uc ^B MD5 S2T LIBRARY OF THE University of California. RECEIVED BY EXCHANGE Class CORNELL STUDIES IN HISTORY AND POLITICAL SCIENCE ISSUED BY THE PRESIDENT WHITE SCHOOL CORNELL UNIVERSITY VOLUME II WESTERN ASIA IN THE DAYS OF SARGON OF ASSYRIA 722-705 B. C. A STUDY IN ORIENTAL HISTORY HY A. T. OLMSTEAD, Ph.D. LATK THAYER FELLOW, AMERICAN SCHOOL FOR ORIENTAL STUDIES AT JERUSALEM OF THE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK HENRY HOLT AND COMPANY 1908 -7' . l\\^ i>^^^^ Copyright, 1908 By Cornell University INTRODUCTION The present work is a thesis presented to the President White School of History and Political Science at Cornell University, and is published as one of its studies. It is an attempt to investigate methodically a brief period of Ori- ental history, interesting alike to the Assyriologist, the Biblical scholar, and the student of classical antiquity. I began the study of theSargon inscriptions with Pro- fessor Schmidt in 1901. A year later this subject was chosen for my thesis for the degree of Master of Arts from Cornell University. The year 1 903-1 904 was spent in prep- aration for a trip to Syria lasting from May, 1904, to August, 1905, while I was Fellow of the American School for Ori- ental Studies at Jerusalem. In preparation for this trip a collection of the published Assyrian data relating to Syria had been made, and these were again studied in Syria. The towns of Hamath, Cimirra, Damascus, Tyre, Samaria, Ashdod, Gaza, and Raphia, actually mentioned by the scribes of Sargon, were visited. The Mugri question, so important for our whole conception of Sargon's Syrian policy, was studied in the Negeb itself. Possibly most valu- able of all was the constant and very close contact with the natives of all conditions, nations, and religions. Among points to which special attention may perhaps be invited in this work are the chronological clue to the eponym canon fragment, the utilization and placing together of the fragments of Prism B, the use of which has materially modified the chronology of the reign, the discussion of the Negeb and Mugri question from a personal knowledge of the 182241 VI WESTERN ASIA IN THE DAYS OF SARGON field, the relegation of the Dur Sharrukin group to its proper place, and the reconstruction of the history on the basis ot the topography, resulting in a number of new identifications, especially in Asia Minor. Credit should be given to those who have generously af- forded me help. I desire to express my thanks to my friends, Mr. B. B. Charles, assistant in Semitics at Cornell, and Mr. J. E. Wrench, fellow in history at Wisconsin, both of whom were with me in Syria, for many suggestions. Pro- fessor J. R. S. Sterrett, who has an intimate personal knowledge of Asia Minor, has often rendered important assistance. From Professor G. L. Burr I have received valuable aid in applying a strict historical method, and Professor H. A. Sill has helped on the side of classical history. Above all, I owe a heavy debt of gratitude to Pro- fessor N. Schmidt. For eight years it has been my good fortune to be closely associated with him, first as student, and then as assistant, both at Cornell University and later in Syria. To him I owe my knowledge of Semitic lan- guages and Oriental history. In a very real sense this work owes to his inspiration both its origin and its completion. A. T. Olmstead. The President White Library, Cornell University, June 8, 1906. CONTENTS Introduction v The Sources i Accession 25 Babylonia and Syria 43 The Northwest Frontier 81 The Armenian Wars 1 03 The Median Wars 117 The Elamitish Wars and The Conquest of Babylon i 29 The Last Years 1 48 The Culture Life 1 60 > OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN ASIA IN THE DAYS OF SARGON OF ASSYRIA, 722-70^ B. C. CHAPTER I THE SOURCES The resurrection of the Assyrian world and the discovery of Sargon are synchronous. Prior to 1843, when Botta made his first excavations, it was no exaggeration to say that " a case scarcely three feet square enclosed all that remained, not only of the great city, Nineveh, but of Baby- lon itself." ^ When that scholar left his consulate at Bagh- dad to excavate in the huge shapeless mound of Khorsabad, a new world came into being. A new people and a new language, new customs and a new art, surprised the world; and Sargon, thus far known only by a single reference in the Bible,^ suddenly took his place by the side of Cyrus or Croesus as one of the great monarchs of the ancient Orient. The first efforts of Botta were confined almost entirely to the securing of bas-reliefs and inscriptions.^ A later expe- dition, led by Place in 1851, yielded a less rich booty of such finds, but, by the careful uncovering of the whole palace mound, gave us what is still the best plan of an Assyrian *A. H. Layard, Nineveh and its Remains, 1849, xxv. * Isaiah 20^. ' The first results were published in Journal Asiatique, IV Series, vols. II-IV, and later as a separate work by Botta, Lettres sur les decoiivertes de Khorsabad, 1845, the definitive edition of the results in Botta and Flandin, Monuments de Ninive, 1849-50. 2 WESTERN ASIA IN THE DAYS OF SARGON palace.* Another expedition, though adding nothing to our Assyrian material, gave Oppert an opportunity of studying the inscriptions and remains in situ.^ Thus for a considerable period, Sargon and his works were the most important matters Assyriologists had for discussion. But as new sites were excavated and new docu- ments were found, the interest gradually shifted to other fields where more hope of startling discoveries was to be had. And, indeed, there is little reason to look for many new historical documents of Sargon's reign being found; for the palace he built has been thoroughly excavated and most of the other places he occupied have been more or less fully explored. From the philological side there is no likelihood of great change, and the standard edition by Winckler^ is nearly final. But though there is little call for a re-editing of the texts, two causes make a re-writing of the history very necessary. On the one hand, a large amount of new material has be- come available. This is not, of course, to any great extent of a historical nature. But in the wealth of letters, charters, business documents, and other material of this sort, we are not so very diffierently situated from the historian of Medi- aeval Europe who uses the same kind of documents to check and amplify his chronicles. But even more important is the change in our attitude toward these sources. We no longer are content with a collection, however exhaustive, of the material. We must first criticize our sources and then interpret them, not only in sympathy with the past, but with special reference to the historical demands of our own day. Let us see how all this affects our estimates of these inscriptions. *V. Place, Ninive et I'Assyrie, 1867-70. ''J. Oppert, Expedition Scientiiique en Mesopotamie, 1859-63. ^ H. Winckler, Die Keilschrifttexte Sargons, 1889. THE SOURCES 3 At first sight, nothing could be more certain than the ac- curacy of these sources. We have here no manuscripts corrupted by frequent copying. Our documents are origi- nals, and, what is more, are the productions of contempo- raries whose results are given us stamped with the stamp of official approval. Other reasons, no less potent though less recognized and less legitimate, were the natural prejudice in favor of the newest discoveries, especially when dis- covered in so wonderful a way, and the even more natural feeling of favor with which Christian men and women viewed the documents, risen from the earth, which so often refuted the over-zealous " higher critic." ^ Our report must be much less favorable. These records are official. In that fact lies their strength and their weak- ness. The opportunities for securing the truth were ample. Royal scribes accompanied the various expeditions^ and the archive chambers were full of detailed reports from com- manders in the field. But, like all official records, ancient or modern, these documents have been edited to a degree of which it is difficult to conceive. A few examples may not be out of place to show how far from trustworthy they are. Sometimes a foreign source may afford the needed correc- tion, as when Rusash of Haldia turns up safe, sound, and victorious enough to erect the Topsana stele some time after the suicide the Assyrian scribes so pathetically describe, or as when the Hebrew account declares that the leader of the Ashdod expedition was the Tartan and not the king^^ hifti- ^ S. Karppe, Les Documents historiques de la Chaldee et de I'Assyrie et la Verite, Revue Semitique, 1894, 347 if., is rather trite but marks a step in the right direction. 'For the gittai officials who went as scribes to the field of battle, compare Johns, Deeds, II. 168. " Isaiah, /. c. " As claimed by Sargon, Prism B. 4 WESTERN ASIA IN THE DAYS OF SARGON self, or as when from the Babylonian chronicle we learn that the victory Sargon claims to have won at Dur ilu was really a defeat.^^ In each of these cases there was every inducement for Sargon's scribes not to tell the truth, while the foreign writers were under much less temptation. But sometimes we do not need to go beyond Sargon him- self. Out of his own mouth we may convict him of un- truth. Note, for example, the three accounts of the fate of Merodach Baladan. In one he is captured.^^ In the second he begs for peace.^^ In the third, he runs away and es- capes.^* Naturally, we are inclined to accept the last, and this is confirmed by the later course of events.^^ But such an occurrence raises a doubt in our mind as to the accuracy of other cases where the official accounts do not agree among themselves. When, for instance, we have one account of the Ashdod expedition in which we are told that lamani was captured^^ and another where we learn that he fled to Meluhha whence he was brought back,^^ we are inclined to wonder if he did not really escape.^^ Another question and one which must aflfect our esti- mate of Sargon's character, is how far the use of the first person actually means personal command in the field. In one or two cases,^ where the absurdity of this would have been self-evident, due credit is given to the local commander. The use of the first person means no more than does the triumph of a Roman emperor mean that he was in the field " Cf. the study of the battle of Dur ilu in chapter III. "D. 133. "Annals V; cf. F. Peiser, Zeitschrift fiir Assyriologte, 1889, 412 ff. "A. 349. "See further in chapter VII. n. 57. "A. 225. "D. 112. " Cf. chapter III. n. 68. "A. 307, 393, 408. THE SOURCES 5 himself. In many cases it would clearly have been impos- sible for Sargon to have been in widely separated parts of the empire at practically the same time. Many campaigns are too petty for the great king to have troubled himself about. Only once does the Hebrew allow us to check and then, in the important Ashdod revolt, it is the Tartan and not the king who is in command.^^ Indeed, from the letters and the prayers to Shamash,^^ we find that it was the ex- ception rather than the rule for the king to war at the head of his army. In several cases it has already been recognized that we must see separate movements under separate commanders to the consequent clearing up of the history.22 Much must still be done along this line. A mere reference may be made here to the exaggerated and discordant figures given in the various documents. The plea of Oriental disregard for numbers may be made, but can hardly stand in the face of the small and exact numbers of the epistolary literature. Nor should we forget the stereo- typed formulae which have no more real meaning than have the accounts of battles in Diodorus. Enough has been shown, it would seem, to indicate the care with which we must study these sources, even when their statements are not directly challenged by other evidence. Even within the official inscriptions themselves there are groups of varying degrees of trustworthiness. Unfortunately, the one least valuable is the fullest, and has, until the present, been too fully trusted. Unfortunately, too, our other evidence is of a fragmentary character and so often we must accept the version of the official inscriptions of this group or trust to =~Cf. n. i8. "J. A. Knudtzon, Assyrische Gehete, 1893. "A. Billerbeck, Susa, 1893, has done this for the Susa campaigns. In his Suleimania, 1898, he has done the same for the Median wars. 6 WESTERN ASIA IN THE DAYS OF SARGON mere conjecture. This group is that comprising the various documents dating from about the year 707 and coming down to us inscribed on the walls of Sargon's new capital of Dur Sharrukin. It includes the Annals,^^ the Annals of Hall XIV,^* the Display Inscription,^^ which form a sub-group of larger inscriptions, and a group of smaller ones including the Cylinders^^ from the foundations, the inscriptions on the Bulls,^^ the tablets found in the foundation stone,^ those '^ The Annals ; abbreviated as A., was first published by Botta, op. cit., pis, 70 if., 104 fF., 158 ff. The latest and best edition by Winckler, Sargon, II. pi. I ,fF. Translated by Oppert in Place, Ninive, II. 309 ff. ; in Les inscriptions de Dour Sarkayan, 1870 29 ff.; in Records of the Past, I Series, 1873 ^v VII. 21 ^. ; by J. Menant, Annates des Rois d'Assyrie, 1874, 158 ^. ; by Winckler, De Inscriptione quae vocatur Annalium, 1886; in Sargon, I. 3 ff. ** The various parts of this inscription are published in their place with the other versions of the Annals by Winckler, but in his translation he has collected them separately, placing them after the Annals proper. 