assyria Ashur-etil-ili . 469-471 Sin-shum-lishir . 471 Sin-shar-ishkun . 471-474 The Manda and the Medes . 474, 475 Threats against Nineveh, Nabopolassar . 476 The Medes begin the attack . 477, 478 The fall of the city and its looting . 479, 480 Later settlements on the site of Nineveh . 481 Division of Assyrian territory . 482 BOOK IV: THE HISTORY OF THE CHALDEAN EMPIRE CHAPTER I The Reign op Nabopolassar Ashurbanipal (Kandalanu) . 483 Babylonian characteristics . 484, 485 The Chaldean people . 486-492 Nabopolassar, king of Babylon; origin; sources . 492, 493 Beginnings under Assyrian suzerainty . 494, 495 Egyptian invasion of Western Asia . 496, 497 Necho II conquers Judah, Josiah falls . 498, 499 Necho makes a second invasion . 500 Conquered at Carchemish by Nebuchadrezzar . 501 The achievements of Nabopolassar . . . 502, 503 CHAPTER II The Reign of Nebuchadrezzar Nebuchadrezzar ascends throne without trouble . 504, 505 Judah ceases to pay tribute, and is attacked . 506 Jehoiachin surrenders Jerusalem . 507 Hophra, king of Egypt . 508 Incites Syro-Phcenician states to rebel . 509 Judah ready to join, is opposed by Jeremiah . 510-4)12 The city of Jerusalem besieged . 512-516 CONTENTS xvn PAGE Battle with the Egyptians . 516, 517 Jerusalem besieged again and taken. . . . . 517, 518 Zedekiah punished . 519 Jerusalem destroyed . . . 520, 521 Deportation; Gedaliah as prince . 521, 522 The folly of Jerusalem's destruction . 523 The long menace of the Assyro- Babylonians . 524 Nebuchadrezzar against Tyre . 525-528 Invasion of Egypt . 528-530 The small campaigns of Nebuchadrezzar . 531, 532 Sources for this reign . 532, 533 The great building operations, the city walls . 532-536 The palaces . 536, 537 The temples . 537, 538 Canal building . 538, 539 Building at Borsippa . 540, 541 Death of Nebuchadrezzar . 542 The character of the man . 543, 544 CHAPTER III The Last Years of the Chaldean Empire Amil-Marduk (Evil Merodach) becomes king . 545 Releases Jehoiachin . 546 Nergal-shar-usur (Neriglissor), king . 547 Builds canal . 548 Labashi-Marduk, king . 549 Nabonidus, king; sources . 550, 551 The king’s archaeological interests . 552, 553 Bel-shar-usur (Belshazzar) . 554, 555 The restoration of E-babbara . 556-558 Restoration of E-ulmash . 558 The temple of Sin in Harran . 559-561 The rise of the Medes . 561-563 Cyrus, his rapid rise to power . 563-566 Cyrus attacks Croesus . 566-568 Cyrus prepares to absorb Babylonia . 568 Nabonidus unprepared . 569, 570 Cyrus in northern Babylonia (539) . 571 Nabonidus saves the gods . 572 Babylon taken without a blow . 573 Cyrus makes triumphal entry . 574 The end of a glorious history . 575, 576 xviii CONTENTS APPENDIX PAGE A. Literature 1. Excavations and Decipherment . 577, 578 2. The Script and Languages . 578, 579 3. Literature . 580 4. Chronology . 580 5. History . 581-584 Current Bibliography . 585 B. The Destruction of Sennacherib’s Army (Herodotus) . 586 C. The Defenses of Babylon . .587-590 The East India House Inscription . 590-593 ILLUSTRATIONS FACING PAGE Stele of Vultures (Eannatum) . 11 Silver Vase of Entemena . 15 Obelisk of Manishtusu . 31 Triumphal Stele of Naram-Sin . 33 Door Socket of Naram-Sin . 34 Mace Head of Shargali-sharri . 38 Clay Cone of Ur-Bau . 42 Brick of Gudea . 44 Clay Cone of Arad-Sin . 68 Code of Hammurapi . 87 Stone Tablet of Nabu-apal-iddin . 193 Colossal Figure from Doorway (Ashurnazirpal) . 198 Stele of Ashurnazirpal III . 204 Monolith of Shalmaneser III . 226 Stela of Shalmaneser III . 240 Obelisk of Shalmaneser III . 243 Reliefs from Obelisk of Shalmaneser III . 245 Tablet of Tiglathpileser IV . 267 Relief from Kudurru of Merodach-baladan . 316 Setting Up of Bull Colossus . 352 Prism of Sennacherib . 352 Siege of Lachish (Sennacherib) . 370 Sennacherib at Lachish . 374 Stela of Esarhaddon . 399 Ashurbanipal Mounted . 428 Assyrian Soldiers . 432 Horse’s Head . 438 Prism of Ashurbanipal . 444 Dying Lion and Lioness . 463 Brick Floor of Nebuchadrezzar . 537 Cylinders of Nebuchadrezzar and Nabonidus . 551 Cylinder of Cyrus . 573 xix A HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA BOOK II THE HISTORY OF BABYLONIA CHAPTER I EARLY SUMERIAN HISTORY The study of the origins of states is fraught with no less difficulty than the investigation of the origins of animate nature. The great wall before every investigator of the beginnings of things, with its inscription, “Thus far shalt thou come and no farther,” stands also before the student of the origins of the various early king¬ doms of Babylonia. It may always be impossible to achieve any picture of the beginnings of civilization in Babylonia which will satisfy the desire for a clear and vivid portrayal. Whatever may be achieved by future investigators, it is now impossible to do more than give outlines of events in the dim past of early Babylonia. 1 2 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA If we call up before us the land of Babylonia, and transport ourselves backward until we reach the period of more than four thousand years before Christ, we shall be able to discern here and there signs of life, society, and govern¬ ment in certain cities. Civilization has already reached a high point, the arts of life are well advanced, and men are able to write down their thoughts and deeds in intelligible language and in permanent form. All these presuppose a long period of development running back through millenniums of unrecorded time. At this period there are no great kingdoms, comprising many cities, with their laws and customs, with sub¬ ject territory and tribute-paying states. Over the entire land there are visible, as we look back upon it, only cities dissevered in government, and perhaps in intercourse, but yet the promise of kingdoms still unborn. In Babylonia we know of the existence of the cities Agade, Babylon, Kutha, Kish, Umma, Shirpurla (after¬ ward called Lagash), Guti, and yet others less famous. In each of these cities worship is paid to some local god who is considered by his faithful followers to be an Ellil, or Lord, the strongest god, whose right it is to demand worship, also, from dwellers in other cities.*1 This belief becomes an impulse by which the inhabitants of a city are driven out to conquer other cities and so extend the dominion of their 1 Winckler, U ntersuchungen, Leipzig, 1889, p. 65. EARLY SUMERIAN HISTORY 3 god. If the inhabitants of Babylon could con¬ quer the people of Kutha, was it not proof that the stronger god was behind their armies, and should not other peoples also worship him? But there were other motives for conquest. There was the crying need for bread — the most pressing need of all the ages. It was natural that they who had the poorer parts of the country should seek to acquire the better por¬ tions either to dwell in or to exact tribute from. The desire for power, a thoroughly human im¬ pulse, was also joined to the other two influences at a very early date. The ruler in Babylon must needs conquer his nearest neighbor that he may get himself power over men and a name among them. Impelled by religion, by hunger, and by ambition, the peoples of Babylonia, who have dwelt apart in separate cities, begin to add city to city, concentrating power in the hands of kings. Herein lies the origin of the great empire which must later dominate the whole earth, for these little kingdoms thus formed later unite under the headship of one kingdom and the empire is founded. At the very earliest period whose written records have come down to us the land which we now call Babylonia was divided into two great parts, of which the southern was later called Sumer and the northern Accad, the dividing line between them being approximately drawn from Samarra. on the Tigris to Hit on the Euphrates. North of this 4 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA line Akkad is somewhat undulating in surface, and rises gradually to unite with the steppe¬ like lands of Mesopotamia on the northwestern and Assyria on the northeastern slopes. South of this imaginary line lies the monotonously level and alluvial land of Sumer. The earliest Sumerian inhabitants known to us called the northern part of the country, later known as Accad, by the strange and still unexplained name of Ki-uri or Ki-urra. In later times the name of the city of Agade was extended by the Semites to cover the whole of the northern land, and was Semitized in the form Akkadu or Accad. The southern part of the country, in which the Sumerians were first settled, they called simply Kanag , from kan , abode, and ug , people, that is simply the “abode of people.” This word Kanag appears also in Sumerian in the form kalam , which the Assyrians translated by main, land. In early times also the southern land was called ki-en-gi, which is also translated by the Semites by the word matu, land.1 It seems quite probab.le that the ideographs ki-en-gi were really read Shumer,2 (Sumer) which came to be the common name of the land. The Sumerians called any other inhabited land than their own simply kur, which the Semites also rendered by the same 1 Reisner, Sumerisch-Babylonische Hymnen , plate 130, ff. Compare Thureau-Dangin, Die Sumerischen und Akkadischen Konigsinschri/ten, p. 152, note f. and King, Burner and Akkad , i, p. 14, note 2. 2 Hrozny, Ninib und Sumer , Revue Semitique, July, 1908. EARLY SUMERIAN HISTORY 5 word, matu (land). For the plural they simply wrote the word twice, kurkurra, adding to it the phonetic complement “ra.” Their kings so long as they ruled only over their own country were simply styled lugal kanag or kalam-ma , “king of the land,” and when they had obtained dominion over any other country were then known as umun kur-kurra , lord of lands. At the earliest period of which we have knowledge the land of Sumer was inhabited by the round-headed, clean-shaven Sumerians, and the land of Accad by the long-headed and bearded Semites. Both of these races were dwelling in cities, with settled agricultural com¬ munities about them. The Sumerians were writing upon carefully prepared clay their own language, agglutinative in character, and in a script which they had either devised or at least perfected from an original picture writing. With their language there was early evident some intermixture with or borrowing of Semitic words, and there was presumably also a Semitic element in the population, and racial inter¬ mixture already in progress. At this same period Accad was inhabited by Semites who had taken over from their Su¬ merian neighbors the cumbrous and awkward cuneiform script, and were using it to write their own tongue — a language inflected and not agglutinative, and quite unrelated in form and vocabulary to the Sumerian. They also bor- 6 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA rowed Sumerian words and adapted them to their own modes of speech. So has it happened often again in the history of men. The Turks and the Persians have both taken over the Arabic script, the former into an agglutinative speech of the Ural Altaic family, the Persian an inflective speech of the Iranian family, and both have likewise borrowed words from the Semitic Arabic. The early history of both Semites and Su¬ merians is lost in a dim past from which no ray of light has penetrated to our time. The Semites, as has been said before, probably came originally from Arabia, but the course they followed is quite unknown. Waves of migra¬ tion in later times passed out of Arabia directly by the great lines of the wadies into southern Babylonia, while others seem to have moved at first out of Arabia toward the northwest into Canaan and then northward to Aram, and turning then eastward entered Babylonia by the Euphrates from the northwest. These courses are so different that from them it is hazardous to draw any single analogy concern¬ ing the earliest period. It may, however, be permitted to suppose that Sumer was already inhabited by Semites to some degree when the earliest Sumerians entered it. This supposition would explain an interesting and curious phe¬ nomenon, that the Sumerians pictured their gods with beards like the Semites and not EARLY SUMERIAN HISTORY 7 smooth shaven like themselves. In the very earliest portraits of Sumerian gods the resem¬ blance to the Semites is less than in later times when Semitic influence was greater, but it is discernible, and suggests the hypothesis, though the evidence be slight, that Semites perhaps only as pastoral nomads were already in the land when the warlike and conquering Sumerian first appeared. Whence the Sumerians came is for us a matter of speculation only.1 When the veil lifts before our eyes they are already living a civilized life in cities, and already skilled in the use of metals, for copper spear heads, axes, daggers and fish hooks appear in the very lowest strata at Fara, the ancient city of Shurip- pak.2 Even so early as this the life-giving waters of the river were already conducted to the cities and to the fields in artificially con¬ structed canals. The earliest records which have been pre¬ served are connected with Lagash, Nippur and 1 They have been supposed to come (a) from the south by the waters of the Persian gulf, as Oannes is represented by Berossos as appearing “in the first year of Chaldea.” ( Eusebii Chronicorum Liber Prior editit, Alfred Schoene. Berlin, 1875, col. 14, f. Greek text and trans¬ lation in Rogers, Cuneiform Parallels, pp. 76-78.) (b) From some mountain home by way of the hills of Elam. For this it is alleged that there is an analogy in later migrations by this route, as, for exam¬ ple, the Ilamites. On this hypothesis their original home might be found even so far afield as in Turkestan. (See on the latter point, Raphael Pumpelly, Explorations in Turkestan, Carnegie Institution Publications, Nos. 26 (1905) and 73 (1908). (c) From India, by way of Elam, because of a supposed resemblance to the Dravidian race in early India. (Hall, The Ancient History of the Near East, p. 173.) 2 For these excavations see above, I, p. 319. 8 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA Kish, in the land of Sumer, and all these, with¬ out a single exception, are written in the Sumerian tongue. They are brief lines of dedication accompanying some votive offering to a god, or notices of some temple erection or canal excavation. From them it is impossible to construct any real history, for we do not surely know the order in which the earliest of them reigned, nor do we know their relations one with the other, save for now and again some vague hint. From the ruins of Nippur, out of a great depth beneath the pavements of very early kings there have come three fragments of a dark brown sandstone vase, upon which in extremely archaic cuneiform characters these words are written in pure Sumerian: “To Zamama, Utug, patesi of Kish, . . . [son of] Bazuzu, conqueror of Khamazi has brought [this] as a present.” These are probably the first syllables of recorded time from the Su¬ merian world, and their testimony is first war and then of religion. Utug, ruler in the city kingdom of Kish, has conquered the land of Khamazi, and would give gratitude to his local god Zamama. He prepares a vase, and carries it to the city of Nippur, there to be set up in the shrine of the greater god Ellil. This is all that we know. We might perhaps go on to conjecture that even in this early day Nippur had a religious position recognized by EARLY SUMERIAN HISTORY 9 other cities as supreme, while each of the others enjoyed political autonomy, and were each seek¬ ing by conquest to extend its borders, and lay the foundations of empire. These conjectures will find some confirmation in the stories that follow. After Utug there followed as ruler of Kish, though we do not know how great was the interval, Mesilim, who does not refrain from the greater title of king, and has left a most inter¬ esting little inscription upon a richly decorated mace head,1 recording his building of a temple in the city of Lagash when Lugal-shag-engur was patesi of Lagash. Here is the reality and not merely the semblance of empire. Mesilim is king in Kish, but he is suzerain over Lagash, and so great and significant is his reign that long after a Patesi of Lagash by name En- temena,2 refers to him by name and style as King of Kish, when he recounts the history of boundary disputes between Lagash and Umma. Mesilim was ruling as the representative of the goddess Kadi, as the later patesi makes plain, but Ellil was still the chief god, and it was he who orders Kadi to execute his will through Mesilim, her earthly representative. After Mesilim there came two kings of Kish 1 E. de Sarzec et L. Heuzey, Decouvertes en Chaldee, partie 6pigraphique, xxxv, Thureau-Dangin, Die Sumerischen und Akkadischen Koniysin- schriften, pp. 160, 161. 2 Cone of Entemena, lines 8, ff. Decouvertes, 6pig., xlvii. Thureau- Dangin, op. cit., pp. 36, 37. 10 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA whose names are Lugal-tarsi, and Urzage, of whom the former has bequeathed to posterity only a little tablet of lapis lazuli,1 with a simple record of his building a piece of wall to the honor of Aru and Innina, while the latter dedicates his labors to Enlil and Ninlil, and so acknowledges once more the Religious dominance of Nippur. Both these kings wrote in Su¬ merian. After them Kish vanishes for a time from our sight and the scene of human action and progress is transferred to Lagash. After the days of Lugal-shag-engur the patesis or kings of Lagash are little known to us until the great figure of Ur-Nina appears, who founded a dynasty destined to endure through six reigns. From Ur-Nina we have inherited many placques with figures of the king and his family, rude in draughtsmanship, but executed upon diorite and onyx as well as upon clay, and bearing witness to progress in the arts. Ur-Nina has left inscriptions also, recounting his building of temples to the gods Ningirsu and Nina and others, for which he brought wood from the mountains, and a great storehouse, probably for grain, is still to be seen in the ruins of his city.2 There is not a suggestion in any of his texts3 that he carried on war against his neigh¬ bors, but we may reasonably infer from his 1 Thureau-Dangin, op. cit., pp. 160, 161. * See above, I, p. 297. * All his brief inscriptions are assembled in transliteration and trans¬ lation in Thureau-Dangin, op. cit., 2-9. ■ t 4 ' ■ ■ , ■ V II — 1 1 ■ * d; was • still, threatened war. Tie most beneficent of his works was se Nina, tad imcsier to bob'. of Nippur, v,ro still remained the chief god of all the a. \ ,‘iiv ' L; h 'A noitDiri&SI) ed) iofh:; betofpo ,wiu$lu io rshto l m'te oratea its greatest deeds upon -.■I}. ier; u; r is; ic fo?-e« 4 h: A t ti ■ tii , I'jel: Buie uf 1 V ’• ■ J <>v ■ tOl t : 1 r> v 'I l:;} \ . * •/ ; ' ' ' ; ■ \ o . • , . Vi Ls gash and ‘‘Toiua, hd *d ii^vad • . . o v valley olong ' to oe h r r dangerous an invasion of peace, hih soujjfci* ' hv v u i* I: Mu r u d ud tr .J. u i t Then ,u- Danilin, op. Portion of a Sumerian Victory Stela, the so-called Stele of the Vultures, erected after the destruction of the city of Urnma by Eannatum, patesi of Lagash. The patesi is represented at the head of his troops, attired in rich robes, and carries a boomerang in his right hand. Behind him are his troops, carrying spears, and advancing over the bodies of their enemies. [From E. de Sarzec, Decouvertes en Chaldee , Paris, 1884, ff.] EARLY SUMERIAN HISTORY 11 building of city walls that he had reason to fear attacks from others, and that whatever peace he enjoyed, while civilization went for¬ ward, was still threatened by the dangers of war. The most beneficent of his works was the digging of canals, one of which he dedicated to Nina, and another to Enlil of Nippur, who still remained the chief god of all the region. Akurgal, son of Ur-Nina, came next to rule over Lagash, and fell on troublous times, for war was waged upon Umma perhaps arising over the boundary which had already been the occasion of dispute in the days of Mesilim. There are, as yet, no inscriptions of Akurgal, and we know of this struggle only through the men¬ tion of his son Eannatum, who succeeded him. Eannatum had a glorious reign, and has com¬ memorated its greatest deeds upon a stele of wonderful artistic force and skilful execution, the famous Stele of the Vultures.1 From this and the brief notices in the inscriptions of the next king we learn that Ush, patesi of Umma, had removed the boundary stone set up by Mesilim between Lagash and Umma, and had invaded the rich valley belonging to the former and “devoured” it. Eannatum must meet so dangerous an invasion of peace, and sought counsel first of his god. As he lay prostrate on his face in supplication, the god Ningirsu ap- 1 Louvre Museum, first published in de Sarzec & Heuzey, Decouvertes, plates 3, 3 bis, 4, 4 bis and 4 ter, and epigraphie xxxviii. The text transliterated and translated by Thoreau-Dangin, op. cit., pp. 10-21. 12 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA peared to him in a dream, and promised that if he went out against Umma the god Babbar should be on his right hand, and victory accom¬ pany his return. Thus encouraged he gathered his soldiers armed with battle axes and long spears, protend oy wooden bucklers, and ready for hand-to-hand conflict. It was a veritable shock of arms and armor, and Eannatum boasts tha^^e left three thousand six hundred of his enemy dead upon the field, while his pictured stel^ljkortrays the vultures carrying off their heads||from dismembered bodies. Thus overwhelm#!? the men of Umma gave way, and their- city was given over to Eannatum, who swept W like “a terrible storm.” Then he cast over wp people the great nets of Ellil and Ninkharslg and gave himself over to boasting, while he made sacrifices to the gods who had given him the victory.. Where once had stood the boundary stone he now dug a great ditch to the water level, and was sure that to far distant days the people of Umma should not cross it, or bear away again the restored boundary stone. To this campaign Eannatum has given most honor, but he had other victories to boast. He laid low the king of Kish, and then received at the hands of his god besides the patesitum of Lagash, the kingdom of Kish,1 and so claims 1 Foundation Stone A, col. vi, line 1. Thureau-Dangin, op. cit., pp. 22, 23‘. EARLY SUMERIAN HISTORY 13 suzerainty over the city which had one time dominated Sumer. Upon this he adds the greater boasts: “By Eannatum was Elam’s head broken, Elam was driven back into his land.” No such wars and victors as these had been known before in Sumer’s lustor^ and the city of Lagash had now by the sword been made the greatest political power in the land. Civil¬ ization had apparently! not gone forward so rapidly as dominion bv} theLsword, but it would not be just to forget JHBBteannatum has also to tell of the building of tlBples, the digging of canals, and the cons-Hptionfef a great reservoir holding 3,600 measur(5Jofi%ater to supply the land in time of drougByand that even the monument which tells oBBod and the heaping of mounds over the burieBffain is itself a witness to artistic achievement with the chisel, beyond the cruder works of Ur-Nina. The great king was succeeded by his brother Enannatum I, in whose reign Urlumma, now patesi of Umma, felt strong enough to imitate Ush in the days of the great Eannatum, and crossing the boundary broke in pieces the boundary stones, and was with difficulty re¬ strained from overcoming Lagash itself. The allusions made to this campaign by the next ruler of Lagash are boastful enough, but the results show plainly that Enannatum had rather defended his own land than won such victories as his brother. 14 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA Entemena, son of Enannatum I, was his successor, and his reign of twenty-nine years was worthy of comparison with that of Ur-Nina for advance in civilization, and with EannatunTs as to success in the field. Urlumma was still ruling in UmHaa, and judged that a change of patesis in Lagash might afford him an oppor¬ tunity for the extension of territory. The neighboring city of Karkar became an ally, and the combined forces entered the same district in Lagash which had witnessed the overthrow of Ush, and was now to become the scene of Umma’s downfall. B^temena met his adver¬ saries and routed them, pursuing Urlumma to his own city where he was taken and slain. The victory was complet^indeed, and we gain some impression of the smallness of the forces en¬ gaged when we read that Urlumma left but sixty dead on the field, whose bones Entemena left there to bleach in the sun, after the vultures had stripped them, while over his own dead he raised five burial mounds.1 All danger of further disturbance of the peace was now ended. Karkar was annexed to Lagash, and the inde¬ pendence of Uinma was forfeited. Entemena brought Hi, a faithful retainer, from service else¬ where and set him over Umma, with the title of patesi, to rule it under his own over-lordship. The old ditches that marked the ancient 1 The Ball of Entemena, col. iii, lines 19-27, Thureau-Dangin, op. cit., pp. 38, 39. # II — 13 EARLY SUMERIAN HISTORY i: boundaries were nov re-dUg, with forced labor irom Umma; the canals connecting the Tigris and Euphrates were re-opened, and walled with brick and stone; to glorious abiding ;T>ce me in Lagash; vote e offerings were curried to the great god T Mil in Nippur; and h icr tena justly styled himself Great / had indeed formed a small empire in dabylonia, for his power was hi it Ip to e>em -lo'did iii. .ao/b.ui itooidgiq bac qfghl yoribui ipqypq £ dlcouod Ju\qs tne most beautiful spec- had then produced. 11 killful arti ieei laid fashioned a magnificent silver vase, twenty- base seven inches in heigh , which is' dself supported by fpur claw feet, - he outline of t) * v , of almost classic chasteness and i.i-v . > • the surface is engraved with the arms oi f .mash a lion-headed eagle with out¬ stretched • irms; aid talon urd into the m - of two lion wh; above his a line c-i hi bone sen: ed a»s lying on th > meadow. f 1 a r witu In right forefoot extended as though the animal \ ■ r< maVng the r, 4 move to r An v a. . . Silver vase of Entemena, patesi of Lagash. It is twenty-eight inches high, and eighteen inches in diameter at the widest point. Beneath is a copper base, seven inches in height, supported by four feet with lion-like paws. A superb specimen of the silversmith’s art from a period so early. [Museum of the Louvre, Paris.] EARLY SUMERIAN HISTORY 15 boundaries were now re-dug, with forced labor from Umma; the canals connecting the Tigris and Euphrates were re-opened, and walled with brick and stone; to the god Ningirsu a more glorious abiding place arose in Lagash; votive offerings were carried to the great god Ellil in Nippur; and Entemena justly styled himself Great Patesi of Lagash. He had indeed formed a small empire in Babylonia, for his power was felt in Accad as well as in Sumer. With Entemena civilization also found patron¬ age, and a revival of the artistic handicrafts is most clearly seen. Bronze was not yet in use, copper implements only having been recovered in all these early Sumerian cities. Entemena has, however, left us the most beautiful spec¬ imen of silver workmanship which the world had then produced. His skillful artificers had fashioned a magnificent silver vase, twenty- eight inches in height, mounted upon a copper base seven inches in height, which is itself supported by four claw feet. The outline of the vase is of almost classic chasteness and beauty, and the surface is engraved with the arms of Lagash, a lion-headed eagle with out¬ stretched wings, and talons sunk into the backs of two lions, while above this a line of fishbone ornament separates a row of heifers, each repre¬ sented as lying on the meadow, but with the right forefoot extended as though the animal were making the first move to rise. An age and 16 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA a land which could produce such craftsmanship had made their full contribution to the advance¬ ment of the ages to come. With Entemena the dynasty had exhausted its powers, and, as so often happens in history, an age of mediocrity and of decay followed swiftly. Four patesis, each with a short and undistinguished reign, followed the great patesi, and with them the dynasty which Ur-Nina had founded ceased. The last of these latter patesis, Lugal-anda by name, disappears in an age in which local corruptions had debauched the state. The poor had been plundered by local officials, who had battened on the tributes and taxes, and the dynasty fell, in its failure to govern what Ur-Nina and Entemena had won; demon¬ strating thus early in Babylonia that wise, prudent and efficient rule is much more difficult of achievement than success in war. Upon the ruins of the dynasty there arose an usurper, without father and without mother, but claiming that the god Ningirsu had ap¬ pointed him to the rule over Lagash, with the title not of patesi, but of king, and wearing the name Urukagina. But though he claims his right to rule as of divine appointment he gives a long and vivid account of the oppressions from which he rescued the people, and it is as a reformer of civic abuses that he makes his boast. He portrays most vividly the state EARLY SUMERIAN HISTORY 17 of the country when he arose to govern it, when every part of the ruling classes preyed upon the poor, and the whole country, even to the sea, was covered with inspectors, who lived upon the populace and sucked its life blood like leeches. These also Urukagina re¬ moved from the boatmen, the fishermen, the shepherds whom they had driven to madness. The power which the patesis had come more and more to exercise in their own name, for¬ getting the principles of the theocracy, save for a certain lip-service, he gave back to the gods, being careful, however, to reduce the priestly exactions, and diminish their haughty and pretentious claims. Before his reforms the officiating priest at every ordinary burial of the dead had demanded “seven urns of strong drink, four hundred and twenty loaves of bread, one hundred and twenty measures of grain, a garment, a kid, a bed and a seat,”1 and his helper sixty measures of grain. The priest was henceforth required to claim but “three urns of strong drink, eighty loaves of bread, a bed and a kid,”2 while the assistant received but thirty measures of grain. Beyond such claims as these, which were doubtless originally defended as a sort of tithe for the support of an organized priesthood, the priests 1 Urukagina, Ball Inscriptions B. & C., col. vi, lines 4-14. Thureau- Dangin, op. cit., pp. 48, 49. 2 Ibid., col. ix, lines 27-32. 18 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA themselves had become a menace to the com¬ munity’s orderly life, for the king declares that they were wont to enter a man’s garden and strip the fruit from the trees. The system of spoliation had risen above the priesthood to the ministers of the kingdom and even to the patesi himself, for Urukagina de¬ clares that if a man divorced his wife the patesi demanded five shekels, and his minister of state one shekel, while even the diviner could claim yet another. These charges were abolished altogether, though the king enforced rigidly the old punishments for adultery, and cast the woman who had offended into the water. Besides these administrative reforms the ener¬ gies of the new king were devoted to the build¬ ing of temples, and to the extension of canal facilities for water supply. He seems never to have attempted any military campaigns, but suffered his army to fall into decay, and so prepared unconsciously for the end of the state’s independence. By the sword had been founded the empire over which he now ruled, and it was scarcely probable that it should survive when the sword’s edge was dulled. The extent of the territory over which he ruled in fact, or by suzerainty, is unknown. He seems to have exercised some sort of vague dominance as far as Erech,1 but the core of 1 Such would appear to be the inference from the little olive-shaped text. Thureau-Dangin, op. cit., “d,” pp. 44, 45. EARLY SUMERIAN HISTORY 19 his city kingdom was Lagash and Umma. Iiis claims of dominion did not embrace the north, for, even while he and his predecessors held sway in Lagash, an independent dynasty of six kings ruled for ninety-nine years in Opis, while eight others exercised dominion in Kish. The names only of these rulers have been pre¬ served, but of themselves we know nothing.1 The end of Lagash was preparing even while Urukagina pursued his beneficent plans of social welfare, and the king lived to see and even to record the beginnings of his sore humiliation. It w as Umma which took vengeance. In her had arisen a patesi fitted for conquest beyond all his predecessors. Urukagina gives a list of the depredations of the “people of Umma” who burned buildings in Lagash, “plundered silver and precious stones, and poured out blood.” One building after another he names in this gloomy text2 of many forebodings, and at its very end summarizes the whole sad case in words of solemn objurgation: “The people of Umma, in that they have so desolated Lagash, have committed sin against Ningirsu. The power which has come to them shall be taken from them. There is no sin on the side of Urukagina, king of Girsu [the temple and a city ward in Lagash], but Nisaba, goddess of Lugal-zaggisi, shall bear this sin on her head.” 1 See the Chronological Tables. 2 Tablet, Thureau-Dangin, up. cit., “k,” pp. 50-59. 20 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA He speaks as Nabonidus, many centuries later, might have done. He is sure that the god Ningirsu would some day restore the temples that now lay silent, and so indeed they were once more to see glory without and honor within, but political power had departed from Lagash forever. It seems a sore pity that the people whom he had delivered from oppressions within their own state, must now fall under oppressions from without. He had indeed not abolished slavery, or the corvee , but he had minimized their evils, and a conqueror who had set out upon empire building was little likely to have a tender heart for the common folk who must fill his armies or pile up the bricks for his new structures. Lugal-zaggisi began his career as the suc¬ cessor of Ukush, patesi of Umma, in the days of its subordination to Lagash, and with the same title he set out to destroy Lagash. At the very summit of his power he dedicated in the great temple of Ellil at Nippur a series of vases fashioned deftly of white calcite stalagmite, bearing each the same inscription. Time has broken the vases into small pieces, but epigraphic skill has restored for the most part the inscrip¬ tion upon them.1 When this inscription was written he no longer wore the humbler title of patesi, but boldly bore the style of king; no 1 Hilprecht, Old Babylonian Inscriptions, i, part 2, plate 38, text 87, partly translated in ii, pp. 52, IT. Complete transliteration and trans¬ lation, Thureau-Dangin, op. cit., pp. 152-157 EARLY SUMERIAN HISTORY 21 longer was Umma his chief city, for he had made Erech the capital of Sumer, now prac¬ tically all united under his dominance. He writes in the old Sumerian tongue, and not even the awkward combinations of its syllables, strung one upon another, are able to cover the enthusiasm which rises and overflows in this outburst of gratitude to the gods of Sumer. It was these gods who had called him to rule over Umma and Lagash and had then appointed to him a still greater dominion. His words glow with feeling as he says: “When En-lil (Ellil) king of the lands, invested Lugal-zaggisi with the kingdom of the world, when he led him rightly before the land, when he cast the lands beneath his power, and he had conquered from the rising to the setting of the sun, then he straightened his path from the lower sea across the Tigris and Euphrates to the upper sea; from the rising to the setting sun Ellil hath given him dominion.”1 Lugal-zaggisi had made a small empire almost at one stroke, for he has here claimed that his power extended from the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean. It is not to be supposed that he exercised rule over a territory so vast, and nothing in the rest of his text supports the idea. He had probably made raids beyond Sumer and Accad, and it is quite possible that he may have made raids even as far as 1 Lugal-zaggisi, col. 1, lines 3G-col. 2, lines 16. 22 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA the great sea. His greatest claim to honor from posterity was in these words: “He made the land to dwell in security, and the land he watered with waters of joy.” His empire would crumble away shortly, but the blessings of peace for a season at least, and the waters flowing for men and fields meant much to the long suffering hearts and bodies of men. The Chronicle gives no other name than Lugal-zaggisi to the dynasty of Ur in this time, and assigns twenty-five years to his reign, though, as we have seen, the king himself set most store by Erech and counted it apparently the chief city of his kingdom. After him in Erech there ruled Kigub-nidudu, who also dedi¬ cated a vase in Nippur to Ellil, and on it says he made Ur a kingdom,1 as though he seemed to set some store by his control there, though Erech is mentioned first and must still have been the chief city of his rule. After him came Lugal-kisalsi, who is associated on the same text with Lugal-kigubnidudu, and was probably his son. Shortly after these kings En-shag-kush-ana dedicated the spoils of victory over the city of Kish in the city of Nippur to Ellil. He gives as his title only the words: “lord of Sumer, king of the land,” and adds no city name to define more narrowly the seat of his dominion. 1 Hilprecht, Old Babylonian Inscriptions, i, part ii, No. 8G. Thureau- Dangin, op. cit., pp. 156, 157. EARLY SUMERIAN HISTORY 23 It would seem a fair inference that Sumer had now fully united in defense of its very existence as an independent entity against the threatened encroachments of Kish, and that he had met with success for the present, but only for the present. Kish and Opis must now both be practically Semitised, and the Semitic rulers in them were pressing southward to possess the lands of the Sumerians. They coveted the rich alluvial soil on which the older race was settled, and the goodly cities which dotted it here and there. Even at this early time the Sumerian vitality was dying out, and the day was threat¬ ening when a new and virile people would drive them into subjection, possess their territory and carry to completion the assimilation of their culture and the peaceful absorption of their blood. The day had gone by forever when a Sumerian conqueror could ravage Kish and Opis and set up their spoil in Nippur’s proud shrine. Sumerian political supremacy had almost ended, but Sumerian civilization was only be¬ ginning to secure dominion. As has often hap¬ pened since in the world, its influence was to be secured through others. In the hour of their humiliation as a free and dominant people the Sumerians should see the elements of their inner life taken over by the Semites to be worked over into new and better forms, and then in turn to be given to yet another race whose 24 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA name was not yet of sufficient importance to be known to either. We may now turn to see the steady progress of the Semitic kingdom of Accad to a position of supremacy over Sumer. CHAPTER II THE EMPIRE OF SARGON I The greatest figure of the Tigris Euphrates valley, in the early days, is the figure of Sargon king of Agade, that is, king of Accad, leader of the Semitic Babylonians who called them¬ selves Accadians. All they who ruled before him were kings of the prosaic life of mortal men; he alone became a figure of romance, a hero of legend. Their names were forgotten, to be recovered in our own day from the rub¬ bish heaps of lonely steppes and deserts; his survived the din of many struggles to ring out clear and strong in the Assyrian period, and to resound again in the Neo-Babylonian or Chal¬ dean age. It is only about the supreme figures that myth and legend cluster, and these are not evidence that the figure is unreal, as men have sometimes vainly thought, but rather are wit¬ ness to its greatness. To our sight Sargon comes suddenly into view, and almost immediately we see his rise to power unknown before. But for all the analogies of history in later times we might suppose that his kingdom was of sudden creation. But there are as few cataclysmic changes in 25 26 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA human history as in geological, and we may with much confidence suppose that the Semites had long been in occupation of Accad and that other kings had prepared the way for him. His capital city of Agade has not yet known the explorer’s spade, and with some confidence we may hope that later days may know more of the origins of his new power. For the present we are able only to view its greatest figure drawn for us chiefly by later hands, but sup¬ ported in its broader outlines by contemporary documents. Sargon first became known in texts of astro¬ logical, religious, and legendary character written in their present form long after his time. The most interesting of these, humanly speaking, is the legend of his birth, probably written in the eighth century B. C., and purporting to be a copy of an inscription found upon a statue of the great king. The story begins in this way : “Sargon, the mighty king, the king of Agade, am I, My mother was lowly, my father T knew not, And the brother of my father dwells in the mountain. My city is Azupiranu, which lies on the bank of the Euphrates. My lowly mother conceived me, in secret she brought me forth. She set me in a basket of rushes, with bitumen she closed my door; THE EMPIRE OF S ARGON I 27 She cast me into the river, which rose not over me. The river bore me up; unto Akki, the irri¬ gator, it carried me Akki, the irrigator, with . lifted me out. Akki, the irrigator, as his own son . reared me, Akki, the irrigator, as his gardener ap¬ pointed me. While I was a gardener the goddess Ishtar loved me, And for ... . -four years I ruled the kingdom. The black-headed peoples I ruled, I governed) Mighty mountains with axes of bronze did I destroy. I climbed the upper mountains; I burst through the lower mountains. The country of the sea three times did I besiege ; Dilmun did . Unto the great Durilu I went up . . . . . I altered . Whatsoever king shall be exalted after me, Let him rule, let him govern the black headed peoples ; Mighty mountains with axes of bronze let him destroy. Let him climb the upper mountains; 28 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA Let him burst through the lower mountains. The country of the sea let him three times besiege And Dilmun . To the great Dur-ilu let him go up . . . [ . . . . ] from my city Accad [ . . . ]”* The king who was thus introduced to the world has been slowly emerging from the mists of myth, through legend, into historical cer¬ tainty.1 2 Traditions such as this concerning a hero’s early days are common enough in the past concerning characters undoubtedly histor¬ ical. Whatever his origin Sargon, whose name is written in the form Sharrukin, rose to be king in Accad, and began to build an empire. Some only of his campaigns are vaguely known to us, and their order is doubtful. It seems probable that his first move was southward into Sumer, and thence on against the city of Durilu, on the borders of Elam, which fell before him. 1 This beautiful and interesting legend was first discovered by Sir Henry Rawlinson ( Athenaeum , No. 2080, Sept. 7, 1807). It was first published in III R. 4, No. 7, and in full by King, Cuneiform Texts , xiii, pp. 42, ff., and by him again in the Chronicles concerning Early Baby¬ lonian Kings, ii, pp. 87, ff. Transliteration with translation also in Rogers, Cuneiform Parallels, pp. 135, ff. 2 It has been maintained that Sargon and all his deeds are unhis- torical (Winckler, Geschichte Bab. und Assyriens, p. 38), and Hommel has supposed the existence of another Sargon whom he located about 2000 B. C., whose conquests were ascribed to the earlier king ( Geschichte , Berlin, 1885, p. 307, note 4) he has, however, since accepted the his¬ torical character of this king (art. Babylonia, Diet, of the Bible, Hastings, i, p. 225). Maspero believes that it is Sargon II (722-705 B. C.) who is thus projected backward ( Dawn of Civilization, New York, 1885, p. 599), but has since withdrawn it, and identifies Sargon with Shar- gani-shar-ali, that is Shargali-sharri. THE EMPIRE OF SARGON I 29 His conquests were then carried on to the Persian Gulf, and the Chronicle1 records that he crossed its waters, proceeding probably against the island of Dilmun, which became a part of his empire. In his eleventh year lie made a raid into the far west, and according to the Chronicle2 “subdued it in its full extent/' and united it under one control, setting up his images, probably at the Dog River in Syria where later kings were to follow his example,3 and bringing home his booty. Of no former king had it been said that he had thus actually ruled where he had conquered in the west, for no one of his predecessors had attempted more than mere raids beyond the limits of Bab}donia. After the western campaigns he marched against Kasalla, whose location is still unknown, and as the Chronicle records,4 “he turned Kasalla into mounds and heaps of ruins, and within it left not a perch for a bird," — a description quite worthy of one of the great Assyrian destroyers. In his later years he was overtaken by re¬ volts on the part of those who had felt his heavy hand in war. They were able even to organize against him, and besiege him in his capital city of Agade. Even “in his old age" he 1 Chronicle Concerning Sargon, etc. (Br. Mus. No. 26472, King, Chronicles concerning Early Babylonian Kings, ii, pp. 3, ff.). The allu¬ sion here is to the expression “The Sea in the East he crossed,” line 3. 2 Ibid., line 4. 3 See below, p. 240. 4 King, op. cit., p. 5. 30 HISTOEY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYEIA was able to overcome so formidable a danger, and also made an expedition against the land of Subartu, which had apparently joined in the rebellion, and severely punished it. Echoes only of his works of peace have reached our ears. He is said so to have ex¬ tended the boundaries of Agade as to make it as great as was Babylon in his day, while Babylon itself received a friendly touch in the clearing of rubbish out of the city trenches.1 It was, however, as a conqueror that his fame endured, and so far away as Susa, in Elam, the ruins have yielded in modern times a beau¬ tiful monument of Sargon, which portrays him in the middle of battle with rows of captives, while a god clubs others confined in a net. The sculptures are quite suggestive of those of Eannatum, but represent a distinct advance in artistic skill. His later days were darkened by famine in the land, which gave him no rest, and this was ascribed to a visitation from the god Marduk, who was displeased with some of his deeds. There is no longer any need to doubt either the great king’s personality or his great deeds. A figure he was of heroic size, and to him is to be ascribed more than to any other the estab¬ lishment of the Semitic people as the superior political force in the land. The immediate successor of Sargon was Chronicle, obverse lines IS, 19. ' i * 11—31 , • . : . probably M onishtum, who ha< • defend by force the rnpire which Sargon h d >eguu He defeated a confederation of thirl two But the chief in forest of ... m ,.v- . much rath- h; t ;tr.i :e m • . * •• ci m Aistom Okl wtnoib tffmirt to umhf o no l/I ’ .« - h > - dab v n a to- From the' Tombs of M&mshtusu he eh) pi re 1 BritiiW Mti >ui; irari. iiti », S 5603 r 5r>6T:l. ■ // • c a A*.! l. p. 21 2. * It' was found by M. J. dc lorgan in the tvinter of 1S97-9S . Obelisk of Manishtusu of black diorite, 1.40 meters in height, found at Susa April 7, 1898, by M. Jaccpies de Morgan. [Reproduced from photogravure in D^ldgation en Perse. Mdmoires, Tome I. Recherches Archeo- logiques, Paris, 1900.] THE EMPIRE OE S ARGON I 31 probably Manishtusu, who had to defend by force the empire which Sargon had begun. He defeated a confederation of thirty-two kings1 which had been formed against him. But the chief interest of his reign lies not, as in Sargon' ’ s case, in the campaigns, but much rather in a strangely interesting social and economic document. On a magnificent obelisk, carried away out of Babylonia to Susa in later days as a trophy of war, but recovered by the modern archaeologist,2 Manishtusu has recorded in sixty-nine columns of Semitic writing a great transaction in land. In the neighbor¬ hood of Kish, Marad, Dur-Sin and Shittab, four cities of northern Babylonia, Manishtusu pur¬ chased great tracts of land, paying definite sums for each acre, and giving besides presents such as cattle or garments to each one of the former owners. Upon these tracts there had been no less than eighty-seven overseers, and fifteen hundred and sixty-four laborers, for whose employment elsewhere the king undertakes to provide. To replace these upon the lands, men of Accad were settled there and the movement of these to new quarters near Kish was quite probably made for some political purpose. From the hands of Manishtusu the empire 1 British Museum fragments of monoliths, Nos. 56630, 56631. Com¬ pare Jensen, Zeitschrift fur Assyriologie, xv, p. 248, Note 1, and King, Sumer and Akkad, p. 211, note 2. 2 It was found by M. J. de Morgan in the winter of 1897-98. See Scheil, Textes Elamitiques-Semitiques, i, pp. 1, If. ( delegation en Perse, Memoire, ii). 32 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA passed to Urumush. From him there have come to us only small votive objects bearing very brief inscriptions. These were all dedicated by the king himself in Nippur, Lagash and Sippar, and it is a fair assumption that his dominion covered these widely separated places as well as Kish, whose royal title he bears upon them all. Nothing is known of any expedition of his into the west, which was by this time doubtless quite free of any control from Baby¬ lonia. He made a raid into Elam, and brought back booty from Barakhsu.1 This was a re¬ versal of the older order when the Elamites were the aggressors and invaded Sumer, as indeed they would be able to do again. His reign, which was probably short, ended in- gloriously in a palace revolution.2 The next king of the dynasty was Naram- Sin, a son of Sargon, and quite worthy to hold his father’s empire and to extend its conquests. In his hands the glory diminished during the two reigns intervening, returns in full meas¬ ure. His first campaign was against Rish-Adad, king of the city of Apirak. The city was taken only after a siege with a regular investment carried on by mines, and when success was at 1 Vase from Nippur, Hilprecht, Old Babylonian Inscriptions, No. 5, compare pages ibid. 20, 21. See also Thureau-Dangin, Die Sumerischen und Akkadischen Konigsinschriften, pp. 162, 163. 2 This notice derives from a late tradition. See Boissier, Choix de Textes relatifs d. la divination, i, pp. 44, 81 ; Jastrow, Die Religion Baby- loniens und Assyriens, ii, p. 333. ■ ■ / / . * 11—33 f l the slavery, and .heii kir.; • • ,r: .. o suggests some connection with western life and < ■ ' (livitir tnoug ht as it is ob ,L .Myd Jmifot rmS< htmiv/L *io ofa > AindqbidiT iitaod biaifja todihilw ,'8081 M InqA di£|ioM \h :guii vn.Ixij/fhtd^/T'-iij irud* vd ydqoit *», ^b^m'da ffoqir= IxaJ nwo. nib bedims b «nd orb.- tmni3[ iadJ^eu* bnad glgnid -ait ayodA. .^aoni in\iA adt ii >iiiw arj,| ?pfKbtqm^ii \,nvrot.&' iiift-uim#/*. ‘to- om-nrcm bind fiixmniixjoai . adi :o ono §i eidT |i $npf ad) lo yiu^ii. on i Jin oi/irasq Jyaihua aiH .paibiiEd ykbrdrabn bray boviaaaup ^Jd'Jaqej .af §nd aid ^ianilad. boinajf r i fiiw Banwoio ei bnoii mbf Jiol adT ' drtbdoq nan §noI ‘ binod l mi .^nol ,77T)d B d&jA&V> firri j> rf aril ’ TmP wfi OlHftd P fcrtbdvdra ri v/orin oxodv/- ;bddnbnna Ibaboiii ^bmt Mb Sgif Imib ..a-dbludda jo-w ai/rrn $rth4ad aiaibfiM did MB si>[ ,binj .1 blaoT- tfcair6iti J *y ■; ,ix, vhicb r •'• • • ' - country of the north •; r ■■ the bord< n of Elam. This kingdom v,> > The camps: *s uk V in the O Si;-' .by. ' ■ » it was found April 6, 1898 and deacrfb 1 < Texte* HUxTfi-ScMttVjWt*, i, p,. . 5 - ft- Triumphal Stele of Naram Sin, found by M. J. de Morgan at Susa, April 6, 1898, whither it had been carried as a trophy by Shutruk-Nakhkhunte, king of Elam, who has inscribed his own text upon the cone which the king faces. Above the king’s head are the faint remains of Naram-Sin’s own inscription. This is one of the greatest monuments of the earliest Semitic art. The figure of the king is superbly conceived and admirably handled. His head is crowned with a horned helmet, his hair is long, his beard long and pointed. The left arm sustains a battle axe, and the hand grasps a bow, whose arrow is firmly held in the right hand. The arms, shoulders, and legs are nude, the feet sandalled. Below the great king are his soldiers bearing arms and standards. Even in this ruined condition this is one of the masterpieces of ancient art. [Reproduced from Delegation en Perse. Ale- moires, Tome I. Paris, 1900.] THE EMPIRE OE S ARGON 1 33 last secured the people were carried away into slavery, and their king perished. His name suggests some connection with western life and thought, as it is compounded of the divine name Adad, or Hadad, but the location of his little kingdom has not yet been found.1 Naram- Sin’s greatest expedition was into the land of Magan, the Arabian desert, where the Semitic king Mannu-dannu was lord. He was slain and from his land the conqueror brought away heavy blocks of diorite, from which his artificers fashioned a stele so magnificent, that Elamite kings were artistically fully justified in carrying it off to adorn their capital city of Susa, whence it has come unto modern eyes.2 Upon it Naram-Sin records his victories in nine battles in one year, and in it also he assumes the high title “king of the four quarters (of the world)” in token of his attainment of what seemed to him to be a world-wide dominion. In support of this boast he is able also to report victories over the Armanu3 and over Satuni,4 king -of Lulubu, which lies far away in the mountain country of the north-east, beyond the borders of Elam. This kingdom was also a possession 1 The campaign is mentioned in the Omen Tablet of Sargon and Naram Sin (Neo-Babylonian period) §xii, lines 8 and 9 (King, Chron¬ icles, pp. 44, 45), and is confirmed by the Chronicles of Sargon and Naram Sin. Reverse lines 1 and 2. King, op. cit., pp. 8, 9. 2 It was found April 6, 1898, and is best described in M. J. de Mor¬ gan, Delegation en Perse, i, Recherches Archeologiques, pp. 144-158. 3 Comptes Rendus, 1899, p. 348, translation by Thureau-Dangin. * Textes Elam-Semitiques, i, pp. 53, ff. 34 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA of the Semitic people, and another of its rulers, with the name Anu-banini, also of this early period, erected a fine monument to himself by sculpturing his goddess Ninni or Ishtar, with his own figure and the names of other of the well known Semitic gods, on the face of a cliff near Ser-i-Pul-i-Zohab, writing in good Semitic words his curses upon any who should destroy the work of his chisel.1 But Naram-Sin was still more famous as a builder, for he rebuilt temples in Nippur2 and in Agade, and erected at his own cost the temple 1 The inscription was found February 28, 1891, by J. de Morgan, and is published by Scheil ( Recueil de Travaux relatifs a la Phil, et Archeolol. Egypt, et Ass., vol. xiv, liv. 1 & 2, pp. 100, ff.). See also Hil- precht, Old Bab. Insc., vol. i, part i, p. 14, and Hommel, Proceedings of the Society of Bib. Archceology, xxi, pp. 115, 116. Newly translated by Thureau-Dangin, Die Sumerischen und Akkadischen Konigsinschriften, pp. 172, 173. The site has recently been visited by King ( Sumer und Akkad, p. 250, note 3), who critically examined the text. The in¬ scription had, however, been known long before it was seen by De Morgan. Sir Henry Rawlinson knew it, and, indeed, correctly under¬ stood it, save only that he made a slight error in reading the name. This anticipation of later work by the great explorer and decipherer is made plain in the following words extracted from an unpublished letter written under date of September 17, 1880, by Rawlinson to Pro¬ fessor Sayce: “Many thanks for your references, which I believe, how¬ ever, were all duly entered in my notebooks. I am afraid we don’t take quite the same view of the Geography of the Inscriptions. My own idea is that, at any rate until the time of Sargon, the Assyrians hardly penetrated beyond the outer range of the Perhim plateau. I think I can trace all the early campaigns (and can identify many of the names) along the western side of the great range from Sulimanieh to Susa. Instead of Nizir being at Alwend I place it at Bend-i-N uh, Noah’s ridge, the culminating range of Zagros. The inscription at Sir Pul belongs to Kannubanini, king of the Lulubini, thus fixing their locality and showing them to be identical with the modern Luri or Luli.” 2 Brick stamps of this king have been found at Nippur bearing the legend, “Naram-Sin, builder of the temple of Bel.” Hilprecht, Old Babylonia Ins., i, part i, p. 18. Door Socket of Naram Sin. [Museum of Yale University, reproduced by per¬ mission of Professor A. T. Clay.] T) VSSVR! A other ci its nhr * hi ■ .is ; o i< !.N h ? : e or ;dht *: id own ...ore and the na ru< - of otht .• •• he • fi L( ■ i i hoRto >y ■ - .. ■ j : y. r -.1 ,S d .fll3 io tsyloo3 ioo(l ■ ; : ! ' 4 • loq.Ycf i^ooboiqai ,ytiB‘l9Wr J oUfl to muayui'/I] [.vuC > .T .A loaaeloih lo noiaairff 1 rh*. iiwcriplio r. aid ? 2 , i -r ' ■ ■ • 2 • . .V* i v- ., ■ it •• h> n a ? . II — 34 THE EMPIRE OF SARGON 1 35 to the sun god in Sippar.1 2 Besides these temples this great king laid the foundations and erected the enormous outer wall of Nippur— the great wall Nimit-Marduk. He first dug for his foundations about five meters below the level of the ground down to the solid clay. Upon this he “built of worked clay mixed with cut straw and laid up en masse with roughly sloping or battered sides to a total height of about 5.5 meters. Upon the top of this large base, which is about 13.75 meters wide, a wall of the same enormous width’72 was raised. The bricks were “dark gray in color, firm in texture, and of regular form. In quality they are un¬ surpassed by the work of any later king.”3 Each of these bricks bore the stamped name and titles of the king. A king who could and did construct such massive fortifications must have possessed a kingdom of great political importance, of whose extent, how’ever, it is now impossible to form a very clear idea. It is small wonder that a king who had thus won honor among men as a builder of mighty works and an organizer of a great kingdom should be deified4 by his followers and wor¬ shiped as a creator. 1 V R.f p. 64, col. ii, lines 57-60 (trans. by Peiser in Keilinschrift, Bib., iii, part ii, p. 105). 2 Hilprecht, Old Bab. Inst., vol. i, part ii, p. 20. 3 This is the judgment of Haynes, who dug down this wall. See Hilprecht, op. cit., p. 21. * Cesnola found at Curium in Cyprus a seal with this inscription, “Apal-Ishtar (?) son of Ilu-bana, servant of the god Naram-Sin” (see 36 HISTOBY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYEIA When Naran-Sin had paid the debt of nature there came to the throne which he had made more famous than ever, a king whose fame was worthy of him, who bears the name of Shargali- sharri, son of Dati-Ellil, who was probably a member of the same family as Sargon and Naram-Sin. Both as conqueror and as builder of historical edifices he is to be ranked with his predecessor. It is, however, unfortunate that his campaigns are known to us only from the date formulae upon commercial documents, and not from historical inscriptions. But arid as these are, and void of all detail, they yet give us a picture of extended conquest, as well as of successful defense of that which had been already won. In his reign the Elamites attempted to take vengeance for the raids of Sargon, and forming a coalition with Zakhara invaded Accad, and attacked Opis and Sakli, but were overcome and driven out. In the very next year Shargali- sharri invaded the west, and penetrated the Amorite country as far as Basar.* 1 From these faint hints we may, perhaps, suppose that he was able to hold together the kingdom which Tompkins, Abraham and His Age, London, 1897, plate x, and p. xxviii). This would seem to show that Naram-Sin had been deified. See also the Tello seal with the words: “Naram-Sin, the mighty, god of Accad, king of the four quarters (of the world) : Lugal-ushun-gal, the scribe, Patesi of Lagash.” Thureau-Dangin, Die Sumerischen und Akkad- ischen Konigsinschriften, pp. 168, 169. 1 See the date formulae, published in Thureau-Dangin, Die Sumer¬ ischen und Akkadischen Konigsinschriften , p. 225. THE EMPIRE OF SARGON I 37 his fathers had handed down to him and per¬ haps to extend it. He had to discipline Kutu, in the hill country east of the Lower Zab, and took Sharlak, its king, prisoner. He even pene¬ trated into Gutium two years later, but no report of his success has reached us. Here one may begin to discern the first signs of the day when this land of Gutium, amid the mountains of Kurdistan, should be able to dominate even Babylonia itself. To this earlier period, when Babylonia was still able to maintain its ancient dignity as against its future adversary, belongs a mace head, found in our day at Sippar, and bearing the legend: “Lasirab the mighty, king of Gutium . dedicated [this.] Who¬ ever changes this inscription, or writes his name hereon, may the gods of Gutium, Innina and Sin tear up his foundation, and exterminate his seed, and his campaigns . . . not pros¬ per”1 It is, however, as a builder of great works that he has best been remembered. Far down in the great mound, which covers the ancient city of Nippur, is found a “pavement consisting of two courses of burned bricks of uniform size and mold. Each brick measures about fifty centimeters [19^ inches] square and is eight 1 First published by Winckler, Zeitschrift fiir Assyriologie , iv, p. 406. Translated by Hilprecht, Old Babylonian Inscriptions, i, part i, pp. 12, 13, on which see comments by Jensen, Zeitschrift fiir Assyriologie, viii, 239, 240. Revised translation by Thureau-Dangin, Die Sumerischen und Akkadischen Konigsinschriften, pp. 170, 171. 38 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA centimeters [334 inches] thick. ”l Most of the bricks in this pavement are stamped, and a number of them contain the inscription of Shargali-sharri, while others bear the stamp of Naram-Sin. The pavement had been laid by the latter and then restored, with the addition of new materials by his successor. A mace-head found at Sippar and dedicated to the god Shamash shows that Shargali-sharri was a patron of this temple; and at the same time we know that he laid the foundations of temples in Babylon to Anunit and a-mal. Of these latter no traces have been found in the city which later dominated the world, for the water level has risen and they have either perished or been rendered inaccessible.2 So far as yet appears Nippur and its temple Ekur were the chief objects of his concern. It is not yet time to say whether his reign represents an artistic advance over that of Naram-Sin, and it seems hardly probable that so great a change could have occurred as is represented in that period of renaissance in sculpture, but the seal which Ibni-sharru the scribe presented to his royal master3 is one of the most beautiful attainments of the glyptic 1 Hilprecht, Old Babylonian Inscriptions, vol. i, part ii, p. 19. 2 The reference to the temples in Babylon is found in the Date Formulae (Thureau-Dangin, Die Sumerischen und Akkadischen Konigs- inschriften, p. 225). The earliest remains of buildings yet recovered in Babylon belong to the period of Hammurapi (R. Koldewey, Das Wiedererstchende Babylon, p. 303). 3 Collection de Clercq, No. 46. Mace Head of Shargali-sharri, with inscription be¬ neath, reading: Shargali-sharri, king of Accad, dedicated (this) to Shamash in Sippar. Now in the British Museum, No. 91146. See Cuneiform Texts, vol. xxi, plate No. 1 (King). [Reproduced from C. J. Ball, Light from the East. London, 1899.] n ) ; > j 1 1 ' ntimcti : ' ' !JY /" : A AS t A WYR'X nehes] f ml Most of the ■■ • n e k t a- tainiy-. i : r . a - • • • ri, while others bear :he ••••(:■?;• »p of latter and then restored, with the a* o new mat -rials by his successor. . ~ad noitqrfagfif dliw 16 haoH AoriM ' * and§aif>J&ke -(aiifl) dioMiibab hfeioaA k> §irrl ■ ,rn*;|qi$ iii dp.&m&dP* at iu W(>71 he Sih w<9\ : ! .T, /9 ntrvfl baoifhoiq^ifj jAKrAi ewbnoAE' . were th* < m«« m • of his coma ■ ■ ■ • • •,* ay •■..;* ; b • •• • -AAn e -resents aft is tie advarw* a t of Sin, and it seems hardly nr % ■y resented in that culptu c but die seal wi < • ni-shar.ru the 1 ?' *> '*« it. e ^ylonidn Jv ten-pk- •.*, vol. i; part u, j *! e. ■ ;f i • the • ;•?«. ii) R,!>j on U foi .t<> y hr < trlsesf re’.naina ot builoing i > ,?rei 3a? o - iong •>• of He .nmrapi (R. Kohir v Oas ■ ■' •- ~o ; - , . . * •» , olio .'on de • \;o. 4C* 1 1 — :>S . I " 1 THE EMPIRE OF SARGON 1 39 art in the earliest times. The hand which designed and cut its easy lines belonged to an age of no mean artistic excellence. While Naram-Sin and Shargali-sharri were reigning in Akkad, the city of Lagash was governed by Ur-babbar and Lugal-ushumgal, who bore the titles patesi, and both acknowl¬ edged their dependence upon the Semitic lords of Accad.1 Lagash had risen from its ruins and would soon again re-establish its in¬ dependence. After Naram-Sin and Shargali-sharri the golden age of Accad passed away. There ruled in its dynasty seven other kings whose names posterity preserved, with the number of years of reign2 in three of them, but they were mere shadows, and the power which had endured while the Semite was mastering the land and taking over its length and breadth from the Sumerians during the reigns of the three great kings, was in their day slipping away and the Sumerians would now retrieve for a time much that had been lost. The dynasty of Accad had lasted one hundred and ninety-seven years, as the ancient chro- nologists were able to calculate, and was suc¬ ceeded in the rule3 by a dynasty of Erech with 1 See tpe offerings to Naram-Sin and Shargali-sharri in the small texts, Thureau-Dangin, Die Sumerischen und Akkadischen Konigsin- 8chriften, pp. 164, 165, 168, 169. 2 See the Chronological Tables, Vol. I. 3 See the Chronological Tables, Vol. I. 40 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA but five kings who ruled but twenty-six years. None of their monuments have yet been re¬ covered, and they vanish as silently as they appear. This little period of Sumerian re¬ action against the Semitic rule over their lands was brief and apparently as weak and insig¬ nificant. * While it was in progress Lagash continued to have its native rulers who wrote inscriptions recording their building and restora¬ tion of temples. If one might judge from these literary remains the fuller life of Sumerians was in Lagash rather than in the far southern city of Erech. These patesis knew how to carry on other works besides those of the cultus, for one of them, Ur-bau, improved the irriga¬ tion of his country. There is, however, no evidence that the patesis of Lagash attempted any dominance else¬ where in the land, but were rather content to develop their own patrimony. Whatever gen¬ eral Sumerian domination there was would seem to have been in the hands of the people of Erech. From them the power was wrenched by an invasion from Gutium, an avalanche of Semites precipitated upon the old culture land again. In this invasion the cities made power¬ ful and famous by the dynasty of Sargon suf¬ fered equally with those of the Sumerians, and the echo of their united plaints reached even to the Greek period. CHAPTER III BABYLONIAN HISTORY TO THE FALL OF LARSA While the kings of Erech and of Gutium held sway in turn over the major part of Babylonia, both north and south, the city of Larsa re¬ vived in power and produced several princes in rapid succession, whose works entitle them to a high place in the records of human achieve¬ ment. Their political status is but imperfectly known, and we are unable to form a definite picture of Babylonia under the general rule of kings in Erech, or in Gutium, with princes bear¬ ing rule separately in the small city state of Lagash, each of the latter bearing the some¬ what humbler title of patesi. The names of many of these have been preserved, and the order of their appearance in history is now and again established by synchronisms with the larger ruling dynasties, while a few others may be located by means of their relationship with these. Many remain doubtful as to order, and yet more doubtful as to character and historical importance, while, on the other hand a few stand out as among the greatest names in the early history of the land. Two of these, Ur- Bau and Gudea, are especially worthy of note 41 42 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA in the eyes of those who mark with interest the progress of civilization in early times. After Ur-babbar and Lugal-ushumgal, con¬ temporaries of Naram-Sin and Shargali-sharri, there followed perhaps five other patesis of Lagash before Ur-Bau. From him have come to us seven inscriptions in the Sumerian tongue to bear witness to his works of peace. The longest of these, covering six columns, is inscribed upon his statue,1 fashioned of diorite, and well wrought, but of rather low artistic value. The figure is now headless, is standing, not seated, and is short and heavy in outline. Like other inscriptions of the same period it contains little material for political history, and the same must be said of his shorter inscriptions. There is no word of battle and war, the patesi is ab¬ sorbed in brick and mortar, and at his order temples rise anew in all the quarters of his city. His greatest work was the rebuilding of E-ninnu, the temple of Ningirsu. For it he dug deep to lay its foundations, and laid them so well and truly that they endure to this day, after the later and greater patesi Gudea had re-erected the temple upon them and far away in the Seleucid period, about 130 B. C., a palace had been reared upon them. 1 Published by Heuzej^ in De Sarzec, Decouverles en Chaldee , plates 7, 8, copied and translated by Amiaud, in the same work. See also Y. Le Gac in Zeitschrift fur Assyriologie, vii, pp. 125, ff., and Jensen, Keil. Bib., iii, part i, pp. 19, ff. Revue d' Assyriologie et d’ Archeologie Orientale, ii, pp. 124-135, and iii,, pp. 42-48. Clay Cone of Br-Bau, patesi of Lagash. British Museum, No. 91063. [Reproduced by permission of the Trustees of the British Museum from A Guide to the Babylonian and Assyrian Antiquities. London, 1908.] HI WO in >i BAKYi.oVfA AND ASS1 R it e e * a Uo mark wit! -, interest /l ess ' . i Z : : • M>7 ' 0 Co I ■ i r-babbar and .vagal-uah ar ad eon* rtv.- ce Na/am-Hin and F1 a '■ ■■■-■■ai’i, r.ii t followed perhaps five other ;; '< of La gas. before Or-Rau. From hint have ;.orie to us seven inscriptions in the Sumeri&i c< bear wanes?* to his works of peace. The longest of these, covering.:].': columns, is inscribed rfeiiiitl W r^toq pnkJkilJ do oqoQ :%&i& >, ! lo brft do nofeairtnOcf ^0 hobnbotq^^]'' $1?8 feS W dMvo V k nerd fiwwul/L' itoMLadt f .800 1 jfobmkl .vvdev^vVivk «&vt\sa*& bm> r- i& m • ial i ■•.♦! y- )k u nb * a ;■ h sorter insc > no i ' • l* and w-? sol ■ , 'k and raoi ran . ■ i - a . ' ; . e ,/ ul i ! i‘ .i v I [is greatest work ’\n. c- Ikninnu, ti e temple ( Is ;: dug deep to lay its foundation' YO \\vb I : ;P: 1 i ■. • f hey „ after the -ater and greate : av d Gudea had * -creek i the tei iple op >n . and tar av ay in the eieu* id period, a out 130 B. a pi * I ace had been reared upon . bom. must ; ) is his O . •■ S : i g hi <, them ' 05 day •' Hyu^ey in O S-iyy^ , /aV . e* *; . 8 t>* ' {.. •) 7 ra • t.wit J Ai i:. t iu» » mie vv*or > \ ii pp. 124- 15, .. J iii pp. 42 4h. II— 4 HISTORY TO THE FALL OF LARS A 43 Ur-Bau had, doubtless, his fair share of the tumults of a disturbed age, but what they may have been he had no care to inscribe upon stone. Besides his concern for religion and the cultus no echo of his thought for the people reaches us, save that he supplied the historic old city quarter of Gu-edin with water by some form of canalization.1 After a brief lull in its fortunes when weaker hands than Ur-Bau’s controlled the city’s destiny there came to rule a prince, Gudea by name, on whom fickle fortune and the favor of the gods rested as never before since the days of Eannatum. Gudea excelled all his predecessors by far in the beautifully executed records2 of his deeds, and his figure stands out sharp and clear against the dull shadows of ancient days. To Gudea the rule came not by inheritance, for his father is never mentioned, and in solemn prayers to his gods he was wont to say that he had neither father nor mother, but he had no 1 Date Forrmilse, Thureau-Dangin, Die Sumerischen und Akkadischen Konigsinschriften, pp. 226, 227. 2 The inscriptions of Gudea, the sources for his reign, fall natural^ into two major and one minor classes, (a) Those upon statues of the king now number eleven, all assembled, transliterated, and translated in Thureau-Dangin, Die Sumerischen und Akkadischen Konigsinschriften, pp. 66-89, with the references to the original publications of the Su¬ merian texts. (b) The Cylinder Inscriptions, two in number, A and B, Thureau- Dangin, op. cit., pp. 88-141. For the original texts, in beautiful auto¬ graph, see Price, The Great Cylinder Inscription of Gudea. Leipzig, 1899, ff. (c) The Brick Inscriptions, Cones, Seals, and Maces, of which a total of twenty-six are now known. Thureau-Dangin, op. cit., pp. 140- 147. 44 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA need to support his claim to rule by tables of descent. He had the higher claim of the right demonstrated by the power to rule both as warrior and still more as an efficient governor of his people in peace, and a promoter of culture able to lift his city far beyond its contemporaries in social and artistic achievement. When Gudea came to rule his city had two hundred and sixteen thousand inhabitants, yet no temple worthy of the great god Ningirsu, to whom all these folk owed life and all its means for comfort and content. Upon the people thus dwelling in neglect of the proper order and dignity of divine worship there fell a great drought, and the ruler was not slow to per¬ ceive that this boded ill concerning the god’s attitude to his people. Then in the middle of the night the god Ningirsu himself appeared in a dream, and bade him build his temple. The dream, like many another, was obscure to the dreamer when the sun arose, and he wended then his way to the goddess Nina to learn its interpretation from her. He recounted in pas¬ sionate words all that he had seen; the figure of a god whom he could not recognize bidding him build a temple, while another upon a piece of lapis-lazuli drew the outlines of the ground form of a sacred edifice. Nina explained it all, and the patesi turned with easier mind to execute the will of the gods. When he had purified the city by burning Brick of Gudea, containing this Sumerian inscrip¬ tion : 1. (dingir) Nin-gish-zi(d)-da (dingir)-ra-ni Gu-de-a pa-te-si 5. SIR-BXJR-LA (ki) galu d-ninnu (dingir) Nin-gir-su-ka in-du-a 4 gir-su(ki)-ka-ni 10. mu-na-du Translation : 1. For Ningishzida his god, Gudea patesi of Lagash who, the temple of Ningirsu had built the temple in Girsu has built. British Museum, No. 90289. Cuneiform Texts, xxi, plate 36. [Reproduced by permission of the Trustees of the British Museum.] 44 )!' ■ • T,0-'l > ANT) .AS.'-'VMT.A his claim to rule by tables of -qkoeiti nehomjjd sid\ tnoo ,,a*b ,h > i< >birc3 I ' . ' r . :• fioii :&b- (b) i^W^isiVL . .1 in-jn-(ii^aiL) re •" • X? , - • , » 1 ,M>(J (lyl)AJ-aua-Hia .c , . When Lu t came To ruTo nis city had two , ijfinin-a ;jue§ , . ' -vet no temple worthy of the grep^go^g Ningirsu, to whom all these ; j^jy^all its means comfort and cont< .hb° people thus dwelling in pegun ( t: ;-OIT/jiax,jr¥ X c^! f.bisrf^igrirVr To'f .4 8 ill" iBobld.) drought, and tl . a" i ude to his - a ; u ,r- guds the nig at t ne god a dre uu, nd ba a a ; v dreamer w * on f hen his w o V 1 O t vV V vv interpret at >n froi ibc^uJ to aixui no J oil? • and the pate i tui-ied it m ear r mind to execute, the will of ihe gods. • \ : -A . b< ’lad parted V. r burning dull. II — 44 . . ' HISTORY TO THE FALL OF LARS A 45 fires of cedar and precious woods whose sweet scent rose heavenward to please the gods with its savor, and had purged the place of wizards and necromancers, he began an assembly of materials such as indeed the world had never seen before. Again and again does he enumer¬ ate distant lands as having contributed of their best to the service of state or worship in his wonderful little city. From Magan (north¬ eastern Arabia) the beautiful hard diorite came to be worked into his royal statues. From the land of Melukkha (the Nubian desert and south thereof) was brought ushu- wood, always precious and highly esteemed even down to the Assyrian age, while Mount Khakhu supplied dust of gold to gild small objects like ceremonial mace heads. These lands were not far from his own, but it is more surprising to read that he brought from Mount Amanus, in northwestern Syria, great beams of cedar, fifty, nay even sixty cubits long, and in the neighboring Mount Basalla quarried mas¬ sive stones to be fashioned into stelse and then set up in the court of the new temple, while another western mountain, Tidanum in Arnurru, contributed marble. All these materials must be got out and then transported overland to the Euphrates to be rafted hundreds of miles to his city. All these facts throw a bright light upon the civilization of his day. That was no ordinary civilization which could achieve 46 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA work requiring such skill and power as the quarrying or the cutting of these materials and the transportation of them over such distances. A long period for its development must be assumed. Centuries only, and not merely dec¬ ades, would suffice as the period of preparation for such accomplishments. But it is also to be observed that the securing of these materials must have involved the use of armed force. The sturdy inhabitants of the Amanus would not probably 3ueld up their timber without a struggle. One little indication there is of Gudea’s prowess in arms, for he conquered the district of Anshan, in Elam.1 This single allusion to conquest is instructive, for it was probably only representative of other conquests by the same builder and warrior. But in spite of this inference the general impression made by his reign is one of peace, of progress in civilization, of splendid ceremonial in the worship of the gods, and of the progress of the art of writing. As a warrior he is not to be compared with Sargon of Agade; as an exponent of civilization he far surpasses him. When the temple was finished the city was once again ceremonially purified, and then the god Ningirsu and his spouse Bau were inducted into their new home with most elaborate cere¬ monial, which the king has described as care- 1 Gudea B, col. vi, 64-66. Compare Jensen, Keilinschrift. Bill iii, part 1, p. 38, note 9. Thureau-Dangin, pp. 70, 71. HISTORY TO THE FALL OF LARSA 47 fully1 as he did the labors of construction. By the side of Ningirsu and Bau all the minor deities took their ordered places, each with some special function in the divine court. Here were Uri-zi, the keeper of the god’s harem; Ensignun, the herder of his asses; Enlulim, who watched his goats; Lugal-igi-hush-am, the pre¬ centor, whose solemn song and chant should please him, and even the seven maidens who were to surround Bau. Indeed the god’s en¬ tourage was like the king’s own; he ruled in the heavenly places, while Gudea represented him on earth, and right royally had the earthly vicegerent honored the heavenly king, and great heed did he take that men should not forget who had done all these things. In the temple court Gudea set up again a stele of Lugal-kisalsi2 which he had found when the excavations were in progress, and so united his greater labors to the smaller of the past. But if there were one stele of an earlier patesi, there were three statues of Gudea himself. One of these has upon the knees of the seated king an architect’s ground plan of the temple. Artistically these represent a great advance over the work of any of his predecessors. The head has been technically mastered, has the unmistakable marks of portrait quality, and indicates clearly enough the influence of Se- 1 Cylinder B, col. 5, lines 1, If. 2See above, p. 10. 48 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA mitic craftsmanship. The rest of the body is, however, still crude, heavy, ill-proportioned. There is scarcely any neck, the head being set solid on the heavy shoulders, and the too heavily muscled arms not parted from the stunted body. It were interesting indeed, if we could but know more of the life of a creative spirit like Gudea, but there seems small hope of it. We do not even know how far his personal rule may have extended, nor how much he may have owed of dependence to other rulers. He boasts justly of his gathering of materials, as we have seen, but he gives no hint of any rule over any of these vast territories. In him, at any rate, the civilization of the Sumerians culminated. He is the high priest of their cultus, the finest flower of their life, and in his inscriptions their language reached the culminating point of its literary development. Before his day kings and patesis wrote little votive inscriptions in cold and disconnected words, while his long texts are full of life and vigor and fire. From Lagash the power passed to Ur,1 a city admirably situated to achieve commercial and historical importance. The river Euphrates 1 The ruins of Ur, now called Mugheir, have long been known. They were first explored by Taylor and Loftus. See above, I, p. 203. The early references to Ur and its commerce have been collected by Hom- mel (Die Semitischen Volker u. Sprachen, pp. 204-211, and Geschichte, pp. 212-218, 325-329). HISTORY TO THE FALL OF LARSA 49 flowed just past its gates, affording easy trans¬ portation for stone and wood from its upper waters, to which the Lebanon, rich in cedars, and the Amanus were readily accessible. The wady Rummein came close to the city and linked it with central and southern Arabia, and along that road came gold and precious stones, and gums and perfumes to be converted into incense for temple worship. Another road went across the very desert itself, and, provided with wells of water, conducted trade to southern Syria, the Peninsula of Sinai, and across into Africa. This was the shortest road to Africa, and commerce between Ur and Egypt passed over its more difficult but much shorter route than the one by way of liar an and Palestine. Nearly opposite the city the Shatt-el-Hai emptied into the Euphrates, and so afforded a passage for boats into the Tigris, thus opening to the commerce of Ur the vast country tribu¬ tary to that river. Here, then, were roads and rivers leading to the north, east, and west, but there was also a great outlet to the southward. The Euphrates made access to the Persian Gulf easy. No city lay south of Ur on that river except Eridu, and Eridu was no compet¬ itor in the world of commerce, for it was devoted only to temples and gods — a city given up to religion. In a city so favorably located as Ur the development of political as well as commercial 50 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA superiority seems perfectly natural. Even be¬ fore the days of Sargon the city of Ur had an existence and a government of its own. To that early period belong the rudely written vases of serpentine and of stalagmite which bear the name and titles of Lugal-kigub-nidudu1 (about 3000 B. C.), king of Erech, king of Ur. We know nothing of his work in the upbuilding of the city, nor of that of his son and successor, Lugal-kisalsi. They are but empty names until further discovery shall add to the store of their inscribed remains. After their work was done the city of Ur was absorbed now into one and now into another of the kingdoms, both small and great, which held sway over southern Babylonia. About 2500 B. C. the city of Ur again seized a commanding position through the efforts especially of two kings, Ur-Engur (2477-2459) and Dungi (2459-2401 B. C.). The former became the founder of a new dynasty and has left many evidences of his power as well in brief inscriptions2 as in build¬ ings. He began to reign in Ur about 2477 B. C., and remained in authority for eighteen years. When he came to rule Gudea’s son Ur-Ningirsu 1 Published by Hilprecht, Old Babylonian Inscriptions , vol. i, part ii, No. 86. Compare Thureau-Dangin, Die Sumerischen und Akkadischen Konigsinschriften, pp. 156, 157. 2 The texts of Ur-Engur, nearly all upon clay either as building brick stamps, or small cones, are assembled in transliteration and transla¬ tion in Thureau-Dangin, Die Sumerischen und Akkadischen Konigsin¬ schriften, pp. 186-189. HISTORY TO THE FALL OF LARSA 51 was patesi of Lagash, and from him there still remain a few little bricks1 stamped with his name and style, sorry witnesses to the great change since his father's day of great deeds. Whatever autonomy Gudea had enjoyed is now gone, for very shortly is Ur-Ningirsu deprived of his political authority and Ur-abba is set up in his stead, and presumably by Ur-Engur, though Ur-Ningirsu still lived and in Dungi's reign even dedicated as a votive offering a wig and head dress bearing his name.2 Ur-Engur and Dungi have indeed become the founders of a new empire, and Lagash was early swept into it. Probably before Lagash was thus hum¬ bled Erech had felt the heavy hand of a new conqueror, for on one of his little brick stamps before the proud title “king of Ur" he bears the words, “lord of Erech," and to them both adds the general and commanding style King of Sumer and Accad, never borne by any king before his day. In this were united the ancient southland of Sumer, which belonged by right of long occupation to the Sumerians, but in it also was Accad, the land which had been won by the Semites under Sargon, and had now come again under the rule of Sumerians. Here indeed was a reaction against the Semitic in¬ vasion, a renaissance of Sumerian power. All over this kingdom which he had thus 1 Thureau-Dangin, op. cit., pp. 146-149. 2 British Museum No. 91,075. See King, Sumer and Akkad, p. 275. Thureau-Dangin, op. cit., pp. 194, 195. 52 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA formed did Ur-Engur build great structures for protection, for civil use, or for the worship of the gods. In his own chief city of Ur he built the great temple to the moon god; in the city of Erech he erected a temple to the goddess Nina. At Larsa also there are found unmis¬ takable evidences that it was he who built there the shrine of the sun god.1 In Lagash he erected a temple to Enlil, and dug a canal, intended not only to supply water but also to serve as a boundary.2 When these cities are dug up in a systematic fashion we shall be able to obtain some con¬ ception of his activity in this matter. At present we are able to form a more complete picture of his works in Nippur than in Ur. In Nippur he built a great zikurat, or pyramidal tower, whose base was a “right-angled parallelo¬ gram nearly fifty-nine meters long and thirty- nine meters wide. Its two longest sides faced northwest and southeast respectively, and the four corners pointed approximately to the four cardinal points. Three of these stages have been traced and exposed. It is scarcely possible that formerly other stages existed above. The lowest story was about six and a third meters high, while the second (receding a little over four meters from the edge of the former) and the third are so utterly ruined that the original 1 Brick E, Thureau-Dangin, op. cit., pp. 186, 187. 2 Cone B, Thureau-Dangin, op. cit., pp. 188, 189. HISTORY TO THE FALL OE LARSA 53 dimensions can no more be given. The whole zikurat appears like an immense altar. ,n The defensive walls of Ur1 2 were also built by Ur- Engur, who seemed to be building for all time. Of his wars and conquests we hear no word, but, as lias been said before in a similar instance, it is not probable that his reign was thus peace¬ ful. It was probably built by the sword, and to the sword must be the appeal perhaps in frequent instances. Ur-Engur was succeeded by his son Dungi (2459-2401 B. C.), from whose times there have come even greater written memorials of his reign than from his father.3 In his reign we know not merely of his buildings, but also have the dates of his numerous campaigns, which enables us, even without the colorful detail of real historical narrative such as the Assyrian would later produce, to follow in outline the progress of dominion as well as of culture. Many campaigns must indeed have been left without mention, as the years were prevailingly named because of some religious act or event, and it was not deemed possible or appropriate to designate a year by a double name, the one military, the other religious.4 In some cases, 1 Hilprecht, Old Bab. Ins., vol. i, part ii, pp. 17, 18. 2 Brick B, Thureau-Dangin, op. cit., pp. 18G, 187. 3 They are conveniently assembled for historical purposes in trans¬ literation and translation, with ample references to the original texts, by Thureau-Dangin, Die Sumerischen und Akkadischen Konigsinschriften, pp. 190-197, and the date lists of the reign, ibid., pp. 229-232, 4 For this naming of the years, see above, p. 475. 54 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA however, the mention of a religious event in a distant city shows that Dungi had political power over it, which must have been secured by a previous campaign. Thus when the date formula for the king’s seventh year tells that he installed the goddess Kadi in her temple at Der we must assume that Der had already fallen, into the great king’s hands before that time either by surrender under threat, or by direct attack. Indeed we shall probably not be far astray if we venture to conjecture that his earlier years were well filled with conquest. The most momentous of his campaigns, the successful and desolating raid upon Babylon, is known only from the Chronicle,1 and finds no mention in the date lists, yet the former records that “the treasure of E-sagila and of Babylon he brought out as spoil.” There could be no greater or more startling proof of the new life of the Sumerians. Babylon had become a Semitic city, and its E-sagila was already the chief sanctuary of the Semitic people in the land of Accad. So great was the shock to Semitic sensibilities that when other deeds of Dungi were quite forgotten the memory of this lived on to be set down by a later Chronicler. He knew also what it meant in respect of Su¬ merian partiality, for he had just recorded that “Dungi, son of Ur-Engur, cared greatly for the city of Eridu, which was on the shore of the 1 King, Chronicles concerning Early Babylonian Kings, p. 11. HISTORY TO THE FALL OF LARSA sea.” But Sumerian though he was, Dungi yet knew how to pay sufficient heed to his Semitic subjects. He built, or rather rebuilt, the temple of Nergal in Cutha, and wrote the record in the Semitic Babylonian tongue, though all other documents of his long reign, with one insignificant exception, are in Sumerian. Year by year the simple records or date lists bear witness to the onward sweep of wider dominion. In the eighth year the god Nutug- mushda was installed in his temple in Kazallu, But Kazallu had been a part of the empire of Sargon, and was now clearly enough once more in Sumerian hands. Two years later Nannar was carried into his temple in Nippur which also thus acknowledges the king of Ur as its ruler. Several years pass with no word of battle and arms, when in the fourteenth year we are startled by the simple announcement that the king’s daughter was set up as “lady” in Mark- hashi, a district of Elam. Here Sargon had rule hundreds of years ago, but now Elam is likewise falling back into Sumerian hands, and among these, woman already enjoys the power to rule. Two years later Dungi proved his ability to learn from the Semites as he organized the people of Ur as archers, teaching them to use a weapon hitherto characteristic especially of the Semites. The Sumerian typical weapon, as numerous battle scenes show, was the battle 56 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA axe, and the normal tactics were those of hand- to-hand shock. These were likely to continue, for there is no greater conservative in civilized society than the soldier; not even the teacher or the priest holding more tenaciously to old practice. But the nomad Semite had taught his city brother how useful a blow might be struck by flying arrows before the troops were face to face, and the Sumerians had now grasped this new weapon of offense. With it Dungi was the better prepared for the invasion of the mountainous country of Elam. In the twenty-second year Gankhar in Elam was conquered, and Simuru fell in the next year, but rose and had to be attacked again in the twenty-fourth, and yet again in the thirtieth and thirty-first years. The king had clearly a heavy task in Elam, for in his forty- second year “Simurru and Lulubu were con¬ quered for the ninth time,” and campaigns were yet to follow even to the very last year of the king’s reign. Elsewhere in Elam success would appear to have been easier, for Dungi is able to record in his twenty-eighth year that his daughter was married to the Patesi of Anshan. Anshan was now only an easterly province of Elam, destined centuries later to spring to sudden fame when its king, Cyrus, set out thence to conquer the world. But even now the peace with Anshan was but temporary, for in four years Dungi felt called upon to in- HISTORY TO THE FALL OF LARSA 57 vade it, while we wonder whether his own daughter had perished in the rebellion against her father’s rule, or, as has often happened, had embraced her husband’s people in a new loyalty and helped against her old home-land. But in spite of all these reverses at times, the empire of Dungi grew apace and he made bold to adopt the proud title of the empire of Accad and called himself “king of the four quarters of the world” in a Semitic inscription at Cutha, already mentioned, but also, and probably afterward, turning the sonorous Se¬ mitic phrase over into the quaint and curious Sumerian, and adding this style even in Sumerian texts to the current and common style, “king of Ur, king of Sumer and Accad.”1 Even farther than this did he go, for he imitated the Semite Naram-Sin in causing himself to be deified and worshiped as “Dungi, god of his land, king of Ur, king of the four quarters of the world.”2 To celebrate these divine honors, a new monthly festival was established and the seventh month of the year re-named “the month of the Feast of Dungi.”3 Where Dungi conquered there he ruled, and the small business tablets bearing dates in his reign are witness to the development of business 1 So, for example, in the weight inscriptions A and B, Thureau-Dangin, op. cit., pp. 194, 195. 2 See the text, which by the way, does not use the style “king of Sumer and Accad,” and was found at Susa, in Thureau-Dangin, op. cit., pp. 194, 195. 3 See above, vol. i, p. 405. 58 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA life and especially of commerce, in the various parts of his empire. Numbers of these com¬ mercial documents of Dungi ’s reign have been unearthed at Lagash, and if even the vaster mound of Ur were to give up its stores, it were difficult to imagine the light that would thus be shed upon his reign. What we have learned would seem to indicate that Lagash was now but a stopping place for messengers of many kinds on their way to or from Ur and the provinces of Elam. There they stopped to rest and there they were provisioned for their further journey, the tablets enumerating the measures of oil or of strong drink or of grain which they received. Dungi was indeed ruling Elam, at the same time that he administered his own kingdom of Sumer and Accad, even prescribing standards of weights and doubtless also of measures, as we are reminded by weights stamped with his name and titles and bearing the legend “a half mina,” “two minas,” “twelve minas,”1 the first two being stamped as of “full weight/’ showing that they had been compared with a royal standard. Great as was Dungi in the roles of conqueror and administrator he was perhaps yet greater as a builder and as a lavish patron of the cult us. He built temples in Ur to Nannar and to Innina; in Lagash to Ningirsu; in Nippur to Enki and to Damgalnunna. Thence he went out of Sumer 1 See the three weights A, B, C. Thureau-Dangin, op. cit., pp. 194, 195. 59 HISTORY TO THE FALL OF LARSA into Accad and built in Cutha for the worship of the Semites, nay more remarkable still, he even built in Susa a shrine for the Elamite god Shushinak. For fifty-eight years he reigned in such power and riches and amid so much civilization as the Sumerians had never known before, until mother earth claimed his dust back again to her bosom. Many centuries later he was so well known that a Semitic chronicler in the Neo-Babylonian period was at pains to declare that the god Marduk had destroyed him, be¬ cause of his ill treatment of Babylon.1 We have no historical confirmation of any disaster to Dungi, and he vanishes peacefully out of our sight. The rule over the empire which Dungi had reestablished for the honor and dignity of the Sumerian people passed without question or rebellion to his son Bur-Sin I (2401-2392 B. C.). His reign was very short and as his father’s was unusually long it is a natural inference that he came late in life to rule. He was able to hold, so far as we can see, all that his father had won. The date lists of his reign have come to us in complete form for every one of the nine years of his reign.2 These make mention of three campaigns, all into Elam or its provinces, 1 Chronicle of Sargon, etc. British Museum No. 26,472. King, Chronicles, p. 11. 2 For the date lists see Thureau-Dangin, op. cit., pp. 233, 234, and for the other texts of the king, ih., pp. 196-200. 60 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSlrRIA and prove that the heavy hand was necessary to keep there what Dungi had so laboriously secured. For the rest, the only significant features of his reign were that he wrote only in Sumerian and that he sets down after his name the words: “whose name Ellil hath pro¬ nounced in Nippur, who exalted the head of ElliPs temple/’ followed by the usual titles: “King of Ur, king of the four quarters of the world.” This would indicate that Nippur was once again esteemed as the seat of the deepest religious faith and hope, the chief sanctuary of all Babylonia, yet Nanner, the ancient god of Ur, was not forgotten, but rather a new temple was erected for him,1 and Bur-Sin also pro¬ claimed his own deification, calling himself “the righteous god, the sun of his land.”2 The next king, Gimil-Sin, son of Bur-Sin I, had also a short reign of nine years (2491-2482 B. C.), which was also comparatively unevent¬ ful. In his third year and again in his seventh he made campaigns of conquest or reduction, but passed the remaining years in honoring the gods, of whom Ellil of Nippur would appear to have held ’the first place, though Nannar was not forgotten, and An unit received her share of royal praise. One of his inscriptions is written in Semitic3 upon a gate socket and may 1 Stone tablet B, Thureau-Dangin, op. cit., pp. 200, 201. 2 Brick tablet E, lines 10, 11, Thureau-Dangin, op. cit., pp. 198, 199. 3 British Museum No. 90,844, Cuneiform Texts, xxi, plate 28, Thureau- Dangin, op. cit., pp. 200, 201. HISTORY TO THE FALL OF LARSA 61 serve to show that during the whole Sumerian reaction the Semitic language continued to be used in Sumer, abiding the day of restoration. When Gimil-Sin had ceased to rule, his son Ibi-Sin (2482-2457 B. C.) held the scepter of a tottering dynasty for twenty-five years, of which there was little to record.1 He made at least one campaign, and this against the ever difficult land of Elam, attacking Simurru, per¬ haps in a last desperate effort to retain a hold upon it. But the day for a change was dawn¬ ing. Elam was now wholly Semitized and the new race was stronger than the old, and cer¬ tain in due time to cast off the yoke of Sumerian rule, even if it did not go farther, and conquer Sumer itself. The issue of the long struggle came at last when Ibi-Sin paid the final score, and was himself carried away into captivity into Anshan, by the Elamites who had now for more than a century been the subjects of this dynasty.2 With Ibi-Sin the dynasty which Ur-Engur founded passed from Ur to Isin, though how the scepter of Sumerian rule was transferred thither, we have not learned. This dynasty of Ur had made indeed a deep impression upon the world of its day. It was a great achievement to wrest the power for so 1 Only two small texts and three dates have so far been recovered. Thureau-Dangin, op. cit., pp. 202, 203, 234-236. 2 The fact is known only from a late Omen Tablet. See Boissier, Choix de textes relatifs a la divination, ii, p. 64. Meissner, Oriental- istische Literal urzeituiig, March, 1007, col. 114, note 1. 62 HISTORY OP BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA long from the advancing Semitic race, and to set forward once more the old Sumerian culture. Yet the Sumerian culture was no longer pure. It was mixed with the new element, and as we have seen, more than one of these kings even had inscriptions written in the Accadian or Semitic Babylonian tongue. But Semitic in¬ fluence went much further than this. Semites filled the highest offices of the state. The most striking illustration of this is Arad-Nannar, whose name first becomes known in the ninth year of Bur-Sin I, reaching the summit of dignity and power in the eighth year of Gimil- Sin, when his name comes into the fuller form of the annual date formula, but who lived on into the reign of Ibi-Sin. So great was he in all the realm that he had a gate socket at Lagash1 written in his own name and dedicated to Gimil-Sin, enumerating upon it no less than twelve high posts which he was then holding, such as Chief Minister of the King, Patesi of Lagash, Priest of Enki, Governor of Uzargar- shana and of yet other cities or lands, some of them in distant Elam. When the Elamites had destroyed the dynasty of Ur, they were not able, or did not attempt, to establish rule in Babylonia, and the King of Isin, Ishbi-Ura (2358-2326 B. C.) was strong enough to seize the kingdom of Sumer and 1 Thureau-Dangin, Die Sumerischen und Akkadischen Konigsin- schriften, pp. 148-151. HISTORY TO THE PALL OF LARSA 63 Akkad, take over what was left by the Elamites in the old territory of Ur and found a new dynasty. Little is yet known of the fifteen kings who ruled after him, filling out with his reign a total of two hundred and twenty-five years and six months. Their names are, for the greater part, Semitic, yet the few historical inscriptions which have come to us from them are in Sumerian, though with Semitic words now and again. Ishbi-ura was renowned, so a late omen tablet of the Assyrian period declares,1 as a man “who had no rivals/ ’ and his long reign of thirty-two years would appear to lend support to this, as does also the fact that he was able to hand on the authority to his own son Gimil-ilishu (2326-2316 B. C.). In the next reign, Idin- Dagan (2316-2295 B. C.), the royal house was still 'in possession of rule over Sippar, as a fragment2 there found bears witness, and Ishme- Dagan (2295-2275 B. C.), his successor, is able to boast of his care of Nippur, Ur, and Eridu, and to wear the titles, “Lord of Erech, the mighty king, King of Isin, King of Sumer and Accad,”3 and to add to these the claim that he was the “beloved spouse” of Innina, thus deifying himself as did the kings of Ur. The reign of Libit Ishtar (2275-2264 B. C.), 1 Boissier, Divination, i, p. 30. Compare also Meissner, Oriental- istische Literatur-Zeituny, 1907, col. 114, note 1. 2 Scheil, Recueil de travaux, xvi, pp. 187, If., compare Radau, Early Babylonian History, pp. 232, f. 3 Thureau-Dangin, op. cit., pp. 206, 207. G4 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA his son, ended in a change of considerable though temporary consequence. His brother Enanna- tum, who had been appointed High Priest of Nannar at Ur, yielded to a new force which had arisen in Larsa, and forsook his reigning brother. Larsa had a prince of the name Gungunu who had so strengthened himself as to be called in his own inscription1 “King of Larsa, King of Sumer and Akkad,” and for him Enannatum had built a temple to the sun God at Ur, in which Gungunu is styled King of Ur.2 Whether Gungunu had taken Ur by force and so dis¬ membered Libit Ishtar’s kingdom we do not know, but he has clearly assumed its rule, though he seems not to have had any real power in the north, and his claim to rule Sumer and Accad was both shadowy and brief. When Libit Ishtar was dead the house of Ishbi-ura ceased and the next king, Ur-Ninib (2264-2236 B. C.), of unknown origin and relationship, acknowledges no interference any¬ where with his complete rule over all the land both north and south, calling himself “the exalted shepherd of Nippur, shepherd of Ur, who delivers the decisions of Eridu, the gracious lord of Erecli, king of Isin, king of Sumer and Accad, the chosen spouse of Innina.”3 Gungunu 1 Brick a, Thureau-Dangin, op. cit., pp. 206, 207. 2 Cone, Thureau-Dangin, op. cit., pp. 206, 207. 3 Brick from Nippur, iv R, 35, No. 5, second edition. Hilprecht, Old Babylonian, Inscriptions, i, 27. Thureau-Dangin, op. cit., pp. 204, 205. HISTORY TO THE FALL OF LARSA 05 has vanished as suddenly as he came, leaving behind only a memory and the formula upon a date list: “the year in which Gungunu died.”1 We know nothing worthy of note of the next two kings, Bur-Sin II (2236-2215 B. C.) and Iter-kasha (2215-2210 B. C.), and of their successor, Ura-imitti (2210-2203 B. C.), only the statement of a late Babylonian Chronicle that “he set Ellil-bani the gardener upon his throne [that the dynasty might not come to an end], and the crown of his sovereignty he placed upon his head.”2 This pious provision for a gardener king, who might well have furthered peace better than a warrior-king, was not im¬ mediately successful, for Sin-ikisha claimed the unstable throne for six months before Ellil- bani came to his own, and enjoyed a long reign of twenty-four years (2203-2179 B. C.), but did not form a dynastic line. The next three kings had short reigns, a fairly clear indication of troublous times, the occasion of which we are soon to hear, and these were followed by Sin- magir (2167-2156 B. C.) and Damik-ilishu (2156-2133 B. C.), whose longer reigns indicate better days. The former indeed dedicated at Babylon, in the temple of Epatutila, a clay object of mushroom shape bearing the legend: 1 Thureau-Dangin, op. cit., p. 236. On this formula King ( Sumer and Akkad , p. 311, note 4) observes: “Since the death of a king from natural causes was never commemorated in this fashion, we may conclude that he was slain in battle, probably by Ur-Ninib.” 2 King, Chronicles , ii, pp. 15, 16. 66 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA “Sin-magir the shepherd who adorns [the temple] of Ellil, the mighty king, king of Isin, king of Sumer and Accad,”1 so that he was exercising at this time some sort of suzerainty over Babylon, and had therefore a just claim to call himself King of Sumer and Accad, while Damik-ilishu surely bore rule also in the same land, for he built the temple of E-ditar-kalama in the same city.2 But this dominance was at its end in his reign. The First Dynasty of Babylon had been increasing in power, and just before the end of the reign of Sin-muballit (about 2133 B. C.) Damik-ilishu ceased to reign, and the Semitic king of Babylon extended his sway also over Isin, having taken its capital city.3 The later reigns of this dynasty, especially the reigns before these last two, were sorely disturbed, and it is not surprising that we find it very difficult to understand the exact order of events. We can but place before our minds events more or less detached, and persons not always clearly related to the general stream of human life. It was in this period that the Elamites took heavy revenge for much that they had suffered 1 Weissbach, Ein neuer Konig von Isin, Babylonische Miscellen, p. 1. 2 Scheil, Recueil, xxiii, pp. 93, f., and Une saison de fouilles d, Sippar, p. 140; Hilprecht, Babylonian Expedition, vol. xx, part i. (Math. Metrolog. & Chronolog. tablets), pp. 49, 50. 3 The date line which gives this intelligence says simply “The year in which Isin wras captured.” See M. Schorr, Urkunden des altbaby- lonischen Zivil und Prozessrechts, p. 588. HISTORY TO THE FALL OF LARSA 67 at the hands of Sumerians. The most dramatic of their assaults was made by Kudur-nankhundi in 2285 B. C., who sacked Erech, and doubtless carried away heavy booty, among it a statue of the goddess Nana, who remained in Elam as a trophy and an exile until an Assyrian king many centuries later carried her home again.1 The influence of the Elamite king upon the country which he plundered was probably very slight, for apparently no documents were dated in his period. It is probable that he was not successful in establishing any dominion over the country at all. But his failure would not daunt other princes; the prize was great, and men would not fail in its winning for want of a trial. Considerably later than the time of Kudur- nankhundi the successful raid was made. The Babylonian inscriptions have preserved for us no mention of the king’s name who swept down into the valley. The Hebrews among their traditions preserved the name of Chedor- laomer2 (Kudur-Lagamar) as the Elamite who invaded the far west. To him or to other Elamite invaders the weak kingdom of Sumer and Accad was able to offer no effectual resist¬ ance, and the kings of Larsa were quickly dis¬ possessed. The Elamites in a few short years had swept from east to west, destroying king¬ doms whose foundations extended into the dis- 1 See above, vol. i, p. 498. 2 See further on Chedorlaomer below, p. 84. 68 HISTOEY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA tant past. Their success reminds one of the career of the Persians in a later day. Somewhat later, under the rule of these Elamite conquerors, Kudur-Mabuk1 was prince of E-mutbal, in western Elam. His authority and influence were extended into Babylonia, and perhaps even farther west. He built in Ur a temple to the moon god as a thank offering for his recovery from illness. He was succeeded by his son, Eri-Aku2 (Arad- Sin, 2172-2160), who was still more Baby¬ lonian than his father. He extended the city of Ur, rebuilding its great city walls “like unto a mountain/’ restored its temples, and appar¬ ently became a patron of that city rather than of Larsa, though he still calls himself king of Larsa. The Elamite people were now become in the fullest sense masters of all southern Baby¬ lonia. Eri-Aku calls himself “exalter of Ur, king of Larsa, king of Sumer and Accad,” and so claims all the honors which had belonged to the kings of native stock who had preceded him. This invasion and occupation of southern Baby¬ lonia by the Elamites prepared the way for the conquest of southern Babylonia by the north and the establishment of a permanent order of things in the land so long disturbed. 1 An inscription of Kudur-Mabuk is published I R 2, No. iii. See full references and translation in Rogers, Cuneiform, Parallels, pp. 247, 248. Also Thureau-Dangin, op. cil., pp. 208-211. 2 Inscriptions of Arad-Sin (Eri-Aku) are assembled by Thureau- Dangin, op. cit., 212, ff, who has also distinguished Arad-Sin from Rim Sin. Clay Cone of Arad-Sin (Eri-Aku). [Now in the Museum of Yale University, and here reproduced by permission of Professor Clay.] f V ^ Hi A ; v* V 1 * iV* . * .. : -W ■■■ b n - im e authority h. end* ■■ kito h-b . At a a .‘d v,- ' 1 is a ihark offering for • U ; • As son, Eri-Aku2 (Arad- oHi hi wo%] .(u/IA-ha) nib-bmA W AnoO -^hlO yd haoijfooiqm owd ban ktfA to TrfWnM [.vb! ) loag^l uif I lo fioi^iinioq <, and ei tly became a j sMwi •' - -AA- A an of Ln-'-a i'houj'i d - 1 ; ».•;• of | : : ' y. * •* i- V *• and d no A am Raby- 1 way for the ’ : by the north eroianont order irhed, i ' If No. r t . See eini'1 •«! In, T nireau- • v litjb ■ ; Ar.-it5 ‘ • rotu . -^a II— G8 HISTORY TO THE FALL OF LARSA 69 Arad-Sin was succeeded by his brother Rim- Sin (2160-2099 B. C.), who claims rule over Sumer and Akkad, citing as under his pro¬ tection Nippur, Ur, Eridu, and Erech, but gives as his primary title king of Larsa.1 But there is no word of Babylon, and we shall shortly see that Rim-Sin could lay no claim to any power there. The Semite had long since wrested all control there from the Sumerians, and would shortly be ready to take over the complete control of Sumer as well. Larsa is still holding out against the inevitable, but the descendants of Elamites, not Sumerians of pure blood, are its masters. Rim-Sin had prayed for a “kingdom to rejoice the heart, ”2 and if length of rule could fulfill this wish it was surely his, for his reign was long, and as we shall see, his life yet longer, but he had no kingdom to bequeath to a son, for Hammurapi, greatest of the kings of Babylon, overthrew his dominion in the year 2099 and made the city of Babylon undisputed mistress of the whole land.3 With Larsa ends the series of small states, of whose existence we have caught mere glimpses, during a period of more than two thousand years. As Maspero has well said: “We have here the mere dust of history rather than history itself; 1 Price, op. cit., p. 14. Thureau-Dangin, op. cit., pp. 216, 217. 2 Canephore B, col. 2, line 9. Thureau-Dangin, op. cit., pp. 220, 221. 3 The Date Line which gives us this news, reads thus: “31. Year in which King Hammurapi, with the help of Anu and Ellil, marched at the head of his army, and his hand cast down the land of Emutbal and King Rim Sin.” Schorr, op. cit., pp. 591, 592. 70 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA here an isolated individual makes his appearance in the record of his name, to vanish when we at¬ tempt to lay hold of him ; there the stem of a dy¬ nasty which breaks abruptly off, pompous pre¬ ambles, devout formulas, dedications of objects or buildings, here or there the account of some battle or the indication of some foreign country with which relations of friendship or commerce were maintained — these are the scanty materials out of which to construct a connected narrative.” But, though we have only names of kings of various cities and faint indications of their deeds, we are able, nevertheless, out of these materials to secure in some measure an idea of the develop¬ ment of political life and of civilization in the land. As has been already said, the civilization of southern Babylonia, in the period 4000-2300 B. C., was at the foundation Sumerian. But during a large part of this time it was Sumerian influenced by Semitic civilization. The northern kingdom even about 3000 B. C. was Semitic. Intercourse was free and widely extended, as the inscriptions of Sargon and Naram-Sin and the operations of Gudea have conclusively shown. The Sumerian civilization was old, and the seeds of death were in it; the Semitic civil¬ ization, on the other hand, was instinct with life and vigor. The Semite had come out of the free airs of the desert of Arabia and had in his veins a bounding life. It was natural HISTORY TO THE FALL OF LARSA 71 that his vigorous civilization should permeate at first slowly and then rapidly into the senile culture of the Sumerians. The Sumerian in¬ scriptions early begin to give evidence of Semitic influence. Here it is a word borrowed from the Semitic neighbors, there it is a name of man or god. This influence increased. Toward the end of the period the Semitic words are frequent, the Semitic idiom is in a fair way to a complete peaceful conquest, and political conquest would bring about the final triumph of Semitism, though not the extermination of Sumerian in¬ fluence. It remained until the very end of Babylon itself, and the rise of the Indo-European world powers. The conservatism of religious customs gave to the old language and the old literature, now become sacred, a new life. The temples still bore Sumerian names when Baby¬ lon’s last conqueror entered the magnificent gates. Concerning the political development we know altogether too little for dogmatic conclusions. The whole may be summed up in the following manner: The earliest indications show us the city as the center of government. The chief man in the city is its king, or, if there be no title of king, he is called patesi . When the sur¬ rounding country is annexed his title remains the same; he is still king of the city. But after a time a new custom comes into vogue. Ur- Ba’u is king of Ur, but he is more, he is also 72 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA king of Sumer and Accad. By that expression we are introduced to the conception of a govern¬ ment which controlled not only segregated cities, but a united country, northern and southern Babylonia. The position of the capital was indeed fluctuating. The capital depends alto¬ gether on the king and his place of origin. The kingdom has its governmental center in Ur, but Ur is not its permanent capital. The capital is later found in Isin, and the kings of Isin are then kings of Sumer and Accad when they have conquered and bear rule in the north and south. This old title lives on through the centuries, and iater kings in other cities are proud to carry it on their inscriptions. This union of all Babylonia under one king was not the means of creating a national unity strong enough to resist the outside invader. Sumerian civilization seemed to have reached the end of its development as a political factor. The raids of the Elamites scattered and broke its power, and the time was ready for a man strong enough to conquer the petty kings of Larsa, take the title of king of Sumer and Accad and make a strong kingdom. CHAPTER IV THE FIRST AND SECOND DYNASTIES OF BABYLON The origin of the city of Babylon is veiled in impenetrable obscurity. The first city built upon the site must have been founded fully four thousand years before Christ, and it may have been much earlier. The city is named in the Omen tablet of Sargon,1 and, though this is no proof that the city was actually in existence more than three thousand years before Christ, it does prove that a later tradition assigned to it this great antiquity. At this early date, how¬ ever, it seems not to have been a city of im¬ portance. During the long period of the rise of the kingdom of Sumer and Accad few kings in the south find Babylon worthy of mention, though Babylon must have been developing into a city of influence during the later centuries of the dominion of Isin and Larsa. From about 2200 B. C. the influence of this city extends almost without a break to the period of the Seleucides. No capital in the world has ever been the center of so much power, wealth, and culture for a period so vast. It is indeed a brilliant cycle of centuries upon which we enter. 1 IV R. 34, obverse 1. 8. KeilinHchrift. Bibl., iii, part i, pp. 102, 103. 73 74 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA The rise of Babylon to supremacy over the more ancient cities both of northern and of southern Babylonia, is associated with the de¬ velopment of a new strain of blood and life among the Semites. The Semites, who had poured in successive streams of migration from Arabia, had found homes in many and diverse places, and in each of these the originally homogeneous race had developed civilizations differing in some points from each other. It is increasingly evident, as the study of anthropol¬ ogy goes forward, that the races of mankind are deeply modified by climate, soil, and the food indigenous to particular localities, and that man’s power of adaptation to diverse conditions changes him in many unexpected ways. We have been seeing how Semites had developed in Accad into a conquering race who under Sargon and Naram-Sin had made the Semitic name a terror to the Sumerians. We are now to see consequences of the greatest moment which flow from conquests made by the former- king in quite another direction. Sargon had made campaigns into the far west to the coasts of the Mediterranean and found there people of Semitic blood, dwelling in communities, and with a civilization of their own with many divergences from that in Accad. They had indeed other gods than those worshiped among their cousins in the East, such as Amar, the sun god, and A dad or Hadad, god of storms, FIRST AND SECOND DYNASTIES 75 and of the mountain/ or at least used for their deities other names than those common in Accad. As the names of the gods figure so largely in the personal names of the early Semites, the names of the Amorites had also become quite different from those in the east, and by their names we are frequently able to trace their presence far from their native land. These Amorites conquered by Sargon became in some sense tributary to Accad. The early Semitic rulers of Babylonia surely could make no pretense to have extended their empire to the Mediterranean coasts. They ravaged, plun¬ dered, took slaves, and overawed the Amorites enough to compel the paying of tribute for a time. When it ceased they made fresh cam¬ paigns of conquest. After these raids the Am¬ orites came to learn of Accad, and into it came not only those who were carried thither un¬ willing as slaves, but also merchants and set¬ tlers. The two chief wings of the Semites, east and west, were beginning to fold together again. When the Semitic empire of Accad began to wane, the Amorites, who had learned war through suffering its ravages, must have begun to make reprisals upon their erstwhile con¬ querors. But we are unhappily not able to follow their expeditions, for they were not 1 See for these names A. T. Clay, Amurru, pp. 95, ff. Some of the other names which Clay adduces as also Amorite or West Semitic, are more probably common Semitic. 76 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA writers as were the kings of Accad. How early they may have begun to raid and plunder we do not know, but the menace of them was felt strongly as early as the days of Gimil-Sin (2392-2383 B. C.), who built a city wall espe¬ cially designed to keep out the Amorites.1 There is another echo of their hostile move¬ ments during the reign of Libit-Ishtar, whom some unknown Amorite drove from his city.2 These instances give but small indications of what were doubtless frequent, and often more important attacks by Amorites upon the other branch of their race. By conquest in some places, by peaceful pene¬ tration in others, the western Semite made his way into dominance if not into actual numerical superiority. The first surely known appearance of a king with an Amorite name upon the throne of a Babylonian city was in the person of Sumu- abi, king of Babylon, and founder of the dis¬ tinguished first dynasty of the city. His ante¬ cedents, and his own early life and works are alike unknown to us. His figure rises suddenly 1 Gimil-Sin date formula for the fifth year. The text gives simply Amurru, which Thureau-Dangin (Die Sumerischen und Akkadischen Konigsinschriften, p. 234) translates “the west,” but gives in a foot¬ note the variant reading Amurru (ki) which makes the sense the Amor¬ ite country, and this is to be preferred. The wall was to defend against the invasions from the Amorite country. 2 The only record of this is in a date line published in Cuneiform Texts, iv, 22, c. Compare Ranke, Orientalistische Liter atur-Zeitung x (1907), col. 112. The arguments against the interpretation advanced by Lindl, ibid., col. 387, are groundless. The date-line is repeated in Schorr, Urkunden des Althabylonischen Zivil- und Prozessrechts, p. 614. FIRST AND SECOND DYNASTIES to view, and with him Babylon begins to put on the aspect of greatness. The reign of Sumu-abi (2232-2218 B. C.) is known to us almost entirely by brief date lines/ and these were all written in Sumerian, though the king himself was a Semite ; the old language was still in much vigor, and the day of its extinction was yet far off. Sumu-abks first act would seem to have been the erection of the great city wall of Babylon, but most of his labor was given to the erection and adornment of the temple of Nannar, which was probably located in Babylon. In the thirteenth year of his reign Kasallu was ravaged, and war had begun. But there was another campaign of the kings of much greater consequence, for the Chronicler2 has pre¬ served the statement that he was at war with Ilu-shuma, king of Assyria, but has left us no further account as to the cause or the result of the conflict. After a reign of fourteen years Sumu-abi disappears as quietly as he came and Sumu-la-ilu (2218-2182 B. C.) reigned as the second king of the dynasty, though he is not known to have been related to the founder. His long reign was crowded with incident and filled with great deeds. In it even in the narrow and arid details of date lines we can discern3 the 1 These lists, published Cuneiform Texts, vi, 9, 10, are assembled and translated in Schorr, op. cit., pp. 582, 583. 2 King, C tiro nicies, p. 14. 3 See the complete list for his reign in Schorr, op. cit., pp. 583-5. 78 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA great progress of empire, the rise of Babylon to supremacy over the most ancient cities of Accad. The first hint of his activity is not in war, but, as was well suited a ruler in such a land, the digging of canals, one of them, named Shamash-khegal, of such importance that two years were named after it, while another, named after himself, was excavated in his eleventh year, and gave its name to two years. But if these beneficent acts distinguish his reign, successful war is still more marked in it. In his thirteenth year Kish fell before him and was devastated. Nothing could be more significant of the rise of Babylon’s power, and it is not surprising that five years were named from so momentous an occurrence. Kish had been a city well accustomed to the rule of other states, and its imperial rule had now passed to a city of no consequence during the greater part of its long rule. Next Kasallu suffered again as it had in former days, and this time its king Yakhzir- ilum was carried off into captivity, and the city wall, dedicated to Ann, was destroyed. In some way the king escaped and in Sumu-la-ilu’s twenty-fifth year had to be conquered again. During his reign three kings, Ilum-ma-ila, Immerum, and Bunutakhtun-ila, bore rule in Sippar and date lines1 have come to us from them, but their rule was either subject to his overlordship, or it was slipping away, for his 1 Schorr, op. cit., p. Gil. FIRST AND SECOND DYNASTIES 79 dates show that in his twenty-ninth year he built the city wall of Sippar. Cutha had already passed into his control, and peace enough was enjoyed in his bloody truces to en¬ able him to set up a gold and silver throne to Marduk, presumably at Babylon. His hand had been heavy upon the neighboring cities, but he handed on to his son and successor a consol¬ idated dominion such as Babylon had never enjoyed before. Zabum1 (2182-2168 B. C.) reigned in a lull of peace, no warlike enterprise being set down in memory of him save the destruction of the wall of Kasallu in his twelfth year. His labors were given chiefly to temple building and restoration. The temple of the Moon god in Sippar he built and there sixteen centuries later the devout king Nabonidus found his name written amid the foundations of the temple of Anunit,2 and in the former his bronze statue was set up. He also dug a canal, and left a kingdom undiminished, so far as we can yet know, to his son Apil-Sin (2168-2150 B. C.), who ruled, as his father had done, in peace. His reign served only to strengthen the city wall of Babylon, and to erect a new chief gate on its eastern side, while a new canal helped irriga¬ tion and commerce. 1 The name is written also Zabium in the date lines, which are as¬ sembled by Schorr, op. cit., 585, 6. 2 Nabonidus, Ur inscription I R. 69, col. iii, line 29. Langdon, Neu- babylonische Kbniysinschr i/ten , pp. 248, 249. 80 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA Times more troublous and fateful fell upon Sin-muballit (2150-2130 B. C.), who inherited his father’s peaceful throne. The first of his important campaigns was in his fourteenth year when he overcome the army of Ur. We do not certainly know who was then king in Ur, but there is at least a strong presumption that the city was then under the dominion of Larsa, probably under Arad-Sin (Eri-Aku), who is known to have been his contemporary.1 Three years later Isin was taken, and the entire in¬ corporation of Accad was brought much nearer, while in three years more even Larsa was at¬ tacked, though not yet fully mastered. Sin- muballit had indeed made a gain over the military achievements of Sumu-abi, but it would be some time yet before the whole land should acknowledge both north and south the hegemony of the upstart city of Babylon. Like his predecessors, Sin-muballit dug canals and built city walls notably at Karkar, Marad, and Rubatum. He apparently built no new temples, but showed his interest in the cultus by making shrines for Nergal and his consort Allat at Cutha. He had wrought well, but his glory would speedily be eclipsed by the grander achievements of his more distinguished son Hammurapi (2130-2087 B. C.), with whom begins a new era. It is the chief glory of his name that he made a united Babylonia, and 1 Compare Langdon, Miscellanea Assyriaca. FIRST AND SECOND DYNASTIES 81 that the union which he cemented remained until the scepter passed from Semitic hands to an¬ other race. In this he far exceeded the success of Sargon and Lugalzaggisi, whose empires were of but short duration. Yet he had even greater difficulties to meet than they. The Elamites were firmly fastened in the country, and would hardly give it up without a struggle. The activity displayed by these Elamite princes in building was an indication of how much they valued their new possessions. We are now in possession of facts enough to enable us to follow the movements of Ham- murapi in his conquest and, more wonderful still, in his organization of the country. The struggle was severe and was prolonged through the larger part of this long reign, but the end of it was almost assured from the beginning. A man with such capacity for the making of war, and with yet greater powers of organiza¬ tion, of administration and of order was sure of a large issue in achievement. The first campaign of Hammurapi known to us occurred in his seventh year, when Erech and Isin fell before him, and the first great step was taken toward a reunion of Accad and Sumer under a single scepter. The blow thus delivered at Isin was not conclusive. Isin was ruled by Rim-Sin, king of Larsa, who boasted himself of its possession and would be able to continue in some sort of control of it for years 82 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA to come. Hammurapi had merely shaken it, and Rim Sin, though unable to save it from whatever humiliation or sacrifice this had pro¬ duced, was not compelled to yield its possession to the new empire builder. Though this was not a great victory for Hammurapi it was, nevertheless, of some moment, and from this his campaigns went steadily onward toward their goal. In his eighth year he made two campaigns, the one against the district beyond the Tigris which he had pierced with the canal Nuhush- nishe, and the other against Emutbal. In the next year there seems to have been no cam¬ paign at all, while the energies of the king were bent upon the making of a great canal, of which he was so proud that he called it “the abundance of Hammurapi” (Hammurapi khe- gallu), for abundance it would bring to his people when it conveyed the waters of the Euphrates to their fields. In the next following years Malgum, on the Euphrates, was conquered and came into his hands, while Rabikum and Shalibi met a sim¬ ilar fate. These cities find mention only in the date lines1 of business tablets, but we hear nothing in these of the conquest of the Sumerian cities, save for the great struggle with Rim-Sin. It was in the thirty-first year of his reign that 1 See these date lines for Hammurapi’s reign in Schorr, Urkunden des Altbabylonischen Zivil - und Prozessrcchts, pp. 589, ff. FIRST AND SECOND DYNASTIES S3 the decisive blow was struck. Hammurapi col¬ lected his forces and overthrew the land of Emutbal and the king Rim-Sin (2160-2099 B. C.). Emutbal was the ancestral country of Rim-Sin, and was still held by him though his own boasts were chiefly of rule in Babylonia under the style of King of Larsa. It is sig¬ nificant that he dated all events in this reign for thirty-one years from his capture of Larsa, and no less significant that when Hammurapi finally destroyed him he does not call him king of Larsa, but proudly writes of him only as king of Emutbal, as though he had long held Larsa himself. By this time Hammurapi had welded into one fairly compact whole the kingdoms of Accad and Sumer, with the territory of Mesopotamia on their north. He was also in some sense the real ruler of Assyria, for its king Shamshi- Adad I, son of Ellil-kapi, counted himself a tributary of the king of Babylon and assisted his suzerain in the attacks upon Elam. It would seem most probable that Hammurapi would also seek to control the destinies of the small western states bordering upon the Mediter¬ ranean Sea, the ancient homeland of his own section of the Semitic people. There is, however, in the texts of his own time no allusion to any western campaign. The Hebrews preserved a legend of a great expedition into the west of Hammurapi, whose name is written Amraphel, 84 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA in association with “Arioch king of Ellasar, Chedorlaomer king of Elam, and Tidal king of the nations’" (Goyyim). Arioch is for Eri-Aku, the Sumerian form for Arad-Sin king of Larsa (Ellasar), and Chedorlaomer is the good Elamite name Kudur-lagamar, not yet found on any Elamite or Babylonian document of this early period, but both the word Kudur (servant of, or worshiper of) and Lagamar, an Elamite god, are amply supported.1 Tidal is a Hittite name, not verifiable, indeed, in any original texts of this period, but identical with the name of a Hittite king in Asia Minor (Boghaz Keui) cen¬ turies later,2 and may well have been borne by 1 Kudur appears frequently in these Elamite names. Lagamar occurs as the name of an Elamite deity in an Assyrian text (V R. vi, col. 6, 33), and also in the inscriptions of Anzan-Shushinak (F. H. Weissbach, Anzanische Inschriften, Abh. d. phil. hist. Classe. der k. Sachs. Ges. d. Wissenschaften, xii, p. 125. Leipzig, 1891). Unfor¬ tunately a sharp controversy has occurred over the name Chedorlaomer which was thought to appear in some texts of the period of the Arsacidse (see Pinches, Journal of the Transactions of the Victoria Institute, xxix, 1897, pp. 56, ff.), and Father Scheil thought that he also had found the name in early tablets ( Revue Biblique, v, October, 1896, pp. 600, f.; Recueil de Travaux relatif . . . Egypt, et Ass., xix, 4, ff.). In the latter case King ( Letters and Inscriptions of Hammurabi, London, 1898, p. xxix) has shown conclusively that the text was misread by Scheil and that the name Chedorlaomer does not occur on it. He has further demonstrated that the reading of Mr. Pinches is very doubtful. Keen and successful though his criticism is, it can hardly be denied that beneath all the obscurity there lies a real reference to the Chedorlaomer of Gen. xiv. Such, for example, is the view of Zimmern ( Theologische Rundschau, i, pp. 320, 321) and Driver ( Authority and Archceology, pp. 42, 43). See, for a learned discussion of the whole matter, the article “Chedorlaomer,” by Thiele and Kosters, in Encyclopaedia Biblica (ed. Cheyne & Black), i, cols. 732-734. 2 The name of this Hittite king is written in cuneiform Dud-khaliya, the successor of Hattusil (Century XII B. C.). See J. Garstang, The Land of the Hittites, pp. 351, 352, and compare a note from Sayce, ibid., p. 324, n. 4, who there also makes allusion to the occurrence of FIRST AND SECOND DYNASTIES 85 a- Hittite prince of the period of Hammurapi. The association of four such kings or princes for a campaign in the west is not in itself im¬ probable, and the Hebrew writer to whom we owe the preservation of the interesting legend, which a later* 1 day associated with the great name of Abraham, may well have been standing upon some little fragment of history, con¬ temporaneous with the great Babylonian king. As soon as the conquest of Sumer and Accad was completed and the empire placed upon a solid foundation so far as the sword had been able to accomplish it, Hammurapi showed him¬ self the statesman even more than the soldier. The southern part of his kingdom, including the cities of Larsa, Ur, Erecli, Lagash, and their environs, were placed under the administrative care of a high officer of state who bore the name Sin-idinam, to whom Hammurapi sent letters the name in the form Tudkhul in the text published by Pinches. See above, p. 84, note 1. 1 It is now generally recognized that Genesis xiv does not belong to any one of the well known writers of the original documents, neither to J, to E, or to P, but is rather “an isolated boulder in the stratification of the Pentateuch” [Skinner], though it does seem to me that its linguis¬ tic character gives considerable signs of affinities with P, larger than Skinner, for example, will allow. Whatever its origin, it is, in its present form, certainly not earlier than the Exile. In the light of all the facts now known of the period, the narrative seems certainly to contain historical improbabilities. Yet in outline it may well be based upon some historical foundation. The names of Amraphel, Arioch, and probably Chedorlaomer are historical. It is, however, not possible to reconcile the date of Amraphel (Hammurapi) with the date of Abra¬ ham (compare Gen. xv, 13, 16), as the earlier sources give but 400 years between him and the Exodus. See the elaborate discussion of the historical problems in Skinner, Commentary on Genesis , pp. 271-276, and O. Proksch, Die Genesis, iibersetzt und erklart, pp. 505-515, 86 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA and dispatches in large number.1 These prove the king’s concern for the daily life of his people, and show an amazing fertility of resource united with decision of character. Manifold questions, some of small moment in our eyes, were re¬ ferred to the king, and the answer went back upon a well-written clay tablet, on which the question was given in brief resume, and the decision followed in clear, direct, and brief form. In these letters we may read of the activities of the king and his officials and learn of the dispatch of troops; the conveyance of gods from one shrine to another; the insertion of an intercalary month in the calendar; the restora¬ tion of landed property which had been illegally escheated; the punishment of bribery; the in¬ spection of royal flocks and herds; or even the restoration of a baker to a post formerly held by him.2 In no previous reign, nor indeed in any following one for centuries, have we had such a picture of the social life of a people. Not content with an administration which rested upon successive decisions of the king himself, Hammurapi compiled a great code of laws, inscribed upon imperishable stone, and forming the longest cuneiform inscription yet recovered. The copy which has survived to 1 These are in large measure to be seen in King, The Letters and In¬ scriptions of Hammurabi , vol. ii. A few specimens may be seen in Rogers, Cuneiform Parallels , pp. 248-252. 2 See the letters in L. W. King, The Letters and Inscriptions of Ham¬ murabi, vol. ii, passim. '$«93l»#Jf5 : *j wTksM T fw$t*£ u ■}^W0 s^skmMl •if ~wMt&2‘*7 »®i6W'JgP •rY*r^|, M^'Cv'W: II — S7 .1 U;: T ' • / J - N A STb ' 87 om lime w; • four- ' ,rn, an 1 h-A suibered been -erased with >• ai ic / o us/ig t ie fine block of aft--: . ./ *er inscription. originally writ ^ t , to av/£j io obo ) odi dhw f)9gtioam tfil9Jr iU&a&I J.p .a vfco£-0Si.£) nolvdaH to and ;•/• • * r b. - r • . a r -innoiio m novo* bnc ) d^ioft rii tooi tdgio _ ^fritfi9g9iqoi hilm £ gf'treq laqqu eill taO r . $oti)Si.&\ rfjrv/ enoirb piri noqu batfisg ‘{ gift xfi bxi£ pov/oq io avr t .i)X|£ bii£ b9nui bind dxjgh -id .w.b ; bo br • oiJ-t io: xiiuopu t-/w . , ;v/(/ .. UobV* dtemM ;>• .77- vd I; . - 1 thk come the : iws relating to .dabci hot o Mod < o - o < ,» t: i t’ ■ ■ ‘ : b '» which b iVft ! • "> '* J into one in the Hamimi .?>i code. t . I *t. I , . K Basalt Stela, inscribed with the Code of Laws of Hammurapi, king of Babylon (2130-2087 B. C.), nearly eight feet in height and seven in circum¬ ference. On the upper part is a relief representing Shamash, the sun god, seated upon his throne with his feet resting upon the mountains. Upon his head is the horned crown of power, and in his hand the ring and staff emblematic of sovereignty, while from his shoulders rise flames of fire. Before him stands the king receiving the code of laws, which are in¬ scribed below, his right hand bared and raised, and his posture indicating worship. Museum of the Louvre, Paris. [Photograph supplied by W. A. Mansell & Co., London.] FIRST AND SECOND DYNASTIES 87 our time was found in Elam, and had suffered the loss of five columns of writing, which had been erased with the intention of using the fine block of stone for another inscription. As originally written it is estimated1 to have con¬ tained “forty-nine columns, four thousand lines, and about eight thousand words. ” Like every other code of laws known to us, it was not made by the king’s counselors de novo , but had its roots in the past and was a compilation2 rather than a creation. It begins with sections on Evidence and Decision, and then passes to the never-ending problem of Property, to which no less than one hundred and twenty laws are devoted. But a small part of this long section is given to personal property, the major portion being devoted to real property. Following this the Code deals with the Person, under which head the Family holds a chief place. Upon this come the laws relating to Labor, both free and enslaved, and the great code closes with a long passage in which the king, who is “a father to his subjects,” enjoins obedience to these upon all people and upon the kings who should rule after him “forever and ever.” No king is to forget them: “The law of the land, which I have given, the decisions which I have 1 Johns, in Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible, v, p. 584. 2 An interesting proof of this is to be found in two Sumerian laws which have been combined into one in the Hammurapi code. See A. T. Clay, A Sumerian Prototype of the Hammurapi Code. Oriental - istische Liter aturzeilung, January, 1914, cols. 1-3. 88 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA pronounced, he shall not alter, nor efface my image. If that man have wisdom, if he wish to keep his land in order, he shall take heed to the words which I have written upon my mon¬ ument. The procedure, the administration, and the law of the land, which I have given, the decisions which I have pronounced, this mon¬ ument will show unto him. He shall so rule his subjects, pronounce judgment, give decisions, drive the wicked and evildoers from the land, and promote his people’s prosperity.”1 Ham- murapi also displayed extraordinary care in the development of the resources of the land, and in thus increasing the wealth and comfort of the inhabitants. The chiefest of his great works is best described in his own ringing words — the words of a conqueror, a statesman, and a patriot: “Hammurapi, the powerful king, king of Babylon, . . . when Anu and Bel gave unto me to rule the land of Sumer and Accad, and with their scepter filled my hands, I dug the canal Hammurapi, the abundance of the people, which bringeth abundance of water unto the land of Sumer and Accad. Its banks upon both 1 The editio princeps of the code is by Vincent Scheil, Memoires de la Delegation en Perse, vol. iv, 1902. See further Hugo Winckler, Die Gesetze Hammurabis in Umschrift und Uebersetzung, Leipzig, 1904. Robert F. Harper, The Code of Hammurabi, Chicago, 1904. C. H. W. Johns, Code of Hammurabi. Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible, v, pp. 584, ff., 1904, with an excellent general discussion of the code’s pro¬ visions as well as a translation. D. G. Lyon, The Structure of the Ham¬ murabi Code in the Journal of the American Oriental Society, vol. xxv, pp. 248, ff., 1904, with the best topical analysis. The entire code in transliteration and translation appears also in Rogers, Cuneiform Par¬ allels, pp. 398-465. FIRST AND SECOND DYNASTIES 89 sides I made arable land; much grain I garnered upon it. Lasting water I provided for the land of Sumer and Accad. The land of Sumer and Accad, its separated peoples I united, with blessings and abundance I endowed them, in peaceful dwellings I made them to live.”1 This was no idle promise made to the people before the union of Sumer and Accad under the hegemony of Babylon, but the actual accom¬ plishment of a man who knew how to knit to himself and his royal house the hearts of the people of a conquered land. There is a world of wisdom in the deeds of this old king. No work could possibly have been performed by him which would bring greater blessing than the building of a canal by which a nearly rainless land could be supplied with abundant water. After making the canal, Hammurapi followed the example of his predecessors in Babylonia and carried out extensive building- operations in various parts of the land. On all sides we find evidences of his efforts in this work. In Babylon itself he erected a great granary for the storing of wheat against times of famine — a work of mercy as well as of ne¬ cessity, which would find prompt recognition among Oriental peoples then as now. The temples to the sun god in Larsa and in Sippar 1 The Louvre Inscription, Col. I, 1— II, 10. See, for full references to the original texts, Jensen in Keilinschrift. Bibl., iii, part i, p. 123, and compare also translation by Winckler ( Geschichte , p. 64). King, The Letters and Inscriptions of Hammurabi , ii, 188-191. 90 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA were rebuilt by him; the walls of the latter city were reconstructed “like a great mountain” — to use his own phrase — and the city was enriched by the construction of a new canal. The great tem¬ ples of E-sagila in Babylon and E-zida in the neighboring Borsippa showed in increased size and in beauty the influence of his labors. There is evidence, also, that he built for himself a palace at the site now marked by the ruin of Kalwadha, near Baghdad. But these buildings are only external evidences of the great work wrought in this long reign for civilization. The best of the culture of the an¬ cient Sumerians was brought into Babylon, and there carefully conserved. What this meant to the centuries that came after is shown clearly in the later inscriptions. To Babylon the later kings of Assyria look constantly as to the real center of culture and civilization. No Assyrian king is content with Nineveh and its glories, great though these were in later days; his great¬ est glory came when he could call himself king of Babylon, and perform the symbolic act of taking hold of the hands of Bel-Marduk. Nineveh was the center of a kingdom of war¬ riors, Babylon the abode of scholars; and the wellspring of all this is to be found in the work of Hammurapi. But if the kings of Assyria looked to Babylon with longing eyes, yet more did later kings in the city of Babylon itself look back to the days FT Pi ST AND SECOND DYNASTIES 91 of Hammurapi as the golden age of their his¬ tory. Nabopolassar and Nebuchadrezzar ac¬ knowledged his position in the most flattering way, for they imitated in their inscriptions the very words and phrases in which he had de¬ scribed his building, and, not satisfied with this, even copied the exact form of his tablets and the style of their writing. In building his plans were followed, and in rule and administration his methods were imitated. His works and his words entitle him to rank as the real founder of Babylon. When the long reign was ended the son of Hammurapi, by name Samsu-iluna (2087-2049 B. C.), entered into his father’s labors, and apparently without protest or serious difficulty in the beginning. The simple record of his first year is in the words: “The year in which King Samsu-iluna, by the faithful command of Mar- duk, exercised dominion over the lands.”1 The text is in the ancient Sumerian speech and the word kurkurra = lands probably still retains its ancient signification,2 and applies to the ter¬ ritories or dominions outside the proper home¬ land of Sumer and Accad. To the latter the date line of the second year applies in the words: “The year in which he established the freedom of Sumer and Accad.” There is no hint in 1 See date line for first year of Samsu-iluna, Schorr, Urkunden des altbabylonischen Zivil - und Prozessrechts, p. 594. Compare also the references in Kins. Hammurabi, iii, pp. 241, ff. 2 See above, p. 5. 92 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA either of these that he felt compelled to carry on any campaigns for the establishment of his authority, though a threat of force may well be presupposed. The meaning may be that during his first year, while he made sure of his control over the outer territories, the homeland of Sumer and Accad was under some sort of martial law, and that in the second year the civil liberties, under the Hammurapi code, were fully restored. In any case it is perfectly clear that the king’s authority was fully established in his whole realm, for six years follow which were remem¬ bered only1 as crowded with works of peace. In two of them he dug canals, following the long line of precedents set by the kings of former days, while others were signalized by gifts of golden votive statues of himself before the god Shamash in Ebabbar and for Marduk in Esagila, or by the adornment of Marduk’s throne in the same temple, and in yet another he set up a bronze stand depicting “mountains and rivers bringing fulness and overflow in their place.”2 In the ninth year the peaceful calm was rudely shattered, and for six years there is neither digging of canals, nor adornment of the cultus, but marching men, and waving spear, and the destructive torch. We know but the meager facts concerning the place where the wars were waged, and in some cases the issue 1 See the date lines as given in Schorr, l. c. 2 Date line for the eighth year. Schorr, l. c. FIRST AND SECOND DYNASTIES 93 of them in a general way, while in others we must depend upon inference. The storm of war broke first in an invasion by Kassite hordes, whom the king met success¬ fully, as we may justly infer. This was no light matter. These same Kassites would later overrun the whole country, as we shall soon see, and give it a new ruling class. To have pre¬ vented such a consummation at this time and to preserve his dynasty was a military achieve¬ ment of no mean quality, though it was de¬ fensive rather than offensive. But the very next year put his aggressive qualities to the proof. The date line is provokingly brief and colorless, as they are wont to be. It records simply that in his tenth year the king overcame the hordes of Idamaraz, and to this other date lines on documents add the more interesting intelligence that Emutbal, Erech, and Isin fell before the king. Now Emutbal was the home¬ land of Rim-Sin’s dynasty, as we have seen be¬ fore. Hammurapi had not destroyed, but only abridged the power of Rim-Sin, who still re¬ tained Erech and Isin, and was also still acknowl¬ edged as the ruler of Larsa up to now. This was the end of his career and probably also of his life, for a Chronicle1 has preserved in. broken words that it was Samsu-iluna who overcame Rim-Sin and either captured (?) or burnt (?) 1 Chronicle concerning Early Babylonian Rulers, Obverse lines 13-17. King, Chronicles, etc., ii, p. 18. 