2' The Display Inscription is the Pastes of the French and the Prunkinschrift of the Germans. Text in Botta, op. cit., pi. 93 ff. ; Winckler, Sargon, II. pi. 30 if. ; translated by Oppert and Menant, Les Pastes de Sargon, 1863=: Journal Asiatique, 1863-65; Menant, Annales, 180 ff.; Oppert, Records of the Past^ IX. i ff.; Winckler, Sargon, I. 97 ff. ; F. E. Peiser, Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek, 1889 ff., II. 52 ff. There are four versions on the walls of rooms IV, VII, VIII, X. Of these, X is nearly complete while the others make only verbal changes. The date is the same as that of A. since D. 155-157 = A. 416-118. A further limitation is found in D. 23 where Sargon refers to his fifteenth year (707). Quoted as D. ^Published by Place, Ninive, II. 291 ff.; Oppert, Dour Sarkayan, 11 ff.; I. R. 36; D. G. Lyon, Keilschrifttexte Sargons, 1883, i ff.; Winckler, op. cit., II. pi. 43. Translated by Oppert in Place, /. c. ; by Oppert, /. c; Menant, Annales, 199 ff-\ Lyon, op. cit., 30 ff.; Peiser, Keilinschr. Bibl., II. 39 ff.; A. Barta in R. F. Harper, Assyrian and Babylonian Literature, 1901, 59 if. The variants are of small importance. A fragment of a somewhat similar text found at Jerusalem is published by Menant, Recueil de Travaux, 1890 (XIII), 194. ^ Published by Botta, op. cit., pi. 22 ff. ; Oppert in Place, op. cit., 283 ff.; Dour Sarkayan, 3 ff.; Lyon, op. cit., 13 if-; Winckler, op. cit., XL pi. 41 f. Translated by Oppert, /. c, and Records of the Past^ XL 17 ^.; THE SOURCES 7 on the gate pavements,^^ and those on the backs of the sculp- tured slabs.^^ Of the two sub-groups, the first is not only fuller, but generally more accurate, though there are cases where the second seems to point to a more probable situation.^^ Of the first, again, the Annals is the most trustworthy as well as the backbone of our chronology. As compared with the other documents of the Dur Sharrukin group, details are given most fully, numbers are still fairly reasonable, and the facts seem least distorted. Yet often the four versions of the Annals differ among themselves in a most remarkable man- ner^^ and in some cases two slightly differing accounts have Menant, op. cit., 192 if.; Lyons, op. cit., 40 i^. The inscriptions are on slabs under the colossi. A fragment in the Egyptian Museum of the Vatican is noted by C. Bezold, Zeitschr. f. Assyr., 1886, 229, cf. K. Badeker, Central Italy, 1904, 361. There is a close agreement, often verbal, between the Bull and the Cylinder Inscriptions. Quoted as C. -* Seven inscriptions on slabs of gold, silver, copper, lead, alabaster, limestone (or tin(?)) and on the chest itself. For a discussion of the materials, cf. F. Delitzsch, Assyrisches Worterhuch, 1887, 50. The chest and two slabs were lost in the Tigris accident. The others pub- lished by Oppert in Place, op. cit., 303 ff. ; and in Dour Sarkayan, 23 if. ; Lyon, op. cit., 20 ff. ; Winckler, op. cit., IL pi. 37 ff. Translated by Oppert, /. c, and in Records of the Past^ XL 31 if.; Lyon, op. cit., 48 if. In general, it belongs to the group of minor inscriptions. ^ Published by Botta, op. cit., pi. i if. ; Winckler, op. cit., II. pi. 37 if. Translated by Menant, op. cit., 195 if.; Winckler, op. cit., 136 if. It is found on the pavements of nineteen gateways. There are five recensions of which IV found in nine gates is the longest and most important. Quoted as P. *> Published by Botta, op. cit., pi. 164 if.; Winckler, op. cit., II. pi. 40. Translated by Menant, op. cit., 196 if.; Winckler, op. cit., 164 if. It is the short display inscription placed on the backs of the slabs so that, even if they fell away from the walls, the name and titles of Sargon could still be seen. " Cf. chap. IV. n. 43. "^ Cf . n. 13 with n. 12. There are over a dozen such instances ac- cording to Winckler, Ins. Sarg., 11. 8 WESTERN ASIA IN THE DAYS OF SARGON been incorporated one after the other.^^ The greatest value of the Annals lies in its chronology, for indeed without it we would have no solid basis for the dating of many events of the reign and no general chronology at all. Yet a care- ful examination of its chronological data gives an unsatis- factory impression. Under the year 710, for example, we have a brief account of the events from the accession of Merodach Baladan,^* while at the end of the same year we have the account of the " seizing the hands of Bel," which logically closes the Babylonian campaign, but really belongs to the following year.^** The section dealing with 716, as already seen, clearly contains the records of more than one year.^ The frontier wars were evidently chronic, yet they are forced into the chronological scheme. Nor does the scheme agree with what we find elsewhere. It is difficult to acknowledge that the scribes of Sargon, near the close of his reign, did not know or did not care to know the real succession of affairs. The putting together of the Prism fragments has perhaps given a new point of view. In the earlier years, the date is one year earlier than that of the Annals, in the later, two years. It is simply inconceivable that in 707 the scribes did not know whether the Ashdod revolt took place four or six years before. There are two distinct systems here, one in the Annals and one in the Prism B, both probably artificial to a considerable extent. Which is more probable and to how great a degree either is true is a difficult question, but a study of the whole chronology seems to indicate that that of Prism B should ^A. 93-94 = 99-100; 264-271=271-277; 278-281=281-284; cf. Winckler, Sargon, XXXIV. ^*A. 228 ff. ^A. 309 ff. ^ A, 52 ff. Cf. discussion, chap. V. THE SOURCES 9 be more trusted, and this seems to be borne out by a com- parison of the two. It is difficult to explain the system of the Annals from that of the Prism, but the reverse is easy. It looks a little as if there had been a break in the series of campaigns, the Assyrian Chronicle has for one year "in the land," that is, no expedition, and that later the scribes had padded out these gaps with the events of other more crowded years.^^ A most glaring example of the inaccuracy of the Annals is in its dating the battle of Dur ilu in 721, whereas not only the Babylonian Chronicle, but also an official inscription of Sargon of very early date assign it to 720. Again we ask: Why was this transfer and what really happened in 721 ? Was that year taken up with putting down revolts ?^^ The chronology of the Assyrian Chronicle belongs to a group of its own, but so far as its data can be brought into relation to the others, it rather supports that of the Prism.^^ But, however we may distrust the artificial scheme of the Annals, we must ac- knowledge that the others may also have an artificial char- acter while, as the only full and complete system, it must still be retained for at least relative chronology in so far as an artificial system cannot be detected. A very inferior version of the Annals is that of Hall XIV, which omits much and abandons the chronological order. If the Annals had been completely preserved, there would be little use for the Display Inscription, but the former is so badly mutilated that the frequently literal quotation by the latter is often our only source. But the accounts are much abbreviated and are arranged in geographical rather than in chronological order, although chronology does play some part within these sections. Failure to understand this " See n. 42. "" Cf. chap. III. n. 8. " Cf. n. 45. lO WESTERN ASIA IN THE DAYS OF SARGON arrangement has led to sad mistakes, an example of which is the time-honored error which places an Arabian tribute , immediately after the battle of Rapihu, merely because the two are closely connected in this inscription."*^ The minor inscriptions of this group give but little that is new. There is no chronological arrangement and their variant readings, though interesting to the philologist and topographer, have but little for the historian. The Cylinders seem to be the earliest as they are the most important. In fact, so close is the agreement in places with the deed of gift document of 714 that we may postulate an earlier date for this, perhaps soon after the conquest of Babylon. For the building of Dur Sharrukin, it is our best authority and may perhaps be a source for the accounts of the others, while it is often of value for other phases of the culture life. The Larnaka stele is of interest, because it is the identical stone Sargon sent to Cyprus, as we are informed in the other inscriptions. Its text is comparatively short, but in type it agrees rather with the large than the small ones. Sometimes it gives a more likely account, as when we have the version of the subjection of Cyprus intended for the Cypriotes themselves, or the fuller account of Hamath. Its date is about the same as that of the Dur Sharrukin group, to which it belongs in spite of its distant location.*^ *" In D. z-j the tribute of Piru follows D. 2() where Hanunu of Gaza appears. These events have been placed together by E. Schrader, Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament,^ 1872, 285; ib.,^ 1883, 297; L. B. Paton, Early History of Syria and Palestine, 1901, 247; G. S. Goodspeed, History of the Babylonians and Assyrians, 1902, 249. But this a clear case" of error, for D. 27 is identical with A. 97 which is, of course, under 715. "The Cyprus stele was first noted in 1845 by L, Ross, Reisen nach Kos, 1852, 87 n. 6. It had been discovered while digging a cellar in an otherwise unexcavated region on the west outskirts of the Mariana, or THE SOURCES I I A second group would contain the inscriptions of the two Prisms. Prism A has been fairly well studied. It gives us the well-known Ashdod revolt, the list of Median princes, and a Dalta episode. Prism B has remained largely un- noticed. The fragments have now been arranged, and large parts of four out of eight columns recovered. The results are in general disappointingly meager in all but one direc- tion. This is the chronology which, however artificial, seems, as already noted, to be more nearly correct than that of the Annals. The two prisms, though not identical, are quite similar. They are of Annal type, though entirely unrelated to the Annals. They seem earlier than the Dur Sharrukin group, though they cannot be much older. They appear to come from Nineveh, where Sargon would seem to have resided prior to his occupation of his new capital.*^ port of Larnaka. For location, cf. the map by Dozon in Corpus In- scriptionum Semitic arum, 1881 {f., I. i. 35. The stele, a large block of basaltic stone, bearing a life-size relief of the king, was secured for the Berlin Museum by M. Mattei, Prussian Consul in Cyprus. Re- ported by Mas Latrie, Arch, des Missions scientiiiques, I. 112 and pi. 3, quoted Comptes Rendus of the French Academy, 1899, 716. H. Rawlin- son recognized the figure as that of the founder of Khorsabad and took a squeeze, Athenaeum, 1850, No. 1166. Lepsius noted the mention of Bittaeans in Menander, J. Bonomi, Nineveh and its Palaces,^ 1857, 144 ff. Cf. also I. H. Hall, Proceedings of N. Y. University Convocation, 1876, 107, and L. P. di Cesnola, Cyprus, 1878, 47, for further details of the discovery. Published III. R. 11 and more fully, Schrader, Abhandlungen of Berlin Academy, 1881 and separately, Die Sargonstele, 1882; by Winckler, op. cit., II. pi. 46 /. Translations by G. Smith, Zeitschr. f. Aegypt. Sprache, 1871, 68; Menant, Annates, 206 ff.; Schrader, op. cit.; Winckler, op. cit., I. 174 ff. The date is year III of Sargon, King of Babylon = year XV as king of Assyria = 707. The affinity is rather with the large than with the small inscriptions. Quoted as S. In I. 51 ff. it adds a fair amount of new information about Hamath. In I. 46 ff. the battle with Rusash is placed after the capture of Mugagir, which is perhaps correct. " The greater number of the fragments of Prisms A. and B, have been published by Winckler, Sargon, II. pi. 43 ff. There is no doubt as to 12 WESTERN ASIA IN THE DAYS OF SARGON Another group is that containing the more strictly chron- the order of the fragments of Prism A., for they actually join. Of the three legible sections, one, that relating to the Medes, has been trans- lated by G. Smith, Assyrian Discoveries,'^ 1876, 288 f. and by Winckler, Untersuchungen zur Altorientalischen Geschichte, 1889, 118 if.; another, relating to the Ashdod expedition, by G. Smith, op. cit., 289 ff. and by Winckler, Sargon, 187 ff.; the third, relating to Dalta is still untrans- lated but may be used. The fragments are K. 1668 b -|- DT. b. Prism B. is almost identical with Prism A, in size and character of writing. The fragments are K. 1668 a + 1671, 1668, 1672, 1673, 8536 (the unnumerirt of Winckler's plate) S. 2021, 2022, 2050, 79-7-8, 14. K. 4818 which is also given by Winckler clearly does not belong here and may be excluded. K. 1668a has already been joined to 1671 and a beautifully clear though minute photograph of these is given by C. J. Ball, Light from the East, 1889, 185. The other fragments are still unjoined and practically undeciphered. Bezold, Zeitchr. f. Assyr., 1889, 411, n.* has pointed out that S. 2049, Rm. 292, and 82-5-22, 8 belong to the same prism but they are still unpublished. The first necessity is decipherment. When enough has been made out to assign each fragment its subject, an attempt at arrangement may be made. As a result of my attempts, I believe that I have secured large parts of four columns from the eight originally existing. The follow- ing is my arrangement: I begin my first column, which really must have been preceded by one or more columns giving titles, introduction, and the earliest events of the reign, with Col. I of K. 1672 where we have references to Samalla and Hamath. Winckler, who has studied this fragment, Altorientalische Forschungen, II. 71 ff., thinks that this belongs probably to 711, but long before I had any hope of piecing the prism together, it had seemed to me that the whole general tenor allowed only 720, or year II. If now we look for a fragment continuing the same subject, we have it in Col. I of 79-7-8, 14, Winckler, Mitth. Vorderasiat. Gesellsch., 1898, I, 53, where we have references to Mugri and to Martu, or Syria, refer- ences which we naturally connect with the intrigues of Sibu of Egypt. The second part of this column deals with Urartu and the Mannai which would then be the Rusash troubles which began, as it would seem, in 719 or year III. We would then be inclined to place next Col. I of S. 2021, since we have a reference to Ursa or Rusash, and that our assigning of this Col. I to year III is not far wrong is proved by the fact that Col. II of S. 2021 is actually dated in year V, so that the upper part of this column must be year IV. These first columns of these three fragments are all that we can assign to the first column of the Prism. Comparison THE SOURCES 1 3 ological documents. The so-called Eponym Canon gives with the other columns shows that, at the least, thirty-five lines from the lower part of the column have been lost. For Col. II of the Prism, we have, if our arrangement of Col. I is correct. Col. II of K. 1672, of 79-7-8, 14, and of S. 2021. Unfortunately, the first two are too mutil- ated to discover what country they belong to, and the same is true of the part in S. 2021 above the line. Below that, we have a new year, year V, when an expedition was made against Ashur liu. In conse- quence, all above the line must be year IV, or earlier. But more curious is the fact that the Ashur liu expedition is in year V, not year VI, as in the Annals. By this time, the Prism has fallen one year behind the Annals, and this peculiarity we shall find to the end. We naturally expect something else in this same year VI of the Annals = year V of the Prism, and we find it in K. 1669, with its references to Kishesim whose name was changed to Kar Adar, to the Madai, and to Kimirra. To be sure, the last place is not mentioned in the Annals until year VII, but the general locality is the same. Below the line and there- fore in year VI is a section I cannot identify. But to this same year VI must be referred K. 8536, since the references to Ursa and Que agree well enough with the Que of Annals year VII. This ends Col. II of the Prism which must have had at least seventy-five lines. For the first part of Col. Ill of the Prism, we have A., B., C, of Winckler's arrangement of K. 1671 ;+ 1668. What A. deals with is not clear. B. and C. relate to Haldia and Ursa, that is, to the events of year VIII of the Annals. Making the correction of one year, our year VII fits in well. After this, we should probably place Col. I of S. 2022 where a joint may perhaps be made. Here a land whose name begins with I. may perhaps be in the Mannai region. This must be in the year VIII, for on Col. II of this fragment we have j'ear IX. This ends Col. Ill of the Prism. At the beginning of Col. IV we place, though doubtfully, K. 1673 with its mention of Aragi, perhaps Median. At any rate, we can hardly deny to this D., E., F., of K. 1671 ;-}- 1668. We should naturally expect here events of year VIII or year IX of the Annals, and this we certainly have. D. and E. deal with Amitashshi of Karalla and with Itti of Allabria, and then below the line, with Dalta of Elli. So far all is well, and we must place this in the year VIII (IX). When we come to add to this column Col. II of S. 2022, we find ourselves in trouble ; for the first half of this is given to Mita and Ambaris who are placed in year X in the Annals, yet, below the line, we have year IX for the Ashbod expedition which is year XI according to the An- nals. In these last cases, then, we have slipped back two years beyond the Annals dates. What does this mean? Does this mean that some 14 WESTERN ASIA IN THE DAYS OF SARGON US the list of eponyms or limmu,*^ and this bare Hst of names now begins to be amplified by the dated commercial docu- ments.^* More important are two fragments which add to the name and office of the eponym some sort of a historical years were spent " in the land " with no military expeditions, as the Chronicle Fragment Rm. 2, 97 seems to indicate, and were the events which actually happened extended to fill up the blank years ? At any rate, we know how untrustworthy the official chronology is. This ends the fourth column and assigns a place to all the published fragments. As the prism was eight-sided, four are still missing. One of these would be taken up with the introduction. Then would probably come our four. The last three columns would be taken up with the events after the Ashdod expedition. This, even with accounts of building opera- tions, would probably end the prism about the time of the fall of Babylon. We can hardly place their date much later than 709, for the whole group of official inscriptions from 707-706 are closely connected in style, etc., while they are as sharply differentiated from the Prisms. As these fragments are in the Kuyunjik collection, it is to be presumed that they came from Nineveh. If so, they probably date from the time before Sargon had moved into Dur Sharrukin. Note that the deed of gift of 714 is given at Nineveh. To make clear my plan of arrangement, I subjoin the following synopsis : Col. I. II. Col. III. Col. K. 1672. Hamath (II) X (IV) 79-7-^, 14- Martu (II) Urartu (III) X (IV) S. 2021. Urartu (III) X (IV) Karalla (V) I' K. 1669 Kishesim (V) X (VI) K. 8536. Que (VI) *' Published III. R. i ; better in F. Delitzsch, Assyriche Lesestiicke,' 1878, 87 ff. ** A complete list of the eponym dates with the authorities may be seen in C. H. W. Johns, Assyrian Deeds and Documents^ 1898, I. 562 ff. K. X (VII) Urartu (VII) Urartu (VII) Urartu? (VII) Col. IV. K. 1673. Aragi (VIII) 1671 + 1668. Karalla (VIII) Karalla (VIII) Elli (VIII) Allabria (VIII) 5". 2022. Bit Buritash (VIII) Ashdod (IX) THE SOURCES I 5 Statement. One belongs to the so-called Assyrian Chronicle and covers practically the whole reign. The chronological clue has now fortunately been discovered, and it can now be utilized. The date is entirely a matter of conjecture, and its sources cannot be found in any inscriptions known to us. Its tendencies seem to be priestly, but its chronology agrees fairly well with Prism B, and it seems quite reliable.*^ The " The fragment of an " Assyrian Chronicle," Rm. 2, 97, was published by C. Bezold, Proc. Soc. Bibl. Arch., 1889, 287 and pi. Ill a. Sayce utilized it in Records of the Pastf II. 126 /. He omitted 1. 1-4 and in several cases made two lines refer to one year. To him, our fragment was only a variant of II. R. 69, which however is a chronicle of a sort unique as yet. Winckler translated and transliterated it in Keilinschr. Bibl., III. 2. 144 ff. In general, this is more accurate, but strangely enough he has omitted 1. 4 which throws out of gear his whole later chronology. Barta, in Harper, Assyr. Bab. Literature, 215, has also given a translation with 1. 4 in its proper place. The first error made by all these is in not seeing what Bezold had already pointed out, the fact that it belongs to the type of the real Assyrian Chronicle, and that therefore one line and no more must be assigned to each year. Bearing this in mind, we may utilize the clue given by Sayce when he takes the ri of 1. 15 to be the end of Kirruri. In 1. 14-18, we have to the left of the text a vertical line and to the left of this, on each of the five lines, a single character. If this frag- ment really belongs to the Assyrian Chronicle class, then there can be no doubt that this first column contained the eponym for the year together with the place he was governor of. In 707, as II. R. 69 shows, Sha Ashur dubbu of the city of Tush-ha-an was eponym. Here then belongs the an of 1. 16. In 1. 15, the ri is clearly the last part of Kirruri of which Shamash upahhir was eponym and in 708. In 710, Mannuki Ashur li'u was eponym of Tile. As we might expect, the a of this line is only the last half of the e. For 706, we have> Mutakkil Ashur of Guzana. Here Bezold reads tu which is probably a misreading of za-na, one stroke of the za being lost and the na having the form common in the letters. For 705, Upahhir Bel of Amedi, the ur is probably a mis- reading for di. This order of eponyms, Tile, Kirruri, Tushhan, Guzana, Amedi, is to be found in the Chronicle under 766-762 and 730-726, and for the last three in II. R. 69. Let us now go through our fragment year by year to see if this scheme will work out. In 1. i, kar'lru should be read. Karru is an obscure word ; whether it means a destroying 1 6 WESTERN ASIA IN THE DAYS OF SARGON Other is not very different from this type, but its exact parallel is still to be found. Each year from 708 to 704 has several lines devoted to historical data. It has close preparatory to rebuilding or actually the rebuilding itself, is still uncer- tain. It already occurs in the Chronicle under 788. The year here would be 722. In 721, 1. 2, Winckler restores e'\tarab. Read ilu X ana beti eshshi eltarab, "the god X entered a new house," cf. the Chronicle under 787. 722-21 therefore correspond to 788-87. L. 3, 720 is ba-la. What this may mean has thus far baffled me. For 1. 4, 719, read ushshu sha bit Nerlgal karru, " the foundations of the house of Nergal were rebuilt," cf. the Chronicle under 789 according to Delitzsch, Beitr. Assyr., I. 616. This was probably the Nergal temple at Kutha, for there is no account later of its capture by Sargon. L. 5, 718, is not to be read Iramlu Mannai, " Iranzu of the Mannai," for the name of an enemy never occurs in the Chronicle. The half destroyed sign before Mannu is rather with Sayce to be taken as alu, " city," though I confess I know only matu and amelu used before it. The events here referred to are given in A. under 716. L. 6, 717, is pehuti shaknu, "governors appointed," and refers either to a settlement consequent upon the fall of Carchemish or to the Mannai troubles. L. 7, 716, reads f-di (alu) Mugagir Haldia. The first sign can hardly be a. Haldia has no deter- minative, and whether god or people is not evident. The next line, 715, has rabute, " the nobles," followed by ina {matu) Ellipa, " into the land of Elli," a reference to the events of A. 83 if. L. 9, 714, should be read {ilu) X ana bet'\i eshshi etarab, " the god X entered a new house," the complement to 1. 4 as 1. 2 is to 1. i. L. 10, 713, ana^ {alu) Mugagir, is the expedition not mentioned in the Annals, cf. Belck and Lehmann, Zeitschr. f. EthnoL, 1899, 102, and the chapter on the Armen- ian wars. For 712, we read ina mati, " in the land." This is inter- esting, as the Annals has expeditions for each year. For 711, we have ana {alu) Markasa, which agrees with the facts known from other sources for that year. Under 710, ana Bit Zirna'id, sharru ina Kesh bedi, " to Bit Zirna'id, the king was distant in Kesh," if, with Muss Arnolt, we take bedi from a root well known to every traveller in Syria, must of course refer to the campaign against Babylon in that year, while the next line, Sharrukin qata Beli iggabat, " Sargon seized the hands of Bel," as clearly refers to what took place at the beginning of 709. {Alu) Kumuha kashid, {amelu) pehu shakin, " Qummuh captured, a governor established " must be placed under 708. The first part refers to events properly dated in the Annals. Whether the second part refers to the same or to Babylonia is uncertain. The second is more probable. THE SOURCES 1/ affinities with the Babylonian Chronicle, but seems in at least one case not to have so well repeated its tradition. It has no relationship with the first fragment. Though prob- ably late, it used good sources and seems trustworthy .