94 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA “him alive in the palace.” So ended the work of a man who had come closely to making an empire with a ruling house stock. The virile western Semitic race had been too much for him. Though the resourceful and able Rim-Sin had disappeared Samsu-iluna had other great issues of war to meet, before he returned to the devel¬ opment of his country. He tore down the walls of Ur and Erech,1 as a stroke of preventive war, and overthrew all the lands which had risen against him, and destroyed as well Kisurra and Sabum. After this there is much less of war and more of the victories of peace, though the twelfth year provided an outbreak of civil war in Accad, where a pretender had roused the people to rebel. He was crushed, and there are no further hints of any rebellions against an authority too strong and uncompromising to be met. And now began in full measure the process of restoration of that which war had destroyed. The walls of Isin rise from their ruins, the de¬ fenses, which were “like the heavens in beau¬ tiful Sippar,” are restored, nay, even the fortress walls in Emutbal are rebuilt. Samsu-iluna has gathered all these within his empire, and has no fear that they will be able to break loose from 1 Date line for eleventh year, Schorr, l. c. Compare with this King, Hammurabi, iii, p. 244, footnote 83, who describes the doubt that then existed as to whether this date line meant that the walls were destroyed, or rebuilt, and decides in favor of the latter. The evidence now seems to me to point to the former. FIRST AND SECOND DYNASTIES 95 it. He had proved himself a conqueror, he would now demonstrate that he could rule, as his father had done, that which the sword and spear and battle axe had won. He devoted most of the remaining years to restorations of temples, and to the making of costly images or adornments for them. We know little of his relations to other powers. His borders were coterminous on the north with Assyria, but we do not know what were his relations with the new kingdom which had doubtless gathered strength since the day when Hammurapi was its acknowledged suzerain. On the south he was neighbor to the country of the Sea Land in which a new dynasty had arisen under the rule of Iluma-ilu. With this man he tried conclusions,1 but apparently with no great success, for Iluma-ilu remained to plague his son in the next reign. The relative amount of failure in this is small in comparison with the great successes everywhere else. It was indeed a great reign. It was a rich and strong kingdom to which came his son Abeshu (Ebishum) (2049-2021 B. C.), and he would appear to have been able to hold it, if not to extend greatly its influence. The date lines which have survived from his years cannot be set in chronological order, and we are forced to regard hjs reign as a whole 1 Chronicles concerning Early Babylonian Rulers, Reverse lines 1-6. King, Chronicles , ii, pp. 19, 20. Also in Rogers, Cuneiform Parallels, p. 207. 96 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA and not in its orderly development. It was not a reign of conquest and of extension, though the Chronicle1 is able to report that he set out to conquer Iluma-ilu, and that “his heart moved him to dam the Tigris, and he dammed the Tigris, but he caught not Iluma-ilu.” As to his other works we know that he worked upon the country’s canalization, and made his contributions to the enrichment of its temples. He is, however, a colorless figure against the greater background of his predecessors. Per¬ haps the common people suffered less, and gained more during his inglorious twenty-eight years than in the period of splendor which had preceded his day. The times were stable enough to continue the same family on the throne, and Ammiditana (2021-1984 B. C.), son of the last king, enjoyed the long reign of thirty-seven years. It was an even more peaceful time than his father had experienced. Not until the seventeenth year of his reign is the peaceful series broken, but in that year he overcame a Sumerian rebel, by name Arakhab. In his last year he destroyed a wall at Isin, which had been erected by the people of Damik-ilishu. All the other years of an uneventful reign were given over to the common acts of religious piety or to the useful arts of life. In still more peaceful fashion lived 1 Chronicle concerning Early Babylonian Rulers. Reverse lines 7-9. King, Chronicles, ii, p. 21. Rogers, Cuneiform Parallels, p. 207. FIRST AND SECOND DYNASTIES 97 his son and successor, Ammisaduga (1984-1963 B. C.), of whom no war is recorded, but who dug one canal, and made rich gifts to the tem¬ ples. His son Samsuditana (1963-1932 B. C.) had another peaceful reign, carried on in the same way save for one serious shock. The Chronicle1 makes only this single statement : “ Against Samsuditana the men of the land of Khatti marched against the land of Akkad. ” Nothing like this had been known for centuries while the Amorites were making a great empire. The Khatti, or Hittites, as they were later popularly known, had the center of their vigor¬ ous empire in Cappadocia at a city called then Khatti, but now bearing the name of Boghaz- koi. Out of these distant mountain fastnesses they poured into Accad with force enough at least to plunder. We do not know how long they remained nor how great were their depre¬ dations, but the city of Babylon must have been severely handled, for from it they must have carried away images of the god Marduk and his consort Sarpanitum, which a later king of Baby¬ lon was to restore with much ceremony to their shrines.2 This Hittite invasion probably was not the immediate, though it may well have been the proximate cause of the fall of the dynasty. It 1 Chronicle concerning Early Babylonian Rulers. Reverse line 10. King, Chronicles , ii, p. 22. 2 V R. 33. Jensen, Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek, iii, part i, pp. 134, ff. Compare King, Chronicles, i, pp. 148, 149. See below, p. 10(3, for the story of the restoration. 98 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA had presumably weakened the defenses of the empire so greatly that when the Hittites stag¬ gered away into the north with their booty the way was opened for another people to possess the cities which Hammurapi and his son had welded into a great and partially civilized power. CHAPTER V THE KASSITE DYNASTY At about the year 1758 ends the long period of stable peace, during which Babylonia was ruled by kings of native blood. This land of great fertility had tempted often enough the hardy mountaineers of Elam, even as in later centuries the fair plains of northern Italy were coveted by the Teutons, who surveyed them from the mountains above. As long as the in¬ fluence of Hammurapi and the other founders of the united kingdom of Babylonia remained the country was able to defy any invader. But the development of the arts, the progress of civiliza¬ tion, and the increase of trade and commerce had weakened the military arm. Babylon was becoming like Tyre of later days, whose mer¬ chants were always willing to pay tribute to a foreign foe rather than run the risk of a war which might injure their trade. At this time, however, Babylon still possessed patriotism and national pride, and there is no reason to believe that the foreigner seated himself upon the proud throne of the Babylonians without difficulty. It is indeed unlikely that the conquest of Baby¬ lon was achieved by a definitely organized army, 99 100 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA led by a commander who purposed making him¬ self king of Babylon, while still continuing to reign in his own country. It is rather the mi¬ gration of a strong, fresh people which here con¬ fronts us. This people is called the Kasshu, and their previous seat was in the rough mountain country east of the Tigris, but it is difficult to localize them more perfectly. It seems probable that they were racially identical with the people dwelling along the banks of the Zagros, who became famous in later times under the name of the Kossseans1 (K oooaloi), and it has even been suggested that they are, in some way, to be connected with another people, the Kissians (K iaaioi), who were at one time settled in the country of Susiana,2 but are also believed to be mentioned in Cappadocia.3 Their language was 1 Delitzsch believes that these are all one people ( Die Sprache der Kossaer, p. 4). But see for reasons to the contrary Oppert ( Zcitschrift fur Assyriologie, iii, pp. 421, ff., and v, pp. 106, f.) and also Lehmann (ibid., vii, pp. 328, ff. ; Zeitschrift der Deutsche Morgenldndische Gesell., 1895, p. 306; Zwei Hauptprobl., pp. 211, 212). Lehmann identifies the Kasshu with the Kissians, and against this view may be quoted Rost, Unter suchungen, pp. 43, 44. The name Kassite, which we have here adopted, is colorless and leaves the question undecided until more light has been obtained. It was proposed by Sayce ( Records of the Past, new series i, p. 16), but he, nevertheless, identifies them with the Kossseans (ibid., note 7). Kassite is now in general, use (for example, by Winckler, Geschichte, pp. 78, 79, and Hilprecht (Cassite), Old Baby¬ lonian Inscriptions, vol. i, part i, p. 28; McCurdy (Kasshites), History, Prophecy, and the Monuments, i, p. 143). 2 Tieyovrai 6e /cat K iamoi oi Zovclol. Strabo, Geographica, xv, 2 (ed- Augustus Meineke, vol. iii, p. 1014). Sennacherib (Taylor Cylinder, col. i, line 64, tr. by Rogers in Records of the Past, new series, vi, p. 86) found the Kashshi in the Kosssean mountains. Compare Billerbeck, Das Sandschak Suleimania, Leipzig, 1898, p. 126, who locates them in the “ Luti-Bagtsche Bergland.” 3 Ptolemseus, v, 6, 6, quoted by Rost, Unter suchungen, p. 44. THE KASSITE DYNASTY 101 neither Semitic nor Indo-European, neither does it show any connection with Sumerian. In their own country they were closely associated with Semitic peoples, such as the Lulubi, while press¬ ing behind them were the Arians seeking new homes and opportunities, and before them were the great prizes of Sumer and Accad. In the present state of our knowledge we are not justified in identifying them positively either as to race or language, though it is interesting to observe that some of the Kassite names bear most striking resemblance to those of the Hittites and especially to those of the stock of Mitanni,1 though the Mittanian language is not Hittite. It will be safer simply to call them Kassites, and thus leave their racial affinity an open question. * Certain indications there are which seem to show that they did not come direct from their ancient home into Babylonia, but were settled first in the far south, near the Persian Gulf. They entered Babylon probabty as roving bands, then in increased numbers over¬ ran the land and gained control, so that they set¬ up a foreign dynasty in place of the previous native Babylonian rule. Concerning this Kassite dynasty our knowl¬ edge is very unsatisfactory. The Babylonian historians preserved in their King List the names of all these kings, but unhappily this list, in the 1 See, for example, the list in Clay, Personal Names of the Cassite Period (Yale Oriental Series, i), pp. 44, 45. 102 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA form in which we possess it, is badly broken and some of the names are lost. The list assigns to this dynasty five hundred and seventy-six years and nine months.1 On this representation the Kassites must have ruled from about 1757 B. C. to about 1181 B. C. During this long period they naturally did not remain foreigners, but were rapidly assimilated to Babylonian culture as well as to Babylonian usages. They naturally wrote inscriptions, as their predecessors had done; they built buildings and worshiped the Babylonian gods. But their rule did not bring forth so rich a fruit as Hammurapi’s had done, and the records that have come down to us are much more fragmentary. Of only one king in this dynasty do we possess any long historical inscription, and his name does not appear upon the King List, but stood where the list is broken beyond hope of restoration. The correspondence of some of the kings with kings of Egypt has been preserved, and by it a most welcome light is shed upon the obscure period. We possess only contract tablets of other kings, the num¬ ber of which will be largely increased by the publication of tablets that have been found at Nippur. To us their names convey no real meaning. They are only shadows of men. The name of the first king, called Gandish, also appears in a vo¬ tive tablet under the form Gande, and in still 1 See above, voi. i, pp. 517—523. THE KASSITE DYNASTY 103 another little fragment as Gaddash.1 He gives honor to the great god Ellil, and wrote his name and titles on the door sockets set up k>y former Babylonian kings. But his name is not written in the same skillful man¬ ner as of former worthies. The rude work¬ manship is eloquent of the change which had come through a ruder race. The world’s progress was put back when the Kassites came to rule in Babylon. But though we know so little about this first king of the dynasty, we know even less about his followers for a long time. Their names have indeed been preserved as: Agum I (1741-1719 B. C.). Kashtiliash I (1719-1697 B. C.). Ush-shi (1697-1689 B. C.). Abi-rattash (1689-?). Tazzi-gurumash. These kings fill a blank space in the history which had been all aglow with life and color in the days of the first dynasty. After the sixth name the Babylonian King List is hopelessly broken, and no names can be read for a considerable space. It seems probable that Tashzi-gurumash may be the same as the king from whom Agum II claims descent. If 1 The name of this king is also abbreviated into Gande (Hilprecht, Old Babylonian Inscriptions, i, part i, pp. 28, ff.), and even into Gan {ibid., p. 30). It also appears in the form Gaddash on an inscription published by Pinches ( Babylonian and Oriental Record, i, pp. 54, 78; compare Academy, 1891, p. 221). The inscription is in the British Museum (84-2-11, 178), and is published by Winckler ( U ntersuchungen , 104 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA this be true, we may have found by this means the name of the next king on the list. There belonged to the library of Ashurbanipal a long inscription* 1 in Assyrian characters which pur¬ ports to be a copy of an inscription of an early king of Babylon. Certain peculiarities of the Assyrian text make it much more probable that it is a translation from Sumerian.2 The king whose deeds it recounts was Agum II. In this text he calls himself the son of Tashshigurumash. It is very tempting to connect this Tashshiguru¬ mash with the sixth name in the list of kings, and this is probably correct. Whether Agum II was the next name in the list or not, it seems almost certain that he must have belonged to this same period and his name must have followed very shortly upon the list. In his inscription, after giving all his connec¬ tions of blood and all his ties to the gods, he sets forth the lands of his rule in these words: “King of Kasshu and Accad; king of the broad land of Babylon; who caused much people to settle in the land of Ashnunnak; king of Padan and Alvan; king of the land Guti, wide extended peoples; a king who rules the Four Quarters of p. 156, No. 6). Also Hilprecht, Zeitschrift fur Assyriologie, vii, p. 309, note 4, and Old Babylonian Inscriptions, i, part, i, p. 30, n. 3. 1 This text was first published II R. 38, No. 2, and repeated in more perfect form V R. 33. It was collated by Delitzsch and then trans¬ lated in Kossder, pp. 55, ff. It was again collated by Bezold and, upon his contributions, translated by Jensen ( Keilinschrift . Bibl., iii, part i, pp. 134, ff.). For further literature see Bezold ( Ueberblick , p. 57). 2 Winckler ( Geschichte , p. 79). THE KASSTTE DYNASTY 105 the World am I.” This is a remarkable list of titles. It is at once noteworthy that the titles do not follow the usual Babylonian order. Usually a Babylonian king would write the title in this fashion: “King of Babylon, king of the Four Quarters of the World, king of Sumer and Accad, king of Kasshu.” The titles “king of Padan and Alvan, king of Guti, etc.,” would hardly have been used in this form at all. The Babylonian kings would seem to feel that they could not bear direct rule over a land lying out¬ side of the rule of the Babylonian gods who alone could give the title to a king in Babylon. Rather would such a king have called himself “King of the kings of Padan, Alvan, and Guti,” which lands he would thus rule through a deputy ap¬ pointed by himself. It is to be observed that later the Kassite kings conformed very carefully to this custom.1 That Agum II violated it is another proof that he belongs to the earlier kings of the dynasty, in a time before the Kass- ites had accommodated themselves to the cus¬ toms of their conquered land. But the titles of Agum II serve another and larger purpose for us than the furnishing of a confirmation of the position we have assigned him in the dynasty; they furnish us with a view of the extent of territory governed from Babylon during his reign. His kingdom covers all Baby- 1 These distinctions are due to the keenness of Winekler (Geschichte, pp. 80, 81). ion HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA Ionia, both north and south, which belonged to the ancient empire of Hammurapi; but it far exceeded these bounds. Agum II still continued to rule the land of Kasshu, and the land of Ashnunnak. Guti also, a land of which we have heard nothing since the days of Lasirab, was also subject to him, as well as Padan, the land of Mesopotamia between the Euphrates and the Balikh, and Alvan (modern Holwan ), which was contiguous to Guti and lay in the mountains of Kurdistan. As there is no indication in the in¬ scriptions of the previous dynasties that so large a territory had been added to Babylonia since the days of Hammurapi, we are shut up to the view that the Kassites had themselves achieved it. This would make them greater conquerors than even the mighty founder of Babylon’s greatness. The major part of this inscription of Agum II deals with the restoration to Babylon of some gods which had been carried away in a previous raid upon the country. Agum II says that he sent an embassy to the far away land of Khani,1 which was probably located in the mountain country east of the Tigris, and south of the Lower Zab, to bring back to Babylon the statues 1 The location of Khani is now fairly well settled. Asshurnazirpal (I R. 28, col. i, 18, compare Keilinschrift. Bibl., i, 124) alludes to “Mount Khana on the side of the lands of the Lullumi,” and Billerbeck ( Sanschak Sul., p. 8) would identify this mountain with the “Karadagh oder das Bergland zwischen diesem und dem Hamrin.” See further, Sayce, Proceedings Soc. Bib. Arch., January, 1899, pp. 13, ff., who locates “the country of Khana on the eastern side of the Babylonian frontier.” THE KASSITE DYNASTY 107 of Marduk and Zarpanit. In order to under¬ stand this move on his part it must be remem¬ bered that, from the Babylonian point of view, there could be no legitimate king in Babylon unless he had been appointed to his rule by Marduk, patron god and real ruler of the city. But Marduk had been carried away by the peo¬ ple of Khani. It was all important, therefore, for the stability of the throne that this god, at least, be immediately restored. If Agum had had sufficient troops at his command, he would probably have taken the god by force from his captors; as Nebuchadrezzar I and Ashurbanipal did in later times. He did not do this, but sent an “embassy.” In this expression we may see an euphemism for the purchase or ransom of the gods by actual payment of gold or silver. These gods formed part of the loot which had been carried off during the Hittite invasion in the reign of Samsuditana. The destructive charac¬ ter of this Hittite raid is evidenced vividly by the words of Agum, who adds to the story of their restoration the statement that he placed them in the temple of Shamash, and provided them with all the necessities for their worship, because Marduk’s own temple, E-sagila, had to be re¬ stored before it was fit for his occupancy. This ruinous state of Babylon’s great state temple points backward to a period of great weakness, to the period when Babylon was tottering from the proud position to which Hammurapi had 108 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA brought it, and was already an easy prey for the foreigner. The remaining lines of this important inscrip¬ tion deal with temple restorations, and thus add the name of Agum II to the list of great builders who have already passed in review before us. No other events in his reign are known to us, nor is its length preserved. The indications which remain would seem to show that he must have reigned long and peacefully. After the reign of Agum II there is a sharp break in the chain of our information concerning the histor}^ of this dynasty. It will be necessary to make clear the reason for this break, and to set forth briefly the means adopted for the partial repair of the breach. In giving the names of the kings of this dy¬ nasty from Gandish to Agum II we have simply followed the lists made by the Babylonian schol¬ ars in ancient times. If the list were perfectly continued, we should have an easy task in fol¬ lowing out the kings of the dynasty, and in setting forth something of their activity by means of other historical material. Unhappily the tablet containing the list is broken off just after the name of Tashshigurumash. The list is then resumed after some distance with the name of the twenty-third king, and is thence con¬ tinued to the name of the thirty-sixth king.1 1 For details, see the Chronological tables and the discussion ac¬ companying them, vol. i, pp. 517-523. THE KASSITE DYNASTY 109 There are thus preserved the names of twenty kings, to which we may add that of Agum II, making twenty-one in all. At the bottom of the list it is stated that there were thirty-six kings in the dynasty, and that the sum of the years of their reigns was five hundred and seventy-six years and nine months. For the completion of the list we therefore need the names of fifteen kings. How many of these names can be obtained? In the present state of investigation it is safe to say that of these fifteen missing names twelve have been secured with reasonable certainty, and for the most part they can be arranged accurately in order in the dynasty. These names have been secured in some instances from contract tablets dated in their reigns; in others from their own inscrip¬ tions; in others from the so-called Synchronistic History — an original Assyrian document giving very briefly the early relations between Baby¬ lonia and Assyria — in others from letters and dispatches which passed between the courts of Babylonia, Assyria, and Egypt. Before proceeding with the history of the re¬ maining kings of this dynasty it will be necessary to say something by way of preface of the con¬ ditions of political life prevailing elsewhere, in order to the better understanding of the facts which we possess with reference to these reigns. More than five hundred years before the be¬ ginning of the Kassite dynasty, a new state, 110 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA destined to a splendid career of dominion among men, was showing the beginnings of its life along the eastern bank of the Tigris. The land of Assyria in its original limits was a small land inclosed within the natural boundaries of the Tigris, the Upper and the Lower Zab, and the Median mountain range. Its inhabitants at this time were Semites, and apparently of much purer blood than their relatives, the Babylonians, who had intermarried with the Sumerians — a custom afterward continued with the Kassites and with many other peoples. The chief city of this small Assyrian state was Asshur, in which were ruling, at the period of the beginning of the Kassite dynasty, Semitic Patesis , who were the beginners of a long and distinguished line. Their land was admirably furnished by nature. In it lived a people who were not enervated by luxury nor prostrated in energy by excessive and long- continued heat, but accustomed to battle with snowdrifts in the mountains and to conserve their physical force by its constant use. It is no wonder that under such favorable conditions this people should have risen rapidly to power. In a short time we shall find them able to negotiate treaties with the kings of Babylonia, and soon thereafter the main stream of history flows through the channels they were now digging. It is for these reasons that we have here touched lightly upon the beginnings of their national life. Two other lands require brief mention before THE KASSTTE DYNASTY 111 we can properly understand the movement of races during the period of the Kassite dynasty. In the northwestern part of the great valley between the Tigris and Euphrates lay a small country whose two chief original limits were set by the river Euphrates and its tributary the Balikh. In the Egyptian inscriptions of the eighteenth and nineteenth dynasties it is called Naharina — that is, the river country — but it was called Mitanni by its own kings. How long a people had lived within its borders with kings of their own and a separate national existence re¬ mains an enigma. No inscriptions of the people of Mitanni, save letters written to kings of Egypt, have been found. We should indeed hardly know of the land at all but for the discovery of the royal archives of the kings Amenophis III and Amenophis IV, the kings of Egypt who had diplomatic intercourse with it. From these letters and dispatches we have learned the names of several of the kings of Mitanni, among them Artatama, Sutarna, and Dushratta. Their chief god was Teshup and the chief goddess Khepa, both of whom they have in common with the Hittites. At the time when these kings were writing dispatches to the kings of Egypt their land was known under the ap¬ pellation of Khanigalbat. Between the kings of Mitanni and the kings of Egypt there were bonds of marriage, the kings of Egypt having married princesses from the far distant “river land.” 112 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA The fact that the proud kings of Egypt were anxious to ally themselves to the kings of Mitanni would seem to indicate that the land was sufficiently wealthy or influential to make it worthy of the attention of Egypt. The letters of Mitanni were written chiefly in the Semitic language of Babylonia, and in the cuneiform characters, with which we are familiar in the native inscriptions. One of these letters, how¬ ever, preserved in the Royal Museum in Berlin1, is written in the language of Mitanni, which has thus far not yielded to the numerous efforts made to decipher it.2 The tongue shows most clearly a near rela¬ tionship with the Caucasic and Elamitic lan¬ guages, with the latter especially in its vocabu¬ lary. The people of the land, so far as appears at present, represent an old settlement who had some sort of life in their country before the more vigorous although closely related Hittite stock began empire building. What were the closer racial ties of these original people of Mitanni has not been surely made out, but they would at least appear to have had, at some time, an Aryan (Indo-European) ruling class among them. To these Aryan rulers we may ascribe the Indo-European names of men and of gods 1 VA. Th. 422. Knudtzon, El-Amarna Tafeln, No. 24. 2 Attempts to decipher this language have been made by Sayce ( Acad¬ emy , vol. xxxvii, 1890, p. 94; Zeitschrift fur Assyriologie, v. pp. 260-274), by Jensen ( Zeitschrift fur Assyriologie, v, pp. 166-208; vi, pp. 34-72), and by Brunnow (ibid., v, pp. 209-259). Bork, Mitteilungen der Vor- derasiatische Gesellschaft, 1909, Nos. 1 and 2. THE KASSITE DYNASTY 113 which crop out now and again, either among the Mitannians or among those whom they influ¬ enced. The kingdom of Mitanni must take its place among the small states which have had their share in influencing the progress of the world, but whose own history we are unable to trace. But, though we cannot do this, we may at least observe that it seems to have been largely under Semitic influences, for its method of writing was borrowed from its powerful neighbors. The last land to which our attention must be diverted before proceeding with the main story is the land of Kardunyash.1 Originally the word Kardunyash seems to be applied to a small terri¬ tory in southern Babylonia close to the Persian Gulf. The termination, “ash” is Kassite, and it has been supposed, with good reason, that the Kassites first settled in this land by the Persian Gulf, and used it as a base from which to over¬ run and conquer Babylonia. Whether this be true or not, it is at least certain that the name Kardunyash comes to be used by the Kassite kings as a sort of official name for the land of Babylonia. We are now able to return to the Kassite dy¬ nasty after a long excursus; the better prepared to gather together such little threads of informa¬ tion as link them with their neighbors. 1 Winckler ( U ntersuchungcn, pp. 135, 136; Geschiclite, pp. 86, 87). For references to the Kl-Amarna letters from Kardunyash see below. 114 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA As we have seen above, the Babylonian King List is so broken after the name Tashshiguru- mash that some names are lost. Of these miss¬ ing names we have already secured the name of Agum II. After him there is a period of about one hun¬ dred years of silence, in which we do not know the name of even one king, nor yet of any deed in all the land. At the end of this time we dis¬ cern very dimly the figure of Burnaburiash I, known only as a Kassite king who made a treaty1 with Puzur-Ashir, king of Assyria. After him there came apparently Kadashman-Kharbe I and his son Kurigalzu I, and grandson Melishipak I,2 though we know nothing of them, but their names. The next king of the Kassite dynasty of whom we have knowledge is Karaindash I (about 1450 B. C.). Like his predecessors and successors, he was a builder, as his own brief words make plain: “To Nana, the goddess of E-Anna, his mistress, built Karaindash, the powerful king, king of Babylon, king of Sumer and Accad, king of Kasshu, king of Kardunyash, a temple in E-Anna.” In this brief inscription the king places Babylon first in his list of titles, and the two Kassite titles, Kasshu and Kardunyash, at the very last. This can only be due to a follow¬ ing of the immemorial Babylonian usage. The 1 See reference, vol. i, p. 518. 2 See the arguments for so locating these kings in the chronological discussion above, vol. i, p. 519. THE KASSITE DYNASTY 115 old land soon absorbed the peoples who came to it as conquerors, and by the potency of its own civilization and the power of its religion com¬ pelled adherence to ancient law and custom. The Kassites had conquered Babylonia by force of arms; already has Babylonian culture con¬ quered the Kassites and assimilated them to itself. In the reign of Karaindash we meet for the first time evidence of contact between the kingdom of Assyria and the empire of Baby¬ lonia. Our knowledge of these relations between the two kingdoms comes from the Assyrians, who made during the reign of Adad-nirari III (811-783 B. C.) a list of the various friendly and hostile relations between Babylonia and Assyria from the earliest times down to this reign. The original of this precious document has perished, but a copy of it was made for the library of Ashurbanipal by some of his scholars, to whom our knowledge of the ancient Orient owes so much. This copy is now in the British Museum, and, though badly broken, fully half of it may be read.1 It has been named the Synchronistic History, and, though it is not a history in any strict sense, it is convenient to retain this ap¬ pellation. The very first words upon it which may be read with certainty relate to Karaindash, 1 Published II R. 66, and III R. 4, 3. See also Delitzsch, Kass&er, pp. 6, ff., and the valuable translation by Peiser and Winckler ( Keilin - schrift. Bibl., i, pp. 194, ff.)» which is based on a new collation by Winck¬ ler. See also above, vol. i, p. 503, 116 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA and are as follows: “Karaindash, king of Kar- dunyash and Ashurbelnishishu, king of Assyria, made a treaty with one another, and swore an oath concerning this territory with one another.” This first entry evidently refers to some de¬ batable land between the two countries, con¬ cerning which there had been previous difficulty. The two kings have now settled the boundary line by treaty. This shows that Assyria was already sufficiently powerful to claim a legitimate title to a portion of the great valley, and it was acknowledged by Babylon as an independent kingdom. It is not long before this small king¬ dom of Assyria begins to dispute with Baby¬ lonia for the control even of the soil of Babylonia itself. With this first notice of relations between the two kingdoms begins the long series of strug¬ gles, whether peaceful or warlike, which never cease till the bloodthirsty Assyrian has driven the Babylonian from the seat of power and possessed his inheritance. We are unhappily not in a position to be very certain as to the order of succession of the fol¬ lowers of Karaindash, but his immediate suc¬ cessor was probably Kadashman-Ellil.1 No historical inscription of this king and no business documents dated in his reign have yet come to light in Babylonia. We should be at a loss to locate him at all were it not for the assistance 1 The name was formerly read Kallima-Sin (Winckler, The Tell-el- Aniarna Letters, i, pp. 2, ff.), but see for the correction Knudtzon, Zeit- schrift fur Assyriologie , xii, pp. 269, 270. THE KASSITE DYNASTY 117 to be obtained from the archives of the Egyp¬ tians. As in the case of the land of Mitanni, so also here are we in possession of some portions of a correspondence with Amenophis III, king of Egypt. The British Museum possesses a letter written in Egypt by Amenophis III to Kadashman-Ellil, and the Berlin Museum has three letters from Kadashman-Ellil to Ameno¬ phis III. The first letter is probably a copy of the original sent to Babylonia. It begins in this stately fashion: “To Kadashman-Ellib king of Kardunyash, my brother; thus saith Ameno¬ phis, the great king, the king of Egypt, thy brother: with me it is well. May it be well with thee, with thy house, with thy wives, with thy children, with thy nobles, with thy horses and with thy chariots, and with thy land may it be well; with me may it be well, with my house, with my wives, with my children, with my nobles, with my horses, with my chariots, with my troops, and with my land, .may it be very well/’1 The letter then discusses the pro¬ posed matrimonial alliance between Egypt and Babylonia and urges that Kadashman-Ellil should give to him his daughter to wife. The letters preserved in Berlin seem to relate to the same correspondence and deal chiefly with the proposed marriage of the daughter of Kadash- 1 The letter is British Museum No. 29,784. Knudtzon, El-Amarna Tafeln, No. 1. Knudtzon reads the name Kadashman-Kharbe, but the correct reading is Kadashman.-E1H1. Sec King, Inscriptions of Kudurrus or Boundary Stones in the British Museum, p. 3. 118 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA man-Ellil to Amenophis III, to which friendly consent was finally given. Both the daughter and the sister of Kadashman-Ellil were thus numbered among the wives of Amenophis III — full proof of the very intimate relation which now subsisted between the two great culture lands of antiquity, Babylonia and Egypt. To find letters passing between Babylon and Egypt about 1400 B. C., and ambassadors bearing gifts, does, indeed, give us a wonderful view into the light of the distant past. This all witnesses to a high state of civilization; to ready intercourse over good roads; to firmly fixed laws and stable national customs. It gives us, however, no light upon the political history of Babylonia, which is the object of our present search, and we must pass from it. Kadashman-Ellil had a long reign and was succeeded by Kurigalzu II. Of the next king, Kurigalzu II, about 1410 B. C., son of Burnaburiash I, our knowledge is also very unsatisfactory. It is known from the letters of Burnaburiash II, his son, that he stood in friendly relations with Amenophis III, king of Egypt, and it is probable that his relations with the Assyrians were friendly. The few in¬ scriptions1 of his which remain record simply the usual building operations. The titles which he uses in his texts are “King of Sumer and Accad, king of the Four Quarters of the World,” to 1 I R. 4, Lehmann in Zeitschrift fur Assyriologie, v, 417, and Hil- precht, Old Babylonian Inscriptions , i, part i, pi. 20, etc, TEE KASSITE DYNASTY 119 which in one instance he adds the title “ shah - kanak (that is, governor) of Ellil,” and in an¬ other case uses this latter title only. The title of king of Babylon, which we might have expected, is not used by him at all. This may be because he was not officially made king by the use of all the solemn ceremonies which the priesthood had devised. The city of Dur-Kuri- galzu (Kurigalzuburg) derived its name from him, but it does not appear whether he was its founder or only a benefactor and rebuilder. During his reign the Canaanite subjects and tributaries of Egypt attempted to revolt against Amenophis III, and sought help from the Baby¬ lonians, whose king not only refused to give it, but threatened to invade and plunder their territory if they should rise against his Egyp¬ tian ally.1 His reign was probably short, and at its con¬ clusion, about the year 1380, he was succeeded by his son, Burnaburiash II, whose reign was long and prosperous, though no Babylonian memorials of it have been preserved. Four letters written by this king to Amen¬ ophis IV ( Napkhuriya , Akh-en-Aten) , king of Egypt, are preserved in the Berlin Museum,2 and two more are in the British Museum.3 No his- 1 So asserts Burnaburish II in his letter to Amenophis IV. Knudtzon, El-Amarna Tafeln, No. 9. 2 VA. Th. 149, 150, 151, 152. Der Thontafelfund von El-Amarna , Heft i. 3 Bu. 88-10-13, Nos. 21, 46, and 81. 120 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA torical material of great moment is offered in these letters. They reveal a period of relative peace and prosperity, and deal, in considerable measure, with the little courtesies and amenities of life. It is, for example, curious to find the Babylonian king reproving the king of Egypt for not having sent an ambassador to inquire for him when he was ill.1 When kings had time for such courtesies, and could excuse them¬ selves for failing to observe them only on the ground of their ignorance of the illness and the great distance to be covered on the journey, there must have been freedom from war and from all distress at home and abroad. The successor of Burnaburiash II appears to have been Karaindash II (about 1350 B. C.), who had for his chief wife Muballitat-Sherua, daughter of Ashur-uballit, king of Assyria, so that the custom of intermarriage which prevailed between the royal houses of Egypt and Babylon at this period had also its illustration between the houses of Assyria and Babylonia. This alliance made for peace between the two royal houses, but did not establish peace between the peoples of the two countries. When Karaindash died, his son, Kadashman-Kharbe II, came to the throne. His mother was Muballitat-Sherua, and so it happened that an Assyrian king had his grandson upon the throne of Babylon. This lVA. Th. 150, 10, ff., translated by Ziminern, Zcitschrift fur Assyriol- ogie, v, p. 139. Knudtzon, No. 7. THE KASSTTE DYNASTY 121 king conducted a campaign against the Sutu, whom he conquered and among whom he set¬ tled some of his own loyal subjects. Upon his return from this expedition he found himself confronted by a rebellion of the Kassites, who were probably jealous of the growth of Assyrian influence, and he was killed. The rebels then placed upon the throne Nazibugash (also called Shuzigash, about 1360 B. C.), a man of humble origin and not a descendant of the royal line. As soon as the news of this rebellion reached Assyria Ashuruballit, desiring to avenge his grandson, marched against Babylonia, killed Nazibugash, and placed upon the throne Kuri- galzu III, a son of Kadashman-Kharbe.1 Kuri- galzu III (about 1354-1331 B. C.) was probably made king while still young, and his reign was long. We cannot follow its events in detail, but may get a slight view of some of its glories. Many centuries before his day, when Kudur- nankhundi of Elam ravaged in Babylonia, he carried away a small agate tablet, which was carefully preserved in the land of Elam. This happened about 2285 B. C., and now, about 1340 B. C., Kurigalzu III invades Elam and conquers even the city of Susa itself. The little agate tablet is recovered, and the victorious 1 These facts are found in the Babylonian Chronicle P, first published in translation by Pinches, Records of the Past, new series, v, pp. 106| ff., and retranslated more accurately by Winckler, Allorientalische Forschungen, pp. 115, f. With this chronicle is to be compared the Synchronistic History, in which there appear to be some errors. Com¬ pare Winckler, ibid., and also Rost, Untersuchungen, p. 54, etc. 122 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA Kurigalzu places it in the temple of E-kur at Nippur, with his own brief inscription engraved on its back: “Kurigalzu, king of Karadunyash, conquered the palace of Susa in Elam and pre¬ sented (this tablet) to Nin-lil, his mistress, for his life.”1 It is to this campaign that the Baby¬ lonian Chronicle probably refers in its allusion to the campaign of Kurigalzu against Khur- batila, king of Elam, which resulted so vic¬ toriously. After the invasion of Elam the victorious Kurigalzu III also fought with Ellil- nirari, king of Assyria, and worsted him, as the Babylonian Chronicle narrates the story, though the Assyrian Synchronistic- History claims the victory in the same conflict for the Assyrians.2 Nazi-Maruttash (1331-1305 B. C.), son of Kurigalzu III, the next king, also fought with the Assyrians, led by their king, Adad-nirari I, who defeated him signally, and gained some Babylonian territory by pushing the boundary farther south. This is the Assyrian account; what the Babylonian story may have been we do not know, for the Babylonian Chronicle is broken at this point. Of the son of Nazi- Maruttash who succeeded him under the name of Kadashman-Turgu (1305-1288 B. C.) we know nothing, and of his successor, Kadashman- 1 Hilprecht, Old Babylonian Inscriptions, vol. i, part i, p. 31. * Compare Chron. P, iii, 20-22, with Synchronistic History, i, 18, ff., and see Winckler, Altorientalische Forschungen, i, pp. 122, 123, and Rost, Untersuchungen, p. 54, note 1. Chronicle P has here read Adad- nirari incorrectly for Ellil-nirari. THE KASSTTE DYNASTY 123 Ellil (1288-1282 B. C.), we know only that he was at war with Shalmaneser I, king of Assyria/ without being able to learn the outcome. These constantly recurring wars with Assyria are ominous, and indicate the rapid increase of Assyrian power. They point toward the day of destruction for Babylon, and of glory for the military people who were beginning to press upon the great city. The following reigns are almost entirely un¬ known to us. The names of the kings awaken no response in our minds, and we can set them down only as empty words; they are Kudur-Ellil (about 1282-1273 B. C.) and Shagarakti-Shuri- ash (about 1273-1260 B. C.), though in their cases the Babylonian King List has supplied us with the length of their reigns, and we know definitely and certainly their order in the dynasty. The Babylonian Chronicle now again comes to our aid, and with rather startling intelligence. Tukulti-Ninib, king of Assyria, has invaded Babylon. We do not know what steps led to this attack. Perhaps the old boundary disputes had once more caused difficulty; perhaps it was only the growing Assyrian lust for power and territory. But whatever the cause, this was no ordinary invasion intended chiefly as a threat. The Assyrian king enters Babylon, kills some of 1 III R. 4, No. 1. Compare Delitzsch, Koss&er, p. 10, and Hilprecht, Old Babylonian Inscriptions, vol. i, part i, p. 31. 124 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA its inhabitants, destroys the city wall, at least partially, and, last and worst of all, removes the treasures of the temple, and carries away the great god Marduk to Assyria.1 Here was a sore defeat indeed, and the end, for the time at least, of Babylonian independence. The line of kings is continued during the period of war and invasion with the names of Kash- tiliash II (1260-1252 B. C.), during whose reign the invasion occurred ; Ellil-nadinshum (1252 B. C.), and Kadashman-Kharbe II, who together reigned but three years, and Adad-shum-iddin. But the last three of these kings must have been only vassals of Tukulti- Ninib, who was the real king of Babylon for seven years, even though he was represented by these as his deputies.2 Here is the city of Hammurapi, glorious in its history, ancient in its days, ruled by a king of the small state of Assyria. But the old spirit was not quite dead, and after seven years of this domination the Babylonians rose in rebellion, drove the Assyrians from Babylon, and made Adad- shum-usur (about 1243-1213 B. C.) king, while Tukulti-Ninib returned to Assyria only to find a rebellion against him headed by his own son.3 In this his life was lost, and he went down with the decline of his once brilliant 1 Chronicle P, col. iv, 3-6. * See Hommel’s acute suggestions for removing the chronological difficulties in Winckler, Altorientalische Forsiichungen, i, pp. 138, 139. 3 Chronicle P, iv, 7-11. THE KASSITE DYNASTY 125 fortunes. On the other hand, the reign of Adad-shum-usur was at once the token and result of better fortunes in Babylonia. In his reign the power of Babylon again began to increase. He attacked Assyria itself, and the Assyrians were scarce able to keep the victorious Babylonians out of their country. Their king, Ellil-kudur-usur, was slain in battle, and in the overturning, Babylonia made gains of Assyrian territory. The reign of Meli- Shipak II (about 1213-1198 B. C.) was also a period of Babylonian aggression against the Assyrian king Ninib-apal-esharra,1 and to such good purpose that the next Babylonian king, Marduk-apal-iddin (about 1198-1185 B. C.), saw the Assyrians once more confined to their narrow territory, stripped of all their conquests, and was able to add to his own name the proud titles “king of Kishshati, king of Sumer and Accad,”2 in token of the extension once more of Babylonian dominion over nearly the whole of the valley. But this change was too great and too sud¬ den to last, and the power of Assyria must soon return and then again continue to de¬ velop. When Ashur-dan became king of As¬ syria, and this was probably while Marduk- apal-iddin was still reigning, there was another reversal of fortunes, though this time the 1 Synchronistic History, ii, 3-8. 2 VI R. 41, i, 20. 126 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA change was neither so sudden nor so great, Ashur-dan fought with the next Babylonian king, Zamamashumiddin (about 1185 B. C.), and succeeded in winning back some of the cities in the ever-debatable land between Assyria and Babylonia,1 and thus gave proof that the Assyrian power was again waxing strong. The next Kassite king, Ellil-nadin-akhi (about 1184-1181 B. C.), reigned also but a short time, and the very brevity of these reigns may, perhaps, as often, indicate that the period was filled with strife. Assyria was certainly threatening the Babylonian empire, for the long reign of Asshur-dan gave time for the carrying out of extensive plans, and the power to realize them was plainly not wanting. The failure of the Kassites to hold inviolate the territory of Babylonia resulted in a Semitic revolution in which the dynasty that had ruled so long in the queenly city ended. Its advent was heralded by war and by internal dissensions in the last preceding dynasty; and its approaching end was indi¬ cated in like manner. 1 Synchronistic History, iii, 9 -12. CHAPTER VI THE DYNASTY OF ISIN The cause of the downfall of the great Kassite dynasty is unkown to us. It may have been due to an uprising of the Semites against foreign domination, with the war cry of “Babylonia for the Babylonians;” a cry which in various lan¬ guages has often resounded among men and won many a national triumph. The Babylonian King List names the new dynasty, the dynasty of Isin,1 but its origin is still doubtful. It has been suggested that it began in Babylon and is named after a section of the city known as Isin,2 but it is still possible that it originated in the city of Isin, whose influence had been marked at an earlier period of the history. This dynasty reigned in Babylon a period of one hundred and thirty-two years. The list is so badly broken that but few of the names have been retained, and we are once more forced to seek the means of restoring the names from notices in other documents. There were eleven kings in this dynasty who were regarded 1 Jensen reads Isin ( Zeitschrift fur Assyriologie, xi, p. 90), and Craig ( American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures , xiii, pp. 220, 221) supports him. Compare also Rost (U ntersuchungen, p. 10, note 2). 2 So, for example, Rost, l. c. 127 128 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA by the Babylonian historians as legitimate, and of these four are entirely unknown to us. The names of the first two kings of the dynasty, who reigned eighteen and six years respectively (about 1180-1162 B. C. and 1 162— 1156 B. C.), are lost and cannot yet be restored with certainty; though it is known that the name of the first began with Marduk. It is probable that his name was Marduk-shapik-zerim.1 The third king of the dynasty was Nebuchadrezzar I2 who began to reign about 1156 B. C., and was on the throne for more than sixteen years, though the full length of his reign has not been ascer¬ tained. This king exhibits once more the spirit almost of a Hammurapi. His victories are bril¬ liant, and his defeats only evidence the hopeless¬ ness of the cause of Babylonia and the vigor of his efforts to save the state. When he began to reign Mutakkil-Nusku was probably king of Assyria, and in him lived the traditions of the glorious reign of Ashur-dan, who had once more carried the Assyrian arms to victory. Assyria was pre- 1 I owe this suggestion to a private communication from Professor A. T. Clay, who has found the name on a Kudurru in the Yale University collection. The document is dated in the eighth year of Marduk-nadin- akhi and the allusion therefore cannot be to Marduk-shapik-zer-mati, whom we know to have been later. 2 Hilprecht has tried, with great learning and acuteness, to prove that Nebuchadrezzar I was the first king of this dynasty ( Old Baby¬ lonian Inscriptions, i, part i, pp. 38-44), but without success. Delitzsch has shown that the name Nebuchadrezzar could not have stood in the first place on the King List ( Assyriologische Miscellen., p 186), and Winckler has proved that this view cannot be reconciled with Assyrian chronology ( Untersuchungen , pp. 28, 29, and Altorientalische Forschungen, i, p. 131). THE DYNASTY OF 1SIN 129 paring to contest with Babylonia the possession of the whole of the valley, and the older land had need of a man of force and character. In the reign of the next Assyrian king, by name Ashur-rish-ishi, came the first great contest, the beginning of the struggle for supremacy between the two great nations. Nebuchadrezzar took the initiative and entered Assyria, but was met by Ashur-rish-ishi, defeated and forced to retreat in a veritable rout, having burned even his bag¬ gage to lighten his return to Babylonia. Having collected reinforcements, he returned to the con¬ test, but was met by superior forces, again defeated and forced to retreat, having lost forty of his chariots. This terrible reverse found a counterbalancing success elsewhere, for Nebu¬ chadrezzar conquered the Lulubi, and adminis¬ tered a severe punishment to Elam.1 The Elam¬ ites had dared to seize the neighboring district of Namar, and had even possessed themselves of Dur-ilu. With the assistance of Ritti-Marduk, a native chief with a Babylonian name, Nebu¬ chadrezzar attacked and drove them beyond the Tigris. After a successful pursuit he plundered Elam and returned with heavy spoil. Ritti- Marduk was handsomely rewarded and Elam’s humiliation kept her quiet for a long time. But Nebuchadrezzar had to face an humilia¬ tion of his own. His own territories were invaded 1 V R. 55-57, and Hilprecht, Freibrief Nebuchadrezzar's. See also S. A. Smith, Assyrian Letters, iv, and Meissner in Zeitschrift fur Assyriol- ogie, iv, pp. 259, ff. (by latter mistakenly ascribed to Nebuchadrezzar II). 130 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA by Hittites, who even took Babylon. His action was as decisive as it was sudden. In thirteen days he drove them out, pursued with vigor and, most important of all, swung fearlessly and successfully his flying columns into the far west, even into Syria,1 that goal of such mighty endeavor in the distant past. In one of his inscriptions Nebuchadrezzar calls himself “sun of his land, who makes his people prosperous, the protector of boundaries.” Well might he make the boast, for, though unsuccessful against the Assyrians, he had maintained a kingdom which without him had probably fallen before the new and already almost invincible Assyrian power. Nebuchadrezzar I was succeeded by Ellil- nadinapli (about 1120 B. C.), whose reign fur¬ nishes no event of importance known to us. In the reign of his successor, Marduk-nadin-akhe (about 1116-1096 B. C.), the Assyrians dis¬ played in a still clearer light the power which was finally to put the destinies of all western Asia in their hands. The throne of Assyria was now occupied by Tiglathpileser I, one of the greatest warriors of antiquity. Against his king¬ dom Marduk-nadin-akhe at first had some success, for he carried away from Ekallati the images of the gods Adad and Sala. These remained away for centuries, and were only 1 Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archceology, 1882, p. 10, and compare Hilprecht, Old Babylonian Inscriptions, i, part i, p. 41, THE DYNASTY OF ISIN 131 restored to their place by Sennacherib. But such successes only nerved Tiglathpileser to greater efforts. He invaded Babylonia and captured a number of cities in its northern half and even took Babylon itself. Herein is the first great blow against Babylonian independ¬ ence. The Assyrians did not hold the captured city, but Tiglathpileser I was the grand monarch of western Asia, and the Babylonian king ruled only by sufferance. The next Babylonian king was probably Itti- Marduk-balatu, who ruled only one year and six months and then gave place to Marduk- shapik-zer-mati (about 1094-1083 B. C.), with whom there began again a brief period of stable peace. He “ increased the temple of Ezida in its old age, and hath built it up anew, and hath set it up in its place.”1 The Assyrians under king Ashur-bel-kala had given over for the present the policy of crushing Babylonia, and had adopted rather the plan of making an ally and friend of the ancient commonwealth. After the death of Marduk-shapik-zer-mati, a man of unknown origin, Adad-apal-iddin, came to the throne, by means of a rebellion in Kardunyash. Usurper though he was, Ashur-bel-kala con¬ tinued the same friendship to him, and even married his daughter.2 The last king of this dynasty was Nabu-shum-libur, about 1056- 1 See King, Hammurabi , iii, p. 255, 2 See above, vol. i, p. 526, 132 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA 1047 B. C., of whose reign no tidings have yet come down to us. During the latter part of this dynasty the Assyrians were chiefly occupied in the internal strengthening and solidifying of their kingdom, while the Babylonians were unable to undertake any extensive campaigns. After this period our direct Babylonian information becomes more and more fragmentary, and even in some cases of doubtful meaning. The Babylonian state had lost the key to western Asia and the Assyrians had found it. Neither state was for the moment making any great efforts, but the future belonged to Assyria for centuries at least, and the sun of Babylonia had suffered a long eclipse. From now onward we must turn away from Babylon to see the main stream of history flowing through its rival's dominions. We have followed the fortunes of the Baby¬ lonian cities from the gray dawn of antiquity down the centuries, through good report and evil report. We have watched the cities grow into kingdoms and have seen the kingdoms welded into a mighty empire. We have followed its advance to the very zenith and have seen its decline into subjection. It is a noble history, and even in outline has enough of the rich color of the Orient to make a glowing picture for the mind. From its contemplation we must now turn to look upon the development and progress of the kingdom of Assyria. BOOK III THE HISTORY OF ASSYRIA CHAPTER I THE BEGINNINGS OF ASSYRIA Nothing is known of the period when the first Semitic settlers entered Assyria. The country must have already had inhabitants, who may perhaps have belonged to some one of the ancient stocks who dwelt in historic times in the Kurdish or Elamite mountains. The oldest traditions of the Semites, echoed down the ages by the Hebrews,1 connect the earliest Semitic invaders of Assyria with the old culture land of Babylonia, and with these agree also the few scattered facts which have come down to us from the dim past. The earliest Assyrian rulers known to us bear the title patesi. The word is Sumerian and must have come from the Su¬ merian people in Babylonia. There is no exact equivalent for it in the English tongue, but the 1 Witness the stories of the tower of Babel, in Babylonia, and the direct statement of the ancient legend in the words: “And Cush begat Nimrod: he began to be a mighty one in the earth. . . . And the be¬ ginning of his kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar. Out of that land he went forth into Assyria, and builded Nineveh, and Rehoboth-Ir, and Cal ah, and Resen between Nineveh and Calah (the same is the great city). Genesis x, 8-12. 133 134 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA meaning of it comes out with reasonable clear¬ ness. It is a religious title of authority. It expresses the idea of earthly rule under the heavenly power of a god. The man who bore it was ruler of men or of lands as vicegerent of the deity. He was patesi of the land of Assyria, because he was patesi of its great god Ashur. The word was Sumerian indeed, and so forms a slender link binding early Assyrian civilization with Babylonia. The Assyrians rendered the word patesi , or perhaps read it, ishakku, which seems to mean in itself about the same thing as patesi with probably a little less religious color. When the early Assyrian rulers desired to emphasize the religious side of their office as ruler they were wont to call themselves shangu, which means priest. We do not know when these Assyrian rulers began to use the title sharru , which is the usual and ordinary word for king, but quite frequently, after it came into use, a ruler called himself patesi at one time and king at another. He was still the representative of his god on earth, and so was patesi ; he was also the war lord over men, and so might bring out of the Semitic Babylonian usage the word sharru , and so entitle himself as he set out upon conquest. The earliest Semitic settlement known to us was at Asshur. The spot was well chosen. It lay on the west bank of the Tigris nearly half way between the upper and the lower Zab rivers THE BEGINNINGS OF ASSYRIA 135 which pour their muddy waters into the Tigris from the east. The ground on which the city was to stand was high and rocky, and along its eastern side ran the deep swift Tigris. On the north the rocky heights fell off abruptly to the plain, with here and there rifts through which one might clamber down from the city. It would be easy to defend the northern side against any hostile approach, and the more especially because an arm of the Tigris swept by this rocky base, which though early sanded and silted, might easily be turned into a protecting moat of water. Far away to the north stretched fertile soil, and yet better was the land east of the river, which rose in gentle undulations toward the distant foothills. Far away to the north were snow-capped mountains, a natural boundary for a new commonwealth. West of the city the defense was almost equally easy, for only two small valleys led downward from the city’s height, while westward as well as northward was goodly land inviting the hus¬ bandman to till it and supply the new city with food.1 blither, more than two thousand years before Christ, came men who founded a city and built in it a temple to the god Ashur, bearing the high- sounding name Ekharsagkurkura, “house of the mountain of the lands.” We know not what 1 The description of the site here given owes most to Walter Andrae, Die Festungswerke von Assur, 1013, p. 1, but there are items in it drawn from Gertrude Lowthian Bell, Amutalh to Amurath , p. 221. 136 HISTOEY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYE1A else they built, nor how they lived. The earliest ruler among them whose name has come down to us was Ushpia,1 whose name is not Semitic, but may be derived from the people of some other race from mountain lands above, whom we have already supposed to be earlier occupants of the country. No inscription of his has reached our eyes, if indeed, any were written, and he remains a shadowy figure against the distant horizon. Soon after IJshpia came Kikia, who began the building of the city wall.2 How far his work extended we can no longer discover. It had slipped away and fallen before the fourteenth century, as Shalmaneser I testifies. But beneath the fore court of the temple of Ekharsagkurkura are yet to be seen a few archaic remains which may go back to this earliest period. The patesis who followed Kikia also were wall builders, and to them may go back the earliest parts of the north wall of the city which once ran on the rocky edge, and high though it was above the plain, bore towers, and at one dangerous spot was built double, and supplied with casemates.3 In some of these early days were built also the first defenses on the northwest, where was a sort of inner wall, defended on the outside by massive bastions, and on the south were some- 1 For the reference which Shalmaneser I makes to Ushpia, see vol i, p. 538. 2 See the reference by Ashir-rim-nisheshu to him, vol. i, p. 538. 3 Walter Andrae, Die Festungswerke von Assur, p. 3. THE BEGINNINGS OF ASSYRIA 137 what similar defenses. Rude and dangerous enemies must have threatened this old city, or its builders would scarce have defended it so might¬ ily, but who these foes may have been we know not; they are yet more ghostly than these patesis , who built the walls, whose foundations mav even yet be seen. After Kikia came others bearing strange and ill-sounding names, some of them perhaps of the early stock, others Sumerian, and among them very early a patesi, with the Semitic name Shalim-akhum, harbinger of the day when all the kings should have naught but Semitic names. His son was Ilu-shuma, and of him there is the very definite historical recollection that he was at war with the first king, Sumu-abu, of the first dynasty of Babylon. We do not know the issue of the conflict, but perhaps we shall be not far astray if we presume an Assyrian defeat, for the mention of the war is in a chronicle1 written to record Babylonian achievements and little likely to record conflicts that ended in defeat, and to this conclusion also comes the support of the fact that only a little later one of Sumu- rabi’s successors, Hammurapi, actually exercised authority over Assyria. But of the time of which we now speak it is significant of the rapid and substantial growth of Assyrian power that Ilu-shuma should dare at all to measure strength with the venerable kingdom of the south. 1 See the reference above, vol. i, pp. 438, 538. 138 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA After Ilushuma came his son Irishum, or Erishum, to rule, the times being stable enough to ensure the succession in the same blood. Irishum dug a canal into the city, perhaps to supply it with water, and left behind him two inscriptions1 written in good Semitic words and in archaic cuneiform characters. The remains of this canal filled with the debris of the ages are still discernible, but the bricks with which he built a temple to Adad have probably suc¬ cumbed to time. Later kings2 thought he lived and did his work about 2039 B. C., but the date is hard to reconcile with others, and his time may even have been earlier. However that may be, his figure has some substance, for we know that he wrought two great works, and left behind contributions both to civilization and to religion, and we are even able to read of his deeds upon documents of his own day. In him has begun the written history of As¬ syria. Ikunum, son of Irishum, came to the throne and added his labors to the wall of defense about the city,3 and built a temple of the god¬ dess Ninkigal, of which no remains have been found at Asshur, and it has, therefore, been conjectured that it may have been erected at 1 Messerschmidt, Keilschrifttexte aus Assur, i, Nos. 1, 60, and 61, translated by Luckenbill, American Journal of Semitic Languages . xxviii, p. 167. 2 See vol. i, p. 539. 8 See vol. i, p. 506. THE BEGINNINGS OF ASSYRIA 139 Nineveh.1 His son and successor bore the great name of Sharruken or Sargon, a name already made famous in Babylonia, and later to resound over the wide Orient when borne by Sargon II. We do not know who was his successor, but it may have been Shamshi-Adad I, who was a contemporary of Hammurapi, greatest of the kings of early Babylonia.2 With Shamshi-Adad I, there begins the more narrative form of inscription, still written, indeed, in archaic cunei¬ form characters, but with a certain freedom of space and order about it. He has indeed, great things to tell. He may recount how the temple of the god En-lil, erected by Irishum, had “fallen to ruins,” and was now re-erected by himself. He now rebuilt it and roofed it with cedars, and its mud brick walls did he adorn with silver, gold, and lapis-lazuli. In his day we are come upon times of riches and of culture, indeed. But he went deeper into everyday life and records, if, indeed, he did not establish by law the standard prices in his city. “For one shekel of silver, two gur of grain; for one shekel of silver twenty-five mana of wool, for one shekel of silver, twelve ka of oil.” In this same inscription he boasts of having received the tribute of other kings; so begins with him the great art of tribute-collecting which later kings were to carry to so high a point, and with him 1 Johns, Ancient Assyria, 1912, p. 41. 2 See vol. i, p. 539. 140 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA also begins the Assyrian form of royal boasting. More wonderful still, he claims to have set up a memorial stela on the shore of the great sea, and one pauses to ask, in surprise, does he really mean the Mediterranean? Yet in spite of his boasts he seems to have been under some sort of bondage to Hammurapi,1 who claims to have had troops stationed in his country. After the time of Shamshi-Adad I the shadows fall again, and we have only names of builders of wails such as Ashir-nirari I, son of Ishme Dagan I, whose walls fell down after a time and were rebuilt by Ashir-rim-nisheshu, who knows how to tell2 of his deeds, and name some of his predecessors. These names are all that remain of the history of the early government of Assyria. At this period, the chief city was Asshur, then, and long after, the residence of the ruler. There is no hint in these early texts of hegemony over other cities; though Nineveh certainly, and other cities probably, were then in existence. The population was probably small, consisting, in its ruling classes at least, of colonists from Baby¬ lonia. There were, as we have seen, earlier settlers among whom the Semitic invaders 1 For the inscription, see Messerschmidt, op. cit., No. 2, and com¬ pare Luckenbill, op. cit., pp. 166, ff. For Hammurapi’s contempo¬ raneousness, see above, vol. i, p. 539, and for his claim of authority in Assyria see his letter, or military dispatch, in King, Letters and Inscrip¬ tions of Hammurabi, iii, pp. 3, ff. 2 See his Zigat in Andrae, Die Festungswerke von Assiir. Plate LXXXVI, and Textband, p. 155. THE BEGINNINGS OF ASSYRIA 141 found home, as there were in Babylonia when the Semites first appeared in that land, but of them we have no certainty. It is an indistinct picture which we get of these times in the tem¬ perate northern land, but it is a picture of civilized men who dwelt in cities, and built temples in which to worship their gods, and who carried on some form of government at times independent, at others in a tributary or other subject relation to the great culture land which they had left in the south. The later Assyrian people had but faint memory of these times, and to them, as to us, they were ancient days. At about 1900 B. C. the priest-prince ruling in Asshur was Bel-Kapkapu, according to a statement of Adad-nirari IV (810-781), a later king of Assyria, while Esarhaddon would have us believe that he was himself a direct descendant of a king, Bel-bani, and, though we may put no faith in such genealogical researches, perhaps greater credence may be given the other his¬ torical statement with which the name of Bel- bani is followed.1 According to the histori¬ ographers of Esarhaddon, Bel-bani was the first Ishakku of Asshur who adopted the title of king having received the office of king from the god 1 Whatever may be thought of Esarhaddon’s statements concerning Bal-bani, there is at least evidence that a king of this name actually existed, for Scheil has found a tablet dated in the reign of Bel-bani and written in archaic Babylonian script ( Recueil de Travaux, xix, p. 59). t 142 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA Marduk himself. If there be any truth at all in these statements, we must see in Bel-bani the first king of Assyria, but the fact is empty of real meaning, whether true or not, for we know nothing of the king’s personality or works. With Puzur Ashir I we come again upon stories of wall building and a record1 of them writ¬ ten by the king himself, and he built well enough to stand through three reigns until Ashirbel- nisheshu2 restored his work. Puzur Ashir was a contemporary of Burnaburiash I of Babylon, but we know nothing of their actual relations. We are better off, in this respect, when we come to Ashirbelnisheshu himself. He claims some territory in Mesopotamia and makes good his claim to it. He makes a treaty with Karain- dash of Babylonia. Assyria is now clearly acknowledged by the king of Babylonia as an independent kingdom. This had been achieved not apparently in hard fought battles, but rather by the growth of Assyrian power and the simultaneous weakening of Babylonia. After these names of shadowy personalities there comes a great silent period of above two hundred years, in which we hear no sound of any movements in Assyria, nor do we know the name of even one ruler. At the very end of this period (about 1480 B. C.) all western Asia was 1 See his Zigat in Andrae, op. cit., plate LXXXVI, and Textband, p. 156. 2 Zigat of Asirbelnisheshu, Andrae, op. cit., plate LXXXVI, and Textband, p. 156. THE BEGINNINGS OF ASSYRIA 143 shaken to its foundations by an Egyptian inva¬ sion. Thutmosis III,1 freed at last from the restraint of Hatshepsowet, his peace-loving half- sister, had swept along the Mediterranean coast to Carmel and over the spur of the hill to the plain of Esdraelon. At Megiddo the allies met him in defense of Syria, if not of all western Asia, and were crushingly defeated. The echo of that victory resounded even in Assyria, and the Assyrian king who was probably Ashur- nadin-akhi made haste to send a “great stone of real lapis lazuli’ ’ and other less valuable gifts in token of his submission. It was well for Assyria that Thutmosis was satisfied with those gifts, and led no army across the Euphrates. But though freed from Babylon and preserved from Egypt, the Assyrian kingdom had fallen under a new domination. Aryans who had come into the hill country of the upper valley between the Tigris and the Euphrates, had already begun to build the kingdom of Mitanni and were shortly able to exercise control over a part of the ter¬ ritory which properly belonged to Assyria. Shaushatar, king of the Mitanni, even entered the city of Asshur itself and carried away from it a gold and silver door.2 The city of Nineveh was 1 Hatshepsowet, Thutmosis II, and Thutmosis III reigned together from about 1501-1447 B. C. It was in the twenty-second year that the advance began upon Syria, Thutmosis III being then sole ruler of Egypt. See Petrie, History of Egypt during the XVI Ith and XVlIIth Dynasties, 3d ed., 1899, and Steindorlf, Die Bliitezeit des Pharaonen Reichs. Leipzig, 1900. Breasted, History of Egypt, pp. 260, ff. 2 See Winckler, Mitteilungen der Deutsche Orient Gesellschaft, No. 35, pp. 36, 38. 144 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA completely in the control of Shutarna I, king of Mitanni, for he was able to send the statue of the goddess Ishtar on a journey of blessing to Amenophis III, king of Egypt (1414-1379 B. C.) and the journey was repeated under Tushratta, his son, who expressed the lively hope to Ame¬ nophis that her visit might bring to them both a life of a hundred thousand years.1 This was the last visit of the goddess to Egypt ; henceforth her people were able to defend her against exile. Shortly after came Ashur-uballit II (about 1418-1370 B. C.) and in his reign there were stirring times. His daughter, Muballitat- Sheru’a, was married to Karaindash II, the king of Babylon. Herein we meet for the first time, in real form, the Assyrian efforts to gain control in Babylonia. The son of this union, Kadash- man-Kharbe II, was soon upon the throne. The Babylonian people must have suspected intrigue, for they rebelled and killed the king. This was a good excuse for Assyrian intervention, for the rebels had killed the grandson of the king of Assyria. The Assyrians invaded the land, and the Babylonians were conquered, and another grandson of Ashur-uballit was placed upon the throne, under the title of Kurigalzu II.2 This act made Babylonia at least partially subject to Assyria, but many long years must elapse before any such subjection would be really acknowl- 1 Knudtzon, Die El-Amarna Tafeln, No. 23, lines 13-30. 2 See above, vol. i, p. 521. THE BEGINNINGS OF ASSYRIA 145 edged by the proud Babylonians. They were already subject to a foreign people, the Kassites, who had indeed become Babylonians in all respects, but it would be a greater humiliation to acknowledge their own colonists, the Assy¬ rians, a bloodthirsty people, as their masters. Ashur-uballit also made a campaign against the Shubari, a people dwelling east of the Tigris and apparently near the borders of Elam.1 But his greatest achievement was the emancipation of Assyria from Mitanni. Dushratta king of Mitanni, who had written brave and bold letters to Egypt, fell in an uprising, as had also his brother and predecessor Artash-shumara, and now anarchy resulted. The opportunity for Assyria had fully come and Ashur-uballit formed an alliance with the Alshe, and divided with them after a victorious campaign a portion of the territory of Mitanni. Assyria was now fully mistress in her own house. Friendly relations between Assyria and Egypt were continued during his reign, and letters2 of his to the Egyptian king Amenophis IV have been preserved, in which occur the following sen¬ tences: “To Napkhuriya3 . . . king of Egypt my brother: Ashur-uballit, king of Assyria, the great king thy brother. To thyself, to thy 1 Limestone tablet of Adad-nirari I, lines 28-33. King, Annals of the Kings of Assyria, i, p. 7. 2 Published by Winckler, Der Thontafelfund von El-Amarna, No. 9. Knudtzon, Die El-Amarna Tafeln, Nos. 15, 16. 3 The official name of Amenophis IV, representing the Egyptian Neferkhepru-ra. 146 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA house, and to thy country let there be peace. When I saw thy ambassadors I rejoiced greatly . . . A chariot . . . and two white horses, . . . a chariot without harness, and one seal of beau¬ tiful lapis lazuli I have sent thee as a present.” The letter then proceeds to ask very frankly for specific and very large gifts in return, and tells of his palace building at home. In the reign of Ashur-uballit Assyria made a distinct advance in power and dignity, and this development continued during the reign of Ashur-uballit’s son and successor, Ellil-nirari (Ellil-is-my-help) — about 1360 B. C. Of him two facts have come down to us, the mutual relations of which seem to be as follows: Kuri- galzu II had been seated on the Babylonian throne by the Assyrians and therefore owed them much gratitude, but to assure the stability of his throne he must needs take the Babylonian rather than the Assyrian side of controversies and difficulties between the peoples. The grand¬ son of Ellil-nirari boasts concerning him that he conquered the Kassites1 and increased the ter¬ ritory of Assyria. By this he must mean not the Kassite rulers of Babylonia, but rather the people from whom they had come — that is, the inhabi¬ tants of the neighboring Elamite foothills. This conquest simply carried a little further the acquisition of territory toward the east and south which had been begun by Ashur-uballit’s 1 IV R. 44, line 24; King, op. cit., p. 6. THE BEGINNINGS OF ASSYRIA 147 conquest of Shubari. But these Assyrian con¬ quests led to Babylonian jealousy and then to a conflict between Kurigalzu II and Ellil-nirari, in which the latter was victorious, and this, in turn, brought about a re-arrangement of the boundary line by which the two kings divided between them the disputed territory,1 though it does not appear which was the gainer. Again the succession to the throne passed from father to son, and Arik-den-ilu (about 1310 B. C.) reigned in Asshur. He has left us only brief inscriptions,2 in which he boasts of building at the temple of Shamash, probably that at the capital city. From his son we learn that he was a warrior of no mean achievements, though our geographical knowledge is not sufficient to enable us to follow his movements closely. He is repre¬ sented as overrunning the lands Turuki and Nigimkhi, and conquering the princes of the land of Gutium.3 Besides these conquests to the north of the city of Asshur he also extended his borders toward the southwest by the conquest of the nomad people, the Sutu. From reign to reign we see the little kingdom of Asshur grow. These conquests were probably not much more than raids, nor is it likely that at so early a period a serious effort was made by the Assy¬ rians to govern the territory overrun.4 It was 1 Synchronistic History, col. i, lines 5-7. 2 British Museum, No. 91059, King, Annals of the Kings of Assyria, i, p. 3. The name of this king was formerly read Pudi-ilu. 3 Inscription of Adad-nirari I, col. i, lines 16-18. 4 It is, however, to be noted that Assyrian colonists were settled in 148 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA preparatory work; the peoples round about Asshur were gradually being brought to know something of its growing power. They would soon come to regard it as a mistress, and con¬ solidation would be easy. It was in similar fashion that the empire of Babylonia had grown to its position of influence. Arik-den-ilu was succeeded by his son, Adad- nirari I (about 1300 B. C.), who has left us two records, the one a bronze sword inscribed with his name and titles,* 1 the other a considerable inscription,2 carefully dated by the eponym name, the oldest dated Assyrian inscription yet found. The latter is largely devoted to an account of the enlargement of the temple of Ashur in the capital, his wars being but slightly mentioned. In the enumeration of the lands conquered by him the countries already over¬ run by his predecessors are repeated — Shubari, the Kassite country, and Guti, to which he adds the land of the Lulumi. The fact that these lands needed so soon to be conquered again shows that the first conquest was little more than a raid. But this time a distinct advance was made; Adad-nirari does more than conquer. He expressly states that he rebuilt cities in this distant countries at a very early date. The Kappadokian tablets would seem to show that Assyrians were settled near Kaisariyeh as early as 1400 B. C. 1 See Transactions of Society of Biblical Archaeology, iv, p. 347. * Published IV R. p. 39, translated by Peiser in Keilinschrift. Bibl ., i, pp. 5, ff., and by King, Annals, i, p. 4, ff. THE BEGINNINGS OF ASSYRIA 149 conquered territory1 which had been devastated by the previous conquests. Here is evidence of rule rather than of ruin, and in this incident we may find the real beginnings of the great empire of Assyria. Again there were difficulties with Babylonia, and Adad-nirari fought with Kuri- galzu III and with his successor, Nazi-Maruttash (1331-1305 B. C.), both of whom he conquered, according to Assyrian accounts,2 though the Babylonian Chronicle would give the victory to the Babylonian king, in the first case at least. In the inscription of the bronze sword Adad- nirari calls himself king of Kishshati, a title which is found earlier in an inscription of Ashur- uballit.3 He does not call himself king of Asshur at all, though this title is given by him to his father and grandfather. Apparently he seems to claim for himself a greater dignity than that of ruler merely over Asshur, else would he cer¬ tainly have called himself king of Asshur, as did his predecessors. But his own description gives us no means of determining the location or the bounds of the territory which he had conquered or over which he claimed rule. His conquests were indeed distinguished, but they were built upon destruction, and their effects were subject to change and ultimately to extinction; but some of the great construction work of his at the capital city of Asshur far out- 1 Inscription of Adad-nirari, col. i, 3, 4. * Synchronistic History, col. i, lines 24-31. 3 Scheil, Recueil , xix, p. 46. 150 HISTORY OB BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA lasted them. It was he who built the great wall along the eastern or river front of the city, and capped it with a quay. Even to our own day the bricks which he then laid are still to be seen. They have guarded the city against the sweep¬ ing currents of a swift river for more than three thousand two hundred years. At that quay were laid boats in his day, and there also have modern explorers moored their motor boats. He might well describe such work as this upon imperishable clay, and stamp his name again and again upon the bricks of which it was composed.1 When his reign closed, he left Assyria and its dependencies far stronger than when he took the government into his own hands. His son Shalmaneser I, was his worthy successor. From his own historiographers we had but little until quite recently; for a long time indeed, only two broken tablets,2 but the excavations at Asshur have supplied us with a long and magnificent document, as well as with some smaller ones,3 and the fame of his great deeds called forth more than one 1 For the description see Adadnirari’s Quay-wall inscription in Andrae, Festungswerke, etc., plate LXXXIX, and Textband, p. 161 ; where also are reproduced specimens of the various forms of his inscriptions upon the building bricks, sometimes with one line, and again with two and even three. 2 Published I R. 6, No. iv, translated by Schrader, Keilinschrift, Bibl., i, pp. 8, 9. The second is published by Lenormant, Choix de textes, p. 170, No. 73, and by Winckler, Zeitschrift fur Assyriologie, ii, p. 313, and plate No. 7. King, Annals, etc., i, p. 13. 3 Messerschmidt, Keilschrifttexte aus Assur, i, Nos. 14, 15, 69. Com¬ pare Luckenbill, American Journal of Semitic Languages and Lit¬ eratures, xxviii, pp. 184, ff. THE BEGINNINGS OF ASSYRIA 151 mention from later kings/ and these will en¬ able us to reconstruct the main portion of his achievements. The general direction of his conquests was toward the northwest. This would seem to imply that the policy of his father had been successful, and that the terri¬ tory toward the northeast and the southeast was peacefully subject to Assyria. He pushed rather into the great territory of the valley between the Tigris and the Euphrates, and therein established colonies as a bulwark of defense against the nomadic populations of the farther north. Still farther westward the land of Musri was also subjected. This land lay north of Syria, close to Mount Amanus, and hence very near to the great Mediter¬ ranean Sea. To reach it Shalmaneser must cross the Euphrates — the first time that Assyrian power had crossed the great river. Subse¬ quent events show that the more westerfy parts of the land which he conquered were not really added to the Assyrian state. As in the case of Shubari, so also in this, other invasions would be necessary. But this at least had been gained, the rapidly growing kingdom was firmly established as far as the Balikh, and perhaps even to the Euphrates beyond. In these campaigns his greatest victories, 1 Especially by Ashurnazirpal (I R. 28, and III R. 4, No. 1). See Delitzsch; Die Sprachc der Kossder , pp. 10, ff.; Hommel, Geschichte, pp. 437, ff. 152 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA in respect of after effects, were against the kingdom of Mitanni. He is most proud of this and celebrates in dithyrambic phrase his overwhelming victory. “When at the com¬ mand of the great gods, with the exalted powers of Ashur, my lord, I advanced against the land of Khanigalbat, over difficult roads and narrow passes I forced my way, I surrounded Shat- tuara, king of Khani, the army of Hittites and Aramaeans1 with him. He seized the passes and my water supply. For thirst’s sake and for a camping ground my army bravely ad¬ vanced against the masses of their troops and I fought a battle and accomplished their defeat. Numbers beyond count of his wide spreading soldiers I killed. Against him, at the spear point, unto the setting of the sun I waged battle. I devastated their lands. Fourteen thousand four hundred of them I overthrew and took alive captive. Nine of his strongholds (and) his capital city I cap¬ tured. One hundred and eighty of his cities I overturned to mounds and ruins. The army of Hittites and Aramaeans, his allies, I slaugh¬ tered like sheep.”2 The style of his boasting became a standard and for centuries one As- 1 The Assyrian word here translated Aramaeans is Akhlami, a term of contempt like “barbarians,” applied especially to the Aramaeans who were still half-nomadic. See Schiffer, Die Aramaer, p. 15, ff. 2 Stone Inscription, col. ii, lines 16-40. The text is in Messerschmidt, Keilschnfttexte aus Assur, i, pp. 20, If., and transliteration and trans¬ lation in Luckenbill, American Journal of Semitic Languages, xxviii, pp. 188, 189. THE BEGINNINGS OF ASSYRIA 153 Syrian monarch after another reproduced its phrases. But however repellent his words, there can be no doubt of the substantial re¬ sults. The kingdom of Mitanni gave no further trouble to those who had once been its subjects. Small wonder is it that a conqueror of such prowess and an organizer of such ability should deem it necessary to build a new capital worth}^ of so great a kingdom. The city of Asshur was old, and its location was far south, too near the old Babylonian border. A kingdom that was growing northward and westward needed a capital more nearly central in loca¬ tion. Shalmaneser I determined to erect his new capital at Calah, at the junction of the Upper Zab with the Euphrates, and about forty miles north of Asshur, and so pitched upon a site which remained the capital of his country for centuries. But his attention to the erection of a new capital did not diminish his devotion to the thrice sacred shrines of Asshur. In his reign the temple of the god Ashur fell a prey to the flames. He was quick to rebuild it, and tells in warm words how its history went back to Ushpia, earliest known name among the rulers of Assyria, and how Shamshi-Adad had restored it. Now it was a heap of ruins, and his love and loyalty to the god was sufficient for the great task which now was his. He tore its ruins away to the ancient foundations, 154 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA and from there to its roof rebuilt it in greater size and magnificence. The records of former kings found in its walls he anointed with oil, and having celebrated them with libations, restored them to their ancient places.1 In peace as in war, a man of foresight and skill, like his father, he left Assyria the greater for his living and ruling. In the reign of his son and successor, Tukulti- Ninib2 1 (about 1289 B. C.), the irresistible prog¬ ress of the Assyrian arms reached a glorious climax. He tells of his exploits in words less boast¬ ful and more matter of fact than his father, and groups them apparently rather by the points of the compass than by the progress of the months, or years. His first campaign, however, is definitely dated as coming in the first year of his reign, and it carried him into the north and the northeast among the Kuti. These were conquered and he is able to add: “the tribute of their mountains and the wealth of their highlands every year in my city of 1 Stone Tablet of Shalmaneser I, col. iv, 1, IT. 2 The chief records of the reign of Tukulti Ninib I are (a) The Annals of Tukulti Ninib, Limestone Slab, 15| inches in height by 11^ in width, and about 14 in thickness. British Museum, first published by King, Records of the Reign of Tukulti-N inib I. London, 1904. (b) Two alabaster slabs found at Asshur, Messerschmidt, Keilschrifttexte aus Assur, Nos. 16, 17. (c) A zigat with wall and moat inscription. Messerschmidt, op. cit., No. 18, and Andrae, Die Festungswerke von Assur. Plate XCIII and Textband, p. 163. (d) The Palace Inscrip¬ tion (badly broken), Andrae, op. cit., plate XCII, and Textband, pp. 164, 165, with restorations by Delitzsch. (e) Seal inscription, King, op. cit., pp. 106, ff. See also above, vol. i, pp. 504, 505. THE BEGINNINGS OF ASSYRIA 155 Asshur I received."1 “At that time," as he next says, he went also into the west and northwest, and the “broad land of Shubari" suffered again as it had done at the hands of his predecessors. Upon these conquests came also the fall of forty kings of the lands of Nairi, so that the far north felt his heavy hand. These were events of high consequence indeed, but their effect upon the imagination is small when compared with what he has next to describe. There had once more arisen trouble between the two states of Assyria and Babylonia. Per¬ haps it was the old and vexed boundary ques¬ tion, which would not down; perhaps the never-forgotten restless ambition of the As¬ syrians to rule at Babylon. Whatever the cause or excuse Tukulti-Ninib invaded Baby¬ lonia with force sufficient to overwhelm its defenders and the imperial capital was taken. Kashtiliash II, king of Babylon, was humiliated beyond all his predecessors.2 After an un¬ exampled career of power and of civilization Babylon had fallen and the Assyrian plunderer was among her ruins. Tukulti-Ninib laid low a part of the city wall, even then massive, killed some of the defenders, and plundered the temple, carrying away into Assyria the image of the great god Marduk. This was 1 Annals, obverse lines 11-13. 2 See above, p. 123. 156 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA no mere raid, but a genuine conquest of the city, which was now governed from Calah. Assyrian officers were stationed both in the north and in the south of the country. Tukulti- Ninib adopts the title of king of Sumer and Accad in addition to his former titles, king of Kishshati and king of Asshur. In his person were now united the latest Assyrian title and one of the most ancient titles in the world. The old and coveted land of Sumer and Accad, the conquest of which by Hammurapi had been the very making of his empire, was now ruled from the far north. A curious evidence of the rule of Tukulti-Ninib in Babylon itself was found by Sennacherib, probably during the second attack upon the city (689 B. C.). Tukulti-Ninib had sent to Babylon a seal inscribed with his name, and this was taken to Assyria.1 For seven years only was this rule over Babylonia maintained. The Baby¬ lonians rebelled, drove out the Assyrian con¬ queror, and set up once more a Babylonian, Adad-shum-usur (about 1243-1213 B. C,), as king over them. In the greatest works of peace also was Tukulti-Ninib famous. He thought to imitate Shalmaneser I and found a new city to be called Kar-Tukulti-Ninib, and his first care 1 These facts come from a thirteen-line fragmentary inscription of Sennacherib III, R. 4, No. 2, translated by Smith, Records of the Past, First Series, v, pp. 85, 86. Comp. Bezold, Uebersicht, pp. 15, 16. See above, vol. i, pp. 325, 326. THE BEGINNINGS OF ASSYRIA 157 was to build a temple for “Ashur and Adad and Shamash and Ninib and Nusku and Nergal and Imina-bi and Islrtar,” and to it dug a canal from the river. He then proceeds to tell how: uin the midst of that city earth in abundance beside the god Nabu did I set, and for one hundred and twenty tippi on high I piled it. Above these tippi a palace corresponding to its size, a mighty house, I built for my royal habitation.”1 When we read these words we perceive that he was not really building an entirely new city, but rather erect¬ ing a great new quarter in the city of Asshur, northwest of the temple of Nabu. There the explorer’s spade has unearthed an immense terrace on which this palace stood, and beyond it the massive walls and deep moat to which he makes reference in another text.2 No king before him had built in equal massiveness, and well might he attempt to call his new city quarter after his own name. But time took its wonted revenge, and the name Ashur survived while men sought elsewhere for his city. When Tukulti-Ninib returned to Assyria after his unsuccessful effort to maintain his authority in the south, he found even his own people in rebellion under the leadership of his son. In the civil war that followed he lost 1 Annals, Reverse lines 11-14. 2 Messerschmidt, op. cit., No. 18, and Andrae, op. cit., p. 163. 158 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA his life, and the most brilliant reign in Assyrian history up to that time was closed. Up to this point the progress of the Assyrians had been steady and rapid. The few Semitic colonists from Babylonia had so completely overwhelmed the original inhabitants of their land that the latter made no impression on Assyrian life or history, and in this alone they had achieved more than the Babylonians, after a much longer history and with greater opportunities. We have seen how the Baby¬ lonians were influenced by the Sumerian civ¬ ilization and by the Sumerian people. After¬ ward they were first conquered by the Kas- sites and then so completely amalgamated with them that they ceased to be a pure Semitic race. Thus the influences of Semitism could not be perpetuated and disseminated by the Babylonians, while, on the other hand, the Assyrians suffered no intermixture. The latter had already so gained control of the fine terri- tor}^ which they first invaded, as to be absolute masters of it. Under them the land of Assyria had become Semitic. More than this, they had gained sufficient influence by conquest over the older Aramaean peoples toward the southeast, between them and the Kassites and the Babylonians, as to take from the Baby¬ lonians the Semitic leadership. Their colonies in the upper Mesopotamian valley were cen¬ ters of Semitic influence and stood as a great THE BEGINNINGS OF ASSYRIA 159 bulwark against the non-Semitic influences on the north. By crossing the Euphrates and con¬ quering the land of Musri they had also threat¬ ened the older Semitic civilizations in Syria and Palestine. Would they be able to wrest the power from them, as they had from the eastern Aramaeans and from the Babylonians? If this could be done, the Assyrians would hold in their hands the destinies of the Semitic race. It seemed as though they were to accom¬ plish even this, when they were suddenly checked by the successful rebellion of the Babylonians, by civil war, and by the death of their great leader. This reverse might mean their permanent overthrow if the Babylonian people still had in their veins the courage, the dash, and the rugged independence of the desert Semite. If, however, the inter¬ mixture of Sumerian and Kassite blood, not to mention lesser strains, had weakened the Semitic powers of the Babylonians, the check to Assyria might be only temporary. It is a critical day in the history of the race. The severity of the blow to Assyria is evidenced not only by the results in Babylonia, but no less by the fragmentary character of Assyrian annals for a long time. It is, indeed, for a time difficult not only to learn the course of events in Assyria, but even the names and order of the kings. The successor of Tukulti-Ninib on the throne 160 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA of Assyria was his son, Ashurnazirpal I, who had led the rebellion against him. In his reign the ruin of Assyrian fortunes which began in his father’s defeat and death went rapidly on. The Babylonian king, Adad-shum-usur, felt himself strong enough to follow up the advantage already gained by the restoration of his family to power, and actually attacked Assyria, from which he was only with difficulty repulsed. The next Assyrian kings were Ashur-narara IV and Nabu-dan1 (about 1250 B. C.), of whose reigns we know nothing, although we are able to infer from the sequel that the As¬ syrian power continued to wane, while the Babylonian increased. The reigns were short, and were soon succeeded probably by Tukulti- Ashur, in whose reign Assyrian power had so dwindled that the statue of Marduk, which had been sixteen years in exile in Assyria, went back again to Babylon, and the Assyrians dared not oppose its departure.2 After him came Bel-kudur-usur and Ninib-apal-esharra, in whose day the Babylonians under the leader¬ ship of Meli-Shipak and Marduk-apal-iddina in¬ vaded Assyria and stripped the once powerful kingdom of all its southern and part at least of its northern and western conqured territory. Apparently all was lost that the Assyrian kings 1 The names of these two kings are secured from a letter of Adad shum-usur of Babylon. See the text III R. 4, No. 5, and compare Budge and King, Amials of the Kings of Assyria, i, p. .xxii. 2 Babylonian Chronicle P, col. iv, line 12. THE BEGINNINGS OF ASSYRIA 161 of the earlier day had won, and the end of Assyrian leadership had come, but the motive force of the Assyrians was not destroyed. The successor of Ninib-apal-esharra was Ashurdan (about 1167 B. C.), and with him begins the rehabilitation of Assyrian power. He crossed the river Zab, and invading the territory which had been for some time con¬ sidered Babylonian, restored a small section of it to Assyria. We know little else of his reign, but this is sufficient to mark the turning point and explain what follows. His great-grandson, Tiglathpileser, boasts of him that he “attained to gray hairs and a ripe old age.”1 In his reign the rugged virtues of the Assyrians were preparing for the reawakening which was soon to come. Of the following reign of his son, Mutakkil-Nusku2 3 (about 1155 B. C.), we have no information, though we are probably safe in the supposition that his father’s work was continued, for we find in Babylonian history, as has been seen, no evidence of any weaken¬ ing of Assyria, but rather the contrary. The gain in the Assyrian progress is shown more clearly by the reign of his son, Ashur-rish-ishr 1 Prism inscription of Tiglathpileser I, col. vii, line 54. Budge and King, Annals of the Kings of Assyria, i, p. 94. 2 He is mentioned by Tiglathpileser I (Prism inscription, col. vii, lines 45-48) and has left us a brief inscription (George Smith, Assyrian Discoveries, pp. 142, 251). 3 The British Museum has three building inscriptions of Ashur- rish-ishi published by Budge and King, Armais of the Kings of Assyria, i, pp. 17-26. These also contain brief notices of the king’s conquests. 162 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA (about 1150 B. C.), who is introduced to us very fittingly as “the powerful king, the con¬ queror of hostile lands, the subduer of all the evil.”1 The beginning of his conquests was made by a successful campaign against the Lulumi and the Kuti, who have found mention more than once before. They must have either become independent, during the period of Assyria’s decline, or perhaps have been added to the restored Babylonian empire. Hav¬ ing thus made sure of the territory on the south and east, Ashur~rish~ishi was ready to meet the great and hereditary foe of Babylon. Nebuchadrezzar I was now king in Babylon, and, flushed with recent victory over a por¬ tion of Elam, was a dangerous antagonist. The issue between the kings seems to have been joined not in the old land of Babylonia south of Assyria, but in Mesopotamia, and the Assyrians were victorious. Though deeply absorbed in war he found time for one great work of peace. On the northwest boundary of the city of Asshur and beside the great terrace and palace of Tukulti- Ninib he laid the foundations of a double temple to be dedicated to the gods Anu and Adad. The like of this had surely never been seen before, that two complete temples to two gods should be united in one vast con¬ struction. He set the fagade toward the city, 1 Annals of Tiglathpileser, vii, 42-44, published I R. 15. THE BEGINNINGS OF ASSYRIA 163 with the single door between two low towers facing southeast. Within this door the ad¬ vancing worshiper would find an oblong court open to the sky, apd beyond its ample space two doors; the right hand door gave, it is supposed, into the temple of Anu, which had five rooms, and the left hand door into the temple of Adad, which had likewise five rooms. In each case there were two principal rooms, with the three subordinate rooms about them. The temple arrangement was therefore similar to the Hebrew, a court, a holy place, and the most holy place. On the northeast and on the southwest corners were temple-towers or Zikurats, rising in pyramidal form in four stages reached by ramps. The chief material used for construction was a large sun-dried brick about fifteen inches square and four inches thick. Upon these the king had stamped the legend: “Ashurrishishi, priest of Ashur, builder of the temple of Adad and of the god Anu.” The material was poor and the building was not likely to last long, though the foundations are still discoverable in our own day.1 Ashur-rish-ishi could not finish his ambitious plan, and left the incomplete structure to his greater son. Ashur-rish-ishi was succeeded by his son, Tiglathpileser I (Tukulti-pal-esharra, My help is the son of Esharra — that is, My help is the 1 For an elaborate account of the temple see Walter Andrac, Dor Anu-Adad Tcmpel in Assur. Leipzig, 1909. 164 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA god Ashur). There was therefore no break in the succession and no new dynasty begins. Nevertheless, a new period of Assyrian history really commences with the next king. With Ashur-rish-ishi ends the first period of growth and decay and of renaissance. To his son he left a kingdom almost as great as Assyria had yet possessed. Tiglathpileser begins to reign with the titles of king of Kishshati and king of Asshur; the only title belonging to his an¬ cestors which he did not possess was king of Sumer and Accad. With him we enter upon a wonderful period in the career of the Assyrian people. CHAPTER II TIGLATHPILESER I AND HIS SONS Tiglathpileser I (about 1120 B. C.) was the grand monarch of western Asia in his day, and the glory of his achievements was held in memory in Assyria for ages after. It is fitting that one who wrought such marvels in peace and war should have caused his deeds to be written down with care and preserved in more than one copy.* 1 To his gods he ascribed the 1 The chief source of knowledge of the reign of Tiglathpileser is found in the eight-sided prism, four copies of which were found at Kalah Shergat, two in excellent preservation and two in fragments. The text is substantially the same in all the copies and is published I R. 9-16, and in Winckler, Sammlung von Keilschrifttexten, i, plates 1-25. It is transliterated and translated in Lotz, Die Inschriften Tiglath- pileser's I, Leipzig, 1880, and also by Winckler, in Keilinschrift. Bibl ., i, pp. 14-47. There is an English translation by Professor Sayce, with useful geographical notes, in Records of the Past, New Series, i, 92-121. There is a new and improved edition in Budge and King, Annals of the Kings of Assyria, i, pp. 27-108. This was the text used by the Royal Asiatic Society to demonstrate the correctness of the method of decipherment. See above, vol. i, pp. 241-243. Besides this fine prism there have also been preserved some fragmentary annals of the first ten years of his reign erroneously ascribed originally to Ashur-rish-ishi and published III R. 5, Nos. 1-5, and by Winckler, Sammlung , pp. 26-29. Notes upon portions of them are given by Lotz, op. cit ., pp. 193, 194, and by Bruno Messnier, Zeitschrift fur As- syriologie, ix, pp. 101, ff., and they are republished by Budge and King, op. cit., i, pp. 109-126. The names and titles of the king are given in two brief texts found at the so-called grotto of Sebeneh-Su (III R. 4, No. 6; Schrader, Die Keilinschriften am Eingange der Quellgrotte des Sebeneh-Su, Berlin, 1885; Winckler, Keilinschrift. Bibl., i, pp. 48, 49), and at Kalah Shergat (I R. 6, No. V; Winckler, Sammlung, p. 31), and they are republished by Budge and King, op. cit., pp. 127, ff. 165 16G HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA credit of his works. Their names, a formidable number, stand at the very head of the chief written memorials of his reign. Here are Ashur, the ancient patron deity of his land, “the great lord, the director of the hosts of the gods/’ and Bel also, and Sin, the moon god; Shamash, the sun god; Adad, the god of the air, of storms, of thunder, and rain; Ninib, “the hero;” and, last of all, the goddess Ishtar, “the chief est among the gods,” whose name was ever to resound and be hallowed in the later history of Nineveh.1 With so great a pantheon had the people of Assyria already enriched themselves. The annals of the king show that he planned his campaigns well and had a definite aim in each struggle against his enemies. When he ascended the throne Babylonia was too weak to interfere with his labor of building up anew the Assyrian empire, and no immediate cam¬ paign southward was therefore necessary. On the other hand, there was a threatening situa¬ tion in the north and west. The nomadic tribes, established in the hill country above the Me¬ sopotamian valley, northward of Harran, had never been really subdued, and some fresh effort had to be made to hold them in check or the integrity of the kingdom might be en¬ dangered. The tribe that was now most threatening was the Mushke. This people was 1 1 R. 9, 1-14. TIGLATHPILESEK I AND HIS SONS 167 settled in the territory north of Milid, the modern Malatiyeh, on both sides of the upper waters of the Euphrates. In later times they became famous as the Moschi1 of the Greeks, and the Meshech2 3 of the Old Testament, being in both cases associated with the Tubal or Tibareni, who at this period lived toward the south and west, inhabiting a portion of the territory later known as Cappadocia. The Mushke had crossed the Euphrates southward and possessed themselves of the districts of Alzi and Purukhuzzi about fifty years before, in the period of Assyria’s weakness. The Assyrians had once overrun this very territory and claimed presents for the god Ashur from its inhabitants, but it was now fully in the control of the Mushke, and had for these fifty years been paying tribute to them, and not to the Assyrians. Feeling their strength, and unopposed by any other king, the Mushke, to the number of about twenty thousand, in five bands, invaded the land of Kummukh (Com- magene). Here was indeed a dangerous situa¬ tion for Assyria, for if these people were un¬ checked, they would not long be satisfied with the possession of this northern part of Kum¬ mukh, but would seize it all, and perhaps invade the land of Assyria itself. Trusting in Ashur, his lord, Tiglathpileser hastily assem- 2 Herodotus, iii, 94; vii, 78. 3 Gen. x, 2; Ezek. xxvii, 13; xxxviii, 2. 168 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA bled an army and marched against them. He must cross the rough and wild Mount Masius and descend upon his enemies among the head waters of the Tigris. How large a force of men he led in this venture we do not know, but his victory was overwhelming. Of the twenty thousand men who opposed him but six thousand remained alive to surrender and accept Assyrian rule. The others w^ere savagely butchered, their heads cut off, and their blood scattered over the “ditches and heights of the mountains.”1 This savagery, so clearly met here for the first time, blackens the whole record of Assyrian history to the end. It was usual in far less degree among the Babylonians, so that the ascendancy of Assyria over Babylonia is, in this light, the triumph of brute force over civilization. Having thus overwhelmed the advance guard of the Mushke, Tiglathpileser returns to re¬ establish, by conquest, the Assyrian suprem¬ acy over the southern portions of the land of Kummukh. This country was also quickly subdued and its cities wasted with fire, per¬ haps as centers of possible rebellion. The fleeing inhabitants crossed an arm of the Tigris toward the west and made a stand in the city of Sherishe, which they fortified for defense. The Assyrian king pursued across mountain 1 Tiglathpileser Prism inscription, i, 62-88. The phrase quoted is in line 79. Translation in Keilinschrift. Bibl. , i, p. 19. TIGLATHPILESER I AND HTS SONS 169 and river, and carried by assault their strong¬ hold, butchering the fighting men as before. The men of Kummukh had some forces from the land of Qurkhe1 as allies, but these profited little, and the united forces were overwhelmed. Again the Tigris was crossed and the strong¬ hold of Urratinash laid waste. Rightly appre¬ ciating the terrible danger that threatened them, the inhabitants gathered together their possessions, together with their gods, and fled “like birds”2 into the mountain fastnesses that surrounded them. Their king, realizing the hopelessness of his state, came forth to meet his conqueror and to seek some mercy at his hand. Tiglathpileser took the members of his family as hostages, and received a rich gift of bronze plates, copper bowls, and trays, and a hundred and twenty slaves, with oxen and sheep. Strangely enough, he spared his life, adding, complacently, to the record the words: “I had compassion on him, (and) granted his life,” which hereafter was to be lived under Assyrian suzerainty. By these movements the “broad land of Kummukh” was conquered, and the Assyrian ruled at least as far as, if not beyond, Mount Masius. Great achievements, these, for the first year of a reign, and the next year was equally suc- 1 “A land eastward of Diarbekir, along the northern bank of the Tigris,” so Sayce, Records of the Past, New Series, vol. i, p. 96, note 3. 2 The figure belongs to the annals of Tiglathpileser. 170 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA cessful. It began with an invasion of the land of Shubari, which had been conquered before by Adad-nirari I, and had again rebelled, thence the king marched into the countries of Alzi and Purukhuzzi, of which we heard in his first campaign, in order to lay upon them anew the old annual tribute so long un¬ paid to Assyria. The cities of Shubari surren¬ dered without battle on the appearance of Tiglathpileser, and the district north of Mount Masius was all a tribute-paying land. On the return from this campaign the land of Kummukh is again devastated. The exaggera¬ tion of the king’s annals appears strongly here, for if, in the campaign of the first year, Kummukh had been so thoroughly wasted as the king’s words declare, there would certainly have been little left to destroy in the next year. This time there is added at the con¬ clusion one sentence which did not appear before. “The land of Kummukh, in its whole extent, I subjugated and added to the terri¬ tory of my land.”1 Well may such a con¬ queror continue in the words which imme¬ diately follow: “Tiglathpileser, the powerful king, overwhelmer of the disobedient, he who overcomes the opposition of the wicked.”2 The control of the great Mesopotamian valley in its northern portion between the Tigris 1 Tiglathpileser, col. iii, lines 34-35. * Ibid., lines 36-38. TIGLATHPILESER I AND HIS SONS 171 and the Euphrates is safely lodged in Assyrian hands. The third year of the reign of Tiglathpileser contained no less than three campaigns. The first, against Kharia1 and Qurkhi, we cannot follow in its geographical details, and are therefore unable fully to realize its meaning and importance. It was a mountain cam¬ paign, full of toilsome ascents, and carried on with the usual savage accompaniments. In quite a different direction lay the course of the second campaign of this year. Instead of the north, it was the south that now claimed attention. The king crosses the Lower Zab River, which discharges its waters into the Tigris not far south of the ancient capital, Asshur, and conquers an inaccessible region amid the mountains of its upper courses. A third campaign again carries him to the north against Sugi, in Qurkhi, and results also in a victory, from which no less then twenty- five gods were brought back to Assyria in triumphal subjection to Ann, Adad, and Ishtar. The great undertaking of the fourth year of the king’s reign was a campaign into the lands of the Nairi.2 By this the annals of Tiglathpileser clearly mean the lands about 1 Tiele ( Geschichte , p. 159, Anm. 2) has joined Kharia with LullumS, but on insufficient grounds. Streck ( Zeitschrift fur Assyriologie, xvi, ICO, 161 ) would locate it in the mountains of Bohtan, east of Kirkhu, and this seems to fit the general situation well. 2 See the admirable collection of references to this territory in Streck, 172 HISTORY OP BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA the sources of the Tigris and Euphrates, lying north, west, and south of Lake Van. In this territory there was as yet no Chaldian kingdom, but no less than twenty-three native kings or princes united their forces to oppose the Assyrian. There was more mountain climbing to reach them, and then they were severely punished. The kings were taken alive, and after swearing oaths of fealty to the gods of Assyria were liberated. Chariots and troops of horses, with much treasure of every kind, were taken, and a yearly tribute of twelve hundred horses and two thousand oxen was put upon the inhabitants, who were not removed from their land.* 1 One only of these twenty- three kings — Sieni, the king of Dayaeni2 — refusing to surrender as the others, resisted to the last. He was therefore carried in chains to Assyria, where he probably saw reasons for submission, for he was suffered to depart alive. This episode in the king’s conquests is concluded with the claim that the whole of the lands of Nairi were subdued, but later history shows clearly that further conquest was necessary. It was a great move for- M., Das Gebiet der heutigen Landschaft Armenien , Kurdistan und West- persien nach den babylonisch-assyrischen Keilinschriften, in Zeitschrift fiir Assyriologie, xiii, pp. 57, If. 1 Tiglathpileser, iv, 43; v, 21. 2 Dayaeni, known in the Chaldian inscriptions as the kingdom “of the son of Diaus,” is located along the Murad-chai near Melasgerd. See Sayce, “Cuneiform Inscriptions of Van,” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, xiv, p. 399; Records of the Past, New Series, i, p. 106, footnote 6. TIGLATHPILESER I AND HIS SONS 173 ward in Assyria’s growth into a world power to have accomplished this much. As a part of the same campaign tribute was collected from the territory about Milid, and another year of activity was ended. By comparison with the previous four years the fifth seems a year of less result. Aramaean peoples inhabiting the Syrian wastes, west of the upper waters of the Euphrates and south of the city of Carchemish, had crossed the river into Mesopotamia. Tiglathpileser ex¬ pelled them, and so again strengthened Assyrian supremacy in northern Mesopotamia as far as Carchemish. Following up his easily won victory, the king crossed the Euphrates in pursuit and laid waste six Aramaean cities at the foot of Mount Bishri. The campaign of the next year was di¬ rected against the land of Musri,1 which had already felt the arm of Assyria in the reign of Shalmaneser I. The people of Musri were aided by allies from the land of Qumani,2 and both lands were subjugated and a yearly tribute put upon them, after they had suf¬ fered all the horrors of the savage Assyrian method of warfare. In the language of the annals, their heads were cut off “like sheep.” 1 This land lay in the northwest, beyond the Euphrates, and extended southward from about Malatiyeh toward the Mediterranean. Its con¬ quest introduced Tiglathpileser to the plains of Syria. 2 Qumani is the district Comana in Cataonia (Delattre, L’Asie occiden¬ tals dans les Inscriptions Assyriennes, pp. 65, 66). 174 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA The king thus records the results of his five years of campaigns: “In all, forty-two countries and their kings from beyond the Lower Zab (and) the border of the distant mountains to beyond the Euphrates, to the land of the Hittites and the Upper Sea1 of the setting sun, from the beginning of my sovereignty until my fifth year my hand has conquered. Of one mind I made them all; their hostages I took; tribute and taxes I imposed upon them.” With this notice in the annals of Tiglathpileser ends all account of his campaigns. No other word concerning any further raids or ravages is spoken. Were it not for the Synchronistic History we should know nothing more of his prowess. The in¬ formation which thus comes to us is not so full as are the notes which we have already passed in review, but it supplies what was needful to round out the circle of his march¬ ing and conquering. It was improbable that a king who had conquered north, west, and east should not also find cause for attacking the coveted land of Babylonia. From the Synchronistic History2 we learn that he twice invaded the territory of Marduk-nadin-akhi. In the first conflict he lost, and Marduk- 1 The Gulf of Issus — a part of the Mediterranean. This was one of the early geographical puzzles in the history of Assyriology. It has been identified with the Black Sea (Eduard Meyer, Tiele), with Lake Van (Schrader, Sayce) and with the Caspian (M6nant). 2 Col. ii, lines 14-24. TIGLATHPILESER I AND HIS SONS 175 nadin-akhi even entered Assyria, and carried away to Babylonia the gods Adad and Shala, which reposed there until Sennacherib restored them four hundred years later.1 In the next campaign success once more came to the Assyrians, for Tiglathpileser invaded Babylonian territory and captured Dur-Kurigalzu, Sippar of Shamash, Sippar of Anunit, Babylon and Opis, and is even said to have dismantled their fortifi¬ cations.2 So ends the story of the wars of Tiglath¬ pileser I. He had not only restored the king¬ dom of Assyria to the position which it held in the days of Shalmaneser and Tukulti-Ninib; he had made it still more great. Never had so many peoples paid tribute to the Assyrians, and never was so large a territory actually ruled from the Assyrian capital. But Tiglathpileser was no less great in peace than in war. He brought back the capital of Assyria from Calah to Asshur and almost rebuilt the city, which had thus again become important. The temples of Ishtar, Adad, and Bel were rebuilt. The palaces which had fallen into ruin during the absence of the court were again restored and beautified. And then into this city thus renewed, and into this land enlarged by conquest, the king brought the wealth of the world as he had 1 See vol. i, p. 498. * Synchronistic col. ii, lines 14-24. 176 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA gathered it. Goats, fallow deer, and wild sheep were herded into the land. Horses in large numbers taken from conquered lands or received in yearly tribute were added to the peaceful service of agriculture. But not even here did the king rest. He caused trees also to be brought from great distances and planted in the land he loved.1 It is a marvelous story of peaceful achievement, worthy of a place by the side of his overpowering success in war. In addition to the serious work of war and peace the king found time to cultivate the wiles of a sportsman, and great are his boasts of the birds and the cattle and even the lions which he slew. This passion for sport is commemorated long afterward in an inscription of Ashurnazirpal, in which we are told that Tiglathpileser sailed in ships of Arvacl upon the Mediterranean.2 It follows from this that after the six campaigns, enumerated above, the king must have made another which carried him out to the Phoenician coast, where his successors were later to fight great battles and win great triumphs. Of the conclusion of the reign of Tiglathpileser we know nothing. He probably died in peace, for he was succeeded by his son, Ashur-bel-kala, and the latter was followed after a short reign by another son of Tiglathpileser, Shamshi-Adad 1 Tiglathpileser VII, 1-35 (thereby imitating Thutmosis III). 2 1 R. 28, 2. Comp, translation by Peiser, in Keilinschrift. Bibl., i, 124. While sailing the king slew a nakhiru. This was the white or sper¬ maceti whale. See the learned article by Paul Haupt. TIGLATHPILESER I AND HIS SONS 177 IV. So easy and unbroken a succession makes it a fair presumption that the times were peace¬ ful. The sons were not able to bear the burden which came to them, so that there is speedily a falling off in the power and dignity of the king¬ dom. When we look back on the reign of Tig- lathpileser and ask what of permanent value for Assyria was achieved by all his wars, the answer is disappointing. He might boast that he had conquered from east to west, from the Lower Zab to the Mediterranean, and from the south to the north, from Babylonia to Lake Van, but what were these conquests, for the most part, but raids of intimidation and of plunder? He did not really extend the govern¬ ment of Assyria to such limits, even though in Kummukh he actually appointed Assyrian gov¬ ernors. Over this great territory, however, he made the name of Assyria feared, so that the lesser peoples surrendered at times without a blow for freedom, while the greater peoples dared not think of invading Assyrian territory. This insurance against invasion was the great gain which he brought to his country. By carry¬ ing savage war to other nations he secured for his own a peace which gave opportunity for progress in the arts. These great temples and palaces required time for their erection and time for the training of men who were skilled in the making of bricks and the working of wood. The very inscription from which we have learned the 178 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA facts of his reign, a beautiful clay prism with eight hundred and nine lines of writing, bears impressive witness to a high state of civilization and an era of peace. Of the reigns of the two sons we know almost nothing. Ashur-bel-kala maintained terms of peace with Marduk-shapik-zer-mati, king of Babylonia, who thereby seemed to be considered an independent monarch and not subject to the Assyrians, as his predecessor had been. In this reign the capital appears to have been trans¬ ferred to Nineveh,1 and a word in the only inscription of the king which has come down to us hints at the king’s control in the west2. After a short reign Ashur-bel-kala was suc¬ ceeded by his brother, Shashi-Adad IV, whose only work known to us was the rebuilding of the temple of Ishtar in Nineveh — another proof that the capital was now located at this city and not at Asshur. After this reign there is another long period of silence in Assyrian history, of which we have no native monumental witnesses; a period of im¬ mense importance in the history of mankind, for it was a time not only of silence but of actual decay in the Assyrian commonwealth. As the fortunes of Assyria were at so low an ebb, the 1 This follows from an inscription of Ashur-bel-kala which was found at Kuyunjik — that is, Nineveh — which comes from a palace of the king. It is published I R. 6, No. VI, and republished more correctly, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society , April, 1892, and again translated by S. A. Strong,"1 Records of the Past, New Series, vi, pp. 76-79. ! So Professor Sayce, ibid., p. 78, footnote. TIGLATHPILESER I AND HIS SONS 179 time was favorable for the growth and develop¬ ment of peoples elsewhere who were for a time free from the threatening of Assyrian arms. When once more we come upon a period of historical writing and of great deeds in Assyria we shall find the Assyrian conquerors confronting a changed condition of affairs in the world. To the growth of new conditions elsewhere we must now address our thought for a better under¬ standing of Assyrian movements after the silent period. f CHAPTER III THE INCREASE OF ASSYRIAN POWER OVER BABYLONIA After the dynasty of Isin had ceased to rule in Babylonia, brought to an end we know not how, there arose a dynasty known to the Babylonian historiographers and chronologists as the dynasty of the Sea Lands. The territory known as the Sea Lands was alluvial land at the estuaries of the Tigris and the Euphrates upon the Persian Gulf. This fertile country, already beginning to show its growing power, was destined at a later period to exercise a great influence upon the his¬ tory of Babylonia. The dynasty of the Sea Lands numbered only three kings, who reigned together but twenty-one years and five months,1 or, as the Babylonian Chronicle has it, twenty- three years.2 This variation in the time given by the two chief Babylonian authorities is instructive in its showing that the Babylonians themselves did not preserve so accurate a memory of this time as of the earlier and later periods. The first king of the dynasty was Simbar- shipak (about 1046-1028 B. C.), of whose reign 1 King List A, col. iii. 2 Chronicle B, 1. 180 INCREASE OF ASSYRIAN POWER 181 we know only that it ended disastrously, for he was slain and buried in the palace of Sargon.1 The next king was Ea-mukin-zer (about 1027 B. C.), who reigned but five months according to the King List, or three months according to the Chronicle. Of his reign, also, we have no further knowledge.2 The last king was Kasshu-nadin-akhe, son of Sippai, who reigned but three years (about 1027- 1024 B. C.) (Chronicle, six years), whose works are likewise unknown to us, and only the melan¬ choly memory remained that there was distress and famine in his reign, and that the regular offerings at the temple of Shamash in Sippar, which had been partially restored by the first king of this dynasty, had again been discon¬ tinued.3 Immediately after this dynasty there follows another of three kings, called the dynasty of the house of Bazi, of which we know only the names of the rulers and the somewhat doubtful number of years which they reigned. These kings are: Eulmash-shakin-shum, seventeen years (Chron¬ icle, fifteen) (about 1024-1007 B. C.), in whose seventh year occurred a great storm, and in the eleventh so great a flood that the waters of the 1 Babylonian Chronicle V, lines 2 and 3. 2 Inscription of Nabu-apal-iddin, col. i. See translation by Peiser, Keilinschrift. Bibl., iii, part i, p. 177. 3 Such is the record found on the Stone Tablet of Nabu-aplu-iddina (British Museum 91000-91004), lines 1-28, King, Babylonian Boundary Stones, pp. 121, 122. 182 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA river came within the wall of the lower mound, that is probably into the city of Babylon. Ninib-kudur-usur, three years (Chronicle, two) (1007-1004 B. C.). Silanim-shukamuna, three months (about 1003 B. C.). After this dynasty comes another with only one king, named Ae-aplu-usur. He is called an Elamite, reigned six years, and was buried in the palace of Sargon (about 1003-997 B. C.). In his seizing of the throne we are reminded of the former Elamite movements under Eri-Aku. With these three dynasties we have passed over a period of history in Babylonia of perhaps forty-six years. Our lack of knowledge of the period is of course partly due to absence of original documents, but it is also probably due to the fact that there was little to tell. We have lighted upon degenerate days. The real Baby¬ lonian stock had exhausted its vigor, and was now intermixed with Kassite and other foreign blood — a mixture which would later prove stronger than the pure blood which had preceded it, for mixed races have generally been superior to those of pure blood. But there was hardly time yet for a display of its real force. Besides this Babylonia had suffered from invasions from Assyria, from Elam, and from the Sea Lands, at the head of the Persian Gulf. It was not sur¬ prising that a period not only of peace but of stagnation had come. INCREASE OF ASSYRIAN POWER 183 The most noteworthy fact in these forty-six years is the arising from the far south of the so-called dynasty of the Sea Lands. The names of these three kings are chiefly Kassite, and that would seem to imply that the Kassites had also overrun this land as well as the more central parts of Babylonia. However that may be, this is the country which is also called the land of the Kaldi, or, in the later form, the land of Chaldea. This is the period of the growth and develpoment of new states on all sides, as we shall see in the survey to follow, and it is the first appearance of the Chaldeans in Babylonian history. Their sub¬ sequent history shows that they were Semites, though perhaps, as above stated, of somewhat mixed blood. It is not known when they first entered the land by the sea, from which they had now invaded Babylonia. It has been suggested that their power in Babylonia was attained not by conquest, but by a slow progress of emigra¬ tion.1 The view is plausible, perhaps even proba¬ ble, for they seem to have become kings in a period of profound peace, but there is no sure evidence. In following the line of Babylonian kings we have now reached another period of extreme difficulty. The native Babylonian King Lists are so badly broken that no names are legible for a long period, and but very few of the nume¬ rals which give their years of reign. It is possible 1 Winckler, Geschichte, p. 113. 184 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA however, from the fragmentary notices of Assy¬ rian kings, from Synchronistic History, and from certain business documents to recover a few of the names, which will be set down in their approximate order as the story progresses. The next of the kings of Babylonia seems to have been Nabu-mukin-apli,1 who reigned apparently thirty-six years (about 996-960 B. C.), and whose portrait, accompanied by his titles as king of Kishshati and king of Babylonia, is given on a curious boundary stone. This is all that is known of him or his reign. While we have been laboriously threading our way through the weary mazes of this obscure succession of dynasties in Babylonia we have left aside a period of silence in Assyria after the reign of Tiglathpileser I and his two sons. We have now seen that during this period there was no display of power and energy in Babylonia, but the people of Chaldea, using perhaps this very opportunity, had been able to establish 1 The whole question of this king’s personality and date is exceedingly obscure. If he is the first king of the eighth dynasty, he must have reigned for thirty-six years, for that numeral appears clearly in Knudtzon’s copy in place of the thirteen years previously given. (Com¬ pare Knudtzon, Assyrische Gebete an den Sonnengott, i, 60, with Schrader in Sitzungsberichte der Berl. Ak. der TFfss., 1887, pp. 579-607, 947-951.) Of his name there is no doubt, for he is mentioned on the curious boun¬ dary stone (British Museum, No. 90835), published by Belser, Beitrage zur Assyriologie, ii, 171, ff. See King, Babylonian Boundary Stones, p. 51, ff. As Peiser has correctly pointed out in his translation ( Keil - inschriftliche Bibliothek, iv, 82, ff.), the stone has on it writing of differ¬ ent dates, and this, of course, adds to the difficulty. Peiser’s diffi¬ culty about the number of years of reign assigned to Nabu-mukin- apli is removed if the incorrect 13 of the older publications of the King List be corrected into 36, in accordance with Knudtzon’s excellent copy. INCREASE OE ASSYRIAN POWER 185 themselves well in their own land, and even to attain power in Babylonia. In the west there were movements of still greater importance among the Semitic peoples. Just as the decay of Babylonian power gave opportunity to the Chaldeans, so the decay of Assyrian power and the consequent absence of its threats against the west gave great oppor¬ tunity to the peoples of Syria and Palestine. As the Assyrian power must soon meet these new foes, as well as old foes in new locations, we must survey this field of the west before we proceed further with the story of Assyria. Several times before in this history we have met with a people known as the Aramaeans . Like the Assyrians and Babylonians, they were a Semitic people whose original homeland was Arabia, and probably northern Arabia. Whether Aramaeans began to leave Arabia before or after the Babylonians will probably never be known with certainty. As the Mesopotamian valley was so much more desirable a place of dwelling than the lands later occupied by the Aramaeans, it seems reasonable to suppose that this valley was already occupied by the Babylonians when the Aramaeans came out of Arabia and moved northward. They left settlements along the edges of the Babylonian kingdom, some of which were readily absorbed, while others remained to vex their stronger neighbors for centuries. In their migrations toward the north they seemed 186 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA to follow very nearly the course of the Euphrates, though bodies of them crossed over toward the Tigris and became, as we have seen, thorny neighbors of the Assyrians during the founding of the Assyrian kingdom. At the period which we have now reached, their strongest settlements were along the northern Euphrates, in the neigh¬ borhood of the river Sajur. Pitru (the biblical Pethor1) and Mutkinu, which had been filled with Assyrian colonists by Tiglathpileser, were now in the hands of the Aramaeans. But they had also silently possessed themselves of terri¬ tory farther north along the Euphrates, even as far as Amid, which Tiglathpileser had con¬ quered, but which had to be reconquered, and from the Aramaeans, in a short time. But the greatest achievement of the Aramaeans was not in the upper Mesopotamian valley. They were in force in this valley when the Hittite empire fell to pieces, and to them came the best of what it possessed. Carchemish, at the fords of the Euphrates, had been passed by, and moving westward, they had seized Aleppo and Hamath and then, most glorious and powerful of all, Damascus fell into their hands. Here they founded their greatest kingdom, and centuries must elapse before the Assyrians would be able to break down this formidable barrier to their western progress. But these facts have another significance besides the political. The Aramaeans 1 Num. xxii, 5; Deut. xxiii, 4. INCREASE OF ASSYRIAN POWER 187 were essentially traders. The territory which they now possessed was the key to the trade between the east and the west. The products of Assyria and of Babylonia could not cross into Syria and thence in ships over the Mediter¬ ranean westward without passing through this Aramaean territory, and so paying tribute. The Aramaeans had become the land traders, as the Phoenicians were the sea traders. Now, the Assyrians were also a commercial people, shrewd, eager, and persevering. It could not be long before the king of Assyria would be pressed by the commercial life of Nineveh to undertake wars for the winning back from the Aramaeans of this territory so valuable in itself, and so important for the development of Assyrian com¬ merce. However the Assyrians, who were never a maritime people, might endure the submission of their commercial ambition to the Phoenicians on the sea, it was not likely that they would yield up the highways of the land to a people less numerous and less strong than themselves. In the period of decay that followed the reign of Tiglathpileser this new power had risen up to bar their progress. We shall see shortly how the difficulty was met. During the same period another power, not so great, and yet destined to influence strongly the later history of Assyria and soon to excite Assyrian cupidity, had been slowly developing in the land of Palestine south of the Aramaean 188 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA strongholds. When the Hebrews crossed over the Jordan into Palestine they found a number of disorganized tribes lately freed from Egyptian rule and not yet organized into a confederation sufficiently strong to resist the fresh blood which came on them suddenly from out the desert.1 The Hebrews in their desert sojourn had worn off the feeling of a subject population, and from the desert air had taken in at every breath the freedom which to this very day inspires the desert Arab. It was a resistless force which Joshua led in the desultory campaigns beyond the Jordan. The period of the Judges was a rude and barbaric age, but it was an age in which Israel developed some idea of national life and some power of self-government. If the con¬ quests of Tiglathpileser had continued many years longer, he would surely have been led to invade Palestine, and the Hebrews, without a fixed central government, without a kingly leader, without a standing army, would have fallen an easy prey to his disciplined and vic¬ torious troops. But the period of Assyrian weakness which followed his reign gave the needed breathing spell in the west, and the king¬ dom of Saul and David was established. Herein was established a new center of influence ready to oppose the ambition of Assyrian kings and the commercial cupidity of Assyrian traders. 1 See a fresh and vigorous statement of the Canaanite situation in Guthe, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, §11, pp. 33-38. In the third edition, pp. 44-52. INCREASE OE ASSYRIAN POWER 189 The political aspect of western Asia had changed considerably in the period 1050-950 B. C. During this century we do not know any¬ thing of the life of the Assyrian people. The names of the kings Ashurnazirpal II (about 1050 B. C.) and his son Shalmaneser II belong in this period, but we know nothing of them, nor yet of a number of their successors save only their names, and in some cases their relationship. A little later came Ashur-rabi III, though the exact order is somewhat doubtful. He has left us no accounts of his wars or of his works. From the allusions of the later Assyrian king Shal¬ maneser hi, we learn that it was in his reign that the Aramaeans seized Pitru (Pethor) and Mutkinu,1 so that his reign is another evidence of the period of weakness and decay in Assyria. But he seems, on the other hand, to have invaded the far west, for on the Phoenician coast he carved his portrait in relief upon the rocks,2 probably in the rocky gorge of the Nahr-el-Kelb, north of Beirut, a place much used for the same purpose by later Assyrian conquerors. At about 950 B. C. Tiglathpileser III began to reign in Assyria, and from his time on to the end of the Assyrian empire we possess an unbroken list of the names of the kings. He is called king 1 Shalmaneser, Monolith , ii, 37. On this text compare especially Winckler, Untersuchungen, pp. 22, 23, footnote 0, and Geschichte, p. 332, note 38 (to page 181). Compare Sina Schilfer, Die Aramaer , p. 13. 2 Shalmaneser, Balawat, ii, 3. Compare also Winckler, Unter¬ suchungen, pp. 22, 23, footnote 6. 190 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA of Kishshati and king of Asshur,1 2 and with his name and his titles our knowledge begins and ends. He was succeeded by his son, Ashur-dan IP (about 930 B. C.), and he again by his son, Adad-nirari III (911-889 B. C.), in whose reign the old struggles between Assyria and Babylonia began again. Babylonia was now ruled by Shamash-mudammik, and these two monarchs met in battle at the foot of Mount Yalman and the Babylonian was utterly overthrown. He was slain by Nabu-shum-ishkun, who succeeded him and renewed the struggle with the Assyrians, but likewise suffered defeat at the hands of Adad-nirari III, and was compelled to yield some cities to the Assyrians, after which a treaty of peace was made between the two nations. Besides these notices of the relations between the two kingdoms our only record of the times are inscriptions of Adad-nirari III, in which he describes his rebuilding of the quay on the Tigris banks at Asshur, and the recon¬ struction of the city moat and canal, and two campaigns of conquest against Qumani, where Tiglathpileser I had met victory. So also did he and brought back heavy booty to Assyria.3 His son, Tukulti-Ninib II (889-884 B. C.), introduces us to the threshold of a new period 1 No inscription of Tiglathpileser III has been preserved, and we owe these facts to the inscription of Adad-ninari II ( Zeitschrift fur Assyriologie, ii, p. 311; Keilinschrift. Bill., i, pp. 48, 49). 2 See the same inscription of Adad-nirari II. 3 See two inscriptions by him in Andrae, Featungswerke von Assur, pp. 167, 168. INCREASE OE ASSYRIAN POWER 191 of Assyrian conquest. He began again the cam¬ paigns in the north, which had rested since the days of Tiglathpileser I, over whose course, in part, he marched, piercing the highlands even to the confines of Urartu (Armenia) and extend¬ ing his ravages from Lake Urumiyeh on the east to the land of Kummukh on the'west. At Supnat (Sebeneh-Su) he caused his relief portrait to be set up alongside of that of Tiglathpileser, whose exploits he had been emulating.1 In his reign Assyria gives plain indication that the period of decay and of weakness was past. The Babylonians had been partially humbled, and were at least not threatening. The Assyrians were therefore free to begin again to assert the right to tribute in the north and northwest. In the next reign the issue is joined, and a new period of Assyrian progress begins. He has left us a splendidly inscribed tablet in which he gives a brief resume of his first five campaigns, and then a most elaborate account of his sixth and last campaign, which occurred in the year 885 B. C.2 In this he set out on the twenty-sixth day of the month of Nisan, from Asshur and reaching the river Tartar, which rises in the Sin jar mountains and flows southward 1 Schrader, Die Keilinschriften am Eingange der Quellgrotte des Se¬ beneh-Su (1885). Compare also Scheil et Gautier, Annales de Tukulti- Ninip II, Paris, 1909, pp. 3, 4. 2 The eponym of this year according to the Assyrian Eponym List was lari or Yari (Rogers, Cuneiform Parallels, p. 219), but Tukulti- Ninib’s inscription gives the Eponym as Na’di-ilu. Apparently, there¬ fore, the Eponym List was not absolutely fixed. 192 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA nearly parallel with the Euphrates, he followed its course for four days, killing nine buffaloes on his progress by the river side. When he reached the point where the river was lost in the desert, he turned eastward and came to the Tigris where he laid waste the villages of the Utu’ate. Thence traversing an unknown road he kept on in Babylonia to Dur-Kurigalzu, and to Sippar of Shamash, where he turned northward along the Euphrates. Here his account sounds quite like Xenophon’s Anabasis as he trudges along, mentioning the cities on the river passing from the Euphrates to the Chabur and far away in the north to Nisibis, and thence back again to Asshur, where he carried on extensive works of building and restoration. It was indeed a royal progress beyond compare in former times, and described with remarkable liveliness though in so orderly and annalistic fashion.1 1 The whole text is transliterated and translated by Scheil, op. cit., pp. 8-29. Itlljgl *m*&**m»**. :; v*|**i*|lf ?f^^W!SP> II — 193 -^deS \o QiriA jiibbi-Ixiqi-iidiiK Id idfcldi onot8 bog edvji qot otb •) A (.0 .£1 M8*d88 tuodji) xioi ,oiii*nfa mi iiiiiliw boJBoa as b9in9a9*iq9'i ai d&mmdH 9‘i.B xlpixfw 9ioiod Jodmya aixl at xfolxfw to txro'it rxi tgabl exld gixboiibxioo taqbq b Jaiil orb ?89*mgj t oeniit .bawoUol ax bxiB ,bnoooa abnxda oxfw • < a tbbi- [xkjb--j ? <\&A .gni/I 9ili iol aobooistal oxfw '\A** aaohbog oil) vd ni bxtuol a by/ ,89/fbni T Vd o r [ 1 dbda b;lrtiJB9• { j / )0- . J>' i CtS > j ' on the fb .d • t' great, b« <.'*nn t The chi..: ■ ' t t> To them » ! ‘ GeschicHe ’ * '!'• ' i,q.I ; fsticche L ■ ' ' . .1 a logy with 1 *1 ft • r*>. on of 'He h.vo V <>j i * v .'■• »«*» v* ■ 1 d.-f / Stone tablet of Nabu-apal-iddin, king of Baby¬ lon (about 885-854 B. C.). At the top the god Shamash is represented as seated within his shrine, in front of which is his symbol, before which are three figures, the first a priest conducting the king, Nabu-apal-iddin, who stands second, and is followed by the goddess “A,” who intercedes for the king. This beautiful slab, llj^ by 7 inches, was found in an earthenware casket at Sippar by Hormuzd Ras- sam and is now in the British Museum. [From Rassam, Asshur and the Land of Nimrod, with an introduction by Robert W. Rogers, Cin¬ cinnati, 1897.] CHAPTER IV THE REIGN OF ASHURNAZIRPAL When Ashurnazirpal1 (884-858 B. C.) suc¬ ceeded his father on the throne of Assyria he inherited opportunities rather than actual posses¬ sions. The kingdom over which he ruled from his capital city of Nineveh was comparatively small. Babylonia, while not physically so strong as Assyria, was, nevertheless, entirely independ¬ ent under the reign of Nabu-apal-iddin (about 880 B. C.), who probably began to reign very shortly after Ashurnazirpal. The countries to the north which had been conquered by Tig- lathpileser I and again overrun by Tukulti- Ninib were only tributary, and not really gov¬ erned from Nineveh. Furthermore their tribute was not paid voluntarily, but only when an Assyrian army stood ready to collect it by force. The Aramaeans possessed the best lands in the upper Mesopotamian valley, and must be met on the field of battle. The opportunity was great, because none of these peoples were strong 1 The chief sources for this reign are duly noted below in the notes. To them must also be added Lehmann-Haupt, Materialien zur dlteren Geschichte Armcniens und Mesopotamiens, pp. 19, ff. Schnabel, Orien- talistische Liter atur zeitung , December, 1909, col. 528 (on the king’s genealogy with references to the texts). Hilprecht, Babylonian Ex¬ pedition of the University of Pennsylvania, v, p. 30. 193 194 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA enough to oppose Assyria single-handed, and there was no present prospect of any sort of union between them. Ashurnazirpal was in every respect the man for this situation; no king like him had arisen before in Assyria. Abundant historical material enables us to fol¬ low closely the developments of his plans and the course and conduct of his campaigns. His stand¬ ard inscription upon alabaster1 contains three hundred and eighty-nine lines of writing, and gives, in almost epic grandeur, the story of the truly imperial plans which he had made for Assyria. This longest and best known text is supplemented by no less than nineteen other texts,2 some shorter originally, some fragmen¬ tary. Some of these are repetitions, either in the same or varying phrase, and thus add to the certainty of the text which may be made from their comparison. In the very first year of the king’s reign his campaigns of conquest begin, and it is in the north that he must first tranquilize populations 1 This fine monolith, discovered by Layard at Nimroud, was first published by him ( Inscriptions in the Cuneiform, Character, plates 1-11) in a very fragmentary manner. It is republished I R. 17-26. The first English translation by Rodwell ( Records of the Past, First Series, pp. 37-80) is well supplanted by the new translation by Sayce, with numerous valuable geographical and historical notes ( Records of the Past, New Series, ii, pp. 128-177). There is a very valuable transla¬ tion of col. i, lines 1-99, with notes, by Lhotzky {Die Annalen Assurnazir- pal’s, Miinchen, 1884), but this was unfortunately never carried further. The entire text is translated by Peiser, Keilinschrift. Bibl., i, pp. 50-119, and is edited anew in Budge and King, Annals of the Kings of Assyria, i, pp. 212, ff. This supplants all previous editions. 2 These are collected in Budge and King, op. cit., pp. 155, ff. THE REIGN OF ASHURNAZIRPAL 195 by destruction and savage butchery. The course of his march was first northwestward, apparently following closely the course of the Tigris for a short distance and then striking due north over “impassable roads and trackless mountains” to the land of Numme, which we are to locate west of Lake Van, about the neighborhood of Mush.1 Here were found strong cities, meaning thereby cities fortified against invasion, which were soon captured, with the loss of many fighting men to the enemy. According to the Assyrian account, the remainder of the defenders fled into the mountains, there to hide like birds until, aftei a three days’ march, Ashurnazirpal overtook them “nested” amid the fastnesses and slew two hundred of them. Thence returning again into their country, he threw down the walls of their cities and dug them up, and set fire to the heaps of ruins. There was no reason to doubt that the survivors would pay tribute to Assyria, if indeed anything had been left them wherewith to pay after such a visitation. The memory of such discipline might be expected to abide, while the report of it was sure to spread rapidly, after the fashion of an oriental story, among surrounding tribes who might learn from it the wisdom of surrender and of tribute-paying without an at- 1 So Sayce, Records of the Past, New Series, ii, p. 138, note 2. Mas- pero ( The Passing of the Empires, p. 14, footnote 1) would localize it still more closely in the “cazas of Varto and Boulanik in the sandjak of Mush.” Its capital, Gubbe (Sayce reads Libe), he would provision¬ ally identify with Gop (Vital Cuinet, La Turquie d’Asie, ii, pp. 588, 589). 196 HISTOEY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYEIA tempt at a defense of national or tribal liberty. So it fell out, for when Ashurnazirpal, leaving the waste behind him, went southwestward into the land of Kirruri,1 by the side of Mount Rowandiz, he found ready for his taking a great tribute of oxen, sheep, wine, and a bowl of copper, and an Assyrian governor was easily established over the land, to look rather after its tribute than its worthy governing. And while these events were happening the people of Gozan (between the Tigris and Lake Urumiyeh) and the people of Khubushkia,2 who lived west of them and nearer the old limits of Assvria, also sent a voluntary tribute consisting of “horses, silver, gold, lead, copper, and a bowl of copper.” From such bloodless successes the king turned south¬ ward into the land of Qurkhi of Betani (along the bank of the Tigris eastward of Diarbekir) and fought with a population who only fled to the mountains after a bitter defeat. They also were overtaken, and two hundred and sixty of their heads were built into a pyramid; their cities were wasted and burned, and an Assyrian gov¬ ernor was set to rule them. Bubu, the son of the chief of Nishtum, one of their cities, was flayed 1 There is much dispute about the location of the Kirruri. The narrative of Ashurnazirpal’s progress makes it plain that they were close to the Numme, or Nimme. Delattre ( Encore un mot sur la Geo¬ graphic Ass., p. 10, note 4) is therefore certainly wrong in locating them near the sources of the Tigris. See further, Billerbeck, Das Sandschak Suleimania, pp. 15, ff. 2 Billerbeck, op. cit., pp. 20, f., and compare Maspero, op. cit., p. 15. footnote. THE REIGN OF ASHURNAZIRPAL 197 in the city of Arbela and his skin spread on the fortress wall. So stands the sickening record of the first year’s campaign.1 This savage beginning au¬ gured ill for the new states which had sprung up since the days of Tiglathpileser. What mercy was there to be found in a man of this quality? If years and vigor were his portion, it would be difficult to set a limit to his success as a con¬ queror, while the early placing of governors over communities which had surrendered seemed to imply that he had also gifts as an adminis¬ trator. But we follow his story further. In the next year (884 B. C.) the king invaded Kum- mukh, perhaps to insure payment of the annual tribute, or there may have been signs of rebel¬ lion. There was more of conquering to do on the way, and then Kummukh was entered, apparently without a struggle. But before the king’s purpose had developed, whatever it may have been, he was summoned to the banks of the Euphrates. The Aramaean communities along the Eu¬ phrates had no central government. They lived under the old forms of city governments, some still independent, some dependencies of Assyria with Assyrian governors. Bit-Khalupe2 was one 1 Annals of Asshurnazirpal, i, 42-69, Keilinschrift. Bibl., i, pp. 59, ff., Records of the Past, New Series, ii, pp. 138, ff. Budge and King, op. cit., pp. 268, ff. 2 The name may also read Bit-Khadippe. See Schiffer, Die Ar- arnder, p. 74. 