* The fourth group consists of the early inscriptions. The Nimrud inscription comes from Kalhu, the early capital of Sargon. Its date is about 716. Unfortunately it is brief, and is not in chronological order. Some new facts are to be gleaned, such as the conquest of laudu and the capture of Carchemish.*^ A brief fragment from year six has little Under 707, sharru ishtu Babili issuhra, we have the return from Babylon at the end of that year on the news of the Cimmerian invasion, for which see chapter VIII. The next two years refer to Dur lakin, but just what they indicate is obscure. The first, 706, reads, sha (alu) Dur lakin naga, " he of Dur lakin went out," the other, 705, (a/w) Dur lakin nahil, " Dlir lakin was destroyed." Under 704, we have ana bitatishunu etarbu, which we must take, with Winckler, " the gods of Shumer and Akkad] to their houses returned." For 703, rabut']e ina Karalli " the nobles into Karalla." This seems to refer to Sennacherib, Prism, I. 63-II. 7, in his second expedition, for the conquered tribes are annexed to the province of Arapha. The last line, under 702, is mahra, " former." What it refers to I do not know. While this fragment clearly belongs to the same class as the Assyrian Chronicle, it does not seem to be related to any of the known documents dealing with Sargon's reign. It therefore has the value of an inde- pendent witness. Its chronology seems to agree with that of Prism B. where the two touch, and on the basis of these two I have built my chronological scheme. The large part devoted to religious buildings seems to indicate priestly leaning, if not priestly authorship. The au- thor seems to have been an Assyrian, not a Babylonian, nevertheless. As to his date, we only know that the fragment closes at 702. ** II. R. 69 d = K. 4446. A good translation in Schrader, Keilinschr. Bibl., I. 215. Several changes have been made by the author. For these, see the pertinent sections of the text. ^"^ Published by A. H. Layard, Inscriptions in the Cuneiform Character, 1 85 1, pi. 33 f.; Winckler, Sargon,H.^\. /^'&,'D. G. Lyon, Assyrian Manual, 1884, gfF. Translated by Winckler, Sargon, I. 169 if.', Peiser, Keilinschr. Bibl., II. 34 fF. Quoted as N. The large part in it played by Pisiris of Gargamish shows that its date must be placed soon after his capture. 1 8 WESTERN ASIA IN THE DAYS OF SARGON value,*^ but the one from year two (720) is extremely im- portant not only for its chronology but for the vivid light it casts on the causes of Sargon's accession.* A few other fragments are known but are either unpublished or of little importance.^^ No affinities have been found within this group. We may conclude our survey of the official material by mentioning the labels on the sculptures, the bricks, the inscribed fragments of pottery and of glass, and the minor building inscriptions.^^ In some periods, all this would have great value, but so full are our sources that we rarely need their help, though the building inscriptions add to the culture history and the labels enable us to utilize the beautiful bas- reliefs which have a real historic value. Such, then, are the official documents the king of Assyria wished to hand down to posterity. Edited though they are, a careful study may often secure the truth. Yet were we confined to these alone, our knowledge would be very one- sided, as indeed it is even now. Fortunately, we have other E. Schrader, Die Sargonstele, 1882, 8n.\ makes the Karalla expedition (716) the limiting datum. But A. 78 under 715 corresponds with N. 9 where the restoring of disordered Man is mentioned. Still, much of this Man section may be placed earlier, so the question is still unsettled. *'K. i66o, published Winckler, Sammlung, II. 4. "K. 1349, published Winckler, Sammlung, II, 1893, i, translated Forsch., I. 401 fF. *^K. 221 -j- 2669; K. 3149 with references to Urartu; K. 3150, refer- ences to Harran; K. 4455, mention of ... shum ishkum son of Ninib . . . ; and to Urartu ; K. 4463 published Winckler, Sammlung, II. 6; K. 4471, references to Urartu, Nar Marrati, Kaldu, published Winckler, Sammlung, II. 4; D. T. 310; 83-1-18, 215, references to Labdudi, Hanban, Sirra, Amana. The unpublished fragments are known from C. Bezold, Catalogue of the Cuneiform Tablets in the Kouyunjik Collection, 1889 ff. " Grouped together by Winckler as Kleine Inschriften, Sargon, II. pi. 49 and I. 190 if. Further bibliography may be found under the second reference. THE SOURCES I 9 data. For we have, almost in its entirety, the contents of the Nineveh archive chambers, and much of the material goes back to the days of Sargon. Of the documents there found, the most important are the letters and reports. Many are from commanders in the field and throw a new light on the strategy of the times, on the foreign relations, and even on the culture life of the neighboring peoples. Others deal with domestic affairs, reports, favorable or unfavorable omens, state the health of the royal family, or merely pay their respects to their lord. Valuable as these are, it is not easy to localize them. Dates are rare ; the same name may belong to more than one person ; a connection with known events is difficult to find. To make matters worse, they have been until recently sadly neglected, and in consequence are still hardly out of the decipherment stage. A large number have been given in the collection of Harper,^^ but others which seem from the catalogue to belong to our period are still unpublished. Of those published, a minority have been really studied. One group, those dealing with the events of the last few years on the northern frontier, have been already isolated and a fairly complete account can be " The great corpus of Assyrian letters is being made by R. F, Harper, Assyrian and Babylonian Letters, 1892 if. Reference will be made to other publications, translations, etc., as each letter is cited. The col- lection is quoted as H. When I began this work, I had the impression, which is perhaps still somewhat current, that the number of letters to be assigned to this reign was small and I hoped to be able to work them all out, taking the letters already studied as a basis. It was not long before I recognized the difficulty and soon the impossibility of my task. I have of course utilized all those which have been translated or transliterated and a partial quotation or even bare reference has in- duced me to attempt letters thus far unstudied. In addition, I have stumbled upon certain others which have seemed worth further study. In too many cases, this has shown that the events referred to did not belong to the reign or could not be definitely located. Often an one line reference has meant hours of work. No doubt I have made mistakes. 20 WESTERN ASIA IN THE DAYS OF SARGON gained from these alone.^^ Here and there a reference may be made to a letter, but full study from the historical stand- point must be preceded by full study by the philologist. Yet, little as they have yet been used, their use has materially changed our account in places. These letters were not the only documents preserved in the Nineveh archives, for in them were preserved all sorts of written material after that peculiarly oriental fashion which knows no distinction between public and private, when the ruler is concerned. Even the literary texts, mostly philological or religious in character, which formed the so- called library, seem really to have been a part of this general collection. Of purely private documents there was no lack. Every business transaction, no matter how simple, must have its written voucher. Through these, the whole political, religious, social, and economic life of the people is laid bare before us. To what an extent this collection of data can be utilized for our period, the chapter on the culture history will show.^* Thus far we have been discussing only the sources which give us the Assyrian point of view. We are fortunate in having records, few as they are, from the surrounding nations. Babylonia, Haldia, Judaea, and by these we can check the ones already noted. Merodach Baladan, in spite of his long reign, prepared no war annals or, if he did, they have not come down to us. A score is considered enough for a philologist to study for a doctoral thesis, if it is to be done well. I have worked through some two hun- dred. A further difficulty is the fact that mutilated letters, though often of great value, are generally neglected. When a larger number is made more accessible, I hope to return to the historical phases of the study. '^ Cf. chap. VIII. n. 5. "The great collection of C. H. Johns, Assyrian Deeds and Docu- ments^ has superseded, so far as our period is concerned, all preceding publications. Quoted as J. THE SOURCES 21 The only historical document we have is the Babylonian Chronicle.^'^ This is a fine piece of work. The author is indeed a patriotic Babylonian. But he seems to have no more bias in favor of the Chaldaean Merodach Baladan than he has for the Assyrian Sargon. In his opinion, no doubt, one was as much a foreigner and a barbarian as the other. This impartiality seems to be proved where we can test it. The date is late, perhaps in the Persian period, but he clearly used good sources. Equally valuable is the boundary stone^^ which gives the text of a charter by which Merodach Baladan granted a plot of ground to one of his favorites. In it he gives an expo- sition of his land policy. If he says that he honored the gods, we can hardly cite Sargon to the contrary, nor, if we accept Sargon's testimony to the oppression of a pro-Assy- rian party by his Chaldaean rival, must we forget that the latter makes exactly the same charges against the party which held Babylonia before his arrival ? Aside from these, we have only a few commercial documents of the usual sort. There are other sources which, though now in Greek dress, actually seem to go back to cuneiform originals. Berossus has a very uncertain reference to Merodach Baladan ;^^ there are references to that ruler and to a siege of Tyre which may possibly be attributed to Sargon f^ while Ptolemy, in his Almagest, furnishes us with a list of Babylonian kings "Best published in F. Delitzsch, Assyrische Lesestiicke* 1900, 137 ff. A good translation by A. Barta, Assyr. Babyl. Lit., 200 ff. ^ Published by F. Delitzsch, Beitr. zur Assyr., II. 258 if. Translated by Delitzsch, /. c; Peiser and Winckler, Keilinschr. Bihl, III. 185 if.; R. F. Harper, Assyr. Bah. Lit., 64 ff. Johns, Deeds, II. 232 would place this much earlier since archaic metrology is used, but this hardly will stand in the face of the way the data fit into our general situation. "Berossus, Fragment 13= Jos. Ant. X. 2. 2. *** Eusebius, Chron., ed. Schone, I. 27, 35. But see chap. IV. n. 62. 22 WESTERN ASIA IN THE DAYS OF SARGON and further strengthens the chronology by the mention of three ecHpses.^^ The other inscriptional sources are few. The Haldian ones, so numerous at an earlier time, are now but a bare half dozen in number. We have building inscriptions of Rusash^^ and Argishtish IP^ as well as the Rusash in- scription at Lake Gokcha^^ to show the extent of the empire. Of real importance is the Topsana stele,^^ which sheds so much light on the truthfulness of Sargon's scribes. As for the Hittite inscriptions, we may still doubt if they have been really deciphered, and even if they have, the actual gain is small, while the knowledge that our Itamara the Sabaean may be one of the Yatha'amars of the Sabaean inscriptions, is no great advance.^* Owing to their inclusion as a part of our sacred literature, the study of the Hebrew documents is one of peculiar diffi- culty. Those who hold the older and more conservative views have ascribed large portions of the book of Isaiah to this reign, while more radical critics have done likewise with those sections they still allow to that prophet. Be it as it "" Ptolemy, Almagest, IV. 5- The Rusahina building inscription of Keshish G611, published with an elaborate study of the work and of its remains, W. Belck, Zeitschr. f. Ethnologie, 1892, 151 f., cf. 141 ff.; Sayce, Journal of Royal Asiatic Society, 1893, 18, No, LXXIX. Lehmann, No. 127 in Sitzungsherichte of Berlin Academy, 1900, 624. The Teishbash inscription of Van, pub- lished in transliteration by Lehmann, /. c, No. 126. *^ The Arjish inscriptions describing the building of reservoirs for the Argishtish city, Lehmann, /, c, No. 130, 131. *^ The rock inscription at Aluchalu on the south shore of the Gokcha Sea, Sayce, op. cit., 1894, 713 if., No. LV. The conquest of kings of twenty-three lands and the carrying of the people to Van is boasted of. At this spot, a Teishbash temple was erected. ' Discussed by Lehmann, Zeitschr. f. EthnoL, 1899, 99 ff.) cf. also Lehmann, Sitsungsherichte , I. c. No. 128. * See more fully under the study of Arabian affairs. THE SOURCES 23 may in regard to the Isaianic character of these oracles, repeated readings with this end in view have left me unable to locate with any assurance a single one in Sargon's reign. Although the heading of the twentieth chapter of Isaiah refers to the Ashdod expedition, we are not justified in accordingly attributing the oracle itself to this date, as will be clear to any student of prophetical headings. On the other hand, the heading itself, whatever the date of its in- sertion, does reveal knowledge of the actual facts. We have here an excellent illustration of the fact that a very late insertion may nevertheless go back to a good early source. The reference in the tenth chapter^ to the capture of Calno and Carchemish, Hamath and Arpad, Samaria and Damascus, clearly belongs to our reign. But the Greek read a different text, and it may perhaps be suspected that here, too, we have a later form based on early information. Of the same type and period are the historical references in the Assyrian speeches of Kings. Although attributed to Sennacherib, they really fit better the situation in the time of Sargon.