198 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA of these subject communities located on the Khabur, its capital city being Suru, and the governor Khamitai, an Assyrian subject. There was a rebellion here — so ran the intelligence brought to the Assyrians — the Assyrian governor was slain, and his place had been given to a cer¬ tain Akhi-yababa brought from Bit-Adini. It was summons enough. Ashumazirpal showing thereby the mobility of his army, came south¬ ward along the course of the Khabur, halting at Sadikan (or Gardikan, the modern Arban)* 1 to receive tribute from an Aramaean prince, Shulman-khaman-ilani, and again at Shuma to receive like honor from Ilu-Adad, in silver, gold, lead, plates of copper, variegated cloths, and lined vestments. The news of his approach reached Bit-Khalupe, and the faint hearts of the people sank in them. They surrendered, saying as they came from the city gates and took hold of the conqueror’s feet, in token of submission, “If thou dost desire, slay (us). If thou dost desire, let live. That which thy heart does desire, that shalt thou do.”2 But even this abject surrender did not avail with such a man as Ashumazirpal. He attacked the city and compelled the delivering up of all the 1 The location is certain. See Rawlinson, Five Great Monarchies, 2d ed., i, p. 205, and ii, p. 84, Hommel, Geschichte Babyloniens und Assyr- iens pp. 557, 558, and Schiffer, Die Aram&er, p. 102, footnote. Layard ( Nineveh and Babylon, pp. 230-242) found the remains of a palace on the site, which had been decorated with bas-reliefs and guarded with lions and winged bulls. 1 As8hurnazirpal Annals, i, 81. Colossal figure from the doorway of the palace of Ashurnazirpal, king of Assyria (884-859 B. C.), ex¬ cavated at Calah, in 1847, by Austen Henry Layard, and now in the British Museum. The figure is composite, with the head of a man, the wings of an eagle, and the body of a lion [Photograph by W. A. Mansell & Co., London.] jt-et eomi sumit u-a *oo. d oo Pie V ... * V ' '• ' ‘ • WO ' 00 wa^: * re hr i. >r, here — so ran the intelligence brought to the Assyrians — the Assyrian governor It 1, :U I ( 1 »f ,he ioj c : v. omission, “ F the n dof>; b , \ ) [f thou ‘lost lich- thy heart does do. ire, hat shalt thou do.*2 Bui even this f-bjeot surrender did avail with such a ; mm : As - vi irpad v a* tacked 1 no city n co \ •. ti '.*.■• . e iug up of all the - ' nsr..', •? Qf iOl \loiuv~rh ec, 2d r- • 6r ichithtc Ba> /loniens und Assyr- ' (A mt«h xia: >. • ro d re .“Jim* x-~ [.•u-lrtc* ■ <* . p • • ■ which • v i . lief and -rv r.i- i f '•< P >5 -»•** p” X; 'tk. a* " WtlfCED' H£f.,OE8 UCN Psow * 6S A &*>$$'«# y: AS8VRi*. g , ,5m A N £XCAVA,Tf o PAL, " <-*YAB0 II — IDS ' THE REIGN OF ASHURNAZIRPAL 199 soldiers who had joined in the rebellion. No mention is made of the treatment of the private soldiers, but their officers’ legs were cut off. The nobles who had shared in the uprising were flayed, and their skins stretched over a pyramid erected, and apparently for this very purpose, at the chief gate of the city. Then the city, plundered of all its wealth and beauty,1 was left a monument of ferocity and a warning to con¬ spirators. The unhappy Akhi-yababa was sent off to Nineveh, there to be flayed that his skin might adorn the fortress walls, while his place as Assyrian governor over Bit-Khalupe was taken by Azilu. As in the former year, the story of this punishment went abroad. The rulers of Laqi2 and Khindanu3 hastened to send tribute to the conqueror while he was staying at Suri, while yet another Aramaean people, the Sukhi, sent Ilu-ibni, their ruler, and his son to carry a costly tribute direct to Nineveh. Following these events there was a lull in the king’s actions, while he stayed at Nineveh, as though there were no more lands to conquer. But news reached him of a revolt among Assyrian colonists planted at Khalzilukha4 by Shalma- 1 The possession of so much wealth and of so many artistic objects is an instructive commentary upon the age and extent of this civilization. 2 Their territory lay along the Euphrates and probably a little to the south of the Suru. 3 Sayce ( Records of the Past, New Series, ii, p. 144, note 2) doubt¬ fully suggests that Khindanu may be “the Giddan of classical geog¬ raphy, on the eastern bank of the Euphrates.” 4 Or Khalzi-dipkha. Maspero ( The Passing of the Empires, p. 19, note 2) would locate it in the district of Severek. 200 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA neser I , under the leadership of one Khula. Again must the king march northward into lands always troubled. On this march the king erected at the sources of the river Supnat a great inscribed portrait of himself by the side of the reliefs of Tiglathpileser I and Tukulti-Ninib. Thence he moved northwestward to the slopes of Mount Masius, where Khula was captured, his men butchered, and his city razed. On the return march, in the country of Nirbi, the low¬ lands about the modern Diarbekir,1 he took and devastated the chief city, Tela, which was defended by a threefold wall, slaying three thousand of its fighting men. A little farther south the king approached the city of Tuskha,2 in whose site he apparently recognized an im¬ portant vantage point, for he halted to restore it. The old city wall was changed, and a new wall built in massive strength from foun¬ dation to the coping. Within these walls a royal palace was erected, an entirely new structure. A new relief of the king’s person, fashioned of white limestone, and inscribed with an account of the king’s wars and con¬ quests in the land of Nairi, was set in the city walls, to be studied as a warning by its 1 So Sayce, Records of the Past, New Series, ii, p. 146, note 1. 2 Site uncertain. Rawlinson (“Assyrian Discovery,” The Athenaeum, 1863, vol. i, p. 228) would locate it at Kurkh, near the Tigris, east of Diarbekir. At this place was found a monolith of Ashurnazirpal, and this proves that he was in some way identified with the place. There is, however, no real proof that it was Tuskha. THE REIGN OF ASHURNAZIRPAL 201 inhabitants. The city thus rebuilt and re¬ stored was peopled by Assyrian colonists and made a storehouse for grain and fodder. The aim, apparently, was to use it as a base of supplies in military operations against the north and west. Some of the inhabitants of the land had fled, but upon payment of homage were allowed to return to their cities and homes, many of these in ruins. A heavy annual tribute was put upon them, and their sons were taken away to Nineveh as hostages. While engaged in this work of reconstruc¬ tion much tribute was received from neighbor¬ ing states. Later in the year another dis¬ trict in the land of Nirbu, near Mount Masius, revolted, and was subdued in the usual manner. On the return journey to Nineveh the people of Qurkhi, the inhabitants about Malatiyeh, and the Hittites paid tribute to the apparently resistless conqueror. The next year (882) witnessed an uprising in the southeast led by Zab-Dadi, a prince of the country of Dagara, to whom the people of Zamua1 also joined themselves. There was thus in revolt a con¬ siderable section of territory lying in the moun¬ tains east of the Tigris and between the Lower Zab and the Turnat (modern Shirwan) Rivers. Not satisfied with the attempt to escape annual tribute, these daring warriors thought to in- 1 The location of the Zamua is easily determined. See Billerbeck, Das Sandxchak Suleimania, pp. IS, 39, ff., etc. 202 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA vade Assyrian soil. The battle with them, fought out in the lowlands, was an Assyrian victory, and the campaign ended in the receipt of a heavy tribute, and the taking of many cities, which, contrary to former custom, were not destroyed.1 This new method was, how¬ ever, soon abandoned, for the next year (881) these people refused to pay their tribute, and their country was again invaded. This time savagery had its sway, and the cities were dug up and burned, while blood was poured out like water. It was now safe to advance through the broken land farther into the mountains for more plunder, but we are not able to follow the king’s movements in this extended campaign for lack of geographical knowledge. It is especially noteworthy that, though the usual destructions prevailed, there were again displayed some constructive ideas, for the city of Atlila,2 which had previously been destroyed by the Babylonians, was rebuilt and made an Assyrian fortress, with a king’s palace, and with the Assyrian name of Dur- Asshur. This completed, for a time at least, the subjugation of the eastern borders of the 1 Asshurnazirpal, ii, 23-49. See translations by Sayce, op. cit., pp. 149, ff., and by Peiser, op. cit., pp. 74, ff. 2 The location is quite unknown. Maspero ( The Passing of the Em¬ pires, p. 26, note 1) would identify it with the modern Kerkuk. Biller- beck ( Das Sandschak, etc., p. 36) would place it farther to the southeast, “west of Segirme and Chalchalan-dagh.” 203 THE REIGN OF ASHURNAZIRPAL kingdom, and the king could establish a reg¬ ular collection of tribute in the north. The wealth poured into Calah year after year in these raids must have been enormous. Here¬ in lies the explanation of the possibility of maintaining a standing army and carrying on conquests of outlying territory. The Assyrian people could not have stood the drain of re¬ sources necessary for foreign conquest, nor could the merchants of Nineveh have borne a system of taxation sufficient to maintain armies so constantly on the march. It is noteworthy that nearly every campaign made thus far in this brilliant reign was for tribute gathering. The king was not yet ready for the attempt to add largely to his empire, nor even to extend widely the area of his tribute getting. Time for the training of his army was necessary, and funds had to be accumu¬ lated for the payment and equipment of his troops. Undoubtedly many adventurers from among foreign conquered peoples fought in the armies of Ashurnazirpal, and found their compensation in such booty as they were allowed to appropriate. It remains, however, true that the cost of the military establish¬ ment must have been great, and the collection of tribute supplied this outlay. The king watched closely the collection of tribute, and nonpayment anywhere was the signal for a sudden descent on the offenders. “During 204 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA the eponymy of Bel-aku (881 B. C.) I was staying in Nineveh when news was brought that Ameka and Arastua had withheld the tribute and forced labor of Ashur my lord”1 — so began this campaign of which we have just spoken, and so began many another. Herein we have an instructive commentary on the whole policy of Assyria for years to come. Let us recall the need of conquering the Aramaeans to secure commercial extension, and the need of the tribute to maintain an army capable of such conquest, and in these two motives, the one depending upon the other, we have the explanation of Assyrian history for this reign, and for not less than six reigns after it. In the next year (880 B. C.) the king col¬ lected in person the tribute of the land of Kummukh, afterward pushing on through the land of Qurkhi, into the fastnesses of Mount Masius, for a like purpose, and finally return¬ ing to the fortress of Tushkha to continue his former building operations. That so large a part of the year is occupied with the care¬ ful and systematic collection of tribute fore¬ shadows a great campaign of conquest toward which this storing up of supplies of money and material is a necessary preparation. Pos¬ sibly the traders of Nineveh, profiting by the earlier punishment of the Aramaeans, were 1 Annals, col. ii, line 49, Keilinschrift. Bibl. i, pp. 78, 79. Stele of Ashurnazirpal III, with figure of the king, and divine emblems in relief. In front of it is an altar which stood originally before the stele at the entrance of the temple of Ninib. British Museum, Nimroud Gallery, Nos. 847, 848. [Reproduced from Assyrian Sculptures. Klein- mann & Co.] v04 ll v ' i.’Y OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA the’ ej of Bel-aku (881 B. C.) I was . t mute and forced labor • of Ashur my lord”1 so began this campaign of which we have ist spoken, and so began mam another. Herein we have an in commentary on the whole policy of Assyria far- years to come. Let us recall the need of conquering paid oHf lo dim VIII kqiisBUimlaA to oloiB hr si i i lo fnoil Si doilwi ni eraoldmo oaivib bm oilt 1b abia axil oiolad vfhsnigno bools doixivx anlLe .duuYi to olqnxol qdi lo oo/iinlqo .8h8 .soA , /ioIIbO twoimiX nfioOI jmwfcvWoft moil heohboiq^fl] six n ign ■ [.oO A nxiBirt In the next jear lee red in perse a raM of Kummukh, afterward p b. ,h the lai of \ jurkhi, into i : T x ji Mount Masius, for a like purpose and finally return- inn to the fortress o‘ i ushkha to continue his former building operations. That so large a part of the year ' occupied with the care- iul and system c e collection of tribute fore- shade vs a x wruedgn oi conquest toward which v up of supplies of money ;x’ nmo i, • it *essm*y preparation. Pos- the txwtm • cx Nineveh profiting by the earlier r iishr-a c; of the Aramaeans, were ■_ ii ii ii, liitY 'V. K&iliu ■ brifl . hi"! i, pp. <8, ■ 9. 04 THE REIGN OF ASHURNAZIRPAL 205 urging the king to wider conquests in the prosperous west, which would result in a still further extension of their trade. However that may be, the year 879 brought matters of immense importance in Assyrian history. He had now transferred his capital to Calah, and it was thence that he set out and first marched southwest to the Euphrates and the Khabur. The Aramaeans of Bit-Khalupe had not forgotten their sore discipline, and paid their tribute at once. And in like manner one community after another gave their silver and gold, their horses and cattle, to their suzerain as he moved slowly down the Eu¬ phrates to Anat (modern Anath). All this resembles former campaigns, but now a sudden change appears. Attempting to collect tribute at Suru (another city of the same name as the capital of Bit-Khalupe), Ashurnazirpal finds the Sukhi, whose chief city, Suri, was in league with the Kassite Baby¬ lonians in their resistance. The Babylonian king at this time was Nabu-apal-iddin, who began to reign in his ancient city probably very soon after Ashurnazirpal began to reign in Assyria. He was either a weak man or a man of extraordinary policy, or he would long before this have been in conflict with his northern neighbor. In the discontent of the Sukhi he saw a hopeful opportunity for in¬ juring Assyria without too great a risk to his 206 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA own fortunes. He contributed to the revolt not less than fifty horsemen and three thousand footmen under the command of his own brother, Gabdanu — a considerable contribution in the warfare of that century. For two days the battle raged in and about Suru before the Assyrians obtained the mastery. Ashurnazirpal punished this uprising in his usual way, by utterly wasting the city, slaying many of its inhabitants, and carrying away immense spoil. He is probably narrating only the simple truth when he says that the fear of his sov¬ ereignty prevailed as far as Kardunyash and overwhelmed the land of Kaldu. In Suri he left a permanent memorial of these victories which he describes glowingly in this way: “I fashioned a mighty image of my royal person, and my power and my glory I inscribed upon it, and I set it up within his palace. I fashioned tablets and I inscribed upon them my glory and my prowess, and I set them up within his city gate.” The words are good, but it may be doubted whether they would be attractive to the people of Suri, whose homes had fallen before the torch. The Babylonian king, though he continued to reign for some time after this, gave no further trouble in Assyria. He was kept busily engaged in his own land in two important enterprises. The Aramaean tribe known as the Sutu, whom we have met in this story THE REIGN OF ASHURNAZIRPAL 207 in northern Babylonia, had centuries before wrought ruin at the ancient religious city of Sippar, where the worship of the sun god has its especial seat. With the destruction of the temples the worship carried on for so many centuries ended. The former kings be¬ longing to the dynasty of the Sea Lands, Shamash-shipak and Kasshu-nadin-akhe, had tried in vain to prevent the total destruction of the temple and to reorganize its worship. Their efforts had completely failed, and the temple had now become a hopeless ruin, cov¬ ered with sand of the near-by desert. Here was a work for the pious king. Dislodging the Sutu from the city by force of arms, Nabu- apal-iddin began the reconstruction and restora¬ tion of the fallen temple, and carried the work to a successful conclusion, setting up again the splendid old ceremonial worship of the sun. The inscription in which he has cele¬ brated these deeds is one of the most beau¬ tiful monuments of ancient Babylonia.1 To 1 Rassam in making excavations at Abu Habba found a piece of asphalt pavement, beneath which “an inscribed earthenware casket, with a lid, was discovered . . . about three feet below the surface. In¬ side it was a stone tablet eleven and one half inches long by seven inches wide” (Rassam, Asshur and the Land of Nimrod , p. 402). It is inscribed minutely on both sides with three columns of writing, and on the ob¬ verse at the top is a small bas-relief representing religious ceremonies before the figure of the sun god (see illustrations in Rassam, ibid., or in Hommel, Geschichte, p. 596). Pinches announced its discovery ( Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archceology, iii, pp. 109, ff.) , and later published part of it (ibid., viii, pp. 164, ff.). The entire text is published V R. 60, 61, and it is translated by Joh. Jeremias, Beitrdge zur Assyriologie, i, 268, ff., and by Peiser, Keilinschrift. Bibl., iii, part 1, 208 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA carry them out fully he seems to have main¬ tained the peace with Ashurnazirpal and his successor. But if the success and severity of Ashurna¬ zirpal caused the king of Babylon to occupy himself entirely with internal affairs, it had little effect on the hardy and daring Aramaeans, for scarcely had the Assyrian king returned to Calah when he was again called into the field by the revolt of the men of Laqi and Khindanu and of the whole people of the Sukhi. This time the king was better prepared for the work in hand, for he had boats constructed at Suru, and was therefore able to follow the fugitives to the river islands. The ruin of this campaign seems awful, even after the lapse of centuries. The cities were utterly broken down and burned, the inhabitants butchered when they could be taken, and even the stand¬ ing crops were destroyed that neither man nor beast might eat and live. It was no real compensation for such deeds that two new cities were founded, one on the hither bank of the Euphrates, named Kar-Asshur-nazir-pal (that is, fortress of A.), and the other on the far bank, called Nibarti-Asshur* 1 (that is, the pp. 174, ff., and in exhaustive fashion by King, Babylonian Boundary Stones, pp. 120, ff. 1 There is no indication of the location of either of these Assyrian strongholds. Maspero ( The Passing of the Empires, p. 30, note 4) has this suggestion to make: “A study of the map shows that the Assyr¬ ians could not become masters of the country without occupying the passes of the Euphrates; I am inclined to think that Kar-Assur-nazir-pal THE REIGN OF ASHURNAZIRPAL 209 ford of Asshur), for these could only be in¬ tended for military purposes, and not as a contribution to civilization or as abiding places for a ruined people. But the king was not satisfied that he had got at the root of the trouble, and the next year followed up his advantage with another campaign apparently intended to cut off any further rebellion at the fountain head. It seems probable that the real source of the energy and enthusiasm which sustained so many rebellions among the Aramaeans was the state of Bit-Adini, on both banks of the Euphrates, near the point where it takes a westerly course after break¬ ing through the Taurus.1 The most powerful Aramaean settlements were here, and the cap¬ ital city, Kap-rabi2 (great rock), was populous, well fortified, and defiant. If this city were taken, there would be hopes of crushing out completely the spirit of resistance. In his next campaign (877 B. C.) Ashurna- is El-Halebiyeh, and Nibarti-assur, Zalebiyeh, the Zenobia of Roman times. For the ruins of these towns, compare Sachau, Reise in Syrien und Mesop., pp. 256-259, and Peters, Nippur, or Explorations and Adventures on the Euphrates, vol. i, pp. 109-114.” 1 Maspero ( The Passing of the Empires, p. 30, note 5) makes this definite statement: ‘‘Bit-Adini appears to have occupied, on the right bank of the Euphrates, a part of the cazas of Ain Tab, Rum-Kaleh, and Birejik, that of Suruji, minus the Nakhiyeh of Harran, the larger part of the cazas of Membij and of Rakkah, and part of the caza of Zor, the cazas being those represented on the maps of Vital Cuinet, La Turquie d’Asie, vol. ii.” For a study of the Assyrian references see Schiffer, Die Aramaer, pp. 61, ff 2 Ashurnazirpal (col. iii, line 51, Keilinschrift. Bibl., i, p. 103) pictur¬ esquely describes Kap-rabi thus: ‘‘The city was very strong, like a cloud suspended from heaven.” 210 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA zirpal besieged the city and took it by assault, in which eight hundred of the enemy were killed and two thousand four hundred made prisoners. This was followed by its complete destruction, and an end was therefore made of incitements to rebellion in Bit-Adini. The effect on the remaining Aramaean settlements along the Euphrates was as marked as it was sudden. Others sent their unpaid tribute at once, and there was, during the reign of Ashur- nazirpal, no further trouble over the prompt payment of the Aramaean tribute. With this campaign Ashurnazirpal had not indeed ended forever the fitful struggles of the Aramaeans against superior force. These were all renewed again in the very next reign. He had, how¬ ever, settled the question that there could be no strong Aramaean state in that valley. The Aramaean people must go elsewhere to make their contribution to history and civilization. A The time had come, therefore, when all lands north, east, and west as far as the Eu¬ phrates which had paid tribute to Tiglath- pileser I were again paying it regularly to Ashurnazirpal. There were no more of these states left to tranquillize. Most of them had been dealt with cruelly, many had been dev¬ astated, and thousands of their inhabitants butchered with all the accompaniments of Oriental savagery. These communities had not been added regularly to the empire to be THE KE1GN OE ASH UEN AZI REAL 211 governed by satraps or officers making regular reports to the king in Assyria and receiving instructions from him. If such had been the plan, the peoples who paid tribute would have been receiving some sort of return in social order and royal direction for the heavy tribute paid. They were receiving nothing in return. They had to look to themselves for protection against the forays of barbarians who inhabited the mountain passes about them. Such a status was not likely to be permanent. While their punishment had been too severe for them to venture again to excite the wrath of such a monarch, they might nourish their wrath and hope for a better day. Perhaps the next Assyrian king might be a weak man, and they would be able to throw off the yoke in his day. Meantime, while Ashurnazirpal held the reins of government, it would be well to pay the tribute and give no excuse for a raid. But with this quiescence of the tributary states the employment of his army became a serious question with Ashurnazirpal. He had made a fighting machine such as had not been known before. His men had been trained in adversity, toughened by hard marches, and brutalized by scenes of blood and fire. He could not disband it, for at once the tribute¬ paying states, unterrified by it, would throw off their dependence and the influx of gold would cease. He could not hold it in idle- 212 HISTOEY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYKIA ness, for such an aggregation of brutal pas¬ sions would inflame the commonwealth and disturb the peace. The army would also soon lose its efficiency if unemployed, for the elaborate modern systems of drill for the conserving of health and the promotion of discipline were unknown. It is plain that these men must fight somewhere; but where should it be, and for what ulterior purpose? Ambition might answer to the king, for con¬ quest and the extension of Assyrian territory, and greed might urge to further tribute get¬ ting, and commercial enterprise might clamor for the reopening of old lines of trade to the west through the territory of the Aramaeans. It was this last which prevailed, though the two former ideas had their influence and their share in the decision. It was in the month of August1 of the year 877 that Ashurnazirpal began the great west¬ ward movement in which all his highest en¬ deavors were to culminate. All else had been but preparation. The first part of his march, across the great Mesopotamian valley, was little else than a triumphal progress. Every one of the Aramaean settlements on or near his route to the Euphrates sent costly tribute, consisting of chariots, horses, silver, gold, lead, and copper, most of which must be sent back to Calah, while the king marched on. When 1 On the eighth day of Elul {Annals, ’col. iii, line 56). THE REIGN OF ASHURNAZIRPAL 213 the Euphrates was reached it was crossed at its flood, in boats made of the skins of ani¬ mals, and the city of Carchemish1 was entered. The glory of the city had departed. Once the capital of the great Hittite empire, now broken in power, it was now merely the center of a small state, of which Sangara was ruler. His policy was direct and simple. He was will¬ ing to pay down the sum of twenty talents of silver, one hundred talents of bronze, two hundred and fifty talents of iron, along with chains and beads of gold and much other treasure, if he were simply let alone. Though deprived of its political influence, Carchemish was now an important commercial city. War could only destroy its commerce, and success against the renowned Assyrian conqueror was doubtful, if not absolutely impossible. National pride counted for nothing. The primary desire was to get the Assyrians out of the country as soon as possible; and well might they pay a heavy tribute to gain so great a boon as that. Neighboring states, fearing invasion and plunder, likewise sent tribute, and the king could move on farther westward. Crossing the river Apre (modern Afrin) after a short march, Ashurnazirpal came into the territory of another small state, called Khatin,2 which 1 Carchemish stood on the west bank of the Euphrates, above the mouth of the Sajur. The modern name is variously given by different travelers as Jerablfts (Skene, Wilson, Sayce) or Jerabis (Sachau, Schra¬ der, Delitzsch). The latter is preferable. 2 Formerly read Patin, 214 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA was apparently Hittite1 or partially so. The capital of the state was Kunulua, and the ruler was Lubarna, whose territory extended from the Apre to the Orontes, and thence over the mountain ridges to the sea near Eleutheros, with northern and southern limits not now definable.2 It was a rich and fertile country, and might well excite the cupidity of the Assyrian army. Lubarna offered no resistance to the invader, but was anxious only to expedite his progress, with presents truly regal in amount and in magnificence.3 The march was then southward across the Orontes to the city of Aribua,4 located near the Sangura River, which was a southerly outpost of Lubarna. Though Lubarna had so thoroughly submitted to the Assyrians in hope of getting them out of the country, Aribua was made an Assyrian outpost, colonists set¬ tled in it, and grain and straw, harvested by force in the lands of the Lukhuti, were stored in it. Whether the town was to become the capital of an Assyrian province or merely a base of supplies for possible hostile operations does not appear. And now there was no one 1 See Garstang, The Land of the Hittites, p. 376, footnote 6. 2 See Schrader, Keilinschriften und Gesechichtsforschung, pp. 214-221, and Winckler, Altorientalische Forschungen, i, pp. 3, ff. 3 “Twenty talents of silver, one talent of gold, one hundred talents of lead, one hundred talents of iron, one thousand oxen, ten thousand sheep, one thousand garments, and cloth ... as his tribute I received.” Ashurnazirpal, col. iii, 73-77 (Budge and King, Annals, i, pp. 368, 369). 4 The exact location of Aribua has not been found (Winckler, Alt¬ orientalische Forschungen, i, p. 5). THE REIGN OF ASHURNAZ I RPAL 215 to oppose the king’s march north and west into the green slopes of the Lebanon. From beneath the historic cedars an Assyrian king again looked out over the Mediterranean, and with far greater hopes of securing a foothold there than any of his predecessors had ever had, whether Assyrian or Babylonian. He had begun this campaign, as we have seen, in the month of August. It must have been upon the very verge of winter, with flurries of snow in the mountains as he turned homeward toward Assyria to offer to the goddess Ishtar in Nineveh the wood which he had brought for her temple. While this invasion was in some measure a raid for booty, it was more powerfully con¬ ceived and better disciplined than the others had been. When Sargon I had marched hither he passed through lands scantily populated with peoples, with whom he had little contact. There was no possibility of making an em¬ pire out of Babylonia and a province on the far western sea, with vast uncontrolled terri¬ tories between. When Tiglathpileser I came out to the same sea he had left great terri¬ tories and populous communities between him and the homeland, and, like the early Baby¬ lonian, there could be no hope of making an empire out of two lands so widely separated. But Ashurnazirpal had measurably changed the situation. He did not, it is true, actually rule 216 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA the entire territory from the Lower Zab and its overhanging hills to the Lebanon, but he had broken its spirit, and was received as its conqueror. In many places rule was exer¬ cised by governors, both native and Assyrian, whom he had appointed. In yet others there were towns peopled by Assyrian colonists, stored with Assyrian provisions, and defended by massive walls of Assyrian construction. The situation was indeed changed, and the result of this invasion might well be different. Ashur- nazirpal knew the conditions with which he was confronted, and fully appreciated the oppor¬ tunity for making a great empire. The Mediter¬ ranean was even then the basin upon which touched the greatest empire of the world; and the Egyptians understood the value of their geographical situation. The Phoenicians were already a powerful commercial people. The Hebrews formed an important center of in¬ fluence in Canaan. What relation should Assyria come to sustain to these powers of antiquity? An augury of the answer to that question came as Ashurnazirpal halted on the Lebanon. The people of Tyre, of Sidon, of Tripolis,1 and of Arvad u which lies in the midst of the sea/’ sent splendid gifts, a fatal blunder, for it was a confession of weakness, 1 In Ashurnazirpal’s account three cities are mentioned: Makhallat, Maiz, and Kaiz ( Annals , col. iii, 86). Delitzsch ( Paradies , p. 282) makes it probable that these three formed Tripolis, and Sayce appar¬ ently agrees ( Records of the Past, New Series, ii, p. 172, note 1). THE REIGN OF ASHURNAZIRPAL 217 which would be noted and remembered by the Assyrians. It was a recognition of the power of the Assyrian arms, of which almost every Assyrian king boasts in the stereotyped phrase: “By the might of the terrible arms;” and the Assyrians would bring forth yet greater daring as they remembered that the com¬ mercial rulers of the west feared their power too greatly to test it. And, worst of all, it was a confession to the world that these western peoples who fronted the Mediterranean cared more for the profits of their commerce than for freedom. We shall see very shortly the results of this sending of gifts to the Assyrian king. Ashurnazirpal had achieved his present purpose in this direction. He did not go down to Tyre or Sidon to look upon the weaklings who paid tribute without seeing his arms, but turned northward into the Amanus mountains on an errand of peace. Here he cut cedar, cypress, and juniper trees and sent the logs off to Assyria. Somewhere else in the same district he cut other trees, called mekhru (prob¬ ably a species of fir or pine) trees, which seem to have been numerous enough to give their name to the country in which they were found. So ended, in the peaceable gathering of building materials, a remarkable campaign. Ashurnazirpal had succeeded brilliantly where his predecessors had failed. But as we look back over the entire campaign we can discern 218 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA significant silence concerning one western people. There is no allusion to Damascus or to any of its tributary states. They were all left undisturbed, and a glance at the map reveals how carefully the Assyrian army had avoided even their outposts. To have attacked that solidly intrenched state would have been cer¬ tain disaster, and Ashurnazirpal was wisely instructed in passing it by. Years must elapse before the Assyrians should dare attack it. The campaign was noteworthy also in that there had been almost no savagery, no butcher¬ ing of men, scarcely any ruthless destruction of cities. This better state of war was of course due to no change of method on the part of Ashurnazirpal, but simply to the almost entire absence of resistance. The former campaigns had terrified the world, and the fruits of severity were an easy conquest and the development of the peaceful art of build¬ ing. The burning of cities and the slaughter of men were resumed in 867 in a small cam¬ paign through the lands of Kummukh, Kirkhi, and the oft-plundered country about Mount Masius. At the city of Amedi he made a pile of heads before the city gate, and im¬ paled living men on stakes around the walls.1 It was emphatically a campaign of tribute collecting, and the only matters of any political consequence were the appointment of an As- 1 Annals, col. iii, lines 107, 108. 219 THE REIGN OF ASHURNAZIRPAL Syrian governor over the land of Kirkhi and the carrying of about three thousand captives into Assyria. Such a leavening as that might influence the Assyrian people. These renewed ravages ended the wars of Ashurnazirpal; the remainder of his reign was devoted to works of peace. But it would be a mistake to suppose that campaigning had occupied his entire attention during his reign, for undoubtedly the two chief works of his reign were executed partially during the ver}r period when he was most busy with tribute collecting. These works were the rebuilding of the city of Calah and the construction of a canal. The former was necessary because the city which Shalmaneser I had built had been deserted during the period when Asshur was again the capital, and a short period of desertion always meant ruin to Assyrian build¬ ings. Only the outer surface of its thick walls was built of burnt brick, the inner filling being composed of unburnt brick merely, so that a trifling leak in the roof transformed this interior into a mass of clay, speedily causing the walls to spring. Judging from the hun¬ dreds of references in Assyrian literature to the restoration of walls and buildings, it may justly be thought that the Assyrians were especially bad roof builders. Indeed, their ad¬ vance in constructive skill never kept pace with their progress in the arts of decoration. 220 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA It is this anomaly which has left us without any standing buildings in Assyria, while vast temples still remain in Egypt. It is, of course, to be observed that Assyrian construction would doubtless have shown a different de¬ velopment had stone been abundant as a building material. As an offset to this, how¬ ever, it must be remembered that brick is one of the most durable of materials when properly baked and laid, and that the Assyrians knew how to bake properly is evidenced by their clay books, which have survived fire and breakage and wet during the crash and ruin of the centuries. Besides the general recon¬ struction of Calah, Ashurnazirpal built himself a great palace, covering a space one hundred and thirty-one yards in length and one hun¬ dred and nine in breadth,1 which remained a royal residence for centuries. Its massive ruins have been unearthed at Nimroud, being the northwestern one of the three there discovered. His second great work was the construction, or reconstruction, of an aqueduct to bring an abundant supply of water to the city from the Upper Zab. The river bank was pierced near the modern Negub, and the water first conveyed through a rock tunnel and then by an open canal to the great terrace. Its course was lined with palms, with various fruit trees, 1 Layard, Nineveh and its Remains, i. pp. 62, ff. See picture and plan in Rassam, Asshur and the Land of Nimrod, pp. 222, ff. THE REIGN OF ASHIJRN AZTRPAL 221 and with vineyards, and well was it named Puti-Khegalli — the “bringer of fruitfulness/’1 In the year 858 B. C. the reign of Ashurnazir- pal ended in peace. He had wrought great things for Assyrian power in the world, and the empire as he left it was greater actually and potentially than it had ever been before. Of the man himself the world can have no pleasant memories. No king like him in fe¬ rocity had arisen before him, and in Assyria at least he was followed by none altogether his equal. One searches the records of his reign and finds seldom anything more than catalogues of savage and relentless deeds. So rarely in¬ deed does a work of mercy or peace brighten the record that it is a relief to turn the page. 1 Monolith inscription, i, 5-9, Keilinschrift., Bibl., i, pp. 118, 119. For the modern remains see Layard, Nineveh and its Remains , i, pp. 80, 81; Nineveh and Babylon, pp. 525-527. CHAPTER V SHALMANESER III TO ASHUR-NIRARI II Shalmaneser III (858-824 B. C.), who succeeded his father, Ashurnazirpal, continued his policy without a break, and even extended it. We are even better instructed concerning his reign, for more historical material has come down to us from it. The most impor¬ tant of his inscriptions is a beautiful obelisk of black basalt. The upper parts of the four faces contain beautifully carved figures of vari¬ ous animals which the king had received in tribute and as gifts, each illustration being accompanied by an epigraph explaining its meaning. The lower parts bear inscriptions recounting in chronological order the cam¬ paigns of the king. There are no less than one hundred and nine lines of compact writing upon this one monument.* 1 This story of his wars is supplemented by the fine monolith of the king, containing his portrait in low relief, covered with one hundred and fifty-six lines 1 Black Obelisk, text, published in Layard, Inscriptions in the Cunei¬ form Characters, 87-98. It has often been translated in whole or part. The best of the recent translations are by Winckler, Keilinschrift. Bihl., i, pp. 128-151, and by Scheil, Records of the Past, New Series, iv, pp. 39, sqq., the latter with numerous corrections by Sayce. 222 SHALMANESER III 223 of text.1 And this again, in its turn, is supple¬ mented by fragmentary inscriptions upon bronze plates which once covered massive wooden doors or gates.2 From these three main sources of information we are able to follow in order all the chief events of the king’s reign. The accounts, however, are less picturesque and full of life than those of his predecessor. Cam¬ paigns are often dismissed in a few colorless words, and the record takes on the nature of a catalogue rather than of a history. We shall therefore present the story of his reign, not in its chronological, but rather in its log¬ ical order, following the circle of his achieve¬ ments from country to country. The annalistic style of Ashurnazirpal may stand as the representative of this reign, with the differ¬ ence, already mentioned, that it possesses greater breadth and richer color. For twenty-six years Shalmaneser led every campaign in person — an amazing record. His armies were then sent out under the leader¬ ship of the Tartan Ashur-dayan. Like his father, Shalmaneser was oppressed by the 1 III R. 7, 8, translations by Craig, Hebraica, iii, 1887; Peiser, Keilin- schrift. Bill., vol. i, pp. 150-175; and Scheil, Records of the Past, New Series, iv, pp. 55, sqq. For other inscriptions see Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient Gesellschaft, No. 32, p. 26, and see also below, p. 244. 2 The gate inscriptions were secured by Hormuzd Rassam in 1877, the natives reporting to him that they had been found in the mounds of Balawat. They have been published and translated by Pinches in Transactions of the Society of Biblical Archaeology, vii, pp. 83, sqq., and by Amiaud et Scheil, Inscriptions de Salrnanasar I, Paris, 1890, and also Records of the Past, New Series, iv, pp. 74, sqq. 224 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA weight of his own army. It must fight or die, and when there was no excuse for operations of defense there must be a campaign to collect tribute, and when that was not needed fresh conquests must be attempted. From his father he also inherited the old Aramaean question, which was to consume much of his energy through a considerable part of his reign. We have seen that Ashurna- zirpal broke the spirit of the Aramaeans in the Mesopotamian valley and compelled them to pay tribute regularly. But, though this was true, it was to be expected that they would try his successor’s mettle at the first opportunity. Of these states Bit-Adini was still the most powerful as well as the most daring. We are not told what act of Akhuni, ruler of Bit-Adini, led to an outbreak of hos¬ tilities, but we shall probably not be far wrong if we ascribe it to the ever- vexing tribute. Whatever the difficulty, Shalmaneser invaded the country in 859, the first year of his reign, leaving Assyria in the month of May, and captured some of its cities, but apparently did not directly attack the capital. The in¬ vasion had to be repeated in May, 858, and again in July, 857, and in both years there were displays of savagery after the fashion of Ashurnazirpal. Pyramids of heads were piled up by city gates and the torch applied to ruined cities. But in the latter year the oppo- SHALMANESER III 225 sition to Assyrian domination was hopelessly broken down. The brave little land was annexed to Assyria, placed under Assyrian government, and colonists from Assyria were settled in it,1 and even the old Aramaic names of its cities were changed into long and ill-sounding As¬ syrian, till we wonder, for example, whether the inhabitants of Pitru, ever learned to call their city Ana-Asshur-uter-asbat. Such success was likely to lead soon to an attack upon the larger and richer Aramaean settlements farther west. The states with which he would have to deal at first were Hamath, Damascus, and Khatin, the small but fertile and powerful state between the Afrin and the Orontes, which had given much trouble to his father. Khatin was not so powerful as the two, but could not be left out of account in a western invasion. Hamath was the center of Aramaean influence in northern Syria, and under the leadership of Irkhulina was no mean antagonist. But by far the most powerful and important of the three states was Damas¬ cus, whose king at this time was Bir-idri (Ben- Hadad II). If an enduring union could be formed between these two states and allies secured in Phoenicia and in Israel, the peoples of the west might defy even the disciplined and victorious armies of Assyria. But the i Obelisk, lines 26-32, 32-35, 35-45. Monolith i, 12-29; ii, 1-13, 13-20, 30-35. 226 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA ambition of Damascus to be actual head over all the western territory and mutual jealousies among the other states prevented any real union against the common oppressor. How¬ ever, the threatened advance of Assyria was sufficient to bury for a time at least their differences and a confederation for mutual de¬ fense was formed for a year, during which time it was a powerful factor in the history of western Asia. Shalmaneser III was ready for the attempt on the west in 854. The campaign of that year is of such great importance that it will be well to set it down in the words of the Mon¬ olith inscription, with such further comment as may be necessary to make its meaning clear : “In the eponym year of Daian-Ashur, in the month of Airu, on the fourteenth day, from Nineveh I departed; I crossed the Tigris; to the cities of Giammu on the Balikh I ap¬ proached. The fearfulness of my lordship (and) the splendor of my powerful arms they feared, and with their own arms they slew Giammu, their lord. Kitlala and Til-sha-mar-akhi I entered. My gods I brought into his temples, I made a feast in his palaces. I opened his treasury and found his riches; his goods and his possessions I carried away; to my city Asshur I brought (them). From Kitlala I departed ; to Kar-Shulman-asharid I approached. Monolith of Shalmaneser III, king of Assyria (859-825 B. C.), with accounts of his campaigns. [From Carl Bezold, Ninive und Babylon, 3te Auflage, Leipzig, 1909.] , y Oi< IJABYLONI ArASO ASS'. KIA r 4. ; other states pro ven d any real union aga * the common oppressor. How- * -'•uf ■ ■el “lit to bury lor a time at- least tueii ferivse was formed for a year, during which time it was a powerful factor in the history of western Asia. Shalmaneser III was ready lor _ oi§h^ )& 8ni>[ $£ .^iai*qcaaf> aid la.^aupaw 4lxw ,(. J a g^o-..c ,6) etB uwhtoA hm mmfh vbioseE tot), ittoilj r y~\. /\ /~\. * - * *T a m-v b r olith inscription/ > as may be nece clear: “I n the epo w the month of f rom Ninew h : « to the cities of < preached. The fe& f.QOQt ,ghqKl mgtoj/ ,tiing m 1 1,-'- s'; )](■!’• K’i ■ :* - ’ • i 'i . a ! iay , ) crossed the Tigris; on the Balikh I ap- ny lordship (and) owerful arms they feared, v i * ' U v r v f ^ £ sad w ith their or, n •* rms they slew Giamrrm, tu ir lord. ? mi and Til-shamiar-akhi I entered, Aiv’-- ■ 1. brought into his temples, m i do v. palaces. I opened Ids treasury r ' Per; > ce* riches; his goods and yis posse-- - ‘ ■ >ns ied away; to ny c*ty A# - nr I Pro: hern). From Kit! ala I rtilffikn-asharid I approached; i \ > 4 i Ci 1 1 — 22<> SHALMANESER III 227 In boats of sheepskin I crossed the Euphrates for the second time in its flood. The tribute of the kings of that side of the Euphrates, of Sangar of Carchemish, of Kundashpi of Kum- mukh, of Arame, of Bit Gusi; of Lalli, the Melidsean; of Khaiani, of Bit Gabbar; of Kalparuda, the Khatinian; of Kalparuda, the Gurgumsean; silver, gold,- lead, copper (and) copper vessels, in the city of Asshur-utir-asbat, on that side of the Euphrates, which (is) on the river Sagur, which (city) the Hittites call Pitru, I received. From the Euphrates I departed, to Khalman (that is, Aleppo) I approached. They feared my battle (and) embraced my feet. Silver and gold I received as their tribute. I offered sacrifices before Adad, the god of Khalman. From Khalman I departed; two cities of Irkulini, the Hamath- ite, I approached. Adennu, Parga, Argana, his royal city, I captured; his booty, goods, the possessions of his palaces I brought out (and) set fire to his palaces. From Argana I departed, to Qarqar I approached; Qarqar, his royal city, I plundered, destroyed; burned with fire. One thousand two hundred chariots, 1,200 horsemen, 20,000 men of Biri-dri (that is, Ben-Hadad II) of Damascus; 700 chariots, 700 saddle horses, 10,000 men of Irkhuleni, the Hamathite; 2,000 chariots, 10,000 men of Ahab, the Israelite; 500 men of the Quans;1 1,000 1 Que is that part of Cilicia between the Amanus and the mountains 228 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA men of the Musreans; 10 chariots, 10,000 men of the Irkanatians; 200 men of Matinu-Baal, the Arvadite; 200 men of the Usanatians; 30 chariots, 10,000 of Adunu-Baal, the Shianian; 1,000 camels of Gindibu, the Arabian; . . . 1,000 men of Baasha, son of Rukhubi, the Ammonite — these twelve* 1 kings he took to his assistance; to make battle and war against me they came. With the exalted power which Ashur, the lord, gave me, with the powerful arms which Nergal, who goes before me, had granted me, I fought with them, from Qarqar to Gilzan I accomplished their defeat. Four¬ teen thousand of their warriors I slew with arms; like Adad, I rained a deluge upon them, I strewed hither and yon their bodies. I filled the plain. [I destroyed] their troops with arms. I made their blood flow over the ... of the field. The field was too small to cast dowm their bodies, the broad field was not sufficient to bury them. With their bodies I dammed the Orontes, as with a dam (?). In that battle I took from them their chariots, horsemen, horses, their teams.2 of the Ketis (see Schrader, Keilinschriften und Geschichtsforschung, pp. 238-242). Winckler’s conjecture ( Alttestament U liter suchungen, pp. 168, ff.), which would place it in 1 Kings x, 28, is almost certainly correct. See further Benzinger and Kittel on the passage. 1 The total of these numbers is eleven, and not twelve, and the total of all arms amounts to 3,940 chariots, 1,900 horsemen, 62,900 infantry, and 1,000 chariots. 2 Monolith inscription ii, lines 78-102. The parallel passage in the Obelisk inscription (lines 54-66) is brief and colorless. See Rogers, “Assyria’s First Contact with Israel,” Methodist Review , March-April* SHALMANESER III 229 By means of this detailed and explicit ac¬ count it is easy to follow the king's move¬ ments and understand the campaign. Shal¬ maneser leaves Nineveh and makes straight across the valley for the Balikh. He is here received with open arms, and secures great gifts. His next important stop is at Pethor, beyond the Euphrates, where more tribute, brought long distances, even from the land of Kummukh, is received. From Pethor to Aleppo the distance was short and the issue was the same — Aleppo surrendered without a blow. It is interesting to mark that Shal¬ maneser localizes in Aleppo the worship of the god Adad, to whom he paid worship. If this statement is correct, we may find in it a proof of early intercourse between Aleppo and Assyria, for we have long since found Adad worshiped in Assyria. This was the end of the unopposed royal progress. As soon as he crossed into the territory of the little kingdom of Hamath he was opposed. Three cities were, however, taken and left behind in ruins. Shalmaneser III then advanced to Qarqar,* 1 a city located near the Orontes. Here he was met by the allied army collected to defend the west against Assyria. Its corn- 1895, pp. 207-222, and compare the translations of all the parallel passages in Rogers, Cuneiform Parallels, pp. 294, ff. 1 Its exact location is unknown. Maspero {The Passing of the Em¬ pires, p. 70, note 4) suggests that it “corresponds to the present Kalaat- el-Mudiq, the ancient Apamsea of Lebanon.” 230 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA position throws light on the relative power of the states in Syria and Palestine and deserves attention. The main body of the army of defense was contributed by Hamath, Damas¬ cus, and Israel. These three states contributed much more than half of the entire army and nearly all of the most powerful part of it, the chariots and horsemen. From the north there came men from Que (eastern Cilicia) and Musri. From the west came detachments con¬ tributed by the northern Phoenician cities which were unwilling or unable to send enor¬ mous gifts to buy off the conqueror, as Tyre and Sidon had done, but were willing to strike a blow for independence. The last section was made up of Ammonites and Arabs. This was a formidable array, and the issue of the battle fought at Qarqar might well be doubted. The Assyrians had, of course, a well-seasoned army to oppose a crowd of raw levies; but the latter had the great advantage of a knowl¬ edge of the country as well as the enthusiasm of the fight for home and native land. Of course, the records of Shalmaneser claim a great victory. In the Monolith inscription1 the allies killed are set down at 14,000, in another inscription the number given is 20, 500, 2 while in a third it rises to 25, 000, 3 and in a fourth 1 Col. ii, lines 97 and 98. 2 Obelisk, lines 65, 66. 3 Bull inscription, No. 1, line 18. On these discrepancies see Schrader, Keilinschriflen und Geschichtsforschung, p. 47. SHALMANESER III 231 to 29,000. 1 The evident uncertainty in the figures makes us doubt somewhat the clearness of the entire result. There is, as usual, no mention of Assyrian losses, but they must have been severe. The claim of a great vic¬ tory is almost certainly false. A victory for the Assyrians it probably was, for the allies were plainly defeated and their union for de¬ fense broken up; but, on the other hand, the Assyrians did not attempt to follow up the victory they claimed, and no word is spoken of tribute or plunder or of any extension of Assyrian territory.2 The alliance had saved the fair land of Hamath for a time and had postponed the day when Israel should be conquered and carried into captivity. It is a sore pity that despite the dread of the Assyr¬ ians, voiced so frequently by the Hebrews, and evidently felt by the other allies, mutual jealousy should have prevented the continuance of an alliance which promised to save the shores of the Mediterranean for Hebrew and Aramaean civilization. Shalmaneser was busied elsewhere, as we shall shortly see, during the years immediately following, and it was not until 849 that he was able to make another assault on the west. The point of attack was again the land of 1 The Berlin Inscription, line 16, translated in Rogers, Cuneiform Parallels, pp. 298, 299. 2 The abrupt ending of the Monolith narrative is significant. 282 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA Hamath, and again Bir-idri of Damascus and Irkhuleni of Hamath had the leadership over the twelve allies. This time Shalmaneser claims to have slain ten thousand* 1 of his enemies, but he mentions no tribute and no new terri¬ tory. We may therefore be almost certain that the victory was rather a defeat, and that he was really compelled to withdraw. In 846 Shalmaneser once more determined to attack the foe which had done such wonderful work in opposing the hitherto invincible As¬ syrian arms. In this campaign he did not trust merely to his usual standing army, but levied contingents from the land of Assyria and with an enormous force, said by him to number 120,000 men, he set out for Hamath. Again he was opposed by Ben-Hadad II and his allies, and again he “accomplished their defeat.”2 But, as in the previous campaigns and for the same reasons, we are compelled to assert that the Aramaeans had given full proof of their prowess by resisting the im¬ mense Assyrian army. The next attempt upon the west was made in 842. In this year Shal¬ maneser found a very different situation. Ben- Hadad II, who had ruled with a rod of iron and held the neighboring peoples in terror, was now dead,3 and the cruel, but weak Hazael 1 The Bull inscription, line 94. * Obelisk inscription, lines 91, 92. 1 2 Kings viii, 7-15. SHALMANESER III 233 reigned in Damascus. Ahab, who was a man of real courage and of great resources, was dead, as was Joram (852-842), his successor; and Jehu, the usurper, was now king in Sa¬ maria. He seems to have been a natural coward and did not dare to fight the terrible Assyrians. The other states which had united in defense under Ben-Hadad II were hope¬ lessly discordant, each hoping to throw off the quasi-suzerainty of Damascus. The people of Tyre and Sidon had again returned to their commerce and were ready to send gifts to Shalmaneser that they might not be disturbed at the gates of the seas. Jehu sent costly tribute, apparently in the mad hope of gaining Assyrian aid against the people of Damascus, whom he hated and feared, not reckoning that the Assyrians would seek this tribute year after year until the land should be wasted. This act of Jehu gave the Assyrians their first hold on Israel, and the consequences were far- reaching and disastrous. Hazael, noble in comparison with all the former allies of Da¬ mascus, determined to resist Shalmaneser alone. In Saniru, or Hermon,1 he fortified himself and awaited the Assyrian onslaught. Six thou¬ sand of his soldiers were killed in battle, while one thousand one hundred and twenty-one of his chariots and four hundred and seventy 1 Deut. iii, 9, comp. Driver on the passage, and Sayce, Records of the Past, New Series, vi, p. 41. 234 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA horses with his camp equipage were taken. Hazael fled to Damascus and was pursued and besieged by the Assyrians. But, powerful though he was, Shalmaneser was not able to take Damascus, and had to content himself with a thoroughly characteristic conclusion of the campaign. He cut down the trees about the city, and then marching southward, en¬ tered the Hauran, where he wasted and burned the cities.1 So ended another assault on the much-coveted west, and it was still not con¬ quered. No such series of rebuffs had ever been received by Tiglathpileser or by Ashur- nazirpal, but Shalmaneser was not deterred from another and last attempt. In 839 he crossed the Euphrates for the twenty-first time and marched against the cities of Hazael. He claims to have captured four of them, but there is no mention of booty, and no word of any impression upon Damas¬ cus.2 Shalmaneser had led six campaigns against the west with no result beyond a certain amount of plunder. There was absolutely no recog¬ nition of the supremacy of Assyria. There was little glory for the Assyrian arms. There was no greater freedom achieved for Assyrian commerce. And yet some progress had been 1 Obelisk, lines 97-99 and Annalistic Fragment, III R. 5, No. 6, 40-65. See translations by Rogers, Cuneiform Parallels, pp. 303, 304. * Obelisk, lines 102-104. SHALMANESER ITI 235 made toward the great Assyrian ambition. The western states had felt in some measure the strength of Assyria, those certainly who sent gifts rather than fight had shown their dread; while the smoking ruins in the Hauran were a silent object lesson of what might soon hap¬ pen to the other western powers which had hitherto resisted so gallantly. The Assyrian was beating against the bars set up against his progress, and the outcome was hardly, if at all, doubtful. Besides his difficulties in the west Shal¬ maneser had no lack of trouble with the far north. As Damascus had a certain prepon¬ derance among the western states, so had Urartu (the land of Van or Chaldia) among the northern states. There is some reason for believing that at this time, as was true later on, Urartu may have tried to exercise some sort of sovereignty over the land of Nairi. This much, at least, is certain, that the people of Urartu were the mainspring of much of the rebellion among the smaller states in the north and west. The long series of Assyrian assaults on Urartu had begun in the reign of Tiglath- pileser I, who had crossed over the Arsanias and entered the country. Ashurnazirpal, also, had marched through the southern portion of the district, but had made no attempt to annex it to Assyria. In the very beginning 236 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA of his reign , 860 B. C.,1 Shalmaneser made the first move which led to this series of cam¬ paigns. He entered the land of Nairi and took the capital city of Khurbushkia, on Lake Urumiyeh, together with one hundred other towns which belonged to the same country. These were all destroyed by fire. The king of Nairi was then pursued into the mountains and the land of Urartu (Chaldia) invaded. At this time Urartu was ruled by Arame, the successor of Lutipris and Sarduris, the first kings of this new kingdom. He seems to have been a man of courage and adroitness. His stronghold of Sugunia was taken and plun¬ dered. Shalmaneser did not push on into the country, but withdrew southward by way of Lake Van, contented with his booty or too pru¬ dent to risk more. He had, however, marched nearly a thousand miles and had given fresh proof of the mobility of an Assyrian army, which could cover a distance so great, living upon the country, and moving far from any sustaining base. He made no more attempts on Urartu until 857, 2 when his campaigning carried him westward and northward to Pethor and thence through Anzitene, which was com¬ pletely laid waste, and over the Arsanias into Urartu. On this expedition the country of 1 The date is certain. It is correctly given as 860 by Tiele, Geschichte, i, p. 187, but erroneously as 858 by Scheil, Records of the Past, New Series, iv, p. 56, note 3. 2 Incorrectly given as 856 by Scheil, ibid., vol. iv, p. 63, note 1. SHALMANESER ITT 2.37 Daiaeni, along the river Arsanias, was first conquered and apparently without much oppo¬ sition. The way was now open to the capital city, Arzashku. Arame, the king of Urartu, fled further inland and abandoned his capital to the Assyrians, who wasted it as of old, and left it a heap of ruins while they pursued the fleeing king. He was overtaken, and thirty- four hundred of his troops killed, though Arame himself made good his escape. Laden with heavy spoil, Shalmaneser returned south¬ ward, and, in his own picturesque phrase, trampled on the country like a wild bull. Pyramids of heads were piled up at the ruined city gates and men were impaled on stakes. On the mountains an inscription, with a great image of the conqueror, was set up. The de¬ feat of Arame seems to have brought his dynasty to an end, for immediately afterward we find Sarduris II, son of Lutipris, building a citadel at Van and founding a new kingdom. Shal¬ maneser returned to Assyria by way of Arbela. He had therefore completed a half circle in the north, passing from west to east, but had accomplished little more than the collection of tribute.1 In the tenth year of his reign (850 B. C.) Shalmaneser III again invaded Urartu, this time entering the country from the city of Carchemish. The only achievement of the 1 Obelisk, lines 35-45; Monolith, ii, 30-66. 238 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA expedition was the taking of the fortified city of Arne and the ravaging of the surrounding country;1 no enduring results were effected. More might, perhaps, have been attempted, but the king was forced to go into the west to meet the people of Damascus, as narrated above. Shalmaneser never again invaded Urartu in person. In the year 833 he sent an army against it under the leadership of his Tartan Daian-Ashur. In the seventeen years which had elapsed since the last expedition the people of Urartu had been busy. The kingdom of Siduri (Sarduris I) had waxed strong enough to conquer the territories of Sukhme and Daiaeni, which for a time had seemed to be¬ long to Assyria after having been so thoroughly conquered by Shalmaneser II. The account of the campaign ends in the vain boast of having filled the plain with the bodies of his warriors.2 The sequel, however, shows that this campaign and another similar one in 829, under the same leadership, against Sarduris II, had not really conquered the land of Urartu.3 Instead of growing weaker it continued to grow stronger, and we shall often meet with displays of its power in the later Assyrian his¬ tory. When the series of campaigns against the north was finally ended for this reign it 1 Obelisk, lines 85-87. 2 Obelisk, lines 141-146. 8 Obelisk, lines 174-190. SHALMANESER III 239 could only be said that in the north and in the west the Assyrian arms had made little real progress. In the east also Shalmaneser failed to ex¬ tend the boundaries of his kingdom. His efforts in this quarter began in 859, when he made a short expedition into the land of Namri,1 which lay on the southwestern border of Media below the Lower Zab River. Not until 844 was the land again disturbed by invasion. At this time it was under the rule of a prince, Marduk-shum-udammiq, whose name points to Babylonian origin. He was driven from the country, and a prince from the country dis¬ trict of Bit-Khamban, with the title Yanzu,2 was put in his place.3 This move was not very successful, for the new prince rebelled eight years later and refused the annual tribute. In 836 Shalmaneser crossed the Lower Zab and again invaded Namri. The yanzu fled for his life to the mountains, and his country was laid waste. Shalmaneser, emboldened by this small success, then marched farther north into the territory of Parsua, where he received tribute, and then, turning eastward, -entered the land of Media, where several cities were plundered and laid waste. There seems to 1 Obelisk, line 9. 2 Yanzu is used in the Assyrian texts as a proper name, but Delitzsch ( Die Sprache der Kossder, pp. 25, 29-38) has shown that it is the title of kings in the Kosssean dialects. 8 Obelisk, lines 93-97. 240 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA have been no attempt made to set up any¬ thing like Assyrian rule over any portion of Media, but only to secure tribute. On the return by way of the south, near the modern Holwan, the yanzu was taken prisoner and carried to Assyria.1 But the efforts of Shal¬ maneser to control in the east, and especially the northeast, did not end here. The moun¬ tains to the northeast of Assyria had been a thorn in the side of many an Assyrian king. We have already seen how Shalmaneser at the very beginning of his reign ravaged and plundered in Khubushkia, on Lake Urumiyeh, farther north than the land of Namri. In 830 the king himself remained in Calah, send¬ ing an expedition to receive the tribute from the land of Khubushkia. It was promptly paid, and Daian-Ashur, who was in command, led his troops northward into the land of Alan,2 which was wasted and burned in the usual fashion. Returning then by the southern shore of Lake Urumiyeh, several smaller states were plundered, and finally tribute was collected again in Parsua.3 In the next year (829) another campaign was directed against Khu¬ bushkia to enforce the collection of tribute, and thence the army marched northward through 1 Obelisk, lines 110-126. 2 It is called Minni in Jer. li, 27. See especially Sayce, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, New Series, xiv, pp. 388-400, and Belck, “ Das Reich der Mannoeer," in the Verhandlungen der Berl. anthropolog. Gesellschaft, 1896, p. 480. 3 Obelisk, lines 159-174. Stela of Shalmaneser III, king of Assyria (859- 825 B. C.), carved in the native rock on the bank of the Dog River (Nahr el-Kelb, the Lykos of the Greeks), north of Beirut. On the right of the picture is shown the large stela of Rameses II, king of Egypt (1292-1225 B. C.), whose example the Assy¬ rian king followed in setting up this memorial. [From Carl Bezold, Ninive und Babylon, 3te Auflage, Leipzig, 1909.] ' . £limdere< again in Parsuai another camp&i a bushkia 1 jO enforce t * ence e n ! . • n . n-.» • > M ’tr! ‘ iT in ^isqfed n -i <*S Manx he usual b southern shore several smaller states: were ^ k. } :.e ’-vas collected n the next- year (829) directed against Khu- , ,i7. See especially Saye, -Journal ■■>? v ties, xiv, pp. 3tt> -400, arc! 1\p[< lc, 1 1 — 240 SHALMANESER III 241 Musair and Urartu, passing around the northern end of Lake Urumiyeh. Returning southward, Parsua was again harried and the unfortunate land of Namri invaded. The inhabitants fled to the mountains, leaving all behind them. In a manner entirely worthy of his royal master, the Tartan laid waste and burned two hun¬ dred and fifty villages before he came back by way of Hoi wan into Assyrian territory.1 It is not too much to sa}^ that all these opera¬ tions in the northeast, east, and southeast were unsuccessful. Shalmaneser had not car¬ ried the boundaries of his country beyond those left by Ashurnazirpal in these directions. In the south alone did Shalmaneser achieve real success. The conditions which prevailed there were exactly fitted to give the Assyrians an opportunity to interfere, and Shalmaneser was quick to seize it. In the earlier part of his reign the Babylonian king was Nabu-alpu- iddin, who after his quarrel with Ashurnazirpal had devoted himself chiefly to the internal affairs of his kingdom. He made a treaty of peace with Shalmaneser,2 and all went well between the two kingdoms until Nabu-aplu- iddin died. His successor was his son, Marduk- nadin-shum, against whom his brother, Mar- duk-bel-usate, revolted. This rebellion was localized in the southern part of the kingdom, 1 Obelisk, lines 174- 190. 2 Synchronistic History, col. iii, 22-25. 242 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA comprising the powerful land of Kaldi. The Babylonians had engaged in no war for a long time, and were entirely unable to cope with the hardy warriors of Kaldi, whom Mar- duk-bel-usati had at his command. The law¬ ful king, Marduk-nadin-shum, fearing that Babylon would be overwhelmed by the army which his brother was bringing against it, resolved upon the suicidal course of inviting Assyrian intervention. This was in 852, and no appeal could have been more welcome. Ever since the last period of Assyrian decay the kingdom of Babylonia had been entirely free of all subjection to Assyria. Here was an opportunity for reasserting the old pro¬ tectorate. Shalmaneser marched into Baby¬ lonia in 852, and again in 851, and halted first at Kutha, where he offered sacrifice, and then entered Babylon to sacrifice to the great god Marduk, also visiting Borsippa, where he offered sacrifices to Nabu. It is not to be doubted that by these presentations of sacrifices Shal¬ maneser intended not only to show his piety and devotion to the gods, but also to display himself as the legitimate overlord of the country. Having paid these honors to the gods, he then marched down into Chaldea and attacked the rebels. He took several cities, and com¬ pletely overcame Marduk-bel-usate and com¬ pelled him to pay tribute. From this time forward until the end of his reign Marduk- 11—243 4. "■ * nadin-shum ruled peacefully in Babylon undei • re ! U ■ ■, - a’ • . \ sc- • eta, ’ \ ! . in ca is ■ , • ■ ' ' the king of Assyria had once more become the real ruler of Babylonia, the Chaldeans by their inaction acknowledging the hopelessness of any present u bnnqi ?(.f) ,11 5S.8^8) III lo. won bna (d^kO) bjjqipniZ tfi ^uiblind ai no bddnDaui vlIulituBod 8i )1 .innoanM xfeitnH odi ai •* __ ■ . lo gaoijfboqxy 9di io dnuopofe cib iiJiw jBobia 'woi \Ui nO uram aid ib^ai&ay ono-yhidt ^fli’iuh snid adt ni siSifhi llama ytnwi IIb ni oxfi 3X9di'89bi8 xuoi orb B' id aaoiiioq1 xxroi ^niniitnob 891198 d9£9 ; 891X98 bvji -xod n In elndixi id iddntf&q srd yaiino^tqex snsoa 9bk d*M9 'to qof edr hi index odT .yx.tnuoo niai gfnfol obik de&9 no brtoo98 edt poixoa mo amtot . : :8Y70lIot 8B 9XB 891X998 9ifl.’ .HO 08 bflfi ;/; 1 1 ,.<> ) :b V/ tHR"oO biiw AsbihI 10 %aii fnd^L pthoabiqm bnodep/sHT .019 MtYo othdht odt^ihaif r MT .eiudhd iBlimfe b ;Bvbs dtwol 9ift bHB iebbiBehta. • ,iwi' 4 to hnai baBt odt do do 9Mkxt ed- pa . rod odT yBiiioq -of bobnoini ieqBil loq ol h be b ,190b u. g ; a ■ ah d them to the wounded ... e [;mohBBKh>oO^ .amatm&l %A dqmg otobhj of tl i reign was ii bronze 7 m A. o maneser built four pairs of great doors nearly .vnty-two feet high, six feet v ide and three diameter, pointed at the boltom anil cove • -e h bronze to move in ; stone gate sock 'Those wooden doors were bound with rc . . . >< r>. : ■ BUii-.i'iar i • 111! "f ■ ■ Obelisk of Shalmaneser III, king of Assyria (859- 825 B. C.), showing the upper four reliefs on one side. The relief here shown as the first represents Shalmaneser receiving the submission of Shua of Gozan, who brought tribute of silver, gold, lead, etc. The second represents Jehu, king of Israel, who gave a similar tribute. The third is the tribute of the land of Musri, consisting of camels; and the fourth is the tribute of Marduk-apal-usur of the land of Sukku, consisting also of silver,. gold, and the like. The picture represents a forest scene, with a lion hunting a deer, and was perhaps intended to portray the character of this land. [Photograph by Kleinmann & Co., Haarlem.] SHALMANESER III 245 crude in general, but the portrait statue of the king marks a distinct advance over the workmanship of Adad-nirari. It is a pity that animal sculptures are rare, for it would be interesting to see whether they formed in any way a transition to the amazing achieve¬ ments of the seventh century. In a measure, the lack of much sculpture in the round is made up by much material in the relief, by which we are able to appraise the artistic achievements of this great reign, The finest reliefs of the period are those cut in stone upon the beautiful black obelisk (see page 243). The double-humped Bactrian camels are portrayed with fine sense of proportion, and good carriage, while the leaping lions and antelopes are stiff and unconvincing. It is a far cry in the development of art from them to the wounded lion of the later period (see plate 463). The greatest artistic triumph of the reign was in bronze repousse. Shal¬ maneser built four pairs of great doors nearly twenty-two feet high, six feet wide and three inches thick. Each half of a pair of doors was attached to a round post, eighteen inches in diameter, pointed at the bottom and covered with bronze to move in a stone gate socket. These wooden doors were bound with bronze bands ten inches wide and eight feet in length, remains of these works, the same book is to be consulted, and there is an excellent summary of Shalmaneser’s work in it, p. 4, ff. 246 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA when straightened out, but when in place rounded in the middle about the eighteen-inch post, and therefore extending a little over three feet on each side of the door. On these bronze plates the king had portrayed scenes from his campaigns. The figures were beaten in repousse style from the back, and usually finished with the graver’s tool in the front, while in a few places the work has been finished by indenting portions of figures in the front. The work is full of surprises. It is effective when viewed as a whole, though with much unevenness in execution, and well deserves to be described as beautiful. The human figures are not so good as the animal, which need occasion no amazement, while some of the latter, and notably the sheep, are as won¬ derful in execution as they are in design. When it is remembered that these plates were ex¬ ecuted about 850 years before Christ among a people whose energies seem chiefly to have been absorbed in savage wTar they become one of the marvels of human history.1 The greatest endowment of religion in Shal¬ maneser’s (III) reign was the rebuilding of 1 There is a brief general sketch of the Bronze Gates in P. S. P. Hand- cock, Mesopotamian Archaeology (London, 1912), pp. 258, ff. The plates are reproduced in natural size in Birch and Pinches, The Bronze Ornaments of the Palace Gates of Balawat. Five parts in folio. Lon¬ don, 1880. See also Ad. Billerbeck and Frdr. Delitzsch, Die Palasttore Sahnanassars aus Balawat, Beitrage zur Assyriologie, vi, pp. 1-155. They are sumptuously published in King, Bronze Reliefs from the Gates of Bhalmaneser. London, 1915, SHALMANESER III 247 the temple of Ami and Adad in Asshur. Two hundred and fifty years have flown since we saw Tiglathpileser I building its halls and courts, and setting up its Zikurrats. Shal¬ maneser finds it “fallen,” describing it as every king was prone to picture the works of his predecessors. There were, however, great masses of the original building still in existence, and much of the ancient work is still to be seen by modern eyes in the great trenches of the German excavators. The methods of Shal¬ maneser have been revealed to our eyes, by these excavations, even more than by the three classes of inscriptions1 relating to this rebuilding which the king has left us. The king swept away all that remained of the old temple down to a level of about six¬ teen feet above the ground. On the base thus leveled off he erected a double temple, similar in plan to the former one, but increased in size. He made, indeed, new bricks a plenty, each about fourteen inches square, and five inches thick, but he made most extensive use of the rather lighter bricks which he had taken out of the work of Tiglathpileser I. But the economical use of former materials must not diminish the great king’s glory. His new 1 Three kinds are (a) A fine terra cotta Zigat, with a very brief state¬ ment of the rebuilding, (b) Basalt hinge stones with the king’s name and titles, and a statement that he had dedicated the temple to Anu and Adad. (c) Building bricks with the king’s name and genealogy. The texts are assembled, transliterated, and translated by Walter Andrae, Der Ana- Atlacl-T 'empcl in Assur. Leipzig, 1909, p. 40, ff. 248 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA temple was not only larger, it was quite surely far more magnificent. In it was a statue of Adad, of which we know only one thing, but that most significant. The explorers have found a piece of solid gold seventeen and a half inches long, carved to represent con¬ ventionally a flash of lightning — the natural adornment for Adad, as we had already known. This silent piece of metal once grasped in Adad’s hand may give us some faint idea of the mag¬ nificence and costly splendor of the shrine to which it belonged. Such artistic achievements as these must have rested upon a broad base of industrial¬ ism, for the execution of these great as well as beautiful works would have taxed to the utmost the resources of a land which had fought less and given more heed to the ar¬ tistic industries. We have traced in logical rather than in chronological order the campaigns of Shal¬ maneser from the beginning to the close of the thirty-first year of his reign. At this point all record of his reign breaks off, and for the closing years we are confined to the information derived from the records of his son, Shamshi-Adad V. There are no more records of Shalmaneser’s doings in the last years of his reign, because they were too trou¬ bled to give any leisure for the erection of such splendid monuments as those from which SHALMANESER TIT 249 our knowledge of his earlier years has been derived. In the year 829 B. C. there was a rebellion led by Shalmaneser’s own son, Ashur- danin-apli. We know but little of it, and that little, as already said, derived from the brief notices of it preserved in the inscriptions of Shamshi-Adad V. We have no direct means of learning even the cause of the outbreak. Neither can we find an explanation of the great strength of the rebels, nor understand its sudden collapse when apparently it was in the ascendant. Wars of succession have always been so common in the Orient that, failing any other explanation, we are probably safe in the suggestion that .Shalmaneser had probably provided by will, or decree, that Shamshi-Adad should succeed him. Ashur- danin-apli attempted by rebellion to gain the throne for himself, and the strange thing was that he was followed in his rebellion by the better part of the kingdom. The capital city, Calah, remained faithful to the king, but Nineveh, Asshur, Arbela, among the older cities, and the chief colonies, a total of twenty- seven cities, joined the forces of Ashur-danin- apli. It is difficult to account for the strength of this rebellion, unless, perhaps, the leader of it was really the elder son, and a sense of fairness and justice in the people overcame their allegiance to their sovereign. The strug¬ gle began in 829, and before the death of Shal- 250 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA maneser, in 825 B. C., the kingdom for which he had warred so valiantly had been split into two discordant parts, of which Shalmaneser was able to hold only the newly won provinces in the north and west, together with the land of Babylonia. The old Assyrian homeland was in the hand of the rebels, and all the signs seemed to indicate that Babylonia would soon regain complete independence and that the Aramaean peoples would be able to throw off their onerous yoke. After the death of Shal¬ maneser, Shamshi-Adad spent two more years in civil war before he was acknowledged as the legitimate king of Assyria. We do not know what it was that gave him the victory, but a complete victory it was, and we hear no more of the rebels or their leader.1 The civil war had brought dire consequences upon the kingdom which Ashurnazirpal had made great, and Shalmaneser had held to its allegiance for thirty-one long years. It was therefore necessary, as soon as his title to the throne was ever}^where recognized, for Shamshi- Adad V to undertake such campaigns as would secure to him the loyalty of the waver¬ ing and doubtful, and would overcome the openly rebellious or disaffected. His first cam¬ paign was directed against the troublesome lands of Nairi, which may have been planning 1 Inscription of Shamshi-Adad (I R. 29-31), col. i, 39-53. See trans¬ lation by Abel in Keilinschrift. Bill., i, pp. 174-187. SHALMANESER III 251 an uprising to free themselves from the tribute. Shamshi-Adad entered the land and received their tribute without being required to strike a blow. He must have forestalled any organ¬ ized resistance. The promptness with which the campaign was undertaken and the com¬ pleteness of its success make it seem probable that Shamshi-Adad had had from the be¬ ginning the support of the standing army of Assyria. If this were the case, we can the better understand how the rebellion against him was put down even when the greater part of the country had embraced the fortunes of Ashur-danin-apli, for the commercial classes of Assyria could not stand against the dis¬ ciplined, hardened veterans of Shalmaneser. As soon as the danger in the Nairi lands had been overcome Shamshi-Adad marched up and down over the entire land of Assyria, “from the city of Paddira in the Nairi to Kar-Shul- manasharid of the territory of Carchemish; from Zaddi of the land of Accad to the land of Enzi; from Aridi to the land of Sukhi/’1 and over the whole territory the people bowed in submission to him. This is the first instance in Assyrian history of a king’s marching from point to point in his own dominions to re¬ ceive protestations of allegiance. It shows clearly to what unrest the land had come during the civil war. 1 Inscription of Shamshi-Adad (I R. 29-31), col. ii, 7-15. 252 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA The second campaign was undertaken chiefly, if not wholly, for the collection of tribute. Its course was directed first into the land of Nairi and thence westward to the Mediter¬ ranean. Cities in great numbers were dev¬ astated and burned, and the territory against which Shalmaneser had so long made war was brought again to feel the Assyrian power.1 The leader in this campaign was Mutarris- Ashur. The third campaign, likewise in search of booty, was directed against the east and north. The lands of Khubushkia and Parsua were crossed, and the journey led thence to the coasts of Lake Urumiyeh, and then into Media. In Media, as in the other lands, tribute and gifts were abundantly given. Again the Nairi lands were overrun, and the king returned to Assyria, assured only that the tribute would be paid as long as he was able to enforce it.2 In the next year of his reign Shamshi-Adad was compelled to invade Babylonia. The years of the Assyrian civil war had given that land the coveted opportunity to claim independence. Marduk-zakir-shum had been succeeded in Babylon by Marduk-balatsu-iqbi (about 812 B. C.), though the exact year of the change is unknown to us. He paid no Assyrian tribute, and in all things acted as an independent 1 Ibid., ii, 16-34. 2 Ibid., ii, 34-iii, 24. SHALMANESER III 253 ruler. Against him Shamshi-Adad marched. His course into Babylonia was not down the Mesopotamian valley, as one might have ex¬ pected. He went east of the Tigris along the edge of the mountains. He seems not to have made a hasty march, for he boasts of having killed three lions and of having de¬ stroyed cities and villages on the way. The river Turnat was crossed at flood. At Dur- Papsukal, in northern Babylonia, he was met by Marduk-balatsu-iqbi and his allies. The Babylonian army consisted of Babylonians, Chaldeans, Elamites, Aramaeans, and men of Namri, and was therefore composed of the peoples who feared the development of Assyria and were willing to unite against it, even though they were usually common enemies. Shamshi-Adad claims to have won a great victory, in which five thousand of his enemies were slain and two thousand taken captive. One hundred chariots and even the Babylonian royal tent fell into the hands of the victor.1 We may, however, well doubt whether the victory was so decisive. The only inscription which we possess of Shamshi-Adad breaks off abruptly at this point. But the Eponym List shows that in 813 he again invaded Chaldea, while in 812 he invaded Babylon. These two supplementary campaigns would seem to indi¬ cate that he had not achieved his entire pur- 1 Ibid., col. iv, 1-24. 254 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA pose in the battle of Dur-Papsukal. It is indeed unlikely that he succeeded in restoring the conditions which prevailed in the reign of Shalmaneser, though his short reign was, on the whole, successful. If he had not had the civil war to quell and its consequences to undo, he might well have made important additions to the territory of Assyria. We know nothing of his contributions to civilization, but it seems probable that the brilliant advance made by his father was not sustained The name of his wife was Sammuramat, who was probably a Babylonian princess. She rose to such distinction that a stela was erected to her honor in Asshur, bearing the legend The stela of Sammuramat Woman of the palace (that is, wife) of Shamshi- Adad King of the world, king of Assyria, Mother of Adadnirari King of the world, king of Assyria, Daughter-in-law of Shalmaneser King of the four quarters (of the earth).1 To no other queen had such glory come, and yet greater were destined to come to her, not in history but in legend, for around her name 1 For the text see Walter Andrae, Die Stehlenreihen in Assur (Leip¬ zig, 1913), p. 11, and compare Lehmann-Haupt, Die historische Sem- iramis und Hire Zeit, Tubingen, 1910. For the legendary Semiramis see F. Lenormant, La Legende de Semiramis, Paris, 1873, and com¬ pare Sayce, The Legend of Semiramis, English Historical Review, iii (1888), pp. 104-113, and Ulrich Wilcken, Hermes 28 (1893), pp. 161, IT. and especially p. 187, f. SHALMANESER III 255 there later flourished such a rich and colorful growth of traditions as cluster about no other name in the whole history of her people. In her case we see clearly how legend is attached to an historic name, and how its growths are rooted in an historic soil. Shamshi-Adad was succeeded by his son, Adad-nirari IV (810-781 B. C.), whose long reign was filled with important deeds. Un- fortunately, however, we are not able to follow his campaigns in detail because his very few fragmentary inscriptions give merely the names of the countries which he plundered, without giving the order of his marches or any details of his campaigns. In 806, in 803, and in 7971 he made expeditions to the west in which he claims to have received tribute and gifts from the land of the Hittites, from Tyre, Sidon, the land of Omri,2 Edom, and Philistia to the Mediterranean. On this same expedition he besieged Damascus and received from it great booty. The king of Damascus was Mari; and Adad-nirari could scarcely have had a greater triumph than the humbling of the proud state which had marshaled so many allied armies against the advance of the Assyrians and had 1 The expedition of 797 was against the city of Mansuate, which stood in the basin of the Orontes (Schrader, Keilinschriften und Geschichts- forschung, pp. 121, 122, and see also Maspero, The Passing of the Empires, p. 100, note 2. 2 “The land of Omri” is the usual Assyrian expression for the land of Israel, during a long period. Omri made so deep an impression upon his neighbors that his country was named after him. 256 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA then held out single-handed so long against them. These expeditions to the west accom¬ plished little more of importance. It was no new thing to receive tribute from the un¬ warlike merchants of Tyre and Sidon, and the Israelites had long since become a sub¬ ject people. Only Edom and Philistia are named as fresh conquests. In the northeast also he was brilliantly successful. The Eponym Lists mention no less than eight campaigns against the Medes, and the conquests in this direction carried the king even to the Caspian Sea, to which no former Assyrian king had penetrated. In the north he did not get beyond the limits of his ancestors. Urartu, which had so strenuously asserted and maintained its rights, was not disturbed at all, and remained an entirely independent kingdom. In the south Adad-nirari IV was entirely successful, as he had been in the west. We have already seen that there was an expedition against Babylonia in 812, and this was followed in 803 by one against the Sea Lands about the Persian Gulf. In 796 and 795 Babylonia was again invaded. One of these campaigns, but which one is uncertain, was directed against a certain Bau-akhi-iddin, king of Babylon. Assyrian influence was completely reestablished by these campaigns, and Babylonia again be¬ came practically an Assyrian province. The SHALMANESER III 257 Assyrian Synchronistic History, from which we have largely and repeatedly drawn in the narrative of several previous kings, was edited and compiled at this time as one of the signs of the emphatic union of the two peoples. It was the purpose of Adad-nirari IV to blot out completely the distinctions and differ¬ ences between them. He even began an inter¬ mixture of their religions. Though the As¬ syrians had begun their career as a separate people with the Babylonian religion as then taught and practiced, the two peoples had diverged through historical development, and were now in many points quite different in their religious usages. The Assyrians had introduced other gods, as, for instance, Ashur, into their pantheon, while the Babylonians, who had had less contact with the outer world, had made less change. Adad-nirari IV now built in Assyria temples modeled carefully on Babylonian exemplars and introduced into them the forms of Babylonian worship with all its ritual. One of the most striking instances of this policy was the construction in Calah, his capital city, of a great temple, the counter¬ part of the temple of Ezida in Borsippa. Into this was brought from Borsippa the worship of Nabu. The policy, strange as it was, met with a certain success, for Babylonia disappears almost wholly for a long time as a separate state and Assyria alone finds mention. 258 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA In connection with this introduction of the worship of Nabu we get another gleam of light upon the distinguished figure of Sam- muramat the king’s mother. There has been preserved a statue of Nabu set up in the temple in Calah by Adad-nirari IV, on the back of which is an inscription1 containing these words: “For the life of Adad-nirari, king of Assyria, its Lord [that is, of Calah], and for the life of Sammuramat, the lady of the Palace and its Mistress.” The position held by the king’s mother is quite Oriental, however strange it may appear to Western ideas. The king’s own queen is unmentioned; the superior place belongs to the king’s mother, the great queen of Shamshi-Adad V. The reign of Adad-nirari IV must be included in any lists of the greatest reigns of Assyrian history. No Assyrian king before him had actually ruled over so wide an extent of terri¬ tory, and none had ever possessed, in addition to this, so extensive a circle of tribute-paying states. Though he had done little in the northeast and nothing in the north, he had immensely increased Assyrian prestige in the west, and in the south Babylonia, with all its traditions of glory and honor, had become an integral part of his dominions. After his reign there comes slowly but surely Published I R. 35, No. 2; Abel and Winckler, Keilschrifttexte zum Gebrauch bei Vorlesungen, p. 14. Translated by Hommel, Gcschichte Babyloniens und Assyriens, p. 630. Rogers, Cuneiform Parallels, p. 307. SHALMANESER III 259 a period of strange, almost inexplicable, de¬ cline. Of the next three reigns we have few ro}^al inscriptions, and are confined for the most part to the brief notes of the Eponym Lists. From these we learn too little to enable us to follow the decline of Assyrian fortunes, but we gain here and there a glimpse of it, and see also not less vividly the growth of a strong northern power which should vex Assyrian kings for centuries. The successor of Adad-nirari IV was Shal¬ maneser IV (781-771), to whom the Eponym Lists ascribe ten campaigns. Some of these were of little consequence. One was against the land of Namri, an eastern tributary coun¬ try of which we have heard much in previous reigns. It had probably not paid the regular tribute, which had therefore to be collected in the presence of an army. No less than six of the campaigns were directed against the land of Urartu. We know nothing directly of these campaigns and their results. But the history of a time not very distant shows that these campaigns were more than the usual tribute-collecting and plundering expe¬ ditions. They were rather the ineffectual pro¬ tests of Assyria against the growth of a king¬ dom which was now strong enough to pre¬ vent any further Assyrian tribute collecting within its borders, and would soon be able to wrench from Assyrian control the fair lands 260 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA of Nairi. A loss so great as that might well give the Assyrian kings cause for anxiety and for desperate efforts to hinder the development of the enemy. This loss of tributary territory in the north had apparently already begun in this reign, but there were no other losses of territory elsewhere, and the reign ended with the substantial external integrity of the em¬ pire which Ashur-nazirpal had won. The next king was Ashur-dan III (771-753), in whose reign the decay of Assyrian power was rapid, in spite of strenuous efforts to maintain it, and in spite of success in its main¬ tenance in certain places. In the year 771, at the very beginning of his reign, he made a campaign against the city of Gananati in Babylonia, but we have unhappily no knowl¬ edge of the issue of the adventure. In 765 and again in 755 he marched against Khata- rikka in Syria. These three western campaigns show that, however much Assyria had lost in the north, it had not yet given up any claim on the prosperous lands in the south or be¬ yond the Euphrates. And the two invasions of Babylonia — 771 and 767 — are evidence of the same facts as regards that land. Ashur- dan III was plainly endeavoring to hold all that his fathers had won, but he had as yet undertaken no campaigns against any new territory. Whatever he may have planned or intended to do in that way was made im- SHALMANESER III 261 possible by a series of rebellions in Assyrian territory. The first of these began in 763 in the city of Asshur, the ancient political and religious center of the kingdom. We do not know its origin, but the general character of ancient Oriental rebellions and the succession of events which immediately follow in this story made it seem probable that some pre¬ tender had attempted to seize the throne. The attempt failed for the present and the re¬ bellion was put down in the same year. This was shortly (761) followed by another rebellion, also of unknown cause, in the province of Arpakha, known to the Greeks as Arra- pachitis,1 a territory on the waters of the Upper Zab; while a third at Guzanu, in the land of the Khabur, took place in 759 and 758. These rebellions were signs of the changes that were impending, and could not long be delayed. To the superstition of the Assyrians there were other omens than defeats and losses in war, which must have seemed to indicate the approach of troublous days. In 763 the Eponym List records an eclipse of the sun in the month of Si van. To the Assyrians this was probably an event of doubt and concern. To modern students it has been of great importance, be¬ cause the astronomical determination has given us a sure point of departure for Assyrian chro- 1 ' A'ppanaxlTig, Ptol. vi, 1, 2. 262 HI ST 0 JR Y OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA nology. By it we are enabled to carry back¬ ward to 911 and forward to 640 the exact dating of events year by year. From the same source we learn that in 765 and again in 759 there were pestilences, which were gloomy omens, and more poignant than the sight of the sun darkened in the heavens. The reign of Ashur-nirari V (753-745) was’ a period of peaceful decadence. In 749 and 748 there were two expeditions against the land of Namri. With these expeditions the king made no effort to collect his tribute or to retain the vast territory which his fathers had won. Year' after year the Eponym List has nothing to record but the phrase “in the country/’ meaning thereby that the king was in Assyria and not absent at the head of his armies. In 746 there was an uprising in the city of Calah. We know nothing of its origin or progress. But in it Ashur-nirari V disappears and the next year begins with a new dynasty. In the person of Ashur-nirari V ended the career of the great royal family which had ruled the fortunes of Assyria for centuries. CHAPTER VI THE REIGNS OF TIGLATHPILESER IV AND SHALMANESER V A marvelous change in Assyria was wrought by the rebellion of 746 B. C. Before it there reigned the last king of a dynasty which had made the kingdom great and its name feared from east to west. A degenerate son of a dis¬ tinguished line was he, and the power which had swept with a force almost resistless over mountain and valley was a useless thing in his hands. He remained in his royal city while the fairest provinces were taken away and added to the kingdom of Urartu, and while others boldly refused to pay tribute and defied his waning army. After 746 B. C. the As¬ syrian throne is occupied by a man whose very name before that time is so obscure and unworthy as to be discarded by its owner. We do not know the origin of this strange man, for in the pride of later years he never mentioned either father or mother, who were probably humble folk not dwelling in kings’ houses. He was perhaps an army commander; an officer who had led some part of the great¬ est standing army that the world had then 264 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA known. He may also have held a civil post as governor of some province or district. In his career that was now to begin he displayed both military and civil ability of such high order that we are almost driven to believe that he had been schooled by experience in both branches of effort. His reign was not very long, so that he probably gained the throne comparatively late in life, at a time when the power of adaptation is less strong than in youth, when the years of a man’s life are devoted rather to the display of powers already ac¬ quired than to the development of new ones. We do not know whether he set on foot the rebellion which dethroned Ashur-nirari V or merely turned to his own purposes an up¬ rising brought about by others. In either case he acted with decision, for he was crowned king in 745, the next year after the rebellion. He was well known as a man of resources and of severity, for no rebellion against him arose, and no pretender dared attempt to drive him from power. He spent no time in marching through the land to overawe possible opponents, but at once began operations outside the boundaries of the old kingdom. The Eponym List bears this significant notice against the year 745. “On the thirteenth day of the month Iyyar [April-May], Tiglathpileser took his seat on the throne. In the month of Tish- rit [September-October] he marched to the TIGLATHPILESER IV— SHALMANESER V 265 territory between the rivers.” That he should dare to leave his capital and his country imme¬ diately after his proclamation shows how sure he was of his own ability, and how confident that his personal popularity or his reputa¬ tion for severe discipline would maintain the peace. Whatever the name of his youth and manhood may have been, he was proclaimed under the name and style of Tiglathpileser, adopting as his own the name which had been made famous by the great Assyrian conqueror, whom he emulated in the number and success of his campaigns, and greatly surpassed in the permanency of the results obtained. The name of Tiglathpileser would undoubtedly strengthen him in the popular mind; for it is beyond question that in a land like Assyria, in which writing, even in the earliest times, was so constantly practiced, some acquaintance with the history of their kings was diffused among even the common people. He was jDlainly not a descendant of the kings who preceded him, or he would certainly have followed the usual custom of Assyrian kings and set down the names of his ancestors with all their titles. He alludes, indeed, to “the kings, my fathers,”1 but this is a boast without meaning when un¬ accompanied by the names. There is another proof of his humble origin to be found in the contemptuous treatment of 1 Annals, lines 19; clay tablet, line 26 (II R. 67). 2Gf> II f STORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA his monumental inscriptions by a later king. Tiglathpileser restored, for his occupancy, the great palace erected by Shalmaneser III in Calah. Upon the walls of its great rooms he set up slabs of stone upon which were beau¬ tifully engraved inscriptions recounting the cam¬ paigns of his reign. When Esarhaddon came to build his palace he stripped from the walls these great slabs of Tiglathpileser that he might use them for his own inscriptions. He caused his workmen to plane off their edges, so destroying both beginning and ending of some inscriptions, and purposed then to have his own records carved upon them. He died without entirely completing his purpose, or we should have been left almost without annalistic accounts of the events of the reign of Tiglath¬ pileser. Such treatment as this was never given to any royal inscriptions before, and we may justly see in it a slight upon the memory of the great plebeian king. Were it not for the vandalism of the king Esarhaddon we should be admirably supplied with historical material for the reign of Tiglath¬ pileser. He left behind him no less than three distinct classes of inscriptions.1 Of these the 1 The chief inscription material of the reign of Tiglathpileser IV is the following: (a) The Annals, badly defaced by Esarhaddon, the most legible portions of which are published by Layard, Inscriptions in the Cuneiform Char., plates 34a, etc., and afterward much more accurately by Paul Rost, Die Keilschrifttexte Tiglat-Pilesers III, vol. ii, plates i-xviii. He has also carefully arranged and translated them into Ger¬ man, ibid., i, pp. 2-41. (b) The Slabs of Nimroud, published first II — 2(17 which tile • of th .n ai, liar a - in of hi.-; insed; . * u. ha ; st ah preser- i * ( u * » • u t . i < ms of - Esai hadk i ■ ■ n . I - 1 ' « • >5 s , wr ■ frteii u pon i; \ : i Ca? 1 paign vation throvy : -ru 1 he second clay, give gi ou] km v an fitly/ -aftfiorii \ yd ;0 folded v»ifo b zo aol- • l ■BliyBeA lo 'gnid Yfty to,r^iai ?s$dA to iiobnorci b smRffloo Jl kokhl yfior/noofii si isdmun Sxff <68 .q Mht> bS .onSoIfiffiO .'Snosiiais. s • :s5pa^'«. B. C . that x* hpileser IV (74o~a2*p 1 - i t )bnoJ‘,:qa Ih-iKu' .! :u . ■ as the first year of the reign. In me inty-a y Layard, op.'iaf., plates : ;8, and iio«t, i. 'ia; 'xk-xr rdii. y : : BibL, ii, pp, 2-9, (c) The clay tablets are as follows: 1. British Muse K. 3751, published O R. 67, and Rest, ii, plates xxxv-xxvvtu, ;.nd . lie .ate of K ,. L, oy *>ft ' rt i 87 1», 'vo. iii, plate i a ,i accoaip in ag p.noto -.-ap . n . i > 1. . ripuons, .nich eon do. simply ii- of pi- < e. ■ n-j vied >. 2, and Rost, ii, plate xxvii, translated i, pp. iti h Mia ■-1J m, • > . 2649, It *et, i , pj a t.e Jtxiv, O., trar > 313- * ) > Portion of a clay tablet, 9f by 7 inches, with an inscription of Tiglathpileser IV, king of Assyria (745-727 B.C.), and generally known as the Nimroud tablet. It contains a mention of Ahaz, king of Judah, the first mention of Judah in the Assyrian inscriptions. British Museum, K. 3751. See Be- zold’s Catalogue II, page 561, and note that in the Guide to the Babylonian and Assyrian Antiquities, 2d edition, 1908, p. 59, the number is incorrectly given as K. 2751, so also in Mansell’s Catalogue, p. 13 [Photograph by W. A. Mansell & Co., London.] TIGLATHPILESER IY — SHALMANESER V 267 first class consist of the stone inscriptions, in which the events of the reign are narrated in chronological order. These, the most important of his inscriptions, are in a bad state of preser¬ vation through the mutilations of Esarhaddon. The second class of the inscriptions, written upon clay, give accounts of the king’s campaigns grouped in geographical order; while the third class, also on clay, give mere lists of the coun¬ tries conquered without details of any kind. If all this abundant material had been as carefully preserved as the inscriptions of Ashur- nazirpal, we should be able to present a clear view of the entire reign. As it is, questions of order sometimes arise which render difficult the setting forth of a consecutive narrative. It was in the month of Airu (Iyyar) 745 B. C. that Tiglathpileser IV (745-727) ascended the throne. As the year had but just begun, this was counted, contrary to the usual custom, as the first year of the reign. In the month by Layard, op. cit., plates 17, 18, and Rost, i, plates xxix-xxxiii. They are well translated by Rost, i, pp. 42-53, and by Schrader, Keilinschrift. Bibl., ii, pp. 2-9. (c) The clay tablets are as follows: 1. British Museum, K. 3751, published II R. 67, and Rost, ii, plates xxxv-xxxviii, and translated by him, i, pp. 54-77. 2. British Museum, DT. 3, a du¬ plicate of K. 3751, published by Schrader, Abh. Preuss. Ak. d. W., 1879, No. iii, plate i and accompanying photograph, and also by Rost, ii, plate xxxiv. There is an English translation of K. 3751 by S. Arthur Strong in Records of the Past, New Series, v, pp. 115, ff. (d) The smaller inscriptions, which contain simply lists of places conquered, are: 1. Ill R. 10, No. 2, and Rost, ii, plate xxvii, translated i, pp. 84, 85, and 2. British Museum, K. 2649, Rost, ii, plate xxiv, C., transliterated i, p. 86. Selections from his texts may be found in Rogers, Cuneiform Parallels, pp. 313-322. 268 HISTORY OT BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA of September he set out upon his first campaign, which was directed against Babylonia. In Babylonia there had also been dull days, while the Assyrian power was dwindling away. After Marduk-balatsu-iqbi there reigned Bau-akh- iddin, of whom later days seemed to have preserved no recollection save that he was probably a contemporary of Shamshi-Adad V. If monuments of his reign are still in existence, they are concealed in the yet unexplored mounds of his country. After him Babylonia had several kings whose names as well as their deeds are lost to us. If there had arisen in Babylonia at that time a king such as the land had seen before, a man of action and of courage, independence might probably have been achieved without a struggle. But instead of that the kingdom fell into fresh bondage. The nomadic Aramaeans, communities of whom had given so much trouble to the Assyrians, had invaded Babylonia from the south and taken possession of important cities like Sippar and Dur-Kurigalzu. So powerful and numerous were they that they threatened to engulf the country and blot out the civilization of Baby- loriia. After the loss of two or three names we come again upon the name of Nabu-shum- ishkun, who reigned, how .long we do not know, in this period of Babylonian decline. He was succeeded in 747 by Nabu-nasir, commonly known as Nabonassar (747-734 B. C.). Like TIGLATHPILESER IV— SHALMANESER V 269 his predecessors, he was unable to control the Aramaeans, and when Tiglathpileser IV entered the land he was acclaimed as a deliverer.1 The march of the new Assyrian king south¬ ward had been a continuous victory. He moved east of the Tigris along the foothills of the mountains of Elam, conquering several nomadic tribes such as the Puqudu and the Li ’tau. He then turned westward and attacked Sippar, overcoming its Aramaean intruders, and doing a like service to Dur-Kurigalzu. He marched south as far as Nippur and there turned about.2 By this campaign he had so thoroughly disciplined the Aramaean invaders and overcome all discordant elements that he was able to give a new order of government and life to the state. It is a striking commentary on the political and civil -ability of this extraordinary man that he was able to begin a new order of ad¬ ministration for subject territory in the first year of his reign, and as a part of his first cam¬ paign. He had reconquered Babylonia as far south as Nippur, for Babylonian and Assyrian control over it had practically been lost. He was not satisfied with the payment of a heavy tribute, but reorganized the whole government 1 Some Assyriologists (for example, Tiele, Geschichte, pp. 217, 218; Rost, Die Keilschrifttexte Tiglat-Pilesers III, i, pp. 13, 14) have held that Tiglathpileser was considered an enemy, but the expressions in his texts seem to me to point to a pacific reception. So also Hommel ( Geschichte , pp. 651, 652) and Winckler {Geschichte, pp. 121—123, 222, 223). 2 Annals, lines 1-25; clay tablet, 1-13. 270 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA of the territory. He first subdivided it into four provinces, placing Assyrian governors over them, and then built two cities as adminis¬ trative centers. The first of these was called Kar-Asshur, located near the Zab. The name of the second is not given in the Annals, but it was probably Dur-Tukulti-apal-esharra.* 1 These were made royal residences, each being provided with a palace for the king’s occupancy. The second was required to pay the great tribute of ten talents of gold and one thousand talents of silver. In each the king set up a monument, with his portrait as a sign of the dominion which he claimed, and in both, people from the other conquered districts were settled. This plan of planting colonies and of trans¬ porting captives from place to place had indeed been tried on a small scale by other Assyrian kings, but it had never been adopted as a fixed and settled policy. From this time onward we shall meet with it frequently. Tig- lathpileser IV consistently followed it during his whole reign, trying thereby to break down national feeling, and to sever local ties in order that the mighty empire which he founded might be in some measure homogeneous. When the Aramaean nomads had been over¬ come and the land had received its new order of government, the king offered sacrifices in 1 Compare Rost, Keilschrifttexte Tiglat-Pilesers III (Leipzig, 1893), i, p. 7, note 1. TIGLATHPILESER IV— SHALMANESER Y 271 Sippar, Nippur, Babylon, Borsippa, and in other less important cities, to Marduk, Bel, Nabu, and other gods. It was a fruitful year. Never before had the land of Babylonia been brought into such complete subjection to As¬ syria. Nabonassar was a king only in name; the real monarch lived in Calah. So small indeed is his influence from the Assyrian point of view that he is not even mentioned in Tig- lathpileser’s accounts of the campaign; he is simply ignored as though he was not. To such sad contempt had come a man who was nominally king of Babylon. Yet, though thus despised b}^ the Assyrian overlord, Nabonassar is still called king by the Babylonians, who held control of the national records. In them it is still his name, and not his conqueror’s, which stands in the honored list of Babylon’s rulers. Having thus left affairs in a safe condition in the south, Tiglathpileser IV next turned his attention to the troublous lands east of As¬ syria. We have already seen how frequently the Assyrian kings had to invade their terri¬ tory in order to collect the unwillingly paid tribute. The first of these lands to be invaded was Namri. The Assyrian people who lived along their own borders and hence close to Namri had suffered much from the incursions of half-barbaric hordes which swept down from the mountains and plundered their crops and 272 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA other possessions. These movements in and through Namri made up a situation similar to that which Tiglathpileser had just settled in Baby¬ lonia. The march through Namri and thence northward through Bit-Zatti, Bit-Abdadani, Ar- ziah, and other districts to Nishai was marked by ruins and burning heaps. But the entire cam¬ paign was not filled with works of ruin. The districts of Bit-Sumurzu and Bit-Khamban were added to the territory of Assyria and received the benefits of Assyrian government. The city of Nikur, which had been destroyed in the beginning of the campaign, was entirely re¬ built1 and resettled with colonists brought from other conquered lands. This became, there¬ fore, a center around which Assyrian influences might crystallize. The campaign was fruitful in definite results, as the expeditions of Ashur- nazirpal, seeking only plunder, never could be. The king did not personally enter the heart of Media, but sent an army under command of Ashur-dani-nani to punish the tribes south of the Caspian Sea; but to follow its marches is beyond our present geographical knowledge.2 A second expedition3 into Media was necessary in 737, when the process of settling colonists in troublesome districts was further carried out. No such control over Indo-European inhabitants of the mountain lands of Media 1 Annals, lines 36. 2 Annals, lines 26-58. 3 Annal, lines 157, ff. TIG LATI1 PILESER IV — SHALMANESER V 273 was, however, achieved as had been secured over the Semites of Babylonia, and Media remained practically independent and ready to give trouble to later Assyrian kings, and even to have an important share in the break¬ ing up of the monarchy which was now har¬ rying it. But if Tiglathpileser was confronted by a difficult situation in Babylonia and a more difficult one in Media, and the lands between it and Assyria, his difficulties may justly be said to have been colossal when one views the state of affairs in the north. As we have already seen, the weakness and decadence of Assyria after the reign of Shalmaneser III had given a great opportunity to Urartu, and kings of force and ability had arisen in the land to seize it. Of the kings of Urartu Argistis had taken from Assyria the hard- won lands of Daiaeni and Nirbi, and had overrun, plun¬ dering and burning the whole great territory lying north of Assyria proper, and as far east as Parsua, east of Lake Urumiyeh.1 Great though these conquests undoubtedly were, and dangerous as was the threat against Ass3^rian power, they were far surpassed in the reign of Sarduris III,2 who succeeded Ar¬ gistis, while Ashurdan III was impotently 1 See the great historical inscription of Argistis, translated by Sayce, Records of the Past, New Series, vol. iv, pp. 117, ff. 2 See Belck, V erhandlungen der Berliner (Jesellschaft fur Anthropologic, 1894, p. 486, 274 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA ruling in Assyria. Sarduris broke down and destroyed the whole circle of tribute-paying states dependent upon Assyria in the north. His conquests and annexations to the king¬ dom of Urartu or Chaldia continued in a westerly direction until he had overrun the most northern parts of Syria, comprising the territory north of the Taurus and west of the Euphrates. He even claimed the title of king of Suri — that is, of Syria. His next move was the formation of an alliance with Matilu of Agusi, Sulumal of Melid, Tarkhulara of Gur- gum, Kushtashpi of Kummukh, and with sev¬ eral other northern princes, among them probably Panammu of Sam’al and Pisiris of Carchemish. These princes probably did not give a willing ear to the solicitations of Sarduris III, as a neighboring friendly prince, for a defensive alliance against the encroachments of the powerful Assyrian kingdom, but were rather forced into such an alliance. Accompanied by these allies, whether of their own will or not, Sarduris marched against the west. The in¬ scriptions which have come down to us render it exceedingly difficult to follow perfectly the movements in this campaign, but the following is the probable order and meaning of them. At about the same time of Sarduris ’s march westward Tiglathpileser also invaded the west, directing his attack against? the city of Arpad — the real key of the northern part of Syria. TIGLATHPILESER IV— SHALMANESER Y 275 It had belonged to Assyria, as a tribute-paying state, but now actually formed part of the new kingdom of Urartu. If Tiglathpileser could restore it to his kingdom, he would make a long step forward in the restoration of As¬ syrian prestige in all the west. He besieged the city and could probably have reduced it. Sarduris did not come directly to its aid, but instead threatened Assyria itself, and so forced Tiglathpileser to raise the siege and return by forced marches. On his return he crossed the Euphrates, probably below Til-Rarsip, and then turned northward. The two armies met in the southeastern part of Kummukh between Kishtan and Khalpi, and Sarduris was routed, and to save his life fled on the back of a mare.1 A conqueror would have ridden from the field upon a prancing stallion, for to ride away on mare back was accounted a deep disgrace in the eyes of men of different races and for many centuries.2 Tiglathpileser pursued, destroying as he went the cities of Izzida, Ququsanshu, and Khar- bisina, until he reached the Euphrates north of Amid.3 Here the pursuit ended, for he did not cross the river, whether because he 1 Second Nimroud Tablet, lines 50, ff. 2 For the depth of this disgrace see Lehmann, Verhandlungen der Berliner Gesellschaft fur Anthropologie, 1896, p. 325, who there also compares Wilamovitz, Aristoteles und Athen, p. 50, note 1, and Kaibel, Stil und Text der Politeia Athenaion des Aristoteles , p. 138. 3 Annals, lines 59-73. See Rost, op. cit., i, pp. 12-15, and, for the parallel accounts, also pp. 50-53, and 66-69. 276 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA thought his purpose fully accomplished or be¬ cause his army was too weak for the venture we do not know. The result of this conflict was overpowering, and its direct consequences are to be seen in the next three campaigns. From Sarduris the Assyrians took a great mass of spoil in camp equipage and in costly stuffs and precious metals, together with a large number of cap¬ tives. In the enumeration of these trophies there is probably gross exaggeration, but there is no reason to doubt the truth of the main fact that a very great victory was won. The moral effect of it was far more important than all the gain in treasure. The allies of Sarduris at once sent presents and tribute to Tiglathpileser, and the entire Syrian country was once more opened to Assyrian invasion without fear of opposition from Urartu. There is a curious parallel in all this to the resistance offered by Damascus and its allies to Shal¬ maneser III.1 As soon as the alliance which Ben-Hadad II had formed lost its cohesiveness Syria was speedily ravaged by Shalmaneser.2 In the latter case a most promising alliance had been formed under the leadership of Sar¬ duris. If the selfish commercial interests of the Phoenicians could have been laid aside, and if the Syrian states had once more heartily 1 See above, pp. 229, ff. 2 See pp. 232, ff. TIGLATHPILESER IV— SHALMANESER V 277 united, the Assyrians would have been easily overcome and the west saved from all imme¬ diate danger of Assyrian invasion. But these petty unions, which dissolved after the striking of one blow, were more harmful than useful. By them the Assyrians were only maddened, and their natural thirst for booty and com¬ mercial expansion increased to a passion. The cities which participated in the alliances were ruthlessly destroyed in revenge, and fertile countries laid waste. In the next year (742 B. C.) Tiglathpileser, free, temporarily at least, from fear of inter¬ ference from Urartu,1 undertook the reduc¬ tion of Arpad. He could make no further gains in Syria until that city was overcome, for the rich cities along the Mediterranean could not be expected to fear the Assyrians and to pay tribute so long as a city smaller in size and nearer to Assyria held out against the eastern power. We know nothing of the details of the siege. It was prolonged in a most surprising fashion, for Arpad did not fall until 740. Our ignorance of the two years’ siege probably spares us the knowledge of 1 Sarduris was not strong enough to leave his mountain passes. His relation to all these attacks of the Assyrians has been finely treated in detail by Belck and Lehmann (“Chaldische Forschungen” in Ver- handlungen der Berl. anthrop. Gesell., 1895, pp. 325-336). It is to be noted that later these two scholars were moved to modify somewhat the too strong expressions here mentioned and to see that Sarduris was not destroyed, but biding his time and that his spirit survived in the defense of Arpad. ( Verhandlungen , etc., 1896, p. 326.) 278 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA barbarous scenes, of the slaughter of helpless women and children, of the flaying of men alive, and of the impaling of others on stakes about the city walls. It is not to be supposed that a city which had so long resisted the great god Ashur, and the king whom he had sent, would come off lightly. The fall of Arpad was the signal for the prompt appearance before Tiglathpileser of messengers from nearly all the neighboring states with presents of gold and silver, of ivory, and of purple robes. In the city of Arpad he received these gifts, and with them the homage of all the west, which would endure any amount of shame and ignominy, and desired oniy to be left alone. One state only sent no presents and offered no homage. Tutammu, king of Unqi, alone dared to resist Assyria. Unqi was at this time but a small state probably nearly coterminous with the state of Khattin, between the Afrin and the Orontes.1 Tiglathpileser at once in¬ vaded his country and took the capital, Kinalia, which was utterly destroyed. The defiant king was taken prisoner, and his little kingdom, provided with Assyrian governors,2 was made a part of the Assyrian empire which Tiglath¬ pileser was now forming. This little episode furnished a new point to the moral of Arpad - a 1 Compare Tompkins (Bab. and Orient. Record, iii, 6) for identification of Unqi with Amq, and see Rost ( Tiglathpileser , i, p. xxi, note 1) for the extent of Unqi. Compare also Schiffer, Die Aramder, pp. 60, 61. 2 Annals, lines 92-101. TIGLATHPILESER IY— SHALMANESER V 279 which would not be lost on the other states of Syria. The west had been severely punished and might be left to meditation for a time. In 739 Tiglathpileser set out to win back to Assyria a part of the lands of Nairi which had fallen under the control of Urartu. We have no accounts of the campaign, and know only that Ulluba and Kilkhi, two districts of Nairi, were taken. These were not plundered according to the former fashion, but actually incorporated with Assyria, and provided with an Assyrian governor, who made his residence in the lately built city of Asshur-iqisha. Another campaign against the same districts was made in 736 B. C. This carried the conquests up to Mount Nal, and so to the very borders of Urartu. It is perfectly clear that both these campaigns were but preparatory to an invasion of Urartu, which was plainly already planned and soon to be attempted. These two campaigns were meant only to weaken the southern defenses of Urartu. Perhaps the king, even in 739 or in 738, would have attempted to follow up the victories which he had gained but for the breaking out of rebellions in Syria and along the Phoenician coast. The whole development of Assyrian policy with reference to Syria and Palestine is so intensely interesting for many reasons that it is unfortunate that we are left with such fragmentary lines at the very point 280 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA in the Annals where the events of this im¬ portant year are narrated. We must again resort to conjecture for the defining of the order of events, though the main facts are clear enough. Among the princes and kings who formed a combination to refuse to pay Assyrian tribute and to resist its collection by force, if necessary, Azariah, of Ja’udi (Yaudi)1 seems to have been very influential, if not an actual leader exercising a sort of hegemony over the other states of Palestine and Syria. To support him the states of Hamath, Damascus, Kum- mukh, Tyre, Gebal, Que, Melid, Carchemish, Samaria, and others to the total number of nineteen had banded together. It was cer¬ tainly a most promising coalition. If the forces which these states were able to put into the field were brought together and beaten into warlike shape by a leader of men and a skillful soldier, there was good reason to hope 1 The name Azariah corresponds exactly with the name of Azariah, King of Judah (2 Kings xv, 1, 2), and the name “Ja’udi,” “Yaudi,” corresponds well with Judah. It was therefore quite natural, that, as they were contemporaneous, the King Azariah of these inscriptions should be accepted as the Azariah (Uzziah) of Judah; so Schrader argued ( Keilinschriften und Geschichtsforschung, pp. 395-421), and so scholars generally agreed, as I also did myself in former editions of this work (ii, pp. 119, ff.). It is now clear that this was incorrect. The land here referred to is a district of Sam’al (Zenjirli) of which Panammu was king, whose inscription, found at Zenjirli, repeatedly invokes the gods of Ja’udi ( Ausgrabungen in Sendschirli I, Mitteilungen aus den Orientalischen Sammlungen, Konigl. Museen zu Berlin, Heft xi, Berlin, 1893, pp. 64, 70). The credit of perceiving these facts belongs in the first instance to Winckler, Altorientalische Forschimgen /, p. i, Das Syrische Land Jaudi und der angebliche Azarja von Juda. TIGLATHPILESER IV— SHALMANESER V 281 for an annihilation of the army of Tiglath- pileser. There is no reason to doubt that Azariah was equal to the task, colossal though it was, if he had a loyal support from his allies, and if all would make common cause against their oppressor. We can only watch and see the end of effectual opposition to Assyria through the weakness of some members of this alliance. Tiglathpileser came west, and, pass¬ ing by the countries of some of the allies, started southward into Palestine. As soon as he entered Samaria, Menahem, the king, threw down his arms and paid to the Assyrians one thousand talents of silver as a token of his acknowledgment of subjection.1 We do not know all the reasons for this move. It may have been necessary in order to save the land from utter destruction if no assistance could be secured elsewhere. But it looks at this distance, and on the surface, like an act of cowardice and a betrayal of the oath of con¬ federation. The weakness or the blundering, or both, in all these western alliances becomes more evident in every successive campaign. It might well be supposed that the dread of national extinction which had been threatened in every successive Assyrian invasion would have overcome the weakness, and long use undone the blundering. On the payment of this tribute Tiglathpileser abandoned the at- 1 2 Kings xv, 19, 20. In this passage Tiglathpileser is called Pul. 282 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA tack on Israel and began to conquer, probably one by one, the districts which had joined in the union for defense. We have no full account of this overwhelming campaign. One city only, with the name of Kullani,1 is specifically men¬ tioned as being captured, though the extent of territory actually occupied was so extensive that many must have been taken. The whole country, from Unqi and Arpad on the one side and Damascus and the Lebanon on the other, and on to the Mediterranean coast, was added to Assyrian territory and provided with an Assyrian governor. In this territory the colonizing plans of Tiglathpileser were applied on an extensive scale. Into it thirty thousand colonists were brought from the lands of Ulluba and Kilkhi, conquered in 739, while thousands were carried out of it to supply the places left vacant by the exiles. When Tiglathpileser turned his face homeward he carried with him a heavy treasure, in which were mingled the tributes of Kushtashpi of Kummukh, Rezin of Damascus, Menahem of Samaria, Jehoahaz of Judah, Sibittibi’li of Gebal, Urikki of Que, Pisiris of Carchemish, Enilu of Hamath, Panammu of Sam’al, Tarkhulara of Gurgum, Sulumal of Melid, Dadilu of Kask, Uassurme of Tabal, 1 The modern Kullanhou, Ideated about six miles from Tell Arfad (Arpad). It appears in Isa. x, 9 in the form Calno and in Amos vi, 2 is called Calneh. See Gray ( Isaiah , International Critical Commen¬ tary) and Driver ( Joel and Amos, Cambridge Bible for Schools) on the passages. TIGLATHPILESER IV— SHALMANESER Y 283 Ushkhitti of Tuna, Urballa of Tukhan, Tuk- hammi of Ishtunda, Urimmi of Khubishna,1 and of Queen Zabibi of Arabia. It is a roll not of honor, but of dishonor, and Azariah might well have been proud that his name does not appear upon it. Capacity and courage, with some national spirit and patriotism, in even a few of these might have saved the country, or at least postponed the evil day of its undoing. While these events were happening in the west the policy of Tiglathpileser was receiving- in the east signal proofs of its wisdom. Among the Aramaeans east of the Tigris certain com¬ munities rose in rebellion against Assyria. Un¬ der the old regime such an uprising near the capital would have caused the liveliest concern. The king would have hurried home from his labors in the west and himself have quelled the rebellion. But Tiglathpileser had provided the rudiments of a system of provincial government. We have already seen how ready he was at the very beginning of his reign to set up pro¬ vincial governors with powers of administra¬ tion over certain definite districts, and with force sufficient to maintain order. They were now responsible for the maintenance of the portion of the empire under their immediate control, and well they knew that they would 1 These, and others, are all enumerated on the Nimroud Tablet (II R. 67), lines 57-63. Transliterated and translated anew in Rogers, Cuneiform Parallels, p. 322. 284 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA be held to a strict accounting for their work. On the old method perhaps all that he had gained in the west would have been lost and all the work would have had to be begun again. In this instance, however, the Assyrian govern¬ ors of Lullume and of Nairi, at the heads of armies, invaded the rebellious district and put down the uprising with the utmost severity. When this was accomplished there was another display of colonizing activity on a colossal scale. From these turbulent districts men were deported and settled at Kinalia, the cap¬ ital of Unqi, while others were settled in various parts of the new province of Syria.1 In 735 the time had fully come for the effort to break down the kingdom of Urartu (Chaldia). We have seen how carefully this campaign was planned, and how Tiglathpileser worked up to it. Unfortunately the Annals are not pre¬ served in which the story of the campaign was told, and we must rely again upon the looser statements of his other inscriptions. With very little opposition Tiglathpileser pen¬ etrated the country up to the gates of the capital city, Turuspa (Van). Here the people of Urartu struck a blow, but were defeated and forced to withdraw within the walls. Tiglathpileser began a siege, but could not reduce the city because he had no navy with which to attack or blockade on the lake side, 1 Annals, lines 134-15U. TIGLATHPILESER IY— SHALMANESER V 285 and so could not starve it into submission. It was also so well fortified on the land side that he was unable to carry it by assault. While engaged in the siege he sent an army through the country, which made its way as far as Mount Birdashu, the location of which is not known. This expedition destroyed a number of cities on the Euphrates and plundered the inhabitants. After some ineffectual fighting about the capital Tiglathpileser raised the siege and de¬ parted. He had not succeeded in adding the kingdom of Urartu to Assyria, but he had broken its spirit, and we hear no more of its power and defiance for some years. The gain to Tiglathpileser by the campaign was the removing of all danger of a flank movement from the north when he was engaged in carry¬ ing out his plans in the west, where his work was still unfinished. In 734 we find him again on the shores of the Mediterranean, having probably crossed the plains of Syria near Damascus and go’ne straight to the coast, which he followed southward. He had no fear of an attack in the rear from Tyre and Sidon, busily absorbed in sending out their merchant ships. It appears probable that the first city attacked was Ashdod or Ekron, which was easily taken, and then Gaza was approached. The king of Gaza at this time was Hanno (Khanunu), who had no desire to meet the 286 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA Assyrian conqueror, and therefore fled to Egypt, leaving the city to stand if it were attacked. He hoped to secure the help of the Egyptians in opposing the Assyrian advance. Again selfishness interfered with the placing of a stone in the way of Assyrian progress. If the Egyptians had had any wise conception of the situation in western Asia at this period, they would have seen that the very highest self-interest demanded the giving of help to the weak city of Gaza. Gaza was the last fortified city on the way to Egypt from the north. It would serve well as a place for the defense of the Egyptian borders, for who could say, after the events of the past few years, when Tiglathpileser IV would plan to attack Egypt? Indeed, who could say that this man, who planned so far in advance of events, had not already purposed an invasion of the land of the Nile? One by .one the coali¬ tions formed against him in Syria had been broken down. A wise policy in Egypt would have aided these combinations in order to keep a buffer state, or a series of them, between Egypt and the ever-widening power of Assyria. It was too late for that. All but Judah were paying a regular tribute to Assyria. The last outpost on the coast — the city of Gaza — was now threatened. It was surely well to make a stand here, and it would probably have been easy to inspire in Judah, or even in Damascus TIGLATHPILESER IY— SHALMANESER V 287 and Hamath, the enthusiasm for another at¬ tempt against the Assyrians. But Gaza was foolishly left to its fate, and that was easy to foresee. The city was taken ; its goods and its gods were taken away to Assyria. In its royal palace Tiglathpileser set up his throne and his image in stone in token of another land added to Assyria. A native prince was appointed as a puppet king, whose chief con¬ cern must have been the collection of the heav}^ annual tribute for Assyria. The wor¬ ship of the god Ashur was introduced along with that of the other gods native to the place.1 One only of the methods of Tiglathpileser for the engrafting of a new state into his empire seems not to have been exhibited — there was no colonization. The capture of Gaza seems but a small result for the campaigns of a year, for the taking of Ashkelon and Ekron, with places like Ri’raba, Ri’sisu, Gal’za, and Abil- akka, can scarcely be counted as of much moment. In reality, however, the place was a very important outpost for Assyria. It would have been important for Egypt in the cause of defense, it was no less important for Assyria in the cause of offense, and we shall see shortly that it was thus used, and very effectively. Tiglathpileser had now disposed of the sea- 1 The inscription material for this campaign is badly preserved. The chief source is III It. No. 2, lines 8-11. See, for valuable dis¬ cussion of the order of the campaign, Rost, Tvjlathpileser, i, pp. xxviii, ff. 288 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA coast and would be ready and free to attend to the reduction of the inland hill country of Palestine, which he had long been coveting. His plans had been well laid, and thus far admirably executed. He might safely have hoped for complete success as the direct result of his own prudence and skill, and without external assistance of any kind. But assist¬ ance he was to have through the tactless blun¬ dering of those who ought to have opposed him. Affairs were now in a very different state in Palestine and in Syria from that in which they had been when his last attempt had been made, when Azariah, king of Yaudi, had offered a manly and most promising re¬ sistance. Uzziah, king of Judah, had died in 736, and his son, Jotham, had ruled only two pitiful years and then left a weakened king¬ dom to Ahaz, who was only a boy when he ascended the throne. It would have been no difficult task for Pekah, king of Samaria, and Rezin, king of Damascus, to show him the need of a new alliance against Assyria. We have paused often before over these diminishing opportunities for union against As¬ syria. It is well for the entire understanding of the situation that we pause again at this point. Ahaz was a weakling — of that the sequel leaves no doubt whatever; but he was also stiff-necked and unwilling to take counsel, TIGLATHPILESER IV— SHALMANESER V 289 however excellent. The wisdom of the prophet Isaiah, who was also an acute statesman, was lost on him. But in the nature of the case a man who, like him, gave little heed to the religion of Jehovah would be less likely to listen to a prophet’s words than to the words of foreign kings. His introduction of the man¬ ners, customs, and worship of foreign nations shows howT open he was to outside influences.1 Coward though he was personally, he was king of a land with great resources for de¬ fensive war, as had been sufficiently shown. The way was again open for alliances which should include at least Damascus, Israel, and Judah. But the people of Damascus and of Israel were blind to all these opportunities, and saw only an opportunity for present per¬ sonal gain, Menahem was dead, or his pre¬ vious experience with Tiglathpileser might have restrained his people from folly. His son, Pekahiah, was also dead, after a reign of only two years, and a usurper, Pekah, was on the throne in Samaria. Rezin still reigned in Damascus. These two saw in the youth and inexperience of Ahaz a chance for revenge upon Judah and the enrichment of their own king¬ doms. They united their forces and invaded Judah. So began the Syro-Ephraimitic war. They marched apparently south on the east 1 2 Kings xvi, 10, and compare 2 Kings xxiii, 12. (There is a textual difficulty in the latter passage. See Benzinger, Commentary on the verse. Compare also Skinner, Barnes and Burney.) 290 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA side of Jordan, and first took Elath,1 which Uzziah had added to the kingdom of Judah, and so greatly increased its commercial pros¬ perity. From Elath they went northward, in¬ tending to attack Jerusalem itself and overcome Judah at the very center. The situation was a terrible one for Ahaz. He would never be able to hold out single- handed against such foes. To whom should he turn for help? There was no help in Egypt, for Egypt had not extended help to Hanno, and was now absorbed in a life-and-death struggle with Ethiopia. There was an Assyrian party at his court which urged him to lean upon Tiglathpileser. His wisest counselor was Isaiah, but Isaiah he would not hear, and so he sent an embassy to meet Tiglathpileser and sue for help against the Syro-Ephraimitic combination. To get the necessary gifts for the winning of favor he stripped the temple and emptied his own treasure-house.2 We do not know where the embassy met the Assyrian, though it was probably at some point in Syria. The gifts were presented, and Tiglathpileser at once promised his help to Ahaz. It is a marvel¬ ous story of blindness, folly, and mismanage¬ ment on the one side and of almost fiendish wisdom and cunning on the other. All these plans of Damascus and Israel to plunder and 1 2 Kings xvi, 6. 2 2 Kings xvi, 7,ff. TIGLATHPILESER IV— SHALMANESER V 291 divide Judah had played into the hands of Assyria. As soon as Tiglathpileser offered his first threat against Damascus and Israel the two allies left Judah and went northward. The danger to Jerusalem was therefore ended for the time, but the trouble for the rest of the country was only begun. The troops of Damascus and Israel were not withdrawn from Judah in order to oppose Tiglathpileser with united front, but each army withdrew into its own territory, there to await the pleasure of Tiglathpileser. He decided to attack Sa¬ maria first, and in 733 the attempt was made. Tiglathpileser came down the seacoast past the tributary states of Tyre and Sidon, and turned into the plain of Esdraelon above Carmel. His own accounts fail us at this point, but the biblical narrative fills up the gap by the statement that he took Ijon, Abel-Beth-Ma’aka, Janoah, Qedesh, and Hazor, together with Gilead, Galilee, and the whole land of Naph- tali.1 It might be expected that he would now attack Samaria itself and perhaps slay the king. He was relieved of this by a party of assassins who slew Pekah, and then pre¬ sented Hoshea to be made king in his place and to be subject to him.2 1 2 Kings xv, 29. 2 2 Kings xv, 30. Tiglathpileser ’s own brief reference to the matter is in these words: “As Pekah, their king, they had deposed, Hosea I established as king over them. Ten talents of gold . . . talents of silver I received as a present from them.” Small Ins. I, lines 17, ff. (Ill R. 10, No. 2). Rogers, Cuneiform Parallels, p. 321. 292 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA This completed the subjection of Israel, and Tiglathpileser was now able to turn to the far greater task of overcoming Damascus. Rezin was not discomfited by the conquest of Israel, and trusted that the army of Damascus, which had so glorious a record of bravery and vic¬ tory, might triumph again. He met Tiglath¬ pileser on the field of battle and was defeated, escaping very narrowly himself. The only thing that remained was to shut himself up in Damascus and withstand the siege if possible. He was soon beleaguered, with the most terri¬ ble devastation of the entire country about Damascus. Tiglathpileser boasts that he de¬ stroyed at this time five hundred and ninety- one cities, whose inhabitants, numbering thou¬ sands, were carried away, with all their possessions, to Assyria. At about the same time, and very probably during the progress of the tedious siege, Tiglathpileser sent an army into northern Arabia. A queen of Arabia, Zabibi, had paid him tribute in 738, but since then we have no hint that he received anything more. Samsi was now queen, and she refused to pay any tribute and retired before the army, attempting to entice the Assyrians into the heart of the country. When at last she was overtaken and forced to fight the As¬ syrians were victorious; Samsi was conquered and plundered of vast numbers of camels and oxen. An Assyrian governor was then left to TIGLATHPILESER IV— SHALMANESER V 293 watch her payment of tribute, though she was permitted to manage her own kingdom as she willed. The effect of this victory was almost magical. From nearly the entire land of Arabia even as far south as the kingdom of the Sabseans deputations came bearing costly gifts for Tiglathpileser. This expedition pro¬ duced little of permanent value for the Assyrian empire, but was for the time, at least, a means of adding to the imperial income. At the same time tribute was received from Ash- kelon, as a sign that that hardy little state desired good relations with the conqueror. At length, about the end of 732, Damascus fell into the hands of Tiglathpileser IV, and the last hope of the west was gone. Rezin was killed by his conqueror.1 Tiglathpileser set up his throne in the city which had so long and so bravely, although with so much unwisdom, withstood him and his predecessors. Well might he make merry within its walls, and receive royal honors and imperial homage at the end of so long and bitter a struggle. Ahaz of Judah came and visited him there, paying honor to the foreign conqueror who had indeed saved him from Syria and Israel, but whose people could never rest satisfied while Judah was only a tribute-paying dependency and not actually a part of the empire. It is prob- 1 2 Kings xvi, 9. A broken tablet alluding to the death of Rezin was discovered by Sir Henry Rawlinson (“Assyrian Discovery,” Athenaeum , 1862, ii, p. 246), but it has since disappeared. 294 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA able that other princes also paid him honor here, as they had done before. Tiglathpileser had no need to invade the west again. He had carried the borders of Assyria far beyond any of his predecessors in that direction. By his colonizing methods he had begun the assimila¬ tion of divers populations into one common whole. He had extended the field of operations for Assyrian commerce all the way across Mesopotamia and Syria to the Phoenician cities. Had his people been native to the seacoast, he might have undertaken to snatch the com¬ merce of the Mediterranean. But there was no need for that in his time. Some problems and difficulties must be left for the future to solve. While this long series of campaigns was in progress in the west Babylonia was first peace¬ ful and then disturbed. In one sense the Assyrian protectorate, while it oppressed the native sense of dignity and independence, was a great blessing. It delivered the people from the need of a great standing army, and gave them a sense of security without it. The reign of Nabonassar was an age of literary activity, especially manifested in the study of history and chronology, and the leisure for such study was won by Assyrian arms. In estimating the reign of Tiglathpileser this must not be left out of the account. With the end of the reign of Nabonassar, TIGLATHPI LESEH IV— SHALMANESER V 295 in 733, the period of peace abruptly closed, .if, indeed, there had not been disturbances before that time. He was succeeded by his son, Nabu- nadinzer (733-732), who was slain by a usurper, Nabu-shum-ukin II, in the second year of his reign. It was at this time that Tiglath- pileser was most deeply absorbed in delicate and difficult operations in the west. It was impossible for him to leave to other hands the conduct of the siege of Damascus, or the di¬ rection of the important, though subsidiary, expeditions in Palestine and Arabia. For a season Babylonia must be left to its own re¬ sources; which offered an opportunity to the traditional enemies of Babylonia, the Chaldeans, or Aramaeans. The union of tribes made a successful attack on the country when Nabu- shum-ukin had reigned only about one month. Nabu-shum-ukin was deposed, and in his place Ukinzer (Nabu-mukin-zer), a Chaldean prince of the state of Bit-Amukkani, was made king. This was in 732, and Tiglathpileser was still in camp before Damascus. With the accession of Ukinzer, Babylonian unrest almost became a frenzy. There was a traditional hatred of the Chal¬ deans, and they were now masters in the land, and their hand was not light in ruling. It is therefore not surprising that the priests, who were great landed proprietors, and the wealthier classes in general, who were despoiled of property by their new and hungry rulers, 296 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA should have longed for the intervention of Tiglathpileser. Weary of the constant dis¬ turbances in the south, he decided to invade the land in 731, and make an end of the dis¬ turbances by giving to the people a new form of government with more perfect supervision. In his progress through the land he met first with the tribe of Silani, whose king, Nabu- ushabshi, shut himself up in his capital, Sarrabani. The Assyrians took the city and destroyed it. Nabu-ushabshi was impaled in front of it as a warning to rebels, while his wife, his children, and his gods, with fifty-five thousand people, were carried into captivity.1 The cities of Tarbasu and Yabullu were next utterly wasted, and thirty thousand of their inhabitants, with all their possessions, were carried away. The next victim in this bitter campaign was Zakiru, of the tribe of Sha’alli, who was carried in chains to Assyria, while his whole land was laid waste as though a storm of wind and wave had passed over it.2 The way was now open for an attack upon the real object of the expedition. Ukinzer had left Babylon and fled to the confines of his own tribe of Amukkani, where he shut himself up in his old capital of Sapia. If 'Tig¬ lathpileser expected him to surrender on de¬ mand, he was mistaken. Ukinzer prepared 1 II R. 67, lines 15-17. 2 Ibid., lines 19-22. TIGLATHPILESER IV— SHALMANESER V 297 for a siege. The season was now probably late, as much time had been spent on the pre¬ liminary conquests, and there was not time to reduce the city by regular siege. Tiglathpileser therefore contented himself for this year with destroying the palm gardens about the city, leaving not one tree standing, and with wasting all the smaller cities and villages in the environs.1 While this process of pacification was going on, other Chaldean princes were filled with fear lest their punishment should come next, and began to take steps to set themselves right with Tiglathpileser. Of these Balasu (Belesys), the chief of the Dakkuri, sent gold, silver, and precious stones, as did also Nadin of Larak. But the most important of these was Merodach-baladan, of the tribe of Yakin, king of the country of the Sea Lands, close to the Persian Gulf. He had never before given any form of submission to any Assyrian king, but now came, apparently in person, to Sapia and presented an immense gift of gold, precious stones, choice woods, embroidered robes, together with cattle and sheep.2 Great though his submission was, the end was not yet with the family of Merodach-baladan. In the year 730 there are no events to record, but in 729 Tiglathpileser was again in Baby¬ lonia, and this time was able to take the strong- 1 Ibid., lines 22-25. 2 II R. 67, lines 26-28. 