^^ The account of the end of Samaria in its two parallel forms^^ belongs at least in part to this reign. The basis of this seems to be a contemporary or nearly contemporary ac- count and, brief as it is, seems thoroughly accurate. As I have already shown,^ we must accept its most important statement, that it was Shalmaneser and not Sargon who took Samaria. The embassy of Merodach Baladan has always been a troublesome chronological difficulty.^^ The II Kings 20" if ; 39^ ff. '= Isaiah 10. II Kings 18^; I9l^ "II Kings i7'-; 18*^" ^ Amer. Journal of Semitic Languages, 1905, 179 if. 24 WESTERN ASIA IN THE DAYS OF SARGON great objection to placing it in Sargon's reign is the fact that the current chronology would not permit Hezekiah to be placed so far back. But this chronology is purely arti- ficial and can hardly count. On the other hand, the time Merodach Baladan had under Sennacherib was too small and his position too precarious to seduce Hezekiah, whereas it would be most natural for that prince to unite with the Chaldaean who had just won the battle at Dur ilu against the Assyrian who had already, or rather his predecessor, put an end to the northern kingdom and was already threat- ening his own. Perhaps, too, the account of Hezekiah's Philistine wars^ may be connected with the Ashdod revolt in 711 rather than with the Ekron troubles of 701."^^ It is with these materials that we must reconstruct the history of Western Asia in the time of Sargon. As must always be the case in the history of the past, there are many deplorable gaps which we would gladly have filled. Yet, when we consider the lapse of time, we must admit that there is a remarkably large amount of material with which to attempt this reconstruction. For the space of time, barely sixteen years, and the extent of country, a good part of Western Asia, we may challenge comparison with many a period of classical or even mediaeval history. And there are few periods of history, ancient or mediaeval, which furnish so fine an opportunity for the exercise of the his- torian's art as does this corner of the " sometime realm of archaeology." II Kings i8. '^In general, it may be said that there is little contact between As- syria and Judah in this reign and I have therefore reduced discussion of Biblical questions to a minimum. It is only fair to state that during the present year an elaborate study of Kings has been carried on in the Semitic Seminary and that I hope later to publish some of my results. CHAPTER II ACCESSION Sargon the Younger, the man who formed the central object of one of the most brilHant periods of ancient Ori- ental history, might well boast himself a self-made man, for in spite of his boasts of the three hundred and fifty kings who ruled Assyria before him^ and of his mention of the kings his fathers,^ it is certain that he was not of the blood royal. What his real ancestry was we do not know. He himself keeps a discreet silence on the subject. His son, Sennacherib, secured a splendid ancestry, for he claimed descent from the old mythical heroes, Gilgamish, Eabani, Humbaba, and the like.^ This was evidently felt to be going too far, for Esarhaddon already as crown prince* gives the more modest genealogy which became standard.^ Accord- ing to this, Sargon was a scion of the old half mythical house of Bel ibni, son of Adasi.^ ^ C. 45 ; B. 43 ; note the use of malki, " princes." Cf. also the use of " Kings my fathers " by the usurper Tiglath Pileser, Annals 19. ^C. 48. 'Johns, Deeds, III. 413. *K. 13733 published ly Winckler, Forsch., II. 23. ' Negub Tunnel Ins., 5, Scheil, Recueil de Travaux^ 1895, 82; 81-6-7, 209, G. Barton, Proc. Amer. Orient. Soc, 1891, CXXX ; K. 2801 ,4- K. 3053 + D. T. 252 ; A. H. 82-7-14 unnumbered. These have been quoted by G. Smith, Zeitschr. f. Aegypt. Sprache, 1869, 93 if., and by Winckler, Sargon, XIII. n.^ and Hebraica, IV. 52 f. " In the early days of Assyriological study, the genealogy was accepted without protest. The untrustworthy character has been recognized by Winckler, Hebraica, I. c, and others. To my mind, there can be no doubt that it is made of whole cloth. G. Rawlinson, Five Ancient Monarchies,* 1879, 11. 145 points out that, while Nabunaid frequently 25 26 WESTERN ASIA IN THE DAYS OF SARGON As we do not know his family, so we do not know his real name. On his accession he assumed that of Sharrukin, better known to us, from its Biblical form, as Sargon. The reason for this is clear. ThrcS thousand years before^ there had ruled in Agade a mighty monarch, Shargani by name, whose power and wealth were still evidenced by the inscriptions in the temples he had erected. Originally the name seems to have meant "A god has established him as king." ^ A later age had forgotten this meaning, and it had, mentions his father though but a noble, Sargon does not, and suspects that he was not even of good family. To this we can hardly say, with Tiele, Gesch., 254, that Sennacherib never mentions his father, for he actually does so in K. 4730. Possible conjectures are those of F. Hommel, Gesch. Babyloniens und Assyriens, 1885, 679, that we may see his father's name in the Habigal, the dynasty name of the Babylonian royal lists, of Tiele, op. cit., 256, that he was a son of Ashur nirari, and of G. Maspero, Passing of the Empires, 1900, 221, that he could actually trace royal ancestors on the distaff side, since the daughters of the king no doubt married into the noble houses. The facts do not agree with the suggestion of Hommel, Gesch., 680, that Babylonian origin is demanded by his Babylonian name. That he was born before 745, Tiele, op. cit., 2S6, is quite probable, but it is extremely unlikely that he was seventy years old when he became king, as Oppert, Studien und Kritiken, 1871, 71 10, Winckler, Zeitschr. f. Assyr., 1887, 392, may be right in making the descent from an old King of Ashur a compliment to that city. ' Of course the date of Nabunaid is not exact and may be a century or so out of the way. But I believe that it is approximately correct. That there is a gap may well be due only to our lack of material. ' Sargon of Agade calls himself in his own inscriptions Shargani, e. g., Keilinschr. Bibl., III. i. 100. In the Assyrian tablets, on the other hand, the form usual with his namesake is given. This is one of the signs for sharru, " king," plus GI.NA or DU = ukin, rarely u-kin. For a few selected forms, cf. J. N. Strassmaier, Alphabetisches Verzeich- niss, 1886, sub voce. A person named Sharrukinu occurs in Darius 20-3-6, Strassmaier, /. c. The name occurs as Sargon in Isaiah 20^, as Sargon in Symmachus, and as Sargon in Aquila and Theodotion. The Arna of the Septuagint seems an early error, aleady in the time of Jerome, in Isaiam, ad loc, for Arka which must then of course be con- nected with the Arkeanos of the Canon of Ptolemy which itself is but ACCESSION 27 by a process of folk etymology, come to mean " The estab- lished king." ^ It was in this latter sense that the usurper assumed it, and by the plays upon it in his own records showed to the world his well-established rule.^^ Shargani thus became a sort of patron saint to his name- sake. He did not, it is true, claim descent from him. But we do see a sort of a Sargon renaissance, a renewed interest in everything touching the older monarch. For instance, there had come down a great astronomical treatise, the "Illumination of Bel," which was ascribed to Shargani. This was introduced into Assyria and frequently copied in this and succeeding reigns. To the same influence must no arku, " the later," " the second." This last expression does not seem to be used to distinguish him from Shargani in his own inscriptions, but that it was used in his lifetime is proved by the dated documents given in III. R. 2. It is interesting, in this connection, to notice that Ptolemy evidently derived his information about Babylon through Egyptian sources, as the names of the months show, while the Septuagint of course was made under Egyptian influence. Why should the tradition current in Egypt have used arku instead of Sargon's own proper name? De- Saulcy, quoted Oppert, Ins. Assyr., 2 first identified Arkeanos with Sargon, The best discussion of the name is still that by Schrader, Assyrisch-Babylonische Keilinschriften, 1S72, 158 ff. Peiser, Mitth. Vorderas. Gesellsch., 1900, 2, 50, explains the numerical play on his name in C. 65 by suggesting that his full name, which, as it stands, is certainly incomplete, was Ashur shar ukin. For the various specula- tions as to who Sargon was, made prior to the decipherment of the in- scriptions, cf. E. Riehm, Studien und Kritiken, 1868, 158 ff. For the long accepted identity of Sargon and Shalmaneser, cf. F. Vigouroux, La Bible et les Decouvertes Modernes^ 1889, IV. 137 if. For the literature elicited by the proposal of A. H. Sayce, Bab. and Orient. Record, II. 18 ff., to identify Sargon with king Yareb of Hos. 5", lo, cf. Maspero, Empires, 222 n. Oppert, Ins. Sarg., 8. ^ C. 50 ; on the basis of this text, Lyon, Sargon, X, and Tiele, Gesch., 255, take the name to mean the " true, righteous king " while Winckler, Sargon, XV explains it as " The King has set in order " referring it to the evident desire of the king to show himself the restorer of the old order of affairs. I 28 WESTERN ASIA IN THE DAYS OF SARGON doubt be ascribed the well-known archaism in art and in religion, the care for Babylonia, perhaps even the founda- tion of a new Dur Sharrukin in imitation of the earlier one which had borne Shargani's name.^^ Perhaps the most artistic and interesting result was the production of the Sargon legends, which, in all probability, had long floated about in popular story and were now re- touched for the glory of the usurper king. Of this litera- ture, two specimens have come down to us. One is an omen tablet which reports the deeds done by Sargon or his son Naram Sin under such and such a sign of the heavens, how three years were spent in the land of the setting sun, how the sea of the setting sun was crossed and his image erected, how Kastubilla of Kagala was defeated and the land of Surri, and how a great city was built in his honor.^^ But if this is, after all, only a dry astrological text, the other is one of the gems of Assyrian literature. The story has often been told of how his father he did not know and his mother, a woman of low degree, bore him in secret, how, like the little Moses, the infant was placed in an ark of rushes and entrusted to the water, how the water carried him to the irrigator Akki who reared him and made him a gardener until the goddess Ishtar came to love him and gave him rule over the black-headed folk and granted him victories over Dilmun and Dur ilu.^^ Beautiful as all this is, it is so clearly legendary that we cannot wonder that the earlier scholars were inclined to make him an entirely mythical personage. Even though " So we may gather from the Michau Stone, I. 14 and from the ap- pearance of the name in the list II. R. 50, I. 26 ; the reference to a Dur Sharrukin in Bah. Chron., III. 46 is to the same place according to Winckler, in Helmolt, History of the World, III. 1903, 102. "IV. R. 34; translated Keilinschr. Bihl. III. i. 102 if. and often. "III. R. 4, 7; translated Keilinschr. Bihl. III. i. 100 ff. and often. ACCESSION 29 we now know that Shargani actually lived and was a great ruler, we have no more right to assume that these legends tell the truth than we have to describe the policy of Theo- doric the Ostrogoth on the basis of the romantic adventures of Dietrich of Berne. Knowing how legends grow up, we should be inclined to suspect the account even if nearly con- temporary. How much more so when it is separated from its subject by perhaps as long an interval as that which separates us from Sargon himself. The tablet of omens comes from the library of Ashur bani pal and bears his mark,^* while the legend tablet dates from the eighth cen- tury.^^ But still closer is the internal evidence. Both Sar- gon the Younger and the hero of these legends are alike in having no royal ancestors. Both warred in Elam, and in Syria, and at Dur ilu, and conquered Tilmun. Both crossed the sea of the setting sun and both erected a stele in Cyprus. The legendary hero refers to "my successor" (arku),'^^ and sure enough arku, " the second," is so common a title of Sargon, that, in the form of Arkeanos, it has come down as his name in the Greek-Babylonian list of Ptolemy.^^ All this points clearly to our time as the date of fabrication.^^ " The actual name of the king is lost, but the formula is clearly that of Ashur bani pal, cf. Hommel, Gesch., 301. "So. G. Maspero, Dawn of Civilization, 1894, 597; Rogers, History, Z62. " Legend 20 ; Arku frequently occurs as " later " but with names, only, so far as I know, with Sargon. " Cf. n. 8. " G. Smith, Trans. Soc. Bibl. Arch., I. 47 = Records of the Past,^ V. 57 had already noted the fact that this is " clearly the text of an usurper " and had pointed out the connection of name and city with the younger Sargon to whom he ascribed the preservation of the legends. H. F. Talbot, Trans. Soc. Bibl. Arch., I. 271 =^ Records of the Past^ V. 2, sug- gested that it might have been copied from a statue and this has been accepted as a fact by following writers. The most important of the reasons for not believing in an early date for these legends, were set 30 WESTERN ASIA IN THE DAYS OF SARGON What was the character of the man who, on the death of Shalmaneser IV on the 226. of Tebet (December 28), 722 B. C, came to the throne ?^^ As compared with the charac- ters in classical or in mediaeval Arabic history, it is difficult to understand the personalities of the Assyrian rulers. Yet the attempt may be made, for, in spite of the tendency to conform every such ruler to a majestic, impersonal type of the Assyrian rule itself, we can see a strong personality here. And certainly strength of character must have been one of the most important facts in the man who could usurp the throne, hold it so well, extend its boundaries, and de- velop it internally, and then hand it on to such men as his successors. With strength we often associate coarseness and ferocity. Judged by the standards of our own day, Sargon was horribly cruel. Judged by those of his own, he was as far from the barbarity of Ashur nagir pal as he was from the comparative weakness of Esar haddon. And for his cruelty he had his excuse. The Assyrian empire was still in a precarious condition; indeed, it never again was really safe, and firmness was absolutely needful. If it was necessary for state reasons to flay a man alive, Sargon prob- ably had no compunctions. That he was not merely a blood- thirsty tyrant there is plenty of evidence to show. After conquest he organized territory. If the administrative system dates to Tiglath Pileser III or even earlier, he at least carried out those designs, and so deserves the credit for a fair amount of political sagacity. forth by Hommel, Gesch., 305. Maspero, Dazvn, 599 has gone further, rightly, in my opinion. " The Bab. Chron., I. 29 if. merely states that Shalmaneser died in Tebet and then that Sargon ascended the throne on the twenty-second of the same month. There is, however, no reason here to assume, with Oppert, art. Sargon, La Grande Encyclopedic, that Shalmaneser died on the first and that there was an interregnum. 31 Since he gained the throne by the aid of the religious party, we naturally expect to see something of a religious type in his nature. This may have been only affectation, but it more probably was genuine. The simple soldier who owed his throne to priestly aid was certainly grateful. How great an influence the priestly party gained in his reign may be surmised by the reaction against it in the reign of his son Sennacherib. To how great an extent Sargon was really cultivated we may only conjecture. There were great building enterprises, there was sculpture of a high type, there was much literature produced. But all this was merely to glorify the king, and we may doubt if the soldier cared much for art for art's sake. Thus, as we attempt to find individual characteristics, we have a sense of failure. Even his sculptured portrait is of little value, for it gives us only the conventional king.^^ The many conjectures previously made as to the way Sargon came to the throne-^ are now rendered useless by the discovery of a bit of clay.^^ Prom this we learn that Shalmaneser had committed the unheard-of sacrilege of laying tribute on the old sacred city of Ashur,^^ the cradle of Assyrian power. Harran, too, the capital of that great Mesopotamian kingdom which was united with Assyria in a sort of personal union, was in the same evil case.^* The ^ Sargon and his wazir occur on the slab, Botta, Ninive, I. 12, also in Maspero, Empires, 217. Cf. also the royal figure on the tile facing of the harem walls at Dur Sharrukin, Place, Ninive, pi. 27, which seems to me to be an authentic picture. The broad lips, pronounced nose, large ears, and thick neck seem to show a certain coarseness, but he certainly has a good forehead. The Cyprus stele also gives a conven- tionalized portrait. ^^ These have now only a historical interest, cf. n. 8. ^ K. 1349, published by Winckler, Sammlung, II. i ; translated Forsch., I. 403 ff. ^^27-33. ^' Cf. n. 27. 32 WESTERN ASIA IN THE DAYS OF SARGON god, Ashur, became angry, overthrew Shalmaneser, and presented the crown to Sargon.^^ Translated into plain English, Sargon took advantage of the insult thus offered to the pride and the pocket-book of the great cities, and, with the aid of the priesthood, secured the throne. They had their reward. During the whole reign the priestly party was high in power, and a wave of religious reaction swept over at least the palace circle,^^ while Ashur and Harran were once more given their old privileges and governed directly by the crown." ^ 34 f. Ashur was freed from tribute and. silver tablets set up. The closing threat of revolution to whomsoever changes the place of this work clearly refers to a future king, Winckler, op. cit., 406. ^ See under religion in chapter on culture history. " The statements in regard to Ashur and Harran exist in two some- what different recensions. The one, XIV. 5, D. 10-12, P. V. 9-1 1, states that the freedom from taxation (zakut) of Ashur and Harran which had long been forgotten and their constitution (kidinnutu) which had fallen into abeyance, were restored. The other, P. IV. 9-13, B. 8-10, and, with inserted clause, Rp. 5, 7, 8 ; C. 5-6; Br. 9-10, 13-15, calls Sargon the " restorer of the constitution of Ashur which had fallen into abeyance, who over Harran has protection extended, and as the man (gab, probably in the feudal sense) of the gods Anu and Dagan, inscribed their freedom." How this freedom worked may be seen from K. 5466 = H. 99, cf. Johns, Deeds, II. 174, where Tab gil esharra, governor of the city of Ashur, complains that ever since the king freed the city, the ilqu or feudal service of that place has been rendered use- less to him. He now wishes to repair the palace but is unable and sends to the king. From K. 1349, we see that the city of Ashur had suffered under Shalmaneser but was restored by Sargon, and the same no doubt, was true of Harran. Mez, Gesch. Stadt Harran, 1892, 28 /. followed by Cheyne, art. Haran, Ency. Bibl., suggests that these privileges were granted by Shalmaneser II and were then taken away after the insurrection of 763. It is far more probable that they were a survival of those it enjoyed as capital of the old Mesopotamian kingdom, Johns, Assyr. Doomsday Book, 1901, 7, and that one of the indignities inflicted upon it was the placing of an Assyrian governor in direct control of it. The religious reaction for a time secured its privileges, but when the military party once more gained control under Sennacherib, we find, ACCESSION 33 Yet, in spite of his religious tendencies, Sargon was a great warrior, and indeed the greater part of his recorded history consists of a series of wars. No doubt there were pressing questions of home policy, perhaps even there were revolts, though we hear of none. But, as is always clear to a usurper, the best way of settling questions of legitimacy is by leading the nation to victory in foreign wars. Nor was it mere lust of conquest or needs of home policy which kept the armies of Satgon in the field year after year. During the half century of Assyrian weakness new powers had come into being, and now Assyria was surrounded by a ring of hostile states, any one of which was not an enemy to be despised, while a union such as afterwards brought about the fall of the empire was even now an imminent peril. On the south border little was to be feared from the Babylonians, who had been rendered unwarlike by their long civilization. But here as elsewhere there had been a gradual inworking of Arab tribes of whom the Kaldu or Chaldaeans were the most important.^^ Under Babylonian influence they had gained a certain veneer of civilization. Their leader was now a certain Merodach Baladan (Marduk aplu iddin),^ whose name shows his Babylonian leanings. Al- in 68s, a governor of Harran, 80-7-19, 53 = J. 274. But Johns, /. c, is clearly wrong when he states that " it was the constitution of Ashur and Harran that Sargon extended to the northern cities of Babylonia," for in Rp. i-io on which he seems to rely, the order is badly muddled and can not be used as a basis for argument. Reference to the longer and better accounts gives a more original order. Under no circum- stances may we take the reference in in Rp. 5, 7, 8 to be to the cities in 3. ** For the Aramaean invasions cf., e. g., Winckler, in Helmolt, His- tory of the World, III. 21 /. ^ Isaiah 39^ is correct in calling him Merodach Baladan, The form Berodach Baladan of II Kings 20" is a mere textual error. In the Ptolemaic Canon, he is called Mardokempades. Berossus seems to be the authority for the passage of Alexander Polyhistor quoted by 3 34 WESTERN ASIA IN THE DAYS OF SARGON ready, in 731, he had come into contact with Tiglath Pileser and had been forced to pay tribute.^^ During the weaker reign of Shalmaneser he had extended his power from his home land in Bit lakin,^^ in the marshes of the Tigris and Euphrates, and had won the confidence of the Babylonians. When, therefore, Sargon usurped the Assyrian throne, Merodach Baladan was in a position to grasp his oppor- tunity. Babylon surrendered, and soon after, on the New Year's Day (April 2), 721, he "seized the hands of Bel," was recognized as the de jure king of the South, and took the titles of " King of Babylon " and " King of Shumer and Akkad."^^ The natives seem to have welcomed him Eusebius, Chron., ed. Schone, I. 27. He knows only the short second reign of Marodach Baldanus in the time of Senecheribus. I do not think he is the Babada of Berossus, Frag. 13 = Jos. Ant. X. 2. 2. ^''Nimrud, Clay Tablet, 26. '^ In Bit lakin, the masculine determinative is always used before lakin. In A. 228, 315, D. 122 Merodach Baladan is even called a son of lakin. Whether lakin is a historical personage, Sayce, art. Merodach Baladan, in Hasting's Bible Dictionary, is not certain but cf. the use of Omri in Bit Humri. The land is Bit lakin, the capital Dur lakin, see further Chap. VII. n. 53. ^^ Sargon ascended the throne in Tebet while the reign of Merodach Baladan is officially dated from Nisan. Maspero, Empires, 222, repre- sents this as a period of suspense in which Babylon waited to see if Sargon would favor that city as much as his predecessors. But Sargon later showed himself very favorable to that city and there is no reason to suppose a change of attitude during that time. Furthermore, there is no mention of a revolt in the Bab. Chron., cf. Winckler, Zeitschr. f. Assyr., 1887, 303. Maspero has simply failed to notice that, what- ever the time he actually came to the throne, his accession would be dated from the following first of Nisan or New Year's Day when he " seized the hands of Bel " and became de jure king of Babylon. Ac- cording to the Babylonian king list, published Proc. Soc. Bibl. Arch., 1884, 197, Merodach Baladan was a member of the Tamdim or ninth dynasty and ruled twelve years. This would make his accession 721. The Canon of Ptolemy also gives twelve years. A further clue to the chronology is furnished by the eclipses of the moon mentioned in ACCESSION 3 5 as a deliverer from the Assyrian yoke, at any rate there cer- tainly was a strong pro-Chaldaean party in the city.^^ Merodach Baladan was supported, not only by the various Aramaean tribes but also by Humbanigash of Elam. Al- liance with Elam had long been a fundamental article in the policy of Babylonia. In earlier times that country had had a long and important career, often at the expense of Babylon. Of late it had been miuch weakened, the history becomes ob- scure, and even the succession of kings is lost. A new era began with the accession of Humbanigash in 742 B. C.^* The earlier years of his reign seem to have been spent in reducing to order the feudal princes who so regularly weak- ened the country. There was peace with Assyria, for a long line of Aramaic buffer states protected Elam from her more powerful neighbor. But Tiglath Pileser conquered and incorporated these states, while he also obtained personal rule in Babylon. This brought Elam into great danger. The Chaldaean conquest of Babylon must greatly weaken Assyria and protect a considerable stretch of Elamitish border from Assyrian attack. We can therefore see why Humbanigash preferred to fight his battles for Elam on the plains of Babylonia. The situation in regard to Elam was further complicated by the Median tribes which were gradually working their Ptolemy's Almagest, IV. 5. They are said to have taken place on the 29/30 of Thoth of the first year and the 18/19 Thoth and 15/16 Phamenoth of the second of Mardokerapades. According to F. Ginzel, Sitzungsher. of Vienna Academy, 1884 (89), II. 537 and E. v. Haerdtl, Denkschriften of the same, 1885 (49), 194, they are to be assigned to March 19, 720, and March 8 and September i, 719, these astronomical dates being, of course, one year later than those commonly in use. For the titles of Merodach Baladan, see the boundary inscription. '^ This is shown by the references in the boundary inscription to the sufferings of the pro-Chaldaean party at the hands of the Assyrians. ^ Bab. Chron. I. 9. 36 WESTERN ASIA IN THE DAYS OF SARGON way in from the east, and, like the Aramaeans, were warring against Elam and Assyria alike. As yet, the danger was not serious. A force was constantly engaged on the borders and now and then we hear of the conquest of some petty tribe. Already Iranian and Aramaean were meeting at the Zab, as Hun and Saracen later met in Central Europe. Reaching in a great arc from northeast to northwest were the provinces and dependencies of the empire which, in the half century of Assyrian decline, had become the most powerful in Western Asia. Coming down from the region of the Caucasus, the Haldians had gradually forced their way south until, in the reign of Ashur nagir pal, they had come into touch with the Assyrians. For a time they were held in check, but as Assyria began to decline, Haldia won and held the supremacy of the civilized world under the vigorous rule of Menuash and Argishtish I. When the Assyrian power once more revived under Tiglath Pileser III, Sardurish II, the successor of Argishtish, held all of Armenia, Western Mesopotamia, Western Asia Minor, and North Syria more or less completely under his control.^** To be sure, all this extent of territory was rather imposing than effective, for time enough had not been allowed for a real amalgamation, yet the pro-Haldian party was strong and a severe struggle was needed to drive Sardurish out of Syria. Tiglath Pileser followed this up with an invasion of Haldia itself but, although the capital, Tushpa, was taken and burned, Sardurish held out on the high isolated rock which forms the citadel of Van, and the Assyrians were forced to retreat as winter came on.^^ " The Sardurish of inscriptions 1-3 of Belck and Lehmann is clearly the Seduri of the account of Shalmaneser II. I have therefore counted the opponent of Tiglath Pileser as Sardurish II. ** For a general sketch of Haldian history, and a bibliography, see the New International Encyclopedia, art. Chaldians. I have used the form, ACCESSION 37 When a new ruler, Rusash, son of Sardurish, or Ursa, as Sargon calls him, ascended the throne, some time about 725,2^ the imperial position of Haldia had been largely lost. The new monarch, as events quickly showed, was well adapted to restore the lost prestige of his people. His first care seems to have been the restora- tion of the ruined city. The older town, Menuahina, founded by Menuash, the greatest of the Haldian builders, had been completely destroyed. Rusash rebuilt it, not on the old site, but further north where we now have Toprak Kaleh, and called is Rusahina. Since the water of Lake Van is not potable, he constructed, far to the east among the barren and desert wastes, where his inscription has been found, an immense reservoir, now known as Keshish Goll, or Priests' Sea.^^ At Van^^ and at Aluchalu, oh Lake Gokcha,*^ temples were also erected to Teishbash, the storm and air god. Haldia, derived from the god Haldish in preference to the Assyrian form Urartu, the Hebrew Ararat. In the official inscriptions, Urartu is always spelled phonetically but in the letters is given as Urtu (ki), the same sign being used as for Akkad, Briinnow 7309. The use of Urte in the Haldian inscription, Sayce LXXXH, seems to show that Urartu was a foreign word and was only later applied to the Haldians. For the survival of the Haldians as Chaldoi or Chaldaioi in Greek and Byzantine literature see an article by the author, Amer. Jour. Sent. Lit., 1901, Rost, Mittheil. Vorderasiat. Gesellsch., 1897, 2, 74, compares the Uarutha of Ptol. V. 12. 5. ^ Sargon's scribes call him Ursa and this name has hitherto been used by scholars. In A. 58, 75 he is called Rusa and this agrees with the native form Rusash. Brosset, Melanges Asiatiques, 7, 397 n." identifies Rusash with the Hratchea of later Armenian tradition, Moses Chor- enensis, I. 22 = p. 103 of the Venice, 1827 edition. It might be ob- jected that he is there made a contemporary of Nabugodonosor (Nebu- chadnezzar) ; but when later we are told that he is twenty-four years before Senekerim (Sennacherib), we have his time well enough indi- cated to make the suggestion very plausible. ^ For the inscription, see chap. I. n. 58. '* The Teishbash Van inscription, see chap. I. n. 58. *" See chap. I. n. 60. 38 WESTERN ASIA IN THE DAYS OF SARGON The accession of a new and more vigorous ruler naturally meant a more vigorous foreign policy. Scanty as our sources are, we are still not left in entire ignorance of con- ditions along the frontier. At Aluchalu, on Lake Gokcha, and therefore well within present Russian territory, we have an inscription.*^ Its very position shows a considerable ad- vance to be probable. It also mentions twenty-four coun- tries which had been conquered, although the vagueness of our present geography gives us little clue to their location,"*^ whose inhabitants were carried off to Haldia. On the east, a similar advance seems to be demanded by the sovereignty of Mugaqir. On the west, however, where the earlier kings had ruled as far as Melitene,*^ the boundary had been drawn back, for at this time that place was ruled by an independent prince.^* From the circumstances presupposed by Sargon's frontier fortifications, we must assume that the Euphrates was here the boundary.*^ On the south was the greatest danger. Here the line ran a perilously short distance south of the capital, which was thus exposed to raiding. But in this matter of raiding the Haldians had the advantage, for it was easy for a band of the mountaineers to rush down upon some undefended spot in Assyria, while the heavier " Cf. n. 40. , " These are Adahumish, Uelidash, Kumeruhish, Shiriquqinish, Lainish, Ubimesh, Shamatuaish, Teriuisaish, Risuaish, Zuaish, Akuash, Amanaish, Irquimaish, Elaish, Ereltuaish, Aidamaniush, Guriash, Alzirash, Piruaish, Melaish, Usheduish, Atezaish, Eriaish, Azamerunis. Shiriquqinish is also mentioned on Sayce LXXXII. According to Sayce, Jour. Roy. Asiat. Sac, 1882, 399, Zuaish is Yazlu tash near Melasgert ; but he is doubtful as to whether the Zuaish mentioned here is the same place. Guriaish, or, as it is here in the accusative, Guriaini, at once makes us think of Guriana of the epistolary literature and of the classical Guraina, cf. chap. IV. n. 42. "Argishtish I, Annals, II. 18. "A. 183, etc. Cf. chap. IV. n. 44. ACCESSION 39 armies of the latter would be under considerable difficulties, if a return expedition was undertaken. Regular military expeditions in this region were few and brief. The Hal- dians had only to retire to their fortresses and allow the enemy to ravage as he pleased, then, when the early winter forced him to retreat, they issued forth, blocked the passes, harrassed the rear, and often inflicted great damage. The influence of Rusash must not be confined to the region he ruled. With Merodach Baladan, with whom he may have been allied,*^ he was the cause of almost every war of the reign. Could these two be put out of the way, the remaining conquests would not be difficult. Back of the Haldians and no doubt already exerting pres- sure on them, were other Iranian tribes. As yet, they seem to'liave been unknown to the Assyrians. By the end of the reign they would be known only too well. Had the Assy- rians realized that in attacking and destroying the neighbor- ing states they were but putting out of the way buffer states whose loss would expose themselves to attack, they might have hesitated. More probably it would not have changed conditions. On the northwest frontier there was little danger, but much inducement. Only one object blocked the way. Car- chemish, a fragment of the old " Hittite " *^ power, held the way to Syria and to Asia Minor and dominated the trade route to the west. Mercantile as well as political reasons were therefore demanding the removal of this eyesore to the Assyrian merchants. Once Carchemish passed, there re- mained only petty Hittite states to conquer. The way was open to a re-conquest of those Asia Minor possessions held "Professor N. Schmidt has long held this view. " Whatever one may think of the " Hittite Empire," " Hittite " is a convenient name to apply to this fairly homogeneous group of peoples. 40 WESTERN ASIA IN THE DAYS OF SARGON in the earlier days of Assyrian greatness, to Pteria, the great Hittite city, perhaps to the Black Sea itself. Of the power which, under Midas of Phrygia, was rapidly conquering Asia Minor, the Assyrians seem as yet to have known nothing. Syria had been virtually brought under the control of Assyria by Tiglath Pileser and a large addition to the im- mediate territory of Assyria had been made when Shalma- neser captured Samaria and brought the Israelitish kingdom to its end. But the revolution at home had for the moment weakened Assyrian influence in this region. Affairs in Israel were still in a very unsettled condition. In Hamath and in Gaza rulers of ability seemed about to unite Syria against the Assyrians. In Judaea the young Hezekiah had but recently come to the throne."*^ His religious reformation *' We have no definite knowledge of the chronology of Kings save as we can connect it with that of foreign nations. The whole scheme is artificial, although tradition may have handed down a rough guess as to the length or shortness of the reigns. We should naturally expect that the correct lengths of the reigns might have been handed down, did not the purely artificial character of the whole system and the failure to agree with external chronology where tested forbid. If we make the corrections which such external tests demand, we have a working chron- ology which will do well enough ; for it will not be many years out of the way, but it is not allowable to take such a chronology and assume it to be at all exact. For the reign of Hezekiah, the only certain date is 701, when Senacherib invaded Judah. According to H Kings 18^' this took place in the fourteenth year of Hezekiah, that is, his accession was in 715. Yet three verses before, the capture of Samaria, 723, is placed in Hezekiah's sixth year, that is, his accession took place in 729. In the face of such chronology, we can only refuse to accept any part of it. We can use, to secure an approximate date for his accession, only general considerations. Uncertain as their results may be, they at least do not rest on a thoroughly artificial and unreliable chronology. The date of accession seems bound up with the question of that of Merodach Baladan's embassy, for I do not see how the fact of such an embassy can be denied. The present position of the account, at the end of the events of the reign is easily explained. A passage which closes with ACCESSION 41 looked very much like a protest against the pro-Assyrian religious policy of his father Ahaz,*^ and an embassy from Merodach Baladan had just come to him urging revolt.^^ Egypt was recovering herself under Ethiopic hegemony and had already interfered in the Samaria aflfair.^^ In Arabia things were in a ferment as a result of the impending change from Minaean to Sabaean overlordship,^^ while all along its borders new swarms were pouring out and pressing upon the civilized nations.