298 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA hold of Sapia. Ukinzer was deposed, and the unrest of Babylonia was terminated. And now the plans which Tiglathpileser must have made years before could be fully carried out. He was determined to make an end of the ruling of Babylonia by native princes and instead govern it himself directly by making himself king. He instituted festivals in the principal Babylonian cities in honor of the great gods. In Babylon he offered sacrifices to Marduk, at Borsippa to Nabu, at Kutha to Nergal; while other offerings less magnificent were made in Kish, Nippur, Ur, and Sippar. He then, in Babylon, performed the great ceremony of taking the hands of Marduk.1 By this act he was received as the son of the god and as the legitimate king of Babylon. On New Year’s Day of the year 729 he was proclaimed king in the ancient city of Hammurapi. At Babylon he was crowned under the name of Pulu (Poros in the Ptolemaic canon), but. whether he had borne this name before or had now adopted it in order that by change of name the Babylonians might be spared living under the name of Tiglathpileser — an Assyrian conqueror — is not known to us. This move of accepting the crown of Babylon had a great advantage and an equally great dis¬ advantage. It would act as an effectual bar 1 Eponym Canon. See Keilinschrift. Bibl., i, pp. 214, 215. Rogers, Cuneiform Parallels , p. 236. The last Assyrian king who had taken the hands of Marduk was Tukulti-Ninib, about 1290 B. C. TIGLATHPILESER IY— SHALMANESER Y 299 to the Chaldeans, who would not dare another outbreak while the Assyrian king was king of Babylon, with his overpowering military forces in or about the city or within easy reach. On the other hand, this crowning involved a very great difficulty. It must be renewed every year; every year must the hands of Marduk be taken. This might almost be impossible, for if there was a great insurrection at any point in the king’s dominions, he would have to leave the seat of war at the time appointed and hasten to Babylon for the performance of the symbolic rite. It was not possible to transfer the capital of the empire to Babylon, for the Assyrians would have felt themselves dishonored by any such plan. Tiglathpileser must have felt sure of the stability of the empire and of the peace which he had won by the sword, or he would never have taken upon himself the burden of the crown of Baby- Ion. In the next year, 728, he again performed the required rites and was again proclaimed king in Babylon. He had reached the very summit of the earthly magnificence of his age, and attained the goal coveted by the kings of Assyria before him. tie was not only king of Sumer and Accad, but also king of Baby¬ lon. We have no knowledge of any other im¬ portant events in his reign. It was almost wholly a reign of war and conquest. We know 300 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA of only one building operation, the reconstruc¬ tion and improvement in Hittite style of the palace in Calah, which he occupied during most of his life, and which had been built by Shalmaneser III. In the month of Tebet of the year 727 the great king died.1 It is difficult to estimate calmly and ju¬ diciously his reign or his character. He had come to the throne out of a rebellion. He found himself in possession of a small kingdom with tribute-paying dependencies, many in a state of unrest or of open rebellion. The name of Assyria had been made a dread and a terror among the nations by raids of almost unexampled butchery and destructiveness, but it was now feared as before. Weak kings had been unable to hold together the fragile fabric which kings great in war, though not in administration, had built up. He made this small kingdom a unit, freeing it entirely from all semblance of rebellion or insurrection. He reconquered the tribute-paying countries, and then, by a master stroke of policy, but weakly attempted in certain places before, he made them integral parts of an empire. In every true sense he was the creator of the Assyrian empire out of a kingdom and a few depend¬ encies. He made Assyria a world power, knitting province to province by unparalleled 1 Babylonian Chronicle, col. i, line 24; Keilinschrift. Bibl., ii, pp. 276, 277. TIGLATHPILESER IV— SHALMANESER V 301 colonizing, and transforming local into imperial sentiment. No king like him even in war had arisen in Assyria before, and in organiza¬ tion and administration he so far excelled them all as to be beyond comparison. In an inscription written the year before his death he sums up the record of his empire building by the declaration that he ruled from the Persian Gulf in the south to Bikni in the east, and along the sea of the setting sun unto Egypt, and exhibits the same extent of terri¬ tory in the titles which he wears, for he was then king of Kishshati, king of Assyria, king of Babylon, king of Sumer and Accad, king of the Four Quarters of the Earth. In him were thus united the titles which carried back the thought of man to the very earliest centers of civilization in the southland, to the kingdoms which had been made great by Gudea and Hammurapi, along with those which were linked with all the story of the north. In the face of a record like this none may grudge him the titles of “great king” and “powerful king.” The usurper had far outstripped men born to the purple. In the very month1 in which Tiglathpileser IV died he was succeeded by Shalmaneser V, who, if not his son, must have been his legal heir to the succession, or the change could not have been so quickly made. No historical 1 Babylonian Chronicle, i, 27. 302 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA inscriptions1 of his reign have come down to us, and we have, therefore, very imperfect knowledge of its events, especially as the Eponym List, which has so often before helped us to make out the order of events in the reigns, is broken off at this place. The Babylonian Chronicle sets down in the year of his accession, that is, in 727, the destruction of a city, Sha- mara’in or Shabara’in, the biblical Sibraim,2 located between Hamath and Damascus. If this be true, we may well ask what had brought Shalmaneser so quickly after his succession into the western country. Unfortunately we do not possess his version of the story, and must derive our knowledge from his enemies, among whom the Hebrews have left us an explicit and convincing account of his chief movements. It will be necessary before proceeding further with the narrative of Shalmaneser’s movements to fasten attention for a time upon the lands of Palestine and Egypt. When Hoshea became king of Samaria in 733-2, during the reign of Tiglathpileser IV, he accepted the post as a subject of the Assyrian monarch, and was bound in every possible way to maintain peace. 1 The only records of the reign are, 1. A weight with the king’s name and legend in Assyrian and Aramaean, published by Norris in the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, xvi (1856), p. 220, No. 5. Translations are given in Schrader, Cuneiform Ins. and the O. T., i, 127, ff., and by the same in Keilinschrift. Bibl., ii, p. 33. 2. A contract tablet in the British Museum (Iv. 407), translated by Peiser, Keilinschrift. Bibl., iii, p. 109, 3. 2 Ezek. xlvii, 16. Halevy would identify Sibraim with the biblical Sepharvaim. TIGLATHPILESER IV— SHALMANESER V 303 There is no reason to doubt that he remained faithful to Tiglathpileser till the great monarch died. When the change of rulers came in Assyria we may also look for disturbances among the subject states. We have learned from frequent instances that the western states accepted the domination of Assyria only at the point of the sword. They hated the con¬ quering destructive monarchs, and yielded only when they were crushed. We have also learned that the populations subject to Assyria were always hoping for an opportunity to free them¬ selves from the galling yoke, and we have seen in several instances that they commonly chose as an opportunity the change of rulers in Assyria. But Tiglathpileser IV had intro¬ duced a new sort of conquest and an entirely new form of administrative policy, and it was not to be expected that the opportunity for rebellion would be so great at the end of his reign as it had been before. His conquests were less destructive, less bloody, than those, for example, of Ashurnazirpal, and hence the wounds which they made in the sensibilities of a people were less deep and angry. But further and more important than this, he not only conquered, he ruled. Provinces were not plundered and then, after being commanded to pay an annual tribute, left to themselves. They were provided with Assyrian governors, who could watch every movement of the sub- 304 HISTOEY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA ject populations, and so scent the very first sign of rebellion or of conspiracy looking to it. When any people had been so conquered and so administered during a king’s reign they were not able easily to make a confederation when his death occurred. This was a very different situation from that which tribute¬ paying states had previously known. If re¬ bellions at the change of kings were now gen¬ erally less likely to occur, still more were they unlikely in Palestine, and of the land of Palestine they were in no country so improbable as in Israel. For by far the larger and better part of the kingdom was absolutely administered and ruled by Assyrians, and in part populated by colonists. The kingdom, which was per¬ mitted to retain the semblance of autonomy, extended but a short distance around the capital city. There was no inherent likelihood of any outbreak in Samaria, or any effort to win back again the old independence, when Tiglathpileser IV died, and in the selfsame month Shalmaneser V succeeded him. But there was another land in the west in which great changes had come and new aspira¬ tions, along with new fears, had arisen. In Egypt during all this period of rack and ruin in Western Asia, there were also troublous and unsettled conditions. In that land, which once had known internal peace and prosperity, and external glory and dominion even to the TIGLATHPILESER 1Y— SHALMANESER V 305 Euphrates, there had long been no adequate central government, and the kings who bore more or less extended rule within its borders showed no reverence for the past, while they were unable to govern the present. Sheshonk III even broke into pieces the imposing colossus of Rameses II at Tanis to use it in the con¬ struction of his new pylon.1 In 745 the Twenty- second Dynasty ended with Sheshonk IV, who had kept some sort of hold upon both Thebes and Memphis until his end. When he was gone the land knew little but internal dissen¬ sion, with local dynasts struggling one against another for national supremacy. The Twenty- third Dynasty began with Pedibast, ruling according to Manetho from Tanis, but belonging by name to Bubastis, who held some sort of sway far into the south, encompassing even Thebes in his dominion. During the latter part of his reign he had to share with Yewepet, a dynast from the eastern Delta, part at least of the control. As these dynasts and their successors or contemporaries sought by any means to prevail each over other, there was no more easy way of reconciling Egypt to one than some movement against the common foe of all the west, or a campaign to recover the long lost Asiatic provinces. As we have seen above, it was altogether improbable that Israel would dare single-handed 1 Breasted, History of Egypt, p. 535. 306 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA to break faith with the Assyrians, but if there was some hope of aid from the Egyptians, the case was altogether different. The people of Israel could not be expected to know fully the internal affairs of Egypt so as to under¬ stand the essential weakness of the country as an ally. They might well be acquainted with the glorious history of Egypt, with its great conquests and successful wars in the past. They could hardly, on the other hand, be expected to know of the weakness of the country at present, of the unsettled strife be¬ tween the dynasts; of the local jealousies and petty provincial strifes; of official corruption; and of the insolent avarice of the priestly class. Instead of Egypt’s being an important and valuable ally it was in reality a very weak one, and a little later may be shown to be a cause of weakness rather than strength to her Syrian allies. None of these things were apparently known to Hoshea. Induced by some repre¬ sentations made to him, or through the direct holding out of the Egyptian hand, he sent messengers to Sibe,1 who was probably one 1 In the Massoretic text of 2 Kings xvii, 4, the ally of Hoshea is called So (NiD)> but the word ought probably be punctuated Sewe (NlD)- In the inscriptions of Sargon he is called Shabi, and was formerly iden¬ tified with Shabaka (so Oppert and Rawlinson). Stade was the first to suggest that he was one of the Delta kings, and Winckler ( Unter - suchungen, pp. 92-94, 106-108) produced strong arguments in its favor. He has, however, latterly changed his mind and considers him a general of the north Arabian land of Musri ( Mittheilungen der Vorderas. Gesell., 1898, i, p. 5). The argument seems to me insufficient. Winckler’s suggestions concerning Musri are exceedingly fruitful, and many are TIGLATHPILESEK IY— SHALMANESER V 307 of the dynasts in the Delta, though his name has not been preserved for us in his own coun¬ try. With him some sort of alliance was made, and Hoshea now felt strong enough to omit the payment of the annual tribute to Assyria, which he had paid “year upon year.” This implies that he had paid it at least two years before it was omitted — that is, in 727 and 726. Now it has already appeared that Shal¬ maneser V was in Syria, or at least an army of his, in the accession year, 727. A natural way of paying the tribute, and a very common one, was to the Assyrian army when it was near at hand. This Hoshea seems to have done in 727, and again in 726. In 725, rely¬ ing on the help of Egypt, he rebelled and re¬ fused the annual payment of tribute. At once Shalmaneser V invades Samaria with an army to reduce this incipient fire of rebellion, which, uncontrolled, might involve the whole of his valuable Syrian possessions in flames. Hoshea was altogether disappointed in his expectation of help from Egypt and was left to meet his fate alone. The reserve of the biblical sources has told us nothing of the efforts of Hoshea against the forces of the Assyrians. From the order of the narrative we are probably justified in the inference that probably correct, but he has carried the matter too far in attempting to eliminate Egypt almost entirely and supplant it with Musri. 308 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA he left his capital with an army to meet the advance of the forces of Shalmaneser. He was, however, overwhelmed, captured, and prob¬ ably taken to Assyria. Shalmaneser had now an open way to the city of Samaria, which he had determined to destroy as the penalty for its rebellion. The execution of this plan was not so easy as the conquest and capture of the king. Samaria prepared for a siege. There is something heroic in the very thought. It was surrounded and hemmed in by territory over which it had once ruled in undisputed sway, but which had long been controlled by Assyrian governors and filled with Assyrian colonists. As Shalmaneser advanced closer he would, of course, destroy and lay waste every¬ thing about the city which might have fur¬ nished any aid or comfort to ‘it. From the villages and towns thus destroyed the people would flock into the capital until it was crowded. The people of Samaria may have hoped for help from Egypt, watching with sick hearts for signs of an approaching army of succor. They knew what surrender meant in the loss of their city, and in probable deportation to strange lands. They were fighting to the bitter end for homes and for life. So they resisted — and the story is amazing— for three long years.1 The king of Assyria died, and still Samaria held out, and would not sur- 1 2 Kings xviii, 9, 10, TIGLATHPILESER IV— SHALMANESER V 309 render. It makes one think what might have been if there had been such courage in Israel in the days of Menahem. Shalmaneser died in 722 and left Samaria unconquered, and hence all Syria in jeopardy to his successor. If a weak man should take his place now, all that had been won by Tiglathpileser might be lost. We have no further knowledge of any events in the reign of Shalmaneser V. It is true that Josephus1 has preserved an account of an expedition of his against Tyre, which he had taken from Menander. According to his story a certain Elulseus, king of Tyre, had rebelled, and Shalmaneser came to besiege the city. He was, however, unable to reduce it after a five years’ siege. We have no allusion to any such siege in any of the inscription material which we possess, and it is altogether probable that Josephus has made a mistake and ascribed to Shalmaneser a siege of Tyre which was really made by Sennacherib. If he had really besieged Tyre and left this siege also as an inheritance to his successor, we should almost certainly find it mentioned in the abundant historical material of the next reign.2 It is impossible properly to estimate the character or deeds of Shalmaneser from the 1 Josephus, ix, 14. 2. Compare Winckler, Geschichtc, p. 333, note 51. 2 See, however, a defense of the Josephus passage in Lehmann-Haupt, Israel, Seine Entwickelung ivi Rahmen dor Weltgeschichte (Tubingen, 1911), pp. 98-100. 310 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA scanty historical materials which we possess. His reign of only five years was entirely too short for any great undertakings. He un¬ doubtedly left to his successor more problems than he had solved himself. CHAPTER VII THE REIGN OF SARGON II Shalmaneser V died in the month of Tebet, and in the very same month Sargon II (722-705 B. C.) became king of Assyria. Like Tiglath- pileser IV, he was not of royal blood. In no single passage does he ever claim descent from any of the previous kings, nor in any way allude to his parentage. His son, Sen¬ nacherib, who succeeded him, is also silent concerning the origin of Sargon, but his grand¬ son, Esarhaddon, provides him with an artificial genealogy which carries back his line to Bel-bani, an ancient king of Asshur. It is a striking fact that he was able to put himself so quickly and so securely on the throne, and it makes one think that there may have been some understanding before the death of Shalmaneser by which Sargon was made the legal heir. On the other hand, he may have been a suc¬ cessful general, as we have already supposed that Tiglathpileser IV was, and so had in his hand a weapon ready to enforce his ambitious claims to the throne. Like Tiglathpileser, also, he must have been well known as a man of force, for there was no uprising against him, 311 312 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA and he was at once recognized as the lawful king. He inherited a kingdom full of great prob¬ lems and difficulties. Samaria was not yet taken, and if it should succeed in effectual resistance, all Syria would take new heart, and the whole fabric which Tiglathpileser IV had laboriously built up, but had not had time fully to cement together, would be in frag¬ ments. This was a not improbable outcome, for Egypt was eager to foment disturbance in the southern part of the land, hoping thereby to gain back some of the territory which had been lost. On the north there was also a dis¬ turbing center. Tiglathpileser had not been able to finish the partition of Urartu, and that state would be very willing to incite the northern Syro-Phcenician states to rebel when rulers were changed in Assyria, in the hope of build¬ ing up again the kingdom which Tiglathpileser had broken in pieces. In Babylonia also the death of Shalmaneser had given opportunity for a sudden outbreak of new efforts among the Chaldeans. It was indeed a troublesome age on which Sargon had lighted. A man of great energy and ability would alone be able to meet the dangers and solve them. Such a man was Sargon. Like Tiglathpileser IV, he was a usurper. It is an eloquent witness to the resources of Assyria that two such men were produced so close to each other, and not THE REIGN OF SARGON II 313 of a royal house, with inherited strength and ability. We are well supplied with inscriptions1 setting 1 The following are the chief inscriptions of Sargon’s reign: (a) The Annals, published first by Botta, Le Monument de Ninive, plates 63-92, 105-120, 155-160, and with corrections and amendments by Winckler, Die Keilschrifttexte Sargon’s, li. They are translated into English by Jules Oppert, Records of the Past, First Series, vii, pp. 21-56, but this version is now somewhat antiquated. There is a good German trans¬ lation by Winckler, op. cit., i, pp. 2-95. The Annals have come down to us in four recensions, in a fragmentary condition, and the relations between the recension and between parts of the fragments are some¬ times obscure. For details Winckler must be consulted, but allusions to some of the problems will be found below. The differences are carefully analyzed in Olmstead, Western Asia in the Days of Sargon of Assyria (1908), p. 7, f., with results almost always convincing, and to which due heed is paid in the following narrative, (b) General Inscription ( Inscription des Pastes, Prunk Inschrift, called by Olm¬ stead, Display Inscription) , published by Botta, op. cit., plates 93-104, 121-154, 181, and by Winckler, op. cit., ii, plates 30-36, and trans¬ lated by him, ibid., i, pp. 96-135, and into English by Oppert, “The Great Inscription in the Palace of Khorsabad,” in the Records of the. Past, First Series, iv, pp. 1-20. (c) The Inscriptions on the Gateway Pavement, published by Botta, op. cit., plates 1-21, and by Winckler op. cit., ii, plates 36-40, and translated by him, i, pp. 136-163. (d) Inscription on the Back of the Slabs, published by Botta, op. cit., plates 164, ff., and by Winckler, op. cit.., ii, plate 40, and translated by him, i, pp. 164-167. (e) Nimroud Inscription, published by Layard, In¬ scriptions in the Cuneiform Character, plates 33, 34, and translated by Winckler, op. cit., i, pp. 168-173, and by Peiser, Keilinschrift. Bibl., ii, pp. 34-39. (f) The Stela Inscription, published III R. 11, and more completely by Schrader, Die Sargonstele (1882) and translated (in part) by Winckler, op. cit., pp. 174-185. (g) Bull Inscription, pub¬ lished by Botta, op. cit., plates 22-62, and by Lyon, Keilschrifttexte Sargon’s, plates 13-19, and translated by him, pp. 40-47. (h) Cylin¬ der Inscription, published I R. 36, and by Lyon, op. cit., plates 1-12, and translated by him, pp. 30-39. All these have been critically ana¬ lyzed by Olmstead, op. cit., Chapter I. Since his book was published, a few bricks with brief inscriptions have been found at Asshur, but they add little to our knowledge (Messerschmidt, Die Keilschrifttexte aus Assur, I, Nos. 37-42. Of these No. 38 is in Sumerian). But the most remarkable document of Sargon’s reign is a magnificent clay tablet of extraordinary size (about 9£xl4£ inches), in which Sargon gives a most elaborate account of his eighth campaign in the year 714. It is in the form of a letter addressed by the king to Ashur, “father of the gods,” in the city of Asshur and to the city, its people 314 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA forth the chief events of Sargon’s reign, and have only to follow the plain indications of the Annals in order to s’ee them all in proper sequence. In respect of historical reliability they are much less satisfactory. They are boastful in tone, and quite evidently not free of exaggeration. Worse than this they contain serious contradictions and require frequently to be used with much caution. In the year of the accession of Sargon (722 B. C.) Samaria fell, but it is improbable that he had anything to do with it in person. He could scarcely have been present so quickly, leaving behind him all the possible dangers to the throne which he had just ascended. It was a most fortunate result for his reign that Samaria was taken without a longer siege. Very probably the same army which had invested the city secured also its surrender. Neither the army nor the inhabitants of Sa¬ maria are likely to have known anything of the change of rulers in Assyria. The biblical account does not mention the name of the king of Assyria into whose hands the city fell, but the form of statement seems to imply that Shalmaneser was still considered king.* 1 Sargon and its palace. It is splendidly published by Thureau-Dangin, JJne Relation de la huiti&me Campagne de Sargon. Paris, 1912. 1 “In the ninth year of Hoshea the king of Assyria took Samaria, and carried Israel away into Assyria” (2 Kings xvii, 6). It is to be noted that in verses 4 and 5 the same phrase, “king of Assyria,” is used, applying there to Shalmaneser V, and no hint is given that a THE REIGN OF SARGON II 315 was not yet known in the west as he would later come to be. As soon as Samaria was taken he gave orders that the colonizing plans which Tiglathpileser IV had devised and per¬ fected should be carried out on a large scale. From the city there were taken away twenty- seven thousand two hundred and ninety men, who were settled in the Median mountains and in the province of Gozan (Guzanu) along the rivers Balikh and Khabur. To supply their places colonists were brought from Kutha, in Babylonia, and recently conquered terri¬ tories. The people carried away from Samaria were probably of the very best blood in the land — the men who had fought for three weary years against the most powerful military state of western Asia. They were probably officials, skilled laborers, and tradespeople. The loss to the land was irreparable, and the kingdom of Israel never regained the strength it once had. There was another little spasm of re¬ bellion in a short time, as we shall see, but the land had not left in it the national life to sustain another such struggle. So did the Assyrians in the reign of Sargon finish the task which they began in the reign of Shal¬ maneser V.* 1 Over the land of Samaria Sargon change of rulers had taken place. Compare Guthe, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, p. 193. In the third edition, p. 218. 1 Olmstead (American Journal of Semitic Languages, 1905, pp. 179, ff., and Western Asia in the Days of Sargon, p. 45, footnote 9) argues that Samaria was really taken by Shalmaneser V, but the argument is not convincing. 316 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA set Assyrian governors, and the once glorious and powerful kingdom of Israel became an insignificant Assyrian province. There were greater problems in Babylonia for Sargon than the west had yet offered. We have seen1 how in 729 Merodach-baladan, of the tribe of Bit-Yakin, king of the Sea Lands, had paid homage to Tiglathpileser IV and made costly gifts in token of his subjection. That was well enough when Tiglathpileser IV was threatening to destroy the entire land, but Merodach-baladan intended only to maintain his allegiance to Assyria so long as the Assyrians were able to compel it. During the short reign of Shalmaneser no effort seems to have been made by the Chaldeans, but it is quite prob¬ able that all the while the preparations were going on. When Shalmaneser died, and Sargon was busy in Assyria and unable to proceed to Babylon to take the hands of Marduk, Merodach-baladan judged that the hour had come. Without great difficulty he took southern Babylonia, the ancient kingdom of Sumer and Accad, and then the city of Babylon itself. On New Year’s Day, 721, he was proclaimed king of Babylon.2 Here was opened again the same old question as to the ruler in Baby¬ lon. Sargon never could lose the great southern kingdom without a bitter war. Merodach- 1 See above, p. 297. 2 Babylonian Chronicle, col. i, line 32. Keilinschrift. Bibl., ii, 276, 277. Sargon succeeded to the throne about three months earlier. Relief from the top of a Kudurru, or boundary stone, containing a portrait of Merodach-baladan, king of Babylon, who is represented in the act of conferring title to landed property upon one of his nobles. Above the king’s head is a two-line inscrip¬ tion, “The portrait of Merodach-baladan, king of Babylon.” At the top is a series of symbols of gods, representing (from left to right) (1) Nabu, (2) Nink- harsag or Ninlil, (3) Ea, and (4) Marduk. The stone is now in the Berlin Museum (V. A. 2663). [The illustration is from Carl Bezold, Nineve und Babylon , 3te Auflage, Leipzig, 1909.] ’ » • * j V { V A A s' ) > •■'. 1 ; ; 1 1 ; ie 0 1 1 ; e -'.'■iOli Ot Israo; .s earn •' ’ > vi i if'- . - 3ir* -Yi- in, sing x the > \ ■ * ’ ud ige •r =\ and * ! cost • v A ■> 1 {..••■ :'• A: . I).}- sul : ' • • io yiabrmod 10 .Lfiiiibo/I a V) qot odi .oiodidsilaH jii:b4ivcd~d‘)iibpf^^4 • h‘ thviwq :h yiifaiaiiio-) : ‘io i‘)vB -od.t m .boiq9«oiq9:y.«i o&ff qiol^df^l kj, aid )o 9150 no(i i/ vd'ioqoiq hobml Q| ^uir^ino:> -qiiosiit at ill-ov/ ) ii ai D&ad & ^xidI. odi •9vod/^ .*01 don. "VJ.1 A\/Ui.x4. 7 1-iu^ y * * •' , ~7T - v. •to §ixH ,mibi:kd-rfo^b()TOM oiIT" .noit ,abog to ‘gtodixi^a to asma’is «i qoi »ilt tfA ’ .iiolycfisH ->!aiA (2) ,i;d«/x (I) (bfeh oi ffol radtl) ^itibtossiqsT . rbjg oiff SubisM (i) bo* ,fitt (€} ,KMM -to ^aa-uul fgBde .A .V) mudauM mhoS 9flt ni'viah ai * \ b3n\ zmw'sV. d>Iose8 IleO fflcrp ai ^oii^auffi. sill] umi b[S( liowT ^gaHuA 9)8' ;r(o^doi\ ■ . ^ y /;. aiiiom ■ 0 ., i -i.': [ .♦! n < ■* 81 ■ ner -and 1 j >, 721, ho was proclaimed : levs was opened aaym . * on as ;:<> the ruler h B- b} - : :j: • ’ iVctr. Merodach- 'i'’" Keilv 11—316 I ■ - ■ T . THE REIGN OE SARGON II 317 baladan had thrown down the gage, and there was no alternative but to take it up. Sargon entered Babylonia and was met at Dur-ilu by an army under the command of Merodach- baladan, with Khumbanigash of Elam as an ally. According to the usual custom, Sargon claimed a victory.1 It is, however, perfectly clear from the issue that Sargon had not been successful. He left Merodach-baladan in ab- solute possession of Babylon, not attempting at all to enter the country farther, but con¬ tenting himself with the possession of the extreme northern portion, which joined with the land of Assyria. On the other hand, Mero¬ dach-baladan did not attempt to drive the Assyrians out of this northern part, but was quite satisfied to be left in possession of the city of Babylon, in which there were wealth and power enough to satisfy his ambitions, and difficulties enough with the priesthood to engage his best powers. The failure to retake Babylon was a bad beginning for the reign of Sargon. The Assyrians would have less confidence in his prowess; the Chaldeans would have time and opportunity to strengthen them¬ selves in their hold on Babylon; the men of 1 Annals, lines 18-23. These lines are badly broken, and it is diffi¬ cult to make much of them. In the Cylinder inscription (line 17, Keilinschrift. Bibl., ii, pp. 40, 41). Sargon thus speaks of himself: “The brave hero who met Khumbanigash of Elam at Durilu and accomplished his defeat.’' On the other hand, the Babylonian Chronicle (col. i, lines 33, 34, Keilinschrift. Bibl., ii, pp. 276, 277) asserts that Khum¬ banigash was victorious over Sargon. 318 HTSTOBY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYBTA Urartu and of Syria would learn of it, and would judge that the king of Assyria was not equal to his predecessors. Rebellions all over the empire lie latent in this failure of Sargon. The first rebellion that confronted Sargon was in the west, where one might have thought that the punishment of Samaria would have deterred others from a new attempt. But the Syrian states had not all been so thor¬ oughly blotted out as Samaria, and there was a nucleus in Hamath around which a conspiracy might crystallize. Hamath, one of the oldest cities in Syria, had never been destroyed or even engrafted into the Assyrian empire. This was due to the constant exercise of a crafty policy. Hamath had joined in rebellions, but always withdrew at the right moment, paid tribute, and played the part of a faithful ally of Assyria. It owed its deliverance in the reign of Tiglathpileser IV only to this policy pursued by its king, Eni-el. But this crafti¬ ness, while it saved the state for a time, was unpopular, and Eni-el fell a victim to his own prudence, and was removed from the throne by a national party. A usurper named Il-ubidi,1 or Ya-ubidi, called by Sargon a Hittite, suc¬ ceeded him and at once began a new policy. He formed a new coalition against the Assyrians, in 1 He is named Ya’ubi’di in the General Inscription, 33 (Winckler, Die Keilsehrifttexte Sargon' s I, pp. 102, 103), and Nimroud, 8 Keil- inschrift. Bibl., ii, pp. 36, 37). He is called Ilubidi in the Annals (line 23, Winckler, op. cit., i, pp. 6, 7). THE REIGN OF SARGON II 319 which Arpad, Simirra, Damascus, and most surprising of all, Samaria joined. It would appear from this that even the loss of so many of her best men and the watch¬ ful eye of an Assyrian governor were not able to crush every aspiration for liberty. Judah remained faithful to Assyria, and did not join with the confederates. Il-ubidi made Qarqar his fortress, and placed a large army in the field. This was now no mean opposition which confronted Sargon, and after his prac¬ tical defeat in Babylonia it was likely to have hopes of successfully opposing him. At the outset he displayed one quality of great im¬ portance; he set out promptly for Syria as soon as news of the rebellion reached him, determined to strike the first member of the alliance before the others could unite and come to his support. This Assyrian promptness had often before cost the Syrian states great losses. It fell out in this case exactly as he had planned. At Qarqar he met Ya-ubidi and his army without any of the allies and gained a com¬ plete victory. The unhappy rebel was flayed, and Qarqar burned. Hamath was taken and plundered. In the same year Hanno, king of Gaza, who had formed a coalition with Sibe, an Egyptian dynast, met the Assyrians at Rapikhu (Raphia) and suffered an overwhelm¬ ing defeat. Sibe managed to get off with his life and escaped to Egypt; but Hanno was 320 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA taken prisoner and carried off in chains to Assyria. The results of these two campaigns, as affecting Assyria, were very important. The prestige of Sargon personally was re¬ stored, and he was left free, following the example of Tiglathpileser IV, to set right the affairs of his empire in other border countries. Of all these Urartu was the most dangerous and threatening. Sargon had planned to reach its destruction by slow and steady approaches. He would first restore to Assyria, as tribute¬ paying states, the communities which sur¬ rounded Urartu on the west, south, and east, and then finally strike the all-important blow. His first movement was from the east against the two cities of Shuandakhul and Durdukka, situated in the territory belonging to Iranzu of Man, by Lake Urumiyeh. These renounced their allegiance, and received help from Mit’atti of Zigirtu,1 whose territory probably immediately joined. Sargon quickly defeated them and destroyed the cities (719 B. C.), but did not attempt any punishment of Mit’atti at this time.2 In the same year the three cities, Sukia, Bala, and Abitikna, whose exact location is unknown, though they also adjoined Urartu, were destroyed and their inhabitants trans¬ planted to Syria.3 A similar campaign occupied 1 Zigirtu (or Zikirtu) are to be identified with the Sagartians (Herod¬ otus, i, cxxv). 2 Annals, lines 32-39 (Winckler, op. cit., pp. 8, 9). 3 Annals, lines 40-41 (Winckler, op. cit., i, pp. 8, 9). THE REIGN OF SARGON II 321 the year 718, directed against the western rather than the eastern approaches to Urartu. Kiakki of Shinukhtu, a district of Tabal (Kappa- dokia), had not paid his tribute. He with many of his followers was transplanted into Assyria, and his land delivered over to Matti of Atun (called Tun1 by Tiglathpileser IV), who was required to pay a higher annual tribute.2 The year 717 was not, perhaps, of so great importance as many another which preceded and which followed it in Assyrian history, but it was a year of great interest in one way at least, as it ended the career of Carchemish. Alone of all the smaller states into which the great Hittite empire had broken up, it had maintained a sort of independence, paying only an annual tribute. The king of Carchemish at this time was Pisiris, who is even called king of the land of the Hittites,3 as though retaining in his person something of the glory of the old empire. If he had continued to pay his annual tribute, he would probably have been permitted to remain in undisturbed pos¬ session of his high-sounding title and in the free exercise of his authority over the internal affairs of his kingdom. In an evil hour he 1 Tun ia probably Tyana, the modern Kiz Hisar, at the northern foot of the Taurus, in southern Kappadokia. 2 Annals, lines 42-45 (Winckler, ibid.). * “Shar mat Khatti,” Nimroud, line 10, Keilinschrift. Bibl., ii, pp. 38, 39. 322 HISTORY OR BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA incited Mita of Mushke to join him in a re¬ bellion against the payment of tribute. He was speedily overcome, and at once, with his family and his followers, transported into As¬ syria. With them Sargon carried away as booty eleven talents of gold, twenty-one hun¬ dred talents of silver, and fifty chariots of war. Carchemish was repeopled with Assyrian colonists and became an Assyrian province.1 In such an easy manner ended the very last remnant of a once powerful empire, which had defied even Egypt at the zenith of its power. In the same year the cities Papa and Lallukna, probably located near Urartu, joined in a re¬ bellion, but were overcome and their inhab¬ itants transplanted to Damascus.2 Year after year did Sargon, as we have already seen, continue these colonizations in Syria. He was determined to disturb so thoroughly the national life that there might be no opportunity for any further uprisings. After all this inter¬ mixture it becomes less surprising that the Jews who returned from Babylon would not recognize the people of Samaria as their fel¬ lows,3 but looked on them as a strange race, and called them Samaritans, and not Hebrews. At last, in 716, Sargon felt himself strong enough and the way well enough prepared to make a sharper attack on Urartu, and not 1 Annals, lines 46-50 (Winckler, op. cit., i, pp. 10, 11). 2 Annals, lines 50-52 (Winckler, op. cit., i, pp. 10, 11). 8 Ezra iv, 3; Ecclus. i, 25, 26; Luke ix, 52, 53; John iv, 9. THE REIGN OF SARGON II 323 merely on the states which surrounded it. He was moved to a more active policy by the threatening doings of the king of Urartu. Sarduris, who had opposed Tiglathpileser IV so successfully as regards the actual land of Urartu, was now dead, and in his place ruled Ursa, as the Assyrian inscriptions usually name him,1 or Rusas, as he is known to native his¬ toriographers. As early as 719 Urartu was intriguing against the small kingdom of Man, of which Iranzu was king, and Sargon had to save to Man two cities which Mit’atti of Zigirtu, a tool of Urartu, had seized. That wTas a warning to Urartu for a time. But now Iranzu was dead and the usual troubles over the succession in small states of the Orient offered an opportunity to Urartu. The lawful heir to the throne of Man was Aza, son of the last king, and he finally did get himself seated. But Rusas then stirred up against him the old enemy of his father, Mit’atti of Zigirtu, and also the lands of Misianda and Umildish, the latter of which was ruled by a prince, Bagdatti. To these three allies were added some governors out of Rusas’s own territory, and all things were ready for a suc¬ cessful attack on the little kingdom. Aza had given pledges of faithfulness to Assyria, 1 He is called Rusa in Sargon’s Annals, lines 58 and 75 (Winckler, op. cit., pp. 12, 13, 16, 17). This is Rusas I of Chaldia. See Belck and Lehmann, “Ein Neuer Herrscher von Chaldia,” Zeitschrift filr Assyriologie, ix, 82, ff., 339, ff. 324 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA and so deserved support. He was soon over¬ come and slain, and his land would have been speedily divided among the conspirators, with the lion’s share for Rusas, had not Sargon suddenly appeared. Bagdatti of Umildish was captured and slain, as a warning, on the same spot where Aza had been killed. Ullusunu, brother of Aza, was put on the throne and confirmed in possession. In this Sargon had defeated the immediate plans of Rusas, but he was very far from having destroyed his influence. Scarcely was Sargon ’s back turned when Ullusunu broke his Assyrian vows and transferred his allegiance to Urartu, actually giving up to Rusas twenty-two villages of his domain. We do not know what led to this reversal on the part of Ullusunu, but it is prob¬ able that he was forced into the act. Besides this Ullusunu induced Ashur-li’ of Karalla and Itti of Allabra, two small territories of western Media, to renounce the suzerainty of Assyria and accept that of Urartu.1 Here was an upturning indeed which might be imitated by other states. Sargon increased his army and returned in haste. Upon his approach Ullusunu fled to the mountains, leav¬ ing his capital, Izirtu, to the tender mercies of the enraged Sargon. The capital was soon taken, as well as Zibia and Arma’id, two fortified cities. Izirtu was burned and the 1 Annals, lines 58, 59 (Winckler, op. cit., i, pp. 12, 13). THE REIGN OE SARGON II 325 others suffered to remain.1 Ullusunu, probably seeing no way of escape even in mountain fast¬ nesses, returned and sued for pardon. Aston¬ ishing as it may seem, this was actually granted, and he was once more installed in his kingdom — which confirms us in the belief that Sargon had come to think that he had not been a free agent in his rebellion, but had been com¬ pelled to it by Rusas. On the other hand, the two rebels who had joined with him suffered severely for their faithlessness. Ashur-li’ of Karalla was slain, his people deported to Hamath, and his land turned into an Assyrian province. Itti of Allabra and his family were also deported into Hamath, and a new vassal king was set up in his place.2 At the same time the district of Nikshamma and the city of Shurgadia, whose governor, Shepa-sharru, had rebelled, were reduced and added to the Assyrian province of Parshua.3 In this year Sargon also invaded western Media and con¬ quered the governor of Kishesim, whose As¬ syrian name, Bel-shar-usur, probably points backward to the influence of Tiglathpileser III in this same region. Kishesim was thor¬ oughly changed in every particular. Assyrian worship was introduced, the name of the city changed to Kar-Nabu, and a statue of Sargon 1 Annals, lines 60, 61, General Inscription, 41 (Winckler, op. cit., pp. 12, 13, 104, 105). 2 Annals, lines 55-57. 3 Annals, line 58. 326 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA set up.1 A new province was then formed of the districts of Bit-Sagbat, Bit-Khirmani, Bit- Umargi, and of several other cities, and Kar- Nabu was made its capital.2 Another city by the name of Kharkhar, whose governor had been driven out by its populace, was similarly treated. Its name was changed to Kar-Sharrukin (SargonVburg), and it was colonized with captives and also made the capital of a newly formed province.3 This sort of campaigning had its influence on the surrounding country. From city to city spread the news of the mighty conqueror and of his sweeping changes, and from different parts of Media no less than twenty-eight native princes came to Kar-Sharrukin with presents to Sargon, hoping to purchase deliverance from like treat¬ ment.4 This year had been full of various under¬ takings, but nearly all of them may be said to deal directly or indirectly with Rusas of Urartu, who, even while these easterly under¬ takings were in progress, was not idle. De¬ feated in his plan of securing peacefully from Ullusunu the twenty-two villages which had been granted him, as we have seen, but after¬ ward recovered by Sargon, he took them by force. This brought Sargon back in 715 with 1 Annals, lines 59, 60. 2 Annals, line 58. 3 Annals, lines 61-64. 4 Annals, line 74 (Winckler, op. cit ., i, pp. 16, 17). THE REIGN OF SARGON II 327 an army which quickly recaptured the lost territory, which was then supplied with special Assyrian governors. Daiukku, a subordinate governor of Ullusunu, who had yielded to the solicitations of Rusas, was carried off to Ha¬ math.1 The suddenness and completeness of this victory induced Yanzu of Nairi to bring his homage to Sargon.2 Meanwhile the province of Kharkhar, which was formed but a year before, had rebelled and must be again con¬ quered. It was now increased in size by the addition of territory which had been thoroughly Assyrianized, and the city of Dur-Sharrukin was heavily fortified as an outpost against the land of Media. In this year twenty-two Median princes offered presents to Sargon3 and promised an annual tribute of horses. All these campaigns weakened the influence of Rusas over his allies, and so the way was gradually preparing for his overthrow; but the time had not come this year, for Sargon had disturbances to settle in the west. Mita of Mushke had interfered with Que (Cilicia), and had taken from it several cities to add to his own dominion, which were readily restored.4 1 Annals, lines 74-77. 2 Annals, line 78. 3 Annals, lines 83-89; General Inscription, lines 64-67 (Winckler, op. cit., pp. 18, 19; Keilinschrift. Bibl., ii, pp. 60, 61). A comparison of these two passages shows a discrepancy in the figures, the former giv¬ ing the number of Median princes at twenty-two, the latter thirty-four. * Annals, lines 92-94, 100. 328 HISTOEY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYEIA An expedition into Arabia was also rendered necessary for the collection of tribute. The tribe of Khaiapa, which had paid tribute since the reign of Tiglathpileser III, now refused to do so, and was supported by the tribes of Tamud, Ibadidi, and Marsiani. Of these Khaiapa was probably the most northerly, being settled about Medina, while the others stretched southward below Mecca.1 These were all conquered easily and restored to subjection. It’amar of Saba, Pir’u (Pharaoh) of Egypt, who may have been Bokkhoris,2 and Samsi, the queen of Arabia, whose dominions were in the extreme northern part of the country, all sent gifts.3 This latter part of the year probably was of great value to the king in the revenue which it yielded. In the next year (714) the campaign against Rusas of Urartu was taken up in earnest. No Assyrian campaign was ever described so minutely. The king set out from Calah in the month of Tammuz (June- July) and marched toward the southeast, crossing the upper and lower Zab, and plunging at once into a rough mountain region of Sumbi, where he inspected his troops. From there he crossed the moun¬ tain pass of Baneh, at a height of 6,940 feet, traveling by the same road as the modern 1 See Glaser, Skizze der Geschichte und Geographie Arabiens, ii, 261, 2; and compare Winckler, Geschichte, p. 243. 3 So also Breasted, History of Egypt, p. 550. 3 Annals, lines 97-99. THE REIGN OF SARGON II 329 caravans from Suleimania to Sakiz. He was now out upon the great Iranian plain and before him lay the territory of the Mannai, and its most westerly province Surikash. Here he received the submission of Ullusunu, who pros¬ trated himself before the conqueror and pro¬ vided abundant stores for the marching troops. Sargon took pity upon the distressed Mannseans and promised to deliver them from the people of Urartu. From Man Sargon advanced slowly and steadily into the territories of Zikirtu, where Mit’atti was still holding sway. One by one the cities and fortified camps were taken until Parda, the capital, fell into Assyrian hands. When this had happened Mit’atti and his entire people moved swiftly in one great emigration out of the country and were seen no more. They had probably come out of the steppes of Russia into this favored district, and now returned to their old home. The army was now ready to attack Rusas, who came on to meet it. In the first engagement he was de¬ feated and fled.1 Sargon did not pursue at once, but waited to make sure of the land which was now deserted by the people of Urartu. The land of Man was entirely covered in marches, that every sign of disloyalty might 1 Sargon’s historian (Annals, line 109, Winckler, op. cit., i, pp. 22, 23) says of Rusas, “He mounted a mare and fled into his mountains.” Flight upon a mare’s back made him an object of ridicule. See further above, p. 275. 330 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA be rooted out, and was then given over to Ullusunu. The decisive blow to the fortunes of Rusas had been administered amid the rough and mountainous country east of Lake Urumiyeh. Sargon now marched unopposed around the northern end of the great lake and went on toward the northwest by the caravan route toward Lake Van, which he passed also round by the north, mentioning Argishtiuna and Qallania,1 the chief cities of Urartu, though not taking or destroying them. The land of Urartu had no more strength to oppose anything that Sargon might have willed to do, and it is much to his honor that he seems to have shown some mercy. Rusas looked on, perhaps, from some mountain eyrie and saw the utter collapse of his fortunes. The kingdom which his fathers had founded, of whom he was no unworthy follower, was being divided among Assyrian states or added directly to the provinces of the empire. For him there was no further hope, and he sought peace in a self-inflicted death.2 From Lake Van the main body of Sargon ’s forces returned directly to Assyria, while the king with some infantry and a thousand horse¬ men penetrated the mountain fastnesses be¬ tween Lakes Van and Urumiyeh to attack 1 Thureau-Dangin, op. cit., p. 45, line 287. 2 Annals, line 139. THE REIGN OF SARGON II 33 1 Musasu, whose prince Urzana had gone over from Assyrian allegiance and acknowledged the overlordship of Urartu. Sargon seems bitterly to have resented this, and pours out hatred upon the renegade. The march was difficult, but Sargon surmounted everything and entered the city to lodge in the palace and strip it of its treasures.1 Heavily laden, Sargon returned to his capital. It was a campaign which staggers the imagina¬ tion as one looks upon it. The distance trav¬ ersed, the severity of the countries, the mighty mountain passes, and the lonely defiles, the barbaric mingling of savage cruelty and of friendly mercy — all these and many more call to fancy scenes and men with a vividness never secured from any inscriptions of Sargon’s predecessors. Rusas left a son who succeeded his father as king of Urartu, or Chaldia, as the country was called by its own people, with the title of Argistis II. He found only a small kingdom left for him to rule, about Lake Van and the upper waters of the Euphrates. Long and sturdily had Urartu withstood the progress of Assyria in war, while it, nevertheless, accepted Assyrian civilization and even adopted the cumbersome Assyrian method of cuneiform writing. The Chaldians had even formed an empire and contested the supremacy of west- 1 Annals, lines 123-133; General Inscription, lines 72-76. 332 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA ern Asia with the Assyrians. In the days of Assyrian weakness they had grown stronger, until the menace to Sargon was so great that he had to plan cautiously and act decisively during a long series of years for its removal. He had now stripped them of all their southern and western possessions and shut up the king amid his mountain fastnesses, from which he would soon venture out to plunder and raid, but without hope of ever again mastering so large a portion of western Asia. Sargon ’s slowly maturing plans had effectually removed the greatest barrier to his country’s career of conquest, extension, and aggrandizement. For the next three years Sargon was unable to carry out any great schemes of conquest, because he was absorbed in smaller under¬ takings intended to complete the pacification of the north and west. The first of these was in western Media, where the province which had taken the place of the old kingdom of Karalla rose in rebellion, and, having driven out the Assyrian governor, set up as king Amitasshi, a brother of the old king, Ashur-li. The new arrangement lasted but a short time, for Sargon soon ended the rebellion. The vassal kings, Ullusunu of Man, Dalta of Ellipi, and Ninib-aplu-iddin of Allabra, all sent their tribute to the triumphant Sargon. In the northwest, also, Sargon had a very disagreeable task. The land of Tabal had THE REIGN OF SARGON II 333 been conquered by Tiglathpileser IV and the king deposed. In his place Tiglathpileser set up a man of humble origin, named Khulle. Bound by ties of gratitude or of necessity, Khulle paid his annual tribute until his death and remained faithful to the Assyrians, who had made him what he was. Sargon trusted him as fully as Tiglathpileser, and even added to his dominion the territory of Bit-Buru-tash. When he died his son, Ambaridi, or Ambaris,1 was confirmed by Sargon as king in his stead. So completely was he trusted that Khilakki (Cilicia) was further added to his territory and Sargon ’s own daughter was given him to wife.2 In spite of all this he was secretly, and later publicly, faithless to Assyria, and joined the coalition of Rusas and Mita, to whom he gave aid in their various undertakings against Assyria. His day of punishment had now arrived. His land was devastated, colonized, and then made into a new province of the empire,3 and he, with his followers, was carried oft* to Assyria. In the following year (712) a very similar case occurred in the district of Meliddu. While Sargon was busily engaged in war Tarkhunazi of Meliddu conquered Gunzinanu of Kammanu (Comana), one of Sargon’s tributaries, and seized his territory. This had been done in 1 In Annals, line 168, he is called Ambaridi, but in line 175 Ambaris. 2 General Inscription, line 30. 3 Annals, lines 175-178. 334 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA reliance upon the help of Urartu. Sargon now overran the land and destroyed the cap¬ ital, Melid. Tarkhunazi for a time defended himself in a fortress, Tulgarimme, but was taken, and, together with his troops, deported to Assyria.1 His territory was then divided. Melid was annexed to Kummukh,2 while the rest of the country was repopulated and formed into a new province.3 One more year was required before this northern territory was fully reduced to subjection. In 711 there was an uprising in Gurgum,4 a small Hittite state. The king, Tarkhulara, was killed by his own son, Muttallu, who thus made himself ruler. Sargon soon appeared with a small body of troops, and carried off Muttallu with his followers to Assyria. His land was like- wise made into a province. While Sargon was engaged in these petty but annoying wars with small states Egypt was again plotting to gain some kind of foot¬ hold in Palestine. Ashdod was now chosen as the starting point for another effort. In this city Sargon had removed the king, Azuri, for failure to pay tribute, and had set up his brother, Akhimiti, in his stead. Under the leadership of a man named Yaman, or Yat- 1 Annals, lines 183-187; General Inscription, lines 79-81. 2 Annals, lines 194, 195. 3 Annals, line 189. 4 The name is Gurgum, not Gamgtim, as is sometimes read (so e. g. Johns, Ancient Assyria, p. 117). It appears as in the Bar Rekub inscription. THE REIGN OF SARGON II 335 nani,1 who was plainly inspired from Egypt, a rebellion began in which Akhimiti lost his life. By some means Philistia, Moab, Edom, and, most surprising of all, Judah were drawn into this new opposition to Assyria. Hezekiali was now king of Judah, and in this fresh union with Egypt he was flying in the teeth of the advice and warnings of Isaiah, his ablest coun¬ selor. Sargon felt the importance of this new uprising, and at once hastened either himself or by deputy, in the person of his Tartan,2 to end the rebellion. Ashdod, Gath, and Ash- dudimmu were easily occupied by the Assyrians. The other states of Palestine seem to have feared to join in the war when it was on, and Egypt sent no help. The inhabitants of these cities were carried away and other captives settled in their places.3 This campaign so thoroughly stamped out all opposition in the west that it might for a time safely be left to itself. If now we look back over Sargon’s reign up to this point, we shall see that his only direct gains to Assyrian territory had been in the 1 The variation Yaman, Yatnani, is the same as that found in the name of the island of Cyprus and the Cypriotes. It is therefore natural to suppose that Yaman here is a race, rather than a personal name, the leader being a Creek mercenary from Cyprus (so Winckler, Die Keilschrifttexte Jargon's i, xxx, note 2). Winckler has, however, since come to think that this man was an Arab, a man from Yemen ( Musri Meluhha, Mu' in, p. 26, note 1). The former view is preferable. See further Olmstead, Western Asia in the Days of Sargon, p. 77. 2 Isa. xx, 1. » Annals, lines 215-217; General Inscription, 90-110. 336 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA land of Urartu. To Shalmaneser rather than to him belongs the credit of securing Samaria, though its actual fall came after Sargon had taken the throne. Indirectly, however, his gains had been great. He had greatly strength¬ ened the Assyrian control from east to west over a wide circle of country, and had so estab¬ lished the outposts of the empire that he might feel safe from invasion. It must be remem¬ bered, however, that he was even yet governing a territory much smaller than that which Tiglathpileser IV and Shalmaneser V had con¬ trolled. Babylonia was still in the possession of the Chaldeans, and Sargon was bereft of the rarest and most honored title — king of Babylon. But he was not satisfied with this state of affairs, and had probably planned long and carefully in order to its complete over¬ throw. Now that his borders were safe on the north and west, and the annual tribute over the great empire was fairly well assured, the time seemed to have arrived for his greatest work. When Sargon, in 721, after the battle of Durilu, left Merodach-baladan to rule undis¬ turbed in Babylon he took upon himself a great risk. There was a grave possibility that the adroit Chaldean might so establish himself in the kingdom that the Assyrians could never hope to dislodge him again. But Sargon builded very wisely in this, for there were THE IiEIGN OE SARGON II 337 more causes for discontent in Babylonia than of satisfaction, and Merodach-baladan was much more likely to ruin his prospects of a peaceable reign than to improve them. His status was peculiar and dangerous. He never could have conquered Babylon in the sole reliance upon his own Chaldean forces, but was compelled to utilize not only Elamite but also Aramaean allies, the latter being the same half-nomad tribes which had been a disturbing factor in former times. So long as he was threatened by Assyrian armies Merodach-baladan was able to hold together these ill-assorted followers; self-preservation against a common enemy who might blot them out one at a time made them cautious. But as soon as all danger from Assyria was withdrawn by Sargon’s occupation in other quarters these Elamites and Aramaeans began to clamor for a share in the spoil of Babylonia. They had not ventured all in the service of Merodach-baladan without a well- founded hope of participation in the wealth which the centuries had heaped up. Merodach- baladan was not to be suffered to wear the title of king of Babylon while his followers, who had suffered that he might win it, lay in poverty. It would be impossible to satisfy these men with anything short of a license for free plunder, and this could not be given without the ruining of the land over which he hoped to rule. Besides this Merodach- 338 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA baladan could not give ever so little to his Chaldeans and Elamites without raising bitter opposition to his rule among the native Baby¬ lonians, and especially among the priesthood — perhaps the wealthiest class in the country. In these opposing wishes there was abundant material for a flame of civil war which would destroy the ambitions of the new king of Baby¬ lon, and for this Sargon had left the land free. Merodach-baladan probably desired earnestly to strengthen his position in Babylonia with the natives by a reign of order and peace, leaving them in undisturbed possession of their estates. This was, however, impossible, and he ventured on a career of plunder. Property holders were removed from Sippar, Nippur, Babylon, and Borsippa into Chaldea, where they were held in some kind of bondage, while their lands and other wealth were handed over to colonists out of the number of Merodach- baladan’s rapacious and unthinking allies.1 This policy satisfied neither party to the compact, and Merodach-baladan found himself sur¬ rounded on every side by enemies when he sadly needed friends. The Babylonians were always a fickle folk at best, and apparently delighted in changes of dynasty. A restless spirit was ascribed to them, centuries after, in the Mohammedan period, and their history as we have followed it to this point seems clearly 1 Annals, lines 359-364, Winckler, op. cit., i, pp. 58-61. THE REIGN OF S AIvG ON II 339 to show that they were of this temper now.1 Nevertheless, they valued highly their ancient institutions and held in high esteem the honor of their royal titles. The priesthood must always be a conservative force in any com¬ munity, and the Babylonian priesthood in charge of the worship of Marduk, and so invested with the power of making kings, who must take hold of the hands of the god, main¬ tained with enthusiasm the ancient customs. At this time they found less of sympathy among the Chaldeans, Aramaeans, and Elamites than among the Assyrians. Tiglathpileser IV had so greatly valued the priests and the honors which they had to bestow that he twice visited Baby¬ lon in order to take the hands of the god and be proclaimed king, and Shalmaneser V had even more than followed his example. Sargon might well be expected to have similar ideas and hopes. To him, therefore, the Babylonian priesthood and all the other wealthy classes which had lost home or possessions looked as a possible deliverer from the barbarous Chal¬ deans and Elamites. Sargon was therefore doubly prepared for an attack on Merodach-baladan. He had made his own empire so strong and safe that he might leave it without fear, and he was certain of a friendly reception from the Babylonians. His plan was first to conquer the allies of 1 Wincklcr, Die Keilschrifttexte Sargon' s , i, p. xxxii. 340 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA Merodach-baladan and then to strike the de¬ fenseless Chaldean himself. An army was sent southward to overcome the Aramaeans living along the Elamite and Babylonian borders. These were speedily conquered. The Gambuli and the Aramaean tribes of Ru’a, Khindaru, Yatburu, and Puqudu were organized into a new Assyrian province, with Dur-Nabu, for¬ merly known as Dur-Atkhara, one of Merodach- baladan’s fortresses, as capital.1 This successful movement cut off Merodach-baladan from his former allies in Elam. When the Assyrians crossed the Euphrates and captured the small Babylonian state of Bit-Dakkuri, Merodach- # baladan did not venture upon a fight, but fled into Yatburu, whence he could communicate with the king of Elam. But Shutur-nankhundi,2 who now ruled in Elam in the room of Khum- banigash, was not eager to help Merodach- baladan, and, though he prudently accepted the gifts which had been sent to him, offered no help of any kind.3 The Aramseans could not help him while an Assyrian army held them in helpless subjection, and the Elamites would not. Merodach-baladan was powerless with his small army to meet SargoiTs seasoned veterans. He therefore fled southward into his old homeland and fortified himself in Iqbi- 1 Annals, lines 264-271 and 271-277. 2 So the Assyrians write the name, which in Elamite is Shutruk-nak- hunte. 3 Annals, lines 289-294, THE REIGN OF SARGON II 341 Bel, where he spent the winter, which had now begun.1 The Babylonians, relieved of their oppressor, hailed Sargon as a deliverer. They organized a religious and civil procession which went to Dur-Ladinna to escort the saviour of the country to Babylon. Sargon entered the ancient city, and in all things conducted himself as a legitimate king of Babylon. He offered the required sacrifices;2 he restored the canal of Borsippa, which had fallen down ;3 and by these two acts satisfied the priesthood and helped the country’s commerce. Sargon was now able to have himself pro¬ claimed king of Babylon, and might take the god’s hands and fulfill the required ceremonies on New Year’s Day of the year 709. If he did this, however, he would have to repeat it year by year, and that might be in the high¬ est degree inconvenient, if not impossible. He could not hold the priesthood faithful to him¬ self if he did not perform the annual ceremonies, and though he could doubtless compel their obedience without winning their hearts it would be dangerous and inexpedient. He was too wise to transfer the capital of his reunited empire to Babylon, and he therefore adopted an expedient which satisfied both parties — the Assyrians and the Babylonians. He adopted the title of “ shakkanak ” — that is, governor, or 1 Annals, lines 294-296. 2 Annals, lines 299-300. 3 Annals, lines 302-304. 342 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA viceroy — instead of king of Babylon, and for this he would not be compelled to renew the ceremony year by year. In the month of Nisan, at the great feast of Bel, he took the hands of Bel and Nabu and was proclaimed shakkanak of Babylon. In all respects he had as much power and influence as though he were called king.1 In the next month Sargon began his cam¬ paign against Merodach-baladan. The unfor¬ tunate Chaldean had withdrawn in the early spring or late winter from Iqbi-Bel to his old city of Bit-Yakin, where he employed his time in the operation of extensive fortifications against Sargon, whose invasion he must have been continually expecting. He opened a canal from the Euphrates and filled the country about the city with water, breaking down ail the bridges, so that no approach to the city was possible. Sargon found a way to over¬ come this difficulty, though he does not en¬ lighten us as to his method. The city, once attacked, soon fell, and Merodach-baladan, who had been wounded in the first assault, made good his escape to Elam. An army from the Puqudu and the Sute, who were coming to help Merodach-baladan, was then overcome and the city of Bit-Yakin first plundered and then destroyed.2 In the city Sargon found the 1 Winckler, Geschichte, p. 127. 2 Annals, lines 347-359. THE REIGN OF SARGON II 343 rich men of Babylonia who had been deprived of their property in order that Merodach- baladan might reward the men who had made him king. They were sent back to their homes and their property restored. Furthermore, the priesthood received a rich reward for their share in Sargon’s triumphs by the return of gods whom Merodach-baladan had taken away and the restoration of the elaborate temple worship in Ur, Uruk, Eridu, Larsa, and other places of less moment, while the tithes to the temples were newly revised and imposed upon the people. The land of Bit-Yakin was placed beyond any opportunities, it would seem, for further rebellion, by the deportation of a por¬ tion of its inhabitants to Kummukh, from which came captives to take their place. The land was then turned into an Assyrian province to be governed from Babylon and Gambuli.1 Awed by such proceedings, King Uperi, of the island of Dilmun, in the Persian Gulf, sent gifts. By this campaign, as much by the peaceful operations which attended it as by the success of arms, Babylonia was completely pacified, and was now ruled easily by the Assyrians for several years. Sargon had completely re¬ stored the old order of things against great odds, and with extreme difficulty. While Sargon was engaged thus in Babylonia 1 Annals, lines 366, 367, 369. 344 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA his representatives were hardly less successful elsewhere. In the far west the governor of the Assyrian province of Que, imitating his royal master, Sargon, invaded the kingdom of Mushke. The people of Mushke were among the traditional enemies of Assyria. They had been opposed to Tiglathpileser I, and they had a large share in stirring up opposition in Syria to later Assyrian kings. For a long time the Assyrians had not suffered any inter¬ ference at their hands. Their dominions were bounded now on the south and east by the Taurus and Anti-Taurus, and their ruler was Mita. The Assyrian governor met with such success in conquest and plunder that Mita was forced to send an embassy to Sargon, who was then on the borders of Elam, to sue for peace.1 At the same time Sargon received gifts from seven kings of Cyprus, though what they may have feared does not appear.2 Years after (708 B. C.) Sargon acknowledged their gifts with a present of a black marble stele engraved with his portrait. At this same period also there was a new spasm of vigor in the almost defunct empire of Urartu. Argistis was now king over what remained of the once powerful empire, and determined to make an effort to regain some of the lost possessions. He induced Annals, lines 371-373; General Inscription, lines 150-153. 2 Annals, lines 383-388; General Inscription, lines 145, 146; Stele, col. ii. THE REIGN OF SARGON II 345 Muttallu, prince of Kummukh, to join in a confederation. Before anything could be accom¬ plished the news was brought that Bit-Yakin had fallen and an Assyrian army was already on its way to the north. Muttallu was so discomfited by this news that he sought safety in flight. His family and all his treasures fell into the hands of the Assyrians, and his land was henceforth organized and adminis¬ tered as a province. This fall of Kummukh happened at just the right time to enable the interchange of inhabitants with Bit-Yakin, which was mentioned above.1 In 708 we reach the last campaign of which Sargon has left his own account. Dalta, prince of Elippi, who had acknowledged the supremacy of Assyria, was dead, and there was a strife about the succession between his sons, Nibe and Ishpabara. The former appealed to Elam for help, which he received, and by which he was able to drive out Ishpabara. The latter then, on his part, appealed to Sargon, who was the lawful overlord of the country. Sargon at once responded by sending an army which conquered Nibe and his Elamite allies, cap¬ tured his capital city, Marubishti, and took him prisoner to Assyria. The land was then set once more in order, with Ishpabara as king.2 ‘Annals, lines 392-401; General Inscription, lines 113-117. See page 176, above. * Annals, lines 402-413, Winckler, op. cit., i, pp. 68-71; General In¬ scription, lines 117, 121, ibid., pp. 118-121. 346 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA But though the official accounts of the wars have ceased we have nevertheless in a series of letters most vivid accounts of the happenings that followed. During this same year (708) Argistis moved southward, clearly purposing to retrieve the losses of his father and to turn back into his own kingdom the provinces that had been lost. At Elissadu his forces were increased by a general levy from various parts of Armenia,1 and the sinews of war renewed by a tribute from the Zikirti. Whether because he felt himself too weak, or because there was an early season of bad weather, Argistis did not advance, though it was now only Elul (September), but waited until the spring of the next year (707). This hesitation was fatal to his hopes and dreams, for in that spring the existence of his kingdom was threatened by an invasion of wandering Iranians who had come over the Caucasus, seeking new homes, and threatening to engulf the civilization of Western Asia. These were called Gimmirai by the Assyrians, and Gorner by the Hebrews, and were later to be known as the Cimmerians by the Greeks and Cimbri by the Romans, and it is one branch of them that probably at last pushed far into Wales and there were known as the Cymry. Argistis was compelled to meet the threat of their ad- 1 British Museum 81-2-4, 60, Harper’s Letters, No. 492, Johns, Baby¬ lonian and Assyrian Laws, Contracts and Letters (1904), p. 341. This letter was written by Ashur-risua. THE REIGN OF SARGON II 347 vance, and turning away from a southern advance went northward to meet the Cim¬ merians, who defeated him in the land of Gamir and at one fell blow ended every possibility of the restoration of real power in the destinies of the world to the kingdom of Urartu.1 The Cimmerians, however, pushed on and made their chief settlement in Cappadocia, and did not again threaten either Urartu or Assyria directly. In 706 Sargon made an expedition against Tabal, and in 705 met the Cimmerians who were now under the leadership of Eshpai the Kulummite, and must have passed from the stage of wandering hordes into some sort of military organization. In the battle Sargon fell, and apparently his personal camp was taken.2 His body was recovered and sent back to Assyria, where his son Sennacherib buried it with all honors. The sword had slipped from the hand that had wielded it as none other had ever done before among his pred¬ ecessors upon the Assyrian throne. He had indeed reached to the full the warlike am¬ bitions of his life. He had reunited Babylonia to the empire and brought it into complete 1 The reports of this decisive fight were sent by various Assyrian officers to Sennacherib, who passed them on to Sargon, his father. See especially British Museum K. 485, Harper’s Letters , No. 112. See Olmstead, Western Asia in the Days of Sargon , p. 156. 2 This is not perfectly clear, for the tablet (II R. 69) is badly broken. It has been collated afresh by Delitzsch ( Beitrtxge zur Assyriologie, i, 615 n.). 348 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA subjection, so that it was as easily ruled as Assyria itself. He had ended the Hittite empire, a great plague spot in his predecessor’s maps. He had crushed the empire of Urartu, or Chaldia, and so rendered safe his own north¬ ern border. He had brought into safe subjec¬ tion all the troublesome Syrian states. There were indeed no other undertakings which he might reasonably hope to accomplish which it would be wise to begin. The works of peace in Sargons reign were as brilliant as his campaigns had been. He was not content merely with the repairing of palaces and temples, or even with their rebuilding, as were most of the Assyrian kings who were before him. He undertook the colossal task of founding a new city which should bear his own name, Dur-Shar-rukin (Sargon’s-burg). The city was rectangular in form enclosed within walls nearly two thousand yards in length. The walls, resting upon rubble between stone facings, were of unburned brick and no less than eighty feet thick, and of unknown height, with one hundred and fifty towers. There were eight gates each named in honor of an Assyrian deity, and the entrances were guarded by great winged bulls with human heads, carved in stone and weighing forty tons each, flanked within the gate by a human figure with wings, holding a basket in his left hand and a cone in the right. Within the city he THE REIGN OF SARGON II 349 erected a vast palace which must have occu¬ pied years in the building. It had fourteen courts and eighty-seven rooms, and was divided into four sections, which have been assigned, with quite probable correctness, to servants, officials, priests and women. The palace walls varied here and there from twelve to twenty- eight feet in thickness, and the roofs would appear to have been vaulted,1 though there is evidence that in Sennacherib’s2 reign the use of domed roofs had begun. Its walls were covered on the inside with magnificent inscriptions recounting the great deeds of his reign. These were so admirable in their execu¬ tion as to give us a strong impression of the artistic skill of the age which Sargon had made a conquering age. In 707 the palace was finished and the city ready for the entrance of the gods who were to transform it from a vast and beautiful pile of bricks into a real place of residence. In 706 the new capital city was dedicated as a royal residence and the king entered his real palace in which he was to dwell in some peace for but a short time. In 705 he died, as we have seen, in battle, and the only intelligible word of his passing that has come down the centuries to us is that he “was not buried in his house.”3 1 See the evidence briefly set forth in Handcock, Mesopotamian Archaeology, p. 153. 2 See Handcock, p. 155. 4 ina biti-Su la kib-ru, K. 4730, line 9. Winckler, Keilschrifttexte, 350 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA The building of Sargon’s-burg, though the most pretentious of his works, was only one of many building enterprises, several of great size. During most of his reign the king lived and held court at Calah. There he resided in a palace erected originally by Ashurnazirpal III, which was rebuilt by Sargon, and richly adorned with the booty taken from Carchemish. At Nineveh he restored the temple to Nabu and Marduk and his building bricks have been found in its ruins.* 1 In the magnificence of his building opera¬ tions he probably excelled all the kings who preceded him. Certainly no ruins of a former age yet found approach the magnificence of the great palaces which he built in the city which bore his name. In all other works he is naturally brought into comparison and con¬ trast with Tiglathpileser IV. Like him, he was great in the planning and organization of great campaigns, and probably excelled in the patient and slow moving on the outworks and allies of an enemy’s country before making the final attack. He was also greater in the successful carrying out of great battles and sieges. For there is nothing in the campaigns of Tiglathpileser which equals the taking of Bit-Yakin. As an administrator over the des- ii, p. 52. Altorientalische Forschungen, i, p. 411. Winckler’s attempt to connect this event with the passage Isa. 14. 4-20 is not convincing. (See Winc.kler, Geschichte Israels, p. 183.) 1 Winckler, Sargon, i, 195. THE REIGN OF SARGON II 351 tinies of diverse peoples he is in every way worthy of his predecessor. In the carrying out of the plan of colonization and deporta- tion he far exceeded the limits which marked the labors of Tiglathpileser. But it must be said that in originality of idea and of plan he was far behind Tiglathpileser. It was he, and not Sargon, who invented this method of dealing with turbulent populations. Sargon was only building on the foundations laid by another, and it is easy to show in many cases that he is the imitator and not the originator. Never¬ theless, there should be no diminution of his fame as a conqueror and king. If Tiglath¬ pileser had planned the empire, now become the greatest power in the world, it was Sargon who had built much of it and rebuilt nearly all the rest. Again had a usurper surpassed the greatest deeds of a legitimate king, and made his name immortal in his country’s annals. CHAPTER VIII THE REIGN OF SENNACHERIB In the same month in which Sargon died, and on the twelfth day of the month (Ab, end of July), Sennacherib1 (704-682) ascended the throne. He was the son of Sargon, who had so well governed his land and so thor¬ oughly settled his power and control over it that no attempt was made to disturb the order of succession from father to son. But, though he succeeded to the inheritance of the great empire without trouble, there were tre¬ mendous difficulties to be settled at once. The priesthood of Babylonia and in general the Babylonian people were waiting to see what position he would take up with reference to the proud and ancient people who felt , * 1 The principal authorities for the reign of Sennacherib are: (a) The Taylor Prism (usually called Cylinder) published I R. i, 37-42, and also Abel-Winckler, Keilschrifttexte, pp. 17-32 (to be used with some caution). It contains the record of the first eight campaigns of Sen¬ nacherib, and the earlier building operations at Nineveh — the Bit- kutalli. It bears the date 691 B. C. It has been translated into German by Horning, Das Sechsseitige Prisma des Sanherib in transscribir- tem Grundtext und V ebersetzung , and by Bezold, Keilinschrift. Bibl., ii, pp. 80, ff., and into English by Rogers, Records of the Past, New Series, vi, pp. 83-101, and part of it (the Jerusalem Campaign) in improved form in Rogers, Cuneiform Parallels, pp. 340-344. (b) The Bellino Cylinder, British Museum K. 1680, a barrel cylinder dated 702 B. C., 352 II — 352 Six-sided baked clay prism of Sennacherib, king of Assyria (705-680 B.C.), and popularly known as the Taylor Cylinder. British Museum, No. 91032. [Photograph by W. A. Mansell & Co., London.] to gnbl tdiT9rfoBiin98 to mahq yxto bsifid bsbia-xig erlt 8b nvnxnl yhf;toqoq bnii 0.89-50T) BhyaaA .28010 .o VL qmraauM riaiiha .rabnilyO toIybT [.nobnoJ ,.oO i» IfeanaM .A .W yd /[qBTgotorbl] THE REIGN OF SENNACHERIB 353 themselves to be the better, even though they were the weaker, portion of the empire. Had Sennacherib gone at once to Babylonia and taken the hands of the god, he might have been proclaimed shakkanak of Babylon, as Sargon had been, and it is altogether prob¬ able that he would have had no important difficulties with Babylonia. He saw clearly, however, the dangers of a dual capital and the impossibility of mutually pleasing two great peoples so diverse in all their ideas and aims. So long as Babylon remained a great city, and its citizens nourished their national life and kept burning their national pride, there and containing the account of the first two campaigns, and of the work on the new palace at Nineveh thus far accomplished. It is published in Layard, Inscriptions in the Cuneiform Character, plates 63, 64. (c) The Rassam Cylinder, British Museum 80-7-19, i, also barrel shaped. It is dated 700 B. C., and contains the campaign of 701 in the west, (d) The Sennacherib Prism, British Museum No. 103000, octagonal, 14 inches high, and containing 740 lines of text, while the Taylor has but 487 lines, though each is slightly longer. It is dated in 694, and is of great importance because it contains the accounts of two cam¬ paigns in 698 and 695 omitted from the other texts. This prism is published for the first time by King, Cuneiform Texts, xxvi, who also translates portions of it. To it we are also indebted for important topographical notes about Nineveh, especially concerning the royal palace and the city walls, (e) The Bavian Stele, published III R. 14, translated into French by Pognon, If Inscription de Bavian, Textc, traduction et commentaire philologique, Paris, 1879-80, and into English by Pinches, Records of the Past, First Series, ix, pp. 21-28. (f) The Neby Yunus Inscription, published I R. 43, and partially translated by Bezold, Keilinschrift. Bibl., ii, pp. 118, 119. See further, Winclder, Textbuch zum Alten Testament, p. 47, and Ungrad in Gressmann, Alt- orientalische Texte und Bilder, p. 121, footnote 3. (g) Minor Inscrip¬ tions in Messerschmidt, Keilschrifttexte aus Assur I, Nos. 43-50, and Andrae, Festungswerke von Assur, Textband, pp. 176, 177. (h) The Arabian Campaign. Ungnad, Vorderasiatische Schriftdenkmaler der kdnigl. Mus. zu Berlin, i, p. 73, f. Rogers, Cuneiform Parallels, pp, 345, 346. 354 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA would always be arising opportunities for vexa¬ tion against Assyria, and therefore possibilities for some shrewd Babylonian or Chaldean to gain leadership over the popular clamor and seize the throne. The maintenance of a dual kingdom was essentially an anomaly. If col¬ onization and deportation accomplished so much in the north and the west for continuity and peace, why should just the opposite plan be continued in Babylonia? Tiglathpileser, Shal¬ maneser, and Sargon had done nothing to diminish the national feeling in Babylonia, but rather had contributed fuel to the flame. Tiglathpileser ’s visits to Babylon in order that he might be proclaimed king had fostered Babylonian pride, in that they made the As¬ syrian king a suitor for honors at the hands of priesthood, though he had in reality won his triumph by force of arms. Shalmaneser had done exactly the same thing. Sargon had done even worse, for he had accepted the lesser title of shakkanak in order that he might be delivered from the onerous annual visit to Babylon and be free to come and go as he pleased. Sennacherib would do none of these things. He was a loyal Assyrian and no Baby¬ lonian, and was determined to break with all this past history, in which his own country had the power, but gave up its semblance and its show. He would possess that also, and show the world that Assyria was not merely THE REIGN OF SENNACHERIB 355 the head of the empire, but its absolute master. He would, in other words, treat Babylonia as a subject state and pay no attention to its royal ideas, its kingly titles, and its priestly authorities. It is possible that in this decision jealousy was mixed up with ambition. Sen¬ nacherib could not have looked the empire over without learning that Assyria was still a raw and uncouth country, leaning upon Babylonia for every sign of culture. Perhaps he felt that this position of Babylon itself might make it some day the capital of the entire empire, while Assyria lost its leadership altogether. His policy must prevent any such possibility as that. Sennacherib must have formed his plans and matured his policy even before his father was dead, for it seems to come into play at once. The first sign of it was purely negative, but it was carefully noted in Babylonia, and the record of the divergent views has come down to us. Sennacherib did not go to Babylon to be crowned or proclaimed king or shakkanak. As we now see the case from the vantage point of later history this was a fatal blunder. The empire divided in opinion at once. The so-called Babylonian Chronicle, resting on offi¬ cial sources, sets down for 704 and 703 Sen¬ nacherib as king of Babylon. That is to say, Sennacherib, without the carrying out of the usual rites, without the ordinary concessions 356 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA to the time-honored regulations of the priest¬ hood, without any salve for Babylonian pride, called himself king of Babylon, and the state record, compiled by authority, sets him down as king. But the Ptolemaic Canon, which clearly goes back to Babylonian sources, marks the years 704 and 703 as “ kingless T1 This was the real Babylonian opinion. This man Sennacherib might collect his taxes and tributes because he had the armed forces wherewith to enforce his demands, but he could not force the hearts of the people to acknowledge him as the genuine, the legitimate, king. In this, the first stroke of a new and revolutionary policy, Sennacherib had made provision for a disturbance which should vex his life, if, in¬ deed, it did not disrupt his kingdom — such force have ancient custom amd solemn religious rites. This state of affairs could not continue long — an Assyrian king claiming to be king in Babylon while the Babylonians denied that he was king at all. A rebellion broke out in Babylonia, and a man of humble origin, called in the King List2 son of a slave/ by name Marduk-zakir-shum, was proclaimed king. Here was again a disturbance brought on by folly, and likely to grow worse before it was better. In this condition of affairs the ever-watchful 1 See above, vol. i, p. 514. 2 See Pinches, “The Babylonian Kings of the Second Period,” Pro¬ ceedings of the Society of Biblical Archceology , vi, col. iv, line 13. THE REIGN OF SENNACHERIB 357 and certainly able Merodach-baladan saw his opportunity. Marduk-zakir-shum had reigned one month when the Chaldean appeared, and was able to have himself again set up as king (702). He now set out to bring about a con¬ dition of affairs which would compel Sennacherib to leave him alone in the enjoyment of the old honor and position. It was Sargon who had so long left him in peace, while he was occupied in pacifying the west. If he could now disturb the west again and divert from himself Sennacherib and his armies, he might again be permitted to rule long enough to fix himself firmly in his position. This time he might hope to have less difficulty in satisfying his Elamite and Chaldean followers. The plan was adroit, and promised well. The Book of Kings1 narrates that Merodach-baladan sent an embassy to Hezekiah to congratulate him on his recovery from a severe illness. Hezekiah showed his visitors the royal treasures and arsenals, doubtless greatly impressing them with the wealth and strength of Judah. There is no hint of any ulterior purpose in the mind 1 2 Kings xx, 12-19. There has been some doubt as to the time when this embassy was sent. It has been assigned to the first reign of Mero¬ dach-baladan under Sargon (so Lenormant, Hommel, Geschichte, p. 704; Winckler, Die Keilschrifttexte Sargon' s, i, p. xxxi, note 2), and also to his second reign (so Schrader, Cuneiform Inscriptions and the Old Testa¬ ment , ii, 28, 29; E. Meyer, Geschichte des Alterthums, i. p. 466; Winckler, Geschichte , p. 129; Murdter-Delitzsch, Geschichte, 2d ed., p. 197; Mas- pero, The Passing of the Empires , p. 275). The fatter view seems to me to fit the Assyrian situation better. So also Breasted, History of Egypt, p. 55 L 358 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA of Merodach-baladan, but the result shows clearly that this embassy was really intended to sow seeds of rebellion. It is most probable that he also sought to draw Egypt into some rebellious compact, for Sennacherib later had also to fight that country. The plan to divert Sennacherib to the west .failed because the state of affairs in the kingdom was very differ¬ ent from that which had obtained in the days of Sargon. Sargon was a usurper, and had to make sure of his borders and establish himself upon the throne. On the other hand, Sennacherib inherited a kingdom which ac¬ cepted his rule without a murmur, and was therefore better able to look after Merodach- baladan at once. He made no false step in the quelling of this rebellion, though his own folly had been the real cause of it. He deter¬ mined to leave the Palestinian states to their own pleasure and strike at the root of the disaffection in Babylonia. Sennacherib crossed the Tigris and marched in the direction of Babylon, meeting with little opposition until he reached Kish, about nine miles east of Babylon, where Merodach- baladan had deployed his forces. Here was fought the first battle, and Merodach-baladan was completely routed and forced to seek safety in flight.1 The city of Babylon was 1 Taylor Prism, col. i, lines 19-23, Rogers, Records of the Past, New Series, vi, p. 84. THE REIGN OF SENNACHERIB 359 not prepared for a siege, and Sennacherib entered it without difficulty. The palace of Merodach-baladan was plundered of everything valuable, but apparently Sennacherib did not disturb the possessions of the native Baby¬ lonians. He then marched into Chaldea, ran¬ sacking the whole country. In one of his records of this campaign Sennacherib declares that he destroyed eighty-nine cities and eight hundred and twenty villages;1 in another he gives seventy-six cities and four hundred and twenty villages.2 Whatever the correct figures may be there can be no doubt that the land was fearfully punished. Merodach-baladan, who had hidden himself in Guzuman, was not captured. When this was done Sennacherib set about the governmental reorganization of the country. He had with him a young man named Bel-ibni, a Babylonian by birth, but reared in the royal palace of Assyria. Him Sennacherib made king in this year (702), after Merodach-baladan had reigned but nine months.3 When Sennacherib was ready to return to Assyria he carried back immense booty with him, and besides the horses and asses and camels and sheep he took away two hundred and eight thousand people.4 1 K. 1644. See Bezold, Keilinschrift. Bibl., ii, p. 84. 2 Taylor Prism, i, lines 34, 35. 3 Alexander Polyhistor says six months. 4 The Taylor Cylinder, Annals of Sennacherib, i, 19-62 (I R. 37). Compare translation by Rogers, Records of the Past, New Series, vi, pp. 83, ff. 360 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA This extensive deportation must have been made, according to the policy of Tiglath- pileser, to achieve peace and prevent fur¬ ther rebellion. How well even this heroic treatment succeeded with a high-strung people like the Babylonians only later history can show. After the end of the Babylonian campaign Sennacherib marched into the territory of the Kasshu and Yasubigallu, who lived in the Median mountains east of Babylonia. They were a semibarbaric people, and the campaign must have been undertaken merely to make the Assyrian border country safe from their plundering raids. The invasion was success¬ ful in reducing the country, and captives of war were settled in it, while the nomadic inhabitants were forced to settle down in the cities. In this country some of the Babylonians whom Sennacherib had carried off may have found their home. Thence into Ellipi Sen¬ nacherib continued his march. Ishpabara, whom Sargon had made king, had not paid his tribute regularly, and must now be punished. Fearing the consequences of his faithlessness, Ishpabara fled, and Sennacherib easily captured the cap¬ ital, Marubishti, with the villages in its en¬ virons. A part of the country was colonized and then annexed to the province of Kharkhar, as Ellipi had been to that of Arrapkha. After the withdrawal of the Assyrians, Ishpabara THE REIGN OF SENNACHERIB 361 appears to have regained some of his lost territory.1 In 701 Sennacherib was forced to invade the west. He gives us no new reasons for this invasion, but the occasion for it is easily read between the lines of his records, and deduced from the biblical narrative. When rebellions were afoot in Babylonia, and for a time at least were successful, when Egypt was eager to regain lost prestige in a land where she had once been all-powerful, when an em¬ bassy from the indefatigable Merodach-baladan had come all the way from Babylonia to win sympathy and the help of a diversion in the west, it was hardly possible that these small states should remain quiet and pay their an¬ nual tribute without a murmur. We do not know how much inclined Hezekiah of Judah may have been to join in an open rebellion at this time. He had, however, taken up a posi¬ tion which would make it easy for him to do so; and the war party with its national enthu¬ siasm and unthinking patriotism was strong at his court. This policy was bitterly opposed by Isaiah, the leader of the cautious-minded men, who saw only disaster in any breach with Assyria at this time. Isaiah was no lover of Assyria, but he saw clearly how weak and poor was the help which the land might hope for from the outside. The Syrian states 1 Taylor Prism, i, 63 to ii, 33, Rogers, op. cit., vi, pp. 86 -88. 362 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA had suffered much from their former reliance on Egypt, and there was certainly no reason to hope that matters would be any better now. The wisest counsel was undoubtedly that of Isaiah. But, even though Hezekiah was willing to take it, which he certainly was not, it would have been almost impossible for him to do so. The whole land was aflame with patriotism, and woe betide the man, even a king, who dared to oppose it. Indeed the king had himself done much to foster not only this very spirit, now become dangerous, but also to quicken a consciousness of security which could not fail to collapse in the presence of such armies as Assyria was able to put into the field. Hezekiah had been victorious over the Philistines,1 and that prob¬ ably very early in his reign; why should he not also conquer the Assyrians? would be the simple reasoning of those who had not directly experienced the Assyrian advance in war. He had built an aqueduct by which an abundant supply of flowing water was brought within the city walls. What that meant for the city is almost incalculable by occidentals. Jerusalem had never had flowing water before within its walls. It could therefore easily be taken by a siege in the dry season. Hezekiah had supplied this primary need, and by so doing- had immeasurably added to the defensibility of 1 2 Kings xviii, 8. THE REIGN OF SENNACHERIB 363 the city. There is no doubt that this was a war measure, and that it would be so under¬ stood and interpreted by the people is even more clear.1 How easy was the task of the anti-Assyrian party with such arguments as these — victory over the Philistines, and a new aqueduct — to break down the opposition led by Isaiah and supported by his unpopular associates. All that Isaiah actually accom¬ plished was the postponement of the breach with Assyria; without him it would inevitably have come sooner. As in Judah, so also in Egypt was the way preparing for an uprising in S}^ria. The Twenty- fifth, or Ethiopian dynasty was now ruling, nominally at least, over the whole land of Egypt, and Shabaka, its first king, had ascended the throne in 712 or 711. But there is evidence enough to show that the Ethiopian king could hardly claim to be absolute master of the destinies of the Nile valley. Sennacherib in his narrative of the later campaign refers not to the king of Egypt, but to the kings of Egypt, and his successors upon the Assyrian throne supply us with lists of the names of kings over districts of Egypt. All these district kings were striving for more power, and the Ethiopian overlord must gain ascendency over them all before he could dispose, as he would, of Egypt’s greatness. He could readily see 1 2 Kings xx, 20. Compare 2 Chron. xxxii, 5. 3G4 HISTORY OR BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA that a movement outside of Egypt, against external foes, would be certain, if successful, to increase his prestige at home. The same hopes would be in the minds of the district kings. A policy like this pursued by a dis¬ trict king, such, for example, as Sibe, might make him, instead of the Ethiopian overlord, the real king of Egypt. If one of these kings was seeking a place in which to gain advantage by interference, there was none more prom¬ ising than Syria. Even a slight hope of regain¬ ing it would readily unite all parties in Egypt, and he would be sure of his throne. He would thus be glad to encourage any patriotic party in Syria to appeal to him for help, hoping, when the accounts were reckoned up, to be able to turn to his own advantage whatever help he might give to the rebels against Assyria. Gladly would he listen to an appeal for help from Judah. And in spite of Isaiah the appeal was sent. An embassy from Hezekiah, naturally laden with presents, went to Egypt,1 and the Egyptians promised assistance. More and more the patriotic party in Judah gained the ascen¬ dency. The country was ready for a daring stroke against Assyria. Hezekiah became the moving spirit of a rebellion which swept over all the Syrian states.2 1 See Isa. xxx, 1-4, and xxxi, 1. 2 Our authorities for Sennacherib’s campaign in the west are the following: 1. Assyrian, (a) I R. 7, No. viii, I. Rogers, Records of the Past, New Series, vi, p. 83. Sennacherib’s bas-relief, represent- THE REIGN OF SENNACHERIB 3G5 The rebellion broke first in Ekron. Here the Assyrian had set up a governor who re¬ mained faithful to his masters beyond the Euphrates, to the bitter end. The uprising in his city was general if not universal. “The governors, chiefs, and people of Ekron,” as Sennacherib says,1 cast Padi into iron chains and then delivered him up to Hezekiah2 to be shut up in prison. This act in itself — and our knowledge of it comes at first-hand from Sen¬ nacherib’s own historiographers, and not from the Hebrews — shows that Hezekiah was re¬ garded as the real head of the insurrection. Sennacherib could not brook such an insult as this to a prince whom the Assyrians had set up, for nothing of Assyrian prestige could be saved if this were allowed to go unpunished. He resolved to proceed at once in person at the head of his armies and strike suddenly before the forces of all Syria could unite. His first point of attack was the Phoenician cities. Sennacherib says nothing about a siege of ing his victory at Lachish. (b) The Taylor Prism, col. ii, line 34-col. iii, line 41. Rogers, op. cit., pp. 88-91, and Cuneiform Parallels, pp. 340-345. 2. Hebrew, (a) 2 Kings xviii, 13-xix, 37. (b) Isa. xxxvi, 1-xxxvii, 37. The passage in Isaiah is the same as that in Kings, with the single great exception that it does not contain 2 Kings xviii, 14-16 — a positive proof that this passage is not original in its present setting. Stade has shown ( Zeitschrift fur die alttestamentliche Wissen- schaft, 1886, pp. 172, ff.) that it consists of three narratives, the first of which is 2 Kings xviii, 13, 17-37, xix, l-9a; the second, 2 Kings xviii, 14-16; and the third, 2 Kings xix, 9b-37. (See also Benzinger and Kittel on the passage.) This analysis is now generally accepted. 1 Taylor Prism, ii, 69, Rogers, Cuneiform Parallels, p. 342. * Hezekiah, having conquered Philistia, was now regarded as a sort of overlord, and hence was asked to receive Padi. 366 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA Tyre at this time, for he was certainly not prepared to attack a city which could be reached successfully only by the sea. He was, however, able to ravage its tributary cities on the mainland, and so affect it indirectly. Having thus injured the city’s commerce and frightened its defenders, Sennacherib turned against Sidon. Elulaeus (Luli), who was now king, dared not await the conqueror’s approach, and fled. The city surrendered at once, and Sennacherib made it the capital of a new province. Tyre had been engaged in setting up a new con¬ federation of which it should be the head. Sennacherib could now forestall this by setting up Ethobal as king in Sidon and giving him Sidon, Bit-Zitti, Sarepta (Sariptu), Machalliba, Ushu, Ekdippa (Akzibu), and Akko (now Acre) as his kingdom. The very presence of the Assyrian monarch, engaged in his work of making and unmaking kingdoms, filled all Syria with terror. States which had been ready enough to rebel against Assyrian tribute were now ready to surrender without the faintest attempt at a fight. Among these who had more discretion than valor were Menahem (Minchimmu) of Samsimuruna, the location of which is unknown;1 Abdili’ti of Arvad, Urumilki of Byblos,2 Mitinti of Ashdod, Budu-ilu of Beth-Ammon, Kammusu- 1 It is certainly not Samaria, as was once thought by Talbot, Norris, and George Smith. 2 Gu-ub-la-ai, that is, “of Gebal,” the ancient name of Byblos. THE REIGN OF SENNACHERIB 367 nadab of Moab, and Malik-rammu of Edom.1 All these brought heavy and costly presents, and so assured Sennacherib of their desire to live peaceably and pay well their tribute. This formidable defection from the ranks of the rebels greatly reduced their chances for success, for it left large spaces of territory from which neither supplies nor men could be drawn. Sennacherib, however, had not yet terrorized all Syria, and there were some who boldly held on their course and prepared for defense. Of these states Ashkelon first de¬ manded severe treatment from Sennacherib. Tiglathpileser had set up Rukipti as king over the people of Ashkelon, but his son, Sharru- ludari, had been driven out and a usurper named Zidqa was now ruling in the city. His only hope of a continuance in power was in successful resistance to Sennacherib. The city was, however, soon taken, and Zidqa with all his family was carried off to Assyria, and Sharru-ludari set up as king. It is somewhat surprising that this conquest did not bring about more desertions from the rebels, but the remainder held fast and had to be reduced piecemeal. Even the other cities which formed part of the little kingdom of Ashkelon had to be taken one at a time; so fell Beth-Dagon, Joppa, Benebarqa,2 and Azuru. 1 Taylor Prism, ii, 34-57, Rogers, op. cit., vi, pp. 88, 89. 2 Beni-berak, Josh, xix, 45. 368 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA The campaign was now swiftly approaching Ekron, and Sennacherib is probably reporting only the actual fact when he says that the people of Ekron feared in their hearts.1 Be¬ fore he had his reckoning with them he must first meet a formidable foe. Unlike former kings of Egypt, or of its separate districts, the present rulers were determined to send some help to the newly gained allies in Pales¬ tine, or Syria. They might well do so, for it was not merely the possession of Syria which was now in the balance, but even the autonomy of Egypt itself. No man could possibly tell when the Assyrians would invade the land of the Pharaohs if Syria were wholly theirs, and hence a safe base of operations and supplies. As we have said before, there is every good reason for believing that this had long ago been contemplated in Assyria. The forces of the Egyptians, advancing northward, united with a contingent from Melukhkha, probably not very large, and then proceeded onward, intending doubtless a junction with the troops of Hezekiah. Before this could be effected Sennacherib halted the advance at Altaku2 and offered battle. It was a battle of giants, and, though Sennacherib boasts of the usual victory, it must have been achieved with great loss. That the victory in a measure was his there 1 Taylor Prism, ii, 73. 2 Eltekeh, Josh, xix, 44. The exact location is doubtful. See G. A. Smith, Hist. Gtog. of Holy Land, p. 236. THE REIGN OF SENNACHERIB 369 can be no doubt. He captured the son of an Egyptian king and the son of a general of Melukhkha. The cities of Eltekeh and Tim- nath were then taken, and the road was opened to Ekron. Ekron could offer no effectual re¬ sistance, and the city was terribly punished. The chief men who had driven Padi from the throne were impaled on stakes about the city, while their unhappy followers were deported. The Assyrian party in the city was, on the other hand, peacefully treated.1 It was a hor¬ rible object lesson to those who looked on. Padi, who was still in the hands of Hezekiah, was later restored to the command of the city. At first thought it seems remarkable that Sennacherib did not follow up this victory over the Egyptians. Their allies in Palestine were defeated; their detachments from Arabia were routed; they themselves were in full flight. Much indeed might have been gained by a decisive castigation of troublesome Egypt. But Sennacherib’s chief enemy in all this cam¬ paign was Hezekiah, and Jerusalem his real goal.2 Until the Judaean king was ruined and 1 Taylor Prism, iii, 1-7. 2 “Aber wenn nun . . . Schrader behauptet, die Bedrobung Jerusalems bedeute nur eine nebensachliche Episode im Verlaufe des ganzen Heer- zuges, so glaube ich, dass ganz abgesehen von den biblischen Erziih- lungen man doch zu dem Urtheil wird kommen miissen, der Zug gegen Jerusalem sei Endziel und Schluss des Ganzen. Denn die so ganz besonders starke Bestrafung Hizkias, die Verwiistung von 46 Stadten, Abtrennung grosser Gebietsteile, die Aufzahlung der sehr grossen Beute, welche uns hier in langer Reihe vorgefiihrt wild, fuhrcn zu dem Schluss, dass Sanherib den Hizkia als besonders gcfahrlichcn Gegner angeschen 370 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA Jerusalem devastated, as Ekron had been, the object of the campaign would not be fulfilled. Into Jerusalem came the news of the Egyptian defeat at Eltekeh and of the overwhelming of Ekron, and still Hezekiah did not offer to surrender. Up from the plains of Philistia came the victorious Assyrian army, and one by one the fortified cities of Judah fell before it until forty-six had been taken. Their in¬ habitants were now reckoned as Assyrian sub¬ jects, and according to the historians of Sennacherib they numbered two hundred thou¬ sand one hundred and fifty.* 1 These cities were then divided between Mitinti, king of Ashdod, Padi, king of Ekron, and Sillibel, king of Gaza — a serious loss of territory to Hezekiah. Thor¬ oughly convinced now that further resistance would mean utter destruction, Hezekiah deter¬ mined to submit and secure such terms as he could. He sent an embassy to Sennacherib, whose headquarters were established at Lachish in the Shephela. Sennacherib demanded a tribute of thirty talents of gold and eight hun¬ dred of silver, as the Assyrian accounts represent,2 or three hundred talents of silver, und bestraft hat.” — Meinhold, Die Jesajaerz&hlungen, Gottingen, 1898, p. 96. 1 Taylor Prism, col. iii, line 17. These inhabitants were not carried away into captivity. They were marched out ( ushesa ) from their cities and compelled to give allegiance to Assyria. The usual Assyrian expression ( ashlul ) for taking away into captivity is not used here. See Meyer, Die Entstehung des Judenthums, Halle, 1896, pp. 108, 109. 2 Taylor Prism, iii, 34, Rogers, op. cit., p. 91. Limestone slab with relief depicting the siege of Lachish by the troops of Sennacherib, king of As¬ syria (704-682 B. C.). [Photograph by V. H. Kleinmann & Co., Haarlem.] 370 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND' ASSYRIA Jerusalem derastated, as Ekron had been, the object of the campaign would not be fulfilled. Into Jerusalem came the news of the Egyptian defeat at Eltekeh and of the overwhelming < f E con, and still Hezeldah did not offer to surrender. Up from the plains of Philistia came the victorious Assyrian army, and one by one the fortified cities of Judah fdll before it until forty-six had been taken. Their in- * \ habitants were now reckoned as Assyrian sub¬ jects, and according to the historians • of nnacherib they numbered two hundred thou.-T lo .ogoia ad) gniiqiq^b, V.ikt die/ -a Ai lo gfiid .dnsd'wmiw* lo f.qooxt adt vd ifcafofiJ . ,i m i'HT r.hv, Padi, [.melmaH ,,ot) $> .H .7 yd dqmgotod*!] oughly convinced no ^ ance wtor- wouid u w mined 1 ? ^ he jo aid. H whose her tribute ■ f ? dred of si? represent,2 o terms as 'to Sennacherib, wblished at Lachish mi wherib demanded a .dents of gold and eight bun¬ as the Assyrian accounts ree hundred* talents of silver, \md besfcraft. Meinhold Dio JesajaerzQhlungm, Gottingen, 1898, p. 96. 1 Taylor Prism, ^<»l. iii, line »7. These inhabitants were not carried away into < apt city. 1 were marched out (ushe.va) from their cities and compelled to g: ' finance to Assyria. The usual Assyrian i T>i‘-Ssion (mi l l) f« -wny into captivity if not used '• here. . •Taylor Prism, iii, 3-s t • r op. cit.y p. 91. THE REIGN OF SENNACHERIB 371 as the Hebrew narrative1 recounts. The securing of such a sum was a grievous task, and it was accomplished only by stripping the temple of ornaments and furnishing. The humiliation of Hezekiah was as complete as his impoverishment. It was also probably at this time that Padi, king of Ekron, was deliv¬ ered up by Hezekiah, and thereupon resettled in the rule over his city.2 When Sennacherib had secured the gifts he did not rest satisfied, but, feeling sure that he could not be resisted, demanded the surrender of Jerusalem. A part of his army, under the command of a Rab- shakeh, a general officer of some kind, is sent, with a detachment of troops as escort, to express his determination. This brought about a panic in the populace, and the king himself was in a frenzy of fear. Years later Sennacherib might well say of Hezekiah: “I shut him up like a caged bird in Jerusalem, his royal city.”3 The city was not besieged, but was blockaded, 1 2 Kings xviii, 14. Brandis ( Munzwesen , p. 98) has attempted to show that the three hundred Hebrew talents = eight hundred Assyrian, and this is now generally accepted. So also Lehmann-Haupt, Israel, Seine Entwickelung in Rahmen der W eltgeschichte, p. 121. The amount of this tribute in present money would be about $5,650,000. 2 The surrender of Padi to the Assyrians is mentioned in Sennacherib’s Annals (Taylor Prism, iii, 8-10) before the treaty with Hezekiah. The reason for this is that Sennacherib is there telling of the punishment of Ekron, and goes on to show how it was to be governed in the future. The narrative does not follow strict chronological order, but this episode is rounded out and then the chronological scheme is again resumed. This is the usual form in Assyrian narrative. See Winckler, Alttes- tamentliche Untersuchungen, p. 31. 3 Taylor Prism, col. iii, line 20. 372 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA so that all hope of succor from outside was cut off.1 Within the walls, amid all the con¬ fusion and fear, preparations for a last defense went on vigorously.2 Without them, at the “conduit of the upper pool, which is in the highway of the fuller’s field,”3 negotiations were carried on between the Rabshakeh on the one side, and on the other Eliakim, palace governor; Shebna, state recorder; and Joah, chancellor. Though both threatened and cajoled, Hezekiah refused to give up the city, and the Rabshakeh withdrew his force and joined the main body at Libnah, whither Sennacherib had withdrawn from Lachish, which had suc¬ cumbed to superior force. It was conceived to be a place of such importance that its con¬ quest is celebrated by Sennacherib in a mag¬ nificent wall inscription with pictures in relief.4 1 The statement of Sennacherib’s Annals (col. iii, lines 21, 22) does not properly bear the construction that he had laid siege to the city in a formal manner. His phrase is: “Intrenchments I fortified against him, (and) whosoever came out of the gates of the city I turned back.” This is not the expression used elsewhere for a real investment of the city. It was a blockade, and the implication is that the forces of the Rabshakeh were encamped around the city, but at a distance, which also is supported by the place at which negotiations were carried on, for this must have been between the two forces and not within the Assyrian lines. Compare 2 Kings xix, 32: ‘‘Therefore thus saith the Lord con¬ cerning the king of Assyria, He shall not come into this city, nor shoot an arrow there, neither shall he come before it with shield, nor cast a mount against it.” See on the passage Kittel, Handkommentar, p. 289. 2 Isa. xxii, 9, 10. 3 2 Kings xviii, 17. 4 Published I R. 7, No. viii, I (Rogers, op. cit., p. 83). The pictures are reproduced in Ball, Light from the East, pp. 191, 193. THE REIGN OF SENNACHERIB 373 Shortly thereafter he withdrew to Assyria, induced thereto perhaps by the threatening condition of affairs in Babylonia, and richly compensated for his disappointments by the enormous treasure secured from Hezekiah. Sennacherib had left Babylonia in the full enjoyment of peace, but he had also sown thoroughly the seeds of unrest. Bel-ibni, one of his own creatures, was on the throne, but however well disposed he was, there was no hope that he might successfully resist the distemper of the people. Their patriotic love for Babylon, their belief that once a world city meant always a world city, had been grossly trodden under foot by the Assyrian king; their inborn religious feeling had been outraged beyond endurance by a king who paid not the least attention to their solemn rites of coronation. Sennacherib was now deeply embroiled in the western troubles, and the Babylonians thoroughly understood them, for news traveled far and fast in the ancient Orient. The time was, to their mind, auspicious for the reassertion of national ideals. No matter what Bel-ibni may have desired, he was forced by resistless public sentiment into a position hostile to Assyria. Ever ready for any chance at his old enemy, Merodach-baladan of the Sea Lands joined in the rebellion, and the Chaldeans, under a native prince named Mushezib-Marduk, also engaged in it. This 374 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA looked like a promising rebellion, though that the confederates could divide the land between them if there was success might well be doubted. The new organization of affairs in Baby¬ lonia went well for a short period, until the appearance in 700 of Sennacherib. At once the whole compact fell to pieces. Bel-ibni was captured and sent ignominiously to Assyria, whose training he had dishonored, along with his foolish counselors. Marduk-ushezib fled toward the south, and went into hiding in the marshes at the mouths of the rivers. Mero- dach-baladan embarked his gods and his people upon ships, and sailing down the Persian Gulf, settled along the eastern shores in the land of Elam, whither Sennacherib did not dare to follow him. There he soon after died. No man like him as an opponent of Assyria had arisen since the days of Ben-Hadad II of Damascus. Adroit enough to surrender always at the right time, ever full of resources when there was the least hope of success, implacable in his hostility, his removal from action was a great boon to Assyria. His name did not die with him, but his descendants, of the same stuff in their persistency, remained to plague a later day in Assyrian history. The land of Bit-Yakin was next ravaged by Sennacherib in the vain attempt to root out the elements of discord and disaffection. On his return north¬ ward Sennacherib had his own son, Ashur- Sennacherib at Lachish (701 B. C.). A relief representing the king seated upon his portable throne, which had been set near some vines and fig trees outside the city. His officers are reporting to him the events of the siege, and behind him are the representatives of the conquered city. At the upper left hand corner is a four-line cuneiform inscription which reads: “Sennacherib, king of the world, king of Assyria, seated himself on a throne and the prisoners of Lachish marched before him.” [Photograph by W. A. Mansell & Co., London.] O v 374 HISTOin 01 BAB V IA) MA jus u a_ . hellion, though that tn ai t s could divide the land between Ua/m \va^ success might well be doubted, •ganization of affairs in Baby- L went well for a short period, until the nee in 700 of Sennacherib. At once j/> .M SOw iUUhrJ i.i* dhaihiifnwb ' oM^hocf ml 010:10 &MB8 inbl ' odd aft brii Whtv bnfoe lebh tea itebdbiuf ,9noirit < 0 iMHttoqe'! f&iU aiK stft bhfehjo *i©At sflloTB faiid hiddod bci£ adt to Bitnbva ndt mid h&m* ndtefeAu .yiio kmatsbm* a# doiaa^rkBtMaanga*! aoijqriQSui txi^otiQtma a/iil-inot B.ai Tnnol lonul Jlol A 'lo §nbl. n;>t to root out the elements of discord and i ion. On his return north- ■ • with him, . r> ; i \r. , : , lilt- X at •: V. THE REIGN OF SENNACHERIB 375 nadin-shum, proclaimed in Babylon as king1 (700-694 B. C.). And so began another at¬ tempt at governing this difficult part of the empire. In the year 698 military operations were deemed necessary in Cilicia. Kirua, a native prefect of Illubru, situated in the Taurus, had revolted and drawn to his support the peoples of Irgira and Tarsus. They seized the Cilician gates and so cut off the commercial road which connected Western Asia with Asia Minor. This was a matter of very serious import, and Sennacherib, unable for some reason to take the field in person, dispatched ample forces of all arms, including bowmen, lancers, and even chariots. The issue was met “in the midst of a difficult mountain,’ ’ and the As¬ syrian arms were victorious. Illubru was re¬ taken, Kirua was carried off to Assyria and flayed, and Tarsus was destroyed. At Illubru Sennacherib caused to be set up a stela with his royal semblance upon it, and plainly counted this a campaign of consequence. The people whom Kirua had thus led to a forlorn hope were Ionians, and this conflict impressed the imagination to so great an extent that the memory of it was preserved by Berossos,2 who gave an account of it, and ascribes to Senna¬ cherib the building of the city of Tarsus after 1 Taylor Prism, iii, lines 42-65, Rogers, op. cit., pp. 91, 92. 2 Schoene, Eusebi chronicorum, liber I, cols. 27, 35. 376 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA the manner of Babylon.1 The severe discipline of Cilicia sufficed to keep the province in subjection for three years only. In 695 in the district of Tabali, northeast of Cilicia, a man named Khidi formed a union against tribute paying and seized Til-garimmu, making it his capital. Sennacherib dispatched an expedition against him. Til-garimmu was besieged and taken “by the heaping up of earth, the assault of siege engines and the attack of foot soldiers. ” The method was curiously interesting. The walls were approached by the heaping of earth against them so as to form an inclined plane by which the attacking troops could reach the top of the wall, and so drive the defenders from it, and enable the siege engines to be rolled up and breach it.2 The city was turned into mounds and heaps of ruins “and its people deported to Assyria.”3 Again were troubles brewing in Babylonia, even while the king’s own son maintained his precarious rule. The Chaldeans were not so well led as they had been, but even in exile they ceased not to plot against the nation 1 Sennacherib’s account is in the large prism (British Museum 103000) col. iv, lines 61-91. See King’s notes upon it in Cuneiform Texts, xxvi, pp. 9-14, and compare his paper Semiacherib and the Ionians, Journal of Hellenic Studies, xxx (1910), pp. 327-335. 2 This method was also much used in the later Neo-Babylonian or Chaldean period: “he [the Chaldean] derideth every stronghold; for he heapeth up dust and taketh it.” Hab. i, 10. 3 The account of this campaign is found only in British Museum 103000, col. v, 1-22, and its duplicate 102996. See King, Cuneiform Texts, xxvi. THE REIGN OF SENNACHERIB 377 which had humiliated them. A large number of Chaldeans had left the southlands of Baby¬ lonia and settled on the coasts of Elam. Here they were an ever-present menace to the peace of Babylonia. In 694 Sennacherib undertook a campaign for their destruction. It was a campaign extraordinary in conception and execution. He built boats on the Tigris and manned them with Phoenicians and Cyprians, who were better used to ships than the land- loving Assyrians.1 The boats were then floated down the Tigris to Upi (Opis), and thence conveyed overland to the Euphrates by camels, where they were again launched and went down to the Persian Gulf. A short sail brought the forces to the colonies which Merodach-baladan had founded, where the cities were destroyed and their inhabitants slain or carried into captivity.2 Never before had Sennacherib made a direct attack on Elam, and this was not to go by without an effort after revenge. Khallus, the Elamite king, invaded Babylonia and plundered Sippar. Ashur-nadin-shum, who had enough courage to oppose him, was taken captive to Elam,3 whence he apparently never returned. The Elamites then crowned in Babylonia a native by the name of Nergal-ushezib. This act again divided the land. The new king held only Baylor Prism, iv, line 26. 2 Ibid., lines 29-33. 3 Babylonian Chronicle, ii, 42, Keilinschri/t. Bill., ii, pp. 278, 279. 378 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA northern Babylonia, while all the south was in Assyrian hands. Nergal-ushezib attempted to gain control also over the south, and marched to Nippur, which he took in 693. 1 Shortly after he met an Assyrian army, and a battle was fought in which he was taken prisoner and carried to Assyria.2 In Elam an uprising took place in which Khallus was killed, and the throne came to Kudur-nankhundi.3 These re¬ versals of fortune seemed to hand over the land of Babylon again to the Assyrians, but the matter was by no means settled. The Assyrians could not hope to hold Babylonia in safety if the Elamites were not so punished for the late invasion that they would never dare the like again. The change in kings gave a favorable opportunity, and Sennacherib in¬ vaded the land. He claims to have sacked and burned thirty-four cities and to have seized much treasure. The king was not taken nor his capital city besieged — and this failure Sen¬ nacherib ascribes to weather of unusual severity and to great cold.4 Kudur-nankhundi lived only three months more, and was succeeded by his younger brother, Umman-minanu, whom Sennacherib considered a man without judg¬ ment and intelligence.5 1 Babylonian Chronicle, ii, 42. 2 Ibid., iii, 4, 5. 3 Ibid., 9. In the Babylonian Chronicle the name is abbreviated into Kudur. 4 Taylor Prism, iv, 43-80. 6 Ibid., v, line 3, Rogers, op. cit., p. 96. THE REIGN OF SENNACHERIB 379 While these events were happening in Elam, and Sennacherib was tied down to his efforts there, another Chaldean seized the reins of power in Babylonia. Mushezib-Marduk was made king in Babylon in 693. It is one of the curious changes in history that he was supported by the native Babylonians. It was but a short time since the Babylonian hatred of Chaldeans was so strong that an Assyrian king who was able to drive them from the country was hailed as a deliverer. Now the Babylonians were filled with hatred and dread of the Assyrians, and made common cause with the Chaldeans against them. The Baby¬ lonians and Chaldeans then gained as another ally the Elamites, by giving to Urnman-minanu the treasures of the ancient temple of E-sagila as a bribe. Political necessities had surely made strange bedfellows when the Elamites, who so recently had been invaders and plun¬ derers in Babylonia, were now chosen friends to strengthen a Chaldean upon a Babylonian throne. With the Elamites were found as allies peoples of many places which had been organized as Assyrian provinces but a short time before. Among these were Parsua, Ellipi, and the Puqudu, the Gambuli, and, most interesting of all, Samunu, the son of Mero- dach-baladan, who had revenge in his heart beyond a doubt, and was glad of an oppor¬ tunity to meet his father’s enemy. The allies 380 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA came down into Babylonia, and Sennacherib’s historiographer waxed eloquent as he thought of that great array. They were “like a great swarm of locusts.’ n “The dust of their feet was like a storm by which the wide heavens are covered with thick clouds.”1 2 In 691 Sen¬ nacherib met the combined armies at Khalule.3 The description of the battle as the Annals have preserved it is one of the most thrilling in all Assyrian literature.4 Words of blood and fire are heaped one upon the other to set forth the overwhelming might of the great king’s opponents and the awful butchery which they suffered. But the very protestations of such complete victory awaken skepticism, which becomes conviction when we survey the con- elusion of the whole conflict. Immediately after the battle Sennacherib withdrew to As¬ syria. He made no attempt to pursue the forces which he is said to have routed, neither did he turn to Babylon to drive the usurper from the throne. If he really did gain the victory,5 it must have been with tremendous losses which could not be promptly repaired. 1 Taylor Prism, v, 43. 2 Ibid., 45-47. 3 Billerbeck ( Geographische Untersuchungen , p. 11, note 1; Susa, p. 90) locates Khalule on the left bank of the Diyala, perhaps on the site where Hebheb now stands. 4 See Haupt, “The Battle of Halule,” Andover Review , 1887, pp. 542, IT. s The Babylonian Chronicle (col. iii, 10-18) claims the victory for Elam in these words: “Menanu took his seat on the throne in Elam. In an unknown year he collected the forces of Elam and of Babylonia, offered battle to the Assyrians in Khalule and conquered the Assyrians.” THE REIGN OF SENNACHERIB 381 In 689 Sennacherib again invaded Babylonia and came up to the city itself. The Baby¬ lonians had now no Elamite allies, and the city was soon taken. Thereupon ensued one of the wildest scenes of human folly in all history. The city was treated exactly as the Assyrian kings had been accustomed to treat insignificant villages which had joined in re¬ bellion. It was plundered, its inhabitants driven from their homes or deported, its walls broken down. The torch was then applied, and over the plain rolled the smoke of con¬ suming temples and palaces, the fruit of cen¬ turies of high civilization. All that the art of man had up to that time devised of beauty and of glory, of majesty and of massiveness, lay in one great smoldering ruin. Over this the waters of the Euphrates were diverted that the site of antiquity’s greatest city might be turned into a pestilential swamp. Marduk, the great god of the city, was carried away and set up in the city of Asshur, that no future settlers might be able to secure the protection of the deity who had raised the city to emi¬ nence. Marduk-ushezib was carried a prisoner to Assyria.1 It was undoubtedly the hope and belief of Sennacherib that he had finally settled the Babylonian question, which had so long bur- 1 Bavian Inscription, lines 43-50, Bezold, Keilinschrift. Bibl., ii, pp. 116-119. 382 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA ANT) ASSYRIA dened him and former kings of Assyria. There would now, in his opinion, be no further trouble about the crowning of kings in Babylon and the taking of the hands of Marduk, for the city was a swamp and Marduk an exile. There would be no more glorification of the city at the expense of Nineveh, which was now, by a process of elimination, assuredly the chief city of western Asia. Bub in all this Sennacherib reasoned not as a wise man. He had indeed blotted out the city, but the site hallowed by custom and venerated for centuries remained. He had slain or driven into exile its citizens, but in the hearts of the survivors there burned still the old patriotism, the old pride of citizen¬ ship in a world city. He had humbled the Babylonians indeed, but what of the Chaldeans who had already produced a Merodach-baladan and might produce another like him, who would seek revenge for the punishment of his race and its allies in Babylonia? From a purely com¬ mercial point of view the destruction had been great folly. The plundering of the great city before its burning had undoubtedly produced immense treasure to carry away into Assyria, but there would have been a great annual income of tribute, which was now cut off; and a vast loss by the fire, which blotted out ware¬ houses and extensive stores as well as temples and palaces. This historic crime would later be avenged in full measure. In any estimation THE REIGN OF SENNACHERIB 383 of the character of the Assyrian people the destruction of Babylon must be set down b}^ the side of the raids and the murders of Ashur- nazirpal. It is a sad episode in human history which gave over to savages in thought and in action the leadership of the Semitic race, and took it away from the Hebrews and Aramaeans and the culture-loving Babylonians. For eight long and weary years the only record of the Babylonian Chronicle and the Ptolemaic Canon is, “There was no king in Babylon. ” The babble of many tongues of diverse peoples who had garnered knowledge, carved beautiful statues, experimented in divers forms of government, sang hymns of praise, and uttered plaints of penitence was hushed, and in its place was the great silence of the desert, which a ruthless destroyer had made. At some time between 688 and 682 Sen¬ nacherib again went westward into Arabia. Sargon had there met with extraordinary suc¬ cess. But the results had been very short¬ lived. The Bedouin inhabitants were able to pay tribute, and would do so for a time if there was fear of punishment, but they were so continually moving about from place to place with their flocks and herds that it was difficult to follow them and keep them in dread. It was one thing to punish a people who had houses and cities, it was another thing to discipline a people whose black tents of camel’s 384 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA hair were quickly folded and their possessors swept silently away over pathless deserts be¬ neath a blazing and relentless sun. Senna¬ cherib’s long absence had blotted out the memory of the past among the Arabians, and they were now rather under Egyptian than Assyrian influence. To restore the Assyrian position was the object of an expedition known to us by a reference in the inscriptions of Sennacherib’s son and successor and also from a most fragmentary text of Sennacherib himself.1 Adumu, a sort of settlement, probably the Dumatha of Ptolemy, was taken and the gods carried away to Assyria.2 More than this could hardly have been accomplished among a population such as this. Though we have no mention of it, it is probable that some booty was secured, and the Assyrian prestige would be increased by the taking away of the gods. While he was engaged in Arabia a rumor reached him that Tirhaka (Taharka), king of Egypt, was advancing against him. He was a son of Piankhi, by a Nubian woman, and bore in his face, as portrait statues have re¬ vealed it, clear marks of his negroid origin. He had become king about 688 B. C., and was no mean antagonist. The position in 1 Scheil, Orientalistische Liter atur-Zeitung, 1904, cols. 69, 70. Ungrad, V order asiatische Schriftdenkmaler der Konigl. Museen zu Berlin, i, p. 73, ff. Rogers, Cuneiform Parallels, pp. 345, 346. 2 Esarhaddon, Prism (A & C), col. ii, 55-58, Abel, Keilinschrift. Bibl., ii, pp. 130, 131. Rogers, Cuneiform Parallels, p. 354. THE REIGN OF SENNACHERIB 385 which Sennacherib was now placed was some¬ what disturbing. He had indeed inflicted a defeat upon the Arabians, but that was but temporary, as he doubtless knew. If the forces of Tirhaka were large and the Assyrians should meet with reverses the line of retreat was un¬ protected and full of dangers. The Jews had had time to recover and if he retreated along the Mediterranean seaboard might fall on his flanks with disastrous effect. He, therefore, sent again an embassy to Hezekiah to demand the surrender of Jerusalem, armed with many threats and high sounding words. At this time Isaiah supported the king of Judah, and counseled courage, assuring the king that Sennacherib would not be able to attack Jeru¬ salem.1 So indeed it fell out. Sennacherib turned to meet Tirhaka, and while in camp somewhere in the neighborhood of Pelusium,2 long famous as a plague spot,3 * * * * 8 pestilence broke 1 This second attempt upon Jerusalem is recounted in 2 Kings xix, 9, ff. See above, p. 364, note 2. For a discussion of the question of a second attempt on Jerusalem see Rogers, Sennacherib and Judah in Studien .... Julius W ellhausen gewidmet, herausgegeben von Karl Marti (Giessen, 1914), pp. 317-328. 2 Pelusium is given as the place of the catastrophe by Herodotus (ii, 141, see further below), and this is supported by Hieronymus ( Corn - mentaria in Isaiam, lib. xi, cap. xxxvii, Patrologice, Latinoe, tomus xxiv, pp. 398, 399) : “Pugnasse autem Sennacherib regem Assyriorum contra iEgyp- tios et obsedisse Pelusium jamque extructis aggeribus urbi capiendae, ven- isse Taracham regem .Kthiopum in auxilium, et una nocte juxta Jeru¬ salem centum octaginta quinque millia exercitus Assyrii pestilentia corruisse narrat Herodotus, et Plenissime Berosus, Chaldaicse scriptor historise, quorum fides de proprus libris petenda est.” There appears to be good reason for holding that this statement of Hieronymus comes from Berossos, and is therefore, in origin, independent of Herodotus. 8 See G. A. Smith, Historical Geography of the Holy Land, pp. 157-159. 386 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA out in his army, and a disaster far more dan¬ gerous than the sword to armies of all ages fell upon him. All hopes of invading Egypt must be aban¬ doned, and Sennacherib led homeward only a miserable fragment of an army which had hitherto proved almost invincible. The joy of that hour to all the west may scarcely even be imagined. To the Hebrews it meant nothing less than God’s intervention to save the rem¬ nant of a kingdom once so glorious.1 To Tirhaqa it gave some claim to have conquered the Assyrians, and as a victor over Khatte, Arados, and Ashur he is celebrated in one of his own inscriptions.2 The tradition of that wonderful deliverance lived on in Egypt, and was told to Herodotus3 by his cicerone in the temple of Ptah, at Memphis. As he repro¬ duces the story, field mice gnawed the thongs of the bows and devoured the quivers of the army of Sennacherib, “king of the Arabians and Assyrians,” so that “a priest of Vulcan, called Sethos,” readily had a victory over them. As thus narrated the story contains much unhistorical material, though told with fire and force, but it surely has a basis in his¬ toric fact, and refers doubtless to the same event as the Hebrew writer has described. Though successful in all the great cam- 1 2 Kings xix, 32-35. 2 Mariette, Karnak, pi. 45a, pp. 66, 67. 3 Herodotus, ii, 141. See below. Appendix B. THE REIGN OE SENNACHERIB 387 paigns down the seacoast from Sidon to Ash- kelon and up the slopes of the hill country to within fifteen miles of Jerusalem/ Sennacherib had, nevertheless, failed in the main object of his expeditions into Western Asia. Jeru¬ salem still stood, and but for pestilence it would have been a smoking ruin, as Ekron. Hezekiah still reigned, and that with increased prestige, and but for pestilence he would be a captive in Nineveh, as was Zidka, king of Ashkelon. Ethiopia was left free to continue its peaceful assimilation of Egypt, and but for the pestilence Assyrian governors would be ruling its fertile valleys as even now they held sway in Ashdod. Sennacherib’s failure in the west justified in every particular the foresight and statesmanship of Isaiah, and the echo of the prophet’s words would resound when the empty boasts of the defeated king were known only to quiet students. For several years longer did Sennacherib possess the power of Assyria, but he never invaded Palestine again. It was the last act of Sennacherib in war. Shortly after his return home, on the twentieth day of the month Tebet, in the year 681, he was murdered in a temple by the hands of his own sons, [Nergalj-sharezer and Adarmalik.1 2 1 Lachish is the modern Tel-el-Hesy, and Libnah must be sought in the immediate neighborhood. According to Eusebius it belonged at a later time to the district of Eleutheropolis (modern Beit Jibrin). 2 2 Kings xix, 36, 37 ; Babylonian Chronicle, iii, 34, where only one son is mentioned as the assasoin. 388 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA Like many another assassination, west and east, the crime was due to jealousy of another son and desire to secure the succession to the throne. So ended a reign little worthy of the one which had preceded it. Sennacherib’s in¬ scriptions indeed boast loudly of great victories, but there seems but little foundation for most of them. He added nothing to what his father had won and held. His hand was a hand of iron and blood, and not of real creative power. No great policy of administration was devised or begun by him. That he was Sargon’s son had won him position, that he had brute force in certain measure had held it for him. The empire had been maintained in its integrity, though the fairest portion of it had been changed into ruin and waste in the doing of it. The great act of peace of Sennacherib’s reign was the extension, the rebuilding and the adornment of Nineveh. He had inherited from his father, Sargon, the city Dur-Sharrukin as the capital of the realm. It was an artificial growth, ill situated alike for industry, com¬ merce or defense, and Sennacherib wisely for¬ sook it. For the new capital he chose the city of Nineveh, a small site upon the Ti¬ gris, as old as the period of Hammurapi and the early kings of Assyria. It was well situated on the Tigris, was watered by the small river Choser, which might easily be used to fill a defensive moat, and some of the THE REIGN OF SENNACHERIB 389 great roads from the far east already passed through it. The circuit of the old city was but nine thousand three hundred cubits, which Sen¬ nacherib now increased to twenty-one thousand eight hundred and fifteen. It had no inner and no outer wall, but must have had some sort of defensive fortification, though it was so insignificant that the new builder did not think it worth the while to describe it. He can only record that none of “the former kings . . . had turned his mind or directed his attention to widen the city’s dwelling place, to build a wall, to straighten the streets, to dig a canal and plant gardens.”1 The new work was executed by forced labor drawn from the Mannseans, the far distant peoples of Philistia, Phoenicia, and Cilicia, and was indeed prodigious in extent. His first con¬ cern was to tear away the ancient palace and to build a larger and more magnificent upon a ground plan of 440 by 700 cubits. Here rose a structure upon a lofty platform, whose roof was supported upon great cedar beams, “whose scent is pleasant,” and whose interior was adorned with alabaster, “which in the time of the kings my fathers was es¬ teemed precious for the hilt of a sword,” but was now used in great slabs for wainscoting state apartments. Within also were apart- 1 British Museum No. 103000, col. v, lines 34-42. 390 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA merits rich in gold, silver, copper and lapis lazuli, with other precious stones in lavish profusion. To supply it abundantly with water he says: “I fashioned levers of bronze and buckets of bronze . . . and great beams and wooden frame-works over the well shafts I erected” — in this doubtless introducing to the Tigris the well known shaduf of the Nile. Well might he call this new palace, Ekallu shanina la ishu, “the palace beyond compare.” To protect the new city and its palace he began the construction of walls undreamt before in size and strength for the city of Nineveh. He built first an inner wall, laying its founda¬ tions upon dressed stones, and making it forty bricks, that is forty cubits, in thickness. When it stood completed, massive and shining, he gave it the Sumerian name Bad-imgalbi- galukurra-shushu, which he translates into As¬ syrian, which we may turn into the English words: “The wall whose splendor overthrows the enemy.” Beyond this again he placed the outer wall, set upon massive stones cast down below water level, to make it practically impossible to undermine, and this also bore an uneuphonious Sumerian name Bad-garneru- khulukhkha, “the wall that terrifies the enemy.” The wall was pierced by fifteen gates, seven facing the rising sun in the southeast, three its setting in the west, and five the north star. There was no gate in the southern wall, which THE REIGN OF SENNACHERIB 391 was short, not more than a thousand yards in length. Each of these gates bore a name which testified to its chief use, thus, the north¬ ernmost gate is called, “That brings the produce of the highlands/' while the chief river gate bore the name: “That brings the tribute of the peoples/' for before it lay the quay where the boats from up and down the river were wont to unlade their burdens. Before these gates stood colossal bulls, some of which have come away to stand silent and grim in modern European museums, but one remained in its original position even to our own days, until ignorant natives broke it up for lime.1 Into the city thus adorned and strengthened the river Choser was not able to bring water enough for its people or its gardens, and to supply this insistent and ever growing need Sennacherib's engineers went back into the mountains above the small towns of Dur- Ishtar, Shibaniba, and Suli to search for in¬ creased supplies. Sennacherib went himself in person to inspect their projects and approve them. There they found springs which were diverted into a basin, and thence by an aque¬ duct into the Choser to be conveyed to the city. Above and below the city he planted gar¬ dens, bringing into them fruits, herbs and vines from Chaldsea, and so skillfully acclima¬ tizing them that he is able to claim that their 1 See King, Cuneiform Texts, xxvi, p. 20, note 2. 392 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA “fruitfulness increased, more than in their own country.” Among these he enumerates “trees that bear wool” or “hair,”1 and later in the same account2 says: “The trees that bore wool (or hair) they clipped, and shredded (or carded) it for garments.” This was prob¬ ably one of the numerous species of palm, and not cotton, as some have supposed.3 This is really a splendid record in productive as well as in unproductive works of peace, and the king had just cause to be proud of it, and to cause fitting record to be made of it. 1 Cuneiform Texts, xxvi, British Museum 103000, col. vii, line 56. 2 Ibid., col. viii, line 64. 3 Johns ( Ancient Assyria, p. 133) calls it cotton and refers to the description in Herodotus iii, 106, who is, however, referring to the plant in India. Handcock ( Mesopotamian Archaeology, p. 346) also calls it cotton. There is, however, no evidence that cotton could then be grown in Assyria. The forms most likely would be Gossypium obtusifolium or G. Nanking, but what evidence is there for their culti¬ vation even in Chaldsea? See Watt, The Wild and Cultivated Cotton Plants of the World. London, 1907. CHAPTER IX THE REIGN OF ESARHADDON We do not know the exact circumstances which led to the assassination of Sennacherib , but we shall not be far astray, in all prob¬ ability, if we ascribe it to jealousy on the part of his sons. While he yet lived Sennacherib had made his son, Esarhaddon (Ashur-akh- iddin), a sort of regent over Babylonia. He had also by decree made him the legal heir to the throne, though he was almost certainly not the eldest son, and had changed his name to the high-sounding appellation Ashur-etil- ukin-apla (Ashur the hero has established a son). The other sons were Ashur-nadin-shum, who had been king of Babylon and had been carried off to Elam; Ardi-Belit and Ashur- munik. The latter two were probably the parricides, whose names the Hebrews corrupted into Adrammelech and Sharezer. During his residence in Babylonia in these early years of his life Esarhaddon (680-668) 1 1 The chief authorities for the reign of Esarhaddon are the following: (a) The Cylinders A, B, C, published I R. 45-47, and III R. 15, 16, and Abel-Winckler, Keilschrifttexte, 25, 26, translated into English by R. F. Harper, Cylinder A of the Esarhaddon Inscriptions, transliterated and translated, with Textual Notes, from the Original Copy in the British Museum, republished from Hebraica, 1887, 1888; and into 394 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA was smitten with a great love for the ancient land with all its honored customs. His whole life shows plainly how deeply he was influenced by the glory of Babylon’s past, and how eager he was to see undone the ruin which his father had wrought. As soon as the news of his father’s death reached his ears he caused him¬ self to be proclaimed as shakkanak of Babylon. In this he was going back to the goodly example of his grandfather Sargon. Sennacherib had ceased altogether to wear a Babylonian title. Babylonia was to him not a separate land united with his own, but a subject territory inhabited by slaves whom he despised. Esar- haddon did not even take the name of king, which in Babylonian eyes would have been unlawful without taking the hands of Marduk, now exiled to Assyria. Immediately after his proclamation in Babylonia Esarhaddon has¬ tened to Nineveh, where the rebellion collapsed at once, and he was received as the legitimate king. According to the Babylonian Chronicle it had lasted only a month and a half — from the twentieth day of Tebet to the second day German by Ludwig Abel and Hugo Winckler, Keilinschrift. Bibl., ii, pp. 124-151. (b) The Black Stone , published I R. 49, 50, and trans¬ lated into German by Winckler, Keilinschrift. Bibl., ii, pp. 120-125. (c) The Stele of Zenjirli, published by von Luschan, Ausgrabungen in Sendschirli, i, pp. 11-29 and plates i-iv, and translated by Schrader, ibid., pp. 29-43. (d) Prayers to the Sun God, published and translated into German by J. A. Knudtzon, Assyrische Gebete an den Sonnen Gott, i, ii, pp. 72 — 264. The chief inscriptions are transliterated and trans¬ lated in Budge, The History of Esarhaddon, London, 1880. This now needs revision. THE REIGN OF ESARHADDON 395 of Adar.1 The biblical story represents the two murderers as fleeing to Armenia, and there is no reason to doubt that this was the case.2 Esarhaddon’s inscriptions say that he left Nine¬ veh in the month of Shabat; and this was probably in pursuit of his brothers.3 Pie fought a battle with the rebels and their followers at Khanigalbat, near Melid, and readily overcame them.4 They had probably been hoping for some assistance from Armenia, and now ac¬ cepted it. The campaign had lasted only eight months, and in the month of Kislev, 680, Esarhaddon was crowned king of Assyria. It is very difficult to follow closely the order of events in the reign which was now begun. Unlike Sargon or Sennacherib, Esarhaddon has left us scarcely a fragment in which the chron¬ ological order of events is followed. He was more concerned in setting forth the deeds themselves than the order and relation of them— such at least must be our judgment unless at some time a text of his in true annal¬ istic style should be found. In the very first year of his reign (680) Esarhaddon gave clear indications of his re¬ versal of his father’s policy.5 Babylon had 1 Babylonian Chronicle, iii, 36, 37. 2 2 Kings xix, 37. 3 Cylinder, col. i, lines 1-26, Winckler, Keilinschrift. Bibl., ii, pp. 140-143. 4 Ibid., lines 18-21. 6 Meissner and Rost, Die Bauinschriften Asarhaddon's, Beitrdge zur Assyriologie, iii, pp. 189-362, with plates. 396 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA been destroyed; he would rebuild it. No Assyrian king before him had ever set himself so great a task. He did not live to see it brought to the final and glorious consummation which he had planned, but he did see and rejoice in a large part of the work. With much reli¬ gious solemnity, with the anointing of oil and the pouring out of wine, was the foundation laying begun. From the swamps which Sen¬ nacherib had wantonly made slowly began to rise the renewed temple of E-sagila, the temple of the great gods, while around it and the newly growing city the king erected from the foundations upward the great walls of Imgur- Bel and Nimitti-Bel. All these, as the king boasts, were enlarged and beautified beyond that which they had been in their former glory. Slowly through the reign along with the wars which must now be told went on these works of peace and utility, to find their entire com¬ pletion in the reign of Esarhaddon’s like- minded son. The first work of war to which Esarhaddon must direct his energies was a new castigation of the Chaldeans. While he was busy in se¬ curing his throne a fresh outbreak had occurred in the old district of the Sea Lands. Nabu- zir-napishti-lishir, a son of Merodach-baladan, had gained some of his family’s power in Bit- Yakin, and with this as a base of operations had possessed himself of the country as far THE REIGN OF ESARHADDON 397 north as Ur. When Esarhaddon dispatched an army against him he fled to Elam, whither his father before him had more than once gone for refuge. There was now, however, a new regime in Elam, and the king, Khumban- Khaldash II, seized him and slew him. His brother, Na’id Marduk, fled to Assyria and delivered himself up to Esarhaddon, who, with a mercy that honors his heart and his judgment, sent him back to Bit-Yakin to rule the country under Assyrian overlordship.1 This sudden desertion on the part of Elam of its traditional friendship for Merodach-baladan and the Chal¬ deans in general is very difficult to understand. Up to this time the Elamites had always aided every movement of the Chaldeans against the Assyrians. There happened also a little later, in 674, another strange manifestation of a new policy among these same Elamites. While Esarhaddon was elsewhere engaged the Elam¬ ites surged down into Babylonia, and, murder¬ ing and plundering as they went, reached as far as the city of Sippar. The Babylonian Chronicle records this raid,2 but does not utter a word concerning any retaliation on the part of the Assyrians. While Esarhaddon was carrying on the re¬ building of Babylon, and the population was returning which had been scattered, he found 1 Babylonian Chronicle, iii, 39-42; Cylinders A and C, ii, lines 32-41; Cylinder B, ii, 1-26. 2 Babylonian Chronicle, iv, 9, 10. 398 HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA occasion for a small passage at arms with the Chaldean tribe of Bit-Dakkuri, which had gained sudden wealth through the destruction wrought by Sennacherib. When the Babylonians had been driven away by Sennacherib from the territory about Babylon and Borsippa these Chaldeans had promptly taken possession. As the selfsame people were now returning whom Sennacherib had thus dispossessed, Esarhaddon determined to drive out the settlers. He de¬ posed their king, Shamash-ibni, and set over them Nabu-usallim, a son of a certain Balasu mentioned by Tiglathpileser IV.1 When they had been dislodged the lands were restored to their former owners. At about the same time Esarhaddon undertook to bring into subjection the tribe of Gambuli, perhaps a mixed race of Aramaeans who were settled in the border country between Elam and Babylonia near the mouth of the Tigris.2 They had given aid to Khumban-Khaldash in his raid in 674, and must now be humbled. Their prince, Bel- iqisha, did not dare a battle,3 and so surrendered and gave pledge to hold his fortress, Shapi-Bel, as a sort of outpost against Elamite invasions; 1 Cylinders A and C, ii, 42-54, Keilinschrift. Bibl., ii, 128-131; Cylinder B, iii, 19-27. 2 On the location of the Gambuli see further Lenormant, Die Anfange der Kultur ii, p. 175; Delitzsch, Wo lag das Parodies? pp. 240-241. The tribe name appears in the form Gonbola (Jaqut s. v. Ganbola), see de Goeje, Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenlandischen Gesellschaft, xxxix, p. 9, f., and compare Schiffer, Die Aramder, Index, s. v. 3 Cylinders A and C, iii, 53 -iv, 7. the REJ.'N OF ESAHHADDON" ms th 5 strengthened by the Assyrians for ^ purpose. Fsarhaddon was too prudent eo lor it. F h it m-Khaldash II died in ■ . a she rent nurici dexirM the Assyrian^. Me appears to have u every effort to main- iMei peace arid friom be weti lie two -O8o) • to lo BfeiB athoiCI mtoff sth. nl won hm phirmH 1b hmm\ <(D AI .800 tey dliiononi fisfi^xA tasgiBf silt, hi, i I jm/eaifM Gbrt baa .tilgiarf Ui k-vr)teu[ 01 .£ i>ai i ; ;^oa-c. flxm /ooaib 8 §pM orb lo lao;il ai bau 9/qdA .dibiw ni cvotom aid ta hq,G qtbqg lo alodar^ ioxjdmmi b oxe bz$d .fbfpgj oilt lo Biiviiit s'nii sill tool dfefftpM -A - A ’{d b9i[f£qu< rlq-mgOvlodHj ftolutely unable to conquer Tyre, chit [muha