^^ Such were the circumstances of the Assyrian neighbors, and such were the problems presented to Sargon. On all sides Assyria was hard pressed by nations less civilized peace and truth enduring all his days would naturally make a fine close. Actually, it must be placed near the beginning of the account of the reign, for no one can doubt that all that part which deals with the in- vasion of Sennacherib is later. But if early, why not at the very be- ginning, say 721 ? Hezekiah ascended the throne young. He at once began a religious reform which was to a certain extent anti-Assyrian and in other ways, then or later, showed his desire for independence. What more natural than that, at his own accession, the other, anti- Assyrian party should come into control, especially if, about the same time, there was a revolution in Assyria itself and if the troops which had just taken Samaria were called home. Such a feeling of unrest would be very natural at such a time and Merodach Baladan would naturally send an embassy to strengthen the anti-Assyrian party. The result, then, of all these causes, would be the revolt of 720 which, for the time, seems to have practically ended Assyrian control of Syria. A trace of this complicity of Hezekiah is probably to be seen in the laudu of Nimrud 8 which is mentioned just before Hamath. To place the embassy in the second reign of Merodach Baladan is difficult, for his rule was short and insecure. This combination given, though not as strong as I might wish, seems to me to meet the demands of the data to be combined better than does any other. n Kings 18* ff. ~ n Kings 20^2 ff^ " See a fuller discussion in the next chapter. ^^ See for a brief sketch, Winckler, in Helmolt, History of the World. III. 248. ^Cf. n. 28. 42 WESTERN ASIA IN THE DAYS OF SARGON than herself. It was impossible for Assyria to hold her present frontiers, for only in a few cases were these " sci- entific." Only by constant advances could enemies be put out of the way, while each new advance meant a longer frontier to guard, a larger mass of unassimilated peoples within it, and a further depletion of the governing class. The task was too great for so small a people and ultimate failure was certain. Yet it was a great thing for civilization that the barbarian peoples were held back until they had more or less come under the influence of the Assyro-Baby- lonian culture, and that the empire endured so long as it did was due in no small measure to the hard fighting quali- ties of Sargon. CHAPTER III BABYLONIA AND SYRIA Sargon ascended the throne at the very end of 722.^ What he did during the first year we do not know. In all probability he was engaged in settling himself firmly on the throne and in arranging the changes he found necessary from his point of view.- It was impossible for an Assyrian monarch to live in peace. Even if he wished to do so, circumstances were against him. So far as we know, the first col- lision with a foreign power took place in Babylonia some time in 720. Merodach Baladan, as soon as he was safe in Babylon, had sent to Humbanigash for aid, and now the Elamite was attempting to descend the Aft ab * According to Haerdtl's tables, cf. chap. II, n. 32, Tebet must have begun Dec. 6 and therefore the accession date, Tebet 22 was Dec. 28. The formal first year of Sargon, beginning in Nisan, was April 2 to March 22. This is of course on the assumption that a month was inter- calated at the end of the accession year. ^ The Annals places the Merodach Baladan troubles in year I, 721, and this has generally been accepted. But K. 1349, places it in year II, 720, apparently the very year in which the inscription itself was written. The Bah. Chron., I. 33 dates these events in the second of Merodach Baladan which means the same thing. Winckler, Forsch. 1. 402 n.,^ has therefore rightly doubted it. A further indication of the untrustworthi- ness of the Annals is of course the earlier and no doubt better chronol- ogy of the Prisms. L. i of Rm. 2, 97 (722) has kar'\ru, the somewhat obscure word which probably means either the destruction preparatory to rebuilding or the restoration of a public edifice. L. 2; for 721, has ilu X ana beti eshshi e'\tarah, "god X entered a new temple," the natural result of the preceding line. It is curious that we have no reference to the accession of Sargon or to his wars. 43 44 WESTERN ASIA IN THE DAYS OF SARGON valley to join his ally. But Sargon still held Dur ilu, a strong fortress which commanded that pass.^ When the Elamites reached the plain they found an Assyrian army drawn up to meet them. A battle took place and the Assyrians were driven from the field, although they still held Dur ilu.* The Assyrians retreated to the north, though not so rapidly but that they could take vengeance on the petty Aramaean tribes of the Mattisai and Tu'muna, whose pro-Assyrian sheikh had been bound and sent to Babylon.'^ But now Merodach Baladan came up with his army and united with Humbanigash, after which they ravaged the nearby parts of Assyria. A tactical victory had thus been won by the allies. The ' Dur ilu is Zirzir tepe at the mouth of the Aft ab valley according to A. Billerbeck, Suleimania, 1898, 69, 97. We know that Sargon held Dur ilu in his first and his eleventh years from the so called Sargon Stone, F. E. Peiser, Keilinschriftliche Aden Stilcke, 1889, 6 ff.; extracts in Keilinschr. Bibl., IV. 158 ff. Billerbeck, op. cit., 112, seems to think that between these two dates Sargon lost and regained control of Dur ilu, but there is no proof, and it is hardly probable. A. 228-235, though under year XII, furnishes some information in regard to this period. A. 234 reads iqgura tahazu. This has been referred to a battle earlier than Dur ilu by Winckler, Sargon, XVI. It is also, it would appear, the basis of the statement of Billerbeck, Susa, 77, that a small Susian army was sent to join a Babylonian corps in driving the Assyrians from the Umliash region but was defeated in consequence of the non-arrival of their allies. This passage is better explained by Tiele, Gesch., 258, and the reason for such a battle disappears. *Bah. Chron., I. 34 if. Sargon claims the victory, A. 19; XIV. 6 ; N. 7; C. 17; D. 23; P. IV. 13; S. I. 27, but I have no doubt of the Babylonian account being correct. For the retention of Dur ilu, see the Sargon Stone. ** A. 20 if.; C. 18. The Mattisai are mentioned only in C. but their connection with the Tu'muna makes it probable that they belong here. The men were settled in Syria but this does not necessarily mean Israel, as Tiele, Gesch., 258. The Tu'muna occur also Sennacherib, Prism. I. 41. ^ Bah. Chron., I. c. BABYLONIA AND SYRIA 45 Aft ab valley was opened and free communications with Elam secured. For twelve years no Assyrian army invaded Babylonia, and Merodach Baladan was left to his own de- vices. But one great mistake was made. Dur ilu was left, perhaps because, after all, the armies were too small, in the hands of the Assyrians. So long as they held it, communi- cations between the allies were always subject to interrup- tion, while it formed a good base for intrigues with the anti-Chaldaean party in Babylon or for actual military op- erations. So long as an advanced post such as this was at the very doors of Babylon, the southern question could not be considered settled^ In this same year, 720,^ Sargon was able to devote atten- tion to the threatening state of affairs in Syria, which seems to have been completely neglected since the capture of Samaria by Shalmaneser in 723.^ Now all Syria was ' Failure to follow up advantages is made by Winckler, Sargon, XVIII, n. 3, to be due to the intrigues of the priestly party at Babylon who were naturally in favor of Sargon. In Gesch., 125 If., Winckler argues that Sargon ruled at least Kutha as he bears the title " King of the Four World Regions.''" But Wilcken, Zeitschr. Deutsch. Morg. Ges., 1893, 482, denies the point of the title and notes that on the boundary in- scription of Merodach Baladan we have a shaku, or mayor, of Kutha. The title may therefore have been based only on the holding of Dur ilu, Winckler, Forsch., I. 97. But it is also possible that the office was only titular. At any rate, Rm. 2, 97, 1. 4 (719) should be restored ushshu sha hit Nerlgal karru, " the foundations of the house of Nergal pre- pared." If this was really the great house of Nergal at Kutha which was thus restored by Sargon, then Sargon held it. It is also worthy of note that Kutha did not need to be captured in 710. The occupation of Kutha by the Assyrians would of course be dangerous in the extreme to Babylon. *Both the Annals and K. 1349 agree in placing this in 720, while Prism B. seems also to fit in with this date. " The question of the captor of Samaria has been discussed by the author in the Amer. Jour. Sem. Lang., 1905, 179 ff. It was there con- cluded that the honor must be given to Shalmaneser. A resume 46 vVESTERN ASIA IN THE DAYS OF HaK'-OX again in revolt, the two centers being at Hamath under laubidi and at Gaza under Hanunu. of the reasons there given may not be out of place. Sargon claims the conquest of Samaria for himself. But, according to his own ad- mission, this capture took place in the resh sharruti, or part of his reign before his first New Year. This New Year began probably April 2, while he ascended the throne December 28, see n. i. We thus have four months, in the worst part of the year, the rainy season. The Assyrians, as it would appear, rarely took the field in the winter and a regular expedition at this time would be very difficult. We saw some- thing of the mud which can be found at the end of March while in Syria. Taking into consideration the somewhat untrustworthy character of the Annals and its allied documents, as well as the fact that we have no reference to any capture of Samaria in K. 1349 of year II or in the Nimrud inscription of year VI or thereabouts, the earlier docu- ments, we may well doubt the accuracy of Sargon's statement. But to negative we may add positive evidence. II Kings 17^" is a good source, going back to practically contemporaneous records. There can be no doubt that the " king of Assyria " of verses 4-6 was intended by the author for the Shalmaneser of verse 3. There is here no reason for the Hebrew writer not telling the truth, for it mattered nothing to him, or to the fame of his people, if Shalmaneser rather than Sargon took Samaria. Then either he made a mistake, which is hardly likely, or he told the truth. Further confirmation is fotmd in the Babylonian Chronicle, I. 28, where the only event of Shalmaneser's reign is the capture of a certain Shamara'in. So far as the Babylonian Chronicle is concerned, this only gives us 727 and 722 as limits. But these can be reduced by reference to the Assyrian Chronicle. The expedition cannot have taken place in 727 for the ana, "to [the land X]" comes before the account of Shalmaneser's accession. This is confirmed by Bab. Chron., I. 24, where we learn that he reigned only the three winter months of 727. Winckler, Gesch. Bab. und Assyr., 1892, 2ZZ, is thus incorrect in placing the fall of Shamarain in this year. Nor can we place it in 726, as does Maspero, Empires, 212, for Assyr. Chron. reads for that year ina mati, " in the land," which means that there was no expedition that year. 722 is likewise excluded, for Rm. 2, 97 reads for the year kar'\ru which refers only to building operations. We have thus left only 725-23. When we find that for these three years and only these three years, we have expeditions mentioned, when we re- member that the siege of Samaria lasted three years, and when we note that the Bab. Chron. knew only the capture of Shamarain for this reign, we are forced to assume that this triangular coincidence cannot be an accident, and that each refers to the same event. BABYLONIA AND SYRIA 4/ In earlier times Hamath had been of great importance as the most southerly of the great Hittite cities.^^ In the reign of Tiglath Pileser, it was definitely brought under Assyrian control, though not yet made a province.^^ The constant presence of Assyrian troops in Syria during the last days of Shalmaneser must have kept it quiet, and so it was probably in the usurpation of Sargon that laubidi saw the opportunity for a like usurpation of his own. According to the testimony of his name, he was of the newer Aramaean The identification of Shamarain and Samaria was first made by Delitzsch, Lit. Central Blatt, Sept. 17, 1887, 38, 1290 and is still defended by him, Assyr. Lesestiicke* 1900 sub voce. Paul Haupt, Proc. Amer. Orient Soc., 1887, CCLX, has accepted it and has shown that there are no phonetic laws to prevent it, Winckler, Zeitschr. f. Assyr., II. 351, to the contrary notwithstanding. Halevy, Zeitschr. f. Assyr., II. 402 and often, reads Shabarain and equates with the Sibrain of Ezek. 47^" which he makes also the Biblical Sepharvaim and the modern Shomerieh. But there is no real reason for reading ha for ma, while reference to Sibrain is unjustifiable, Ezekiel 40-48 is very late and the text is so corrupt in 47" that no definite places can be depended upon, cf. the Septuagint. Winckler, Zeitschr. f. Assyr., I. c, objects that the author of the Bah, Chron. could hardly have been interested in the capture of far away Samaria. But, even if the author did not live in a time when Syria was under Babylonian control, was not Shalmaneser at the time of the cap- ture King of Babylon by the grace of Bel ? And was not Merodach Baladan interested a few years later with affairs in Judah ? Or was Shomerieh better known at Babylon than Samaria? To sum up, for the capture of Samaria by Sargon, we have only his own claim, made in a late series of documents which have often been proved incorrect. Against it, we have the silence of his own earlier accounts with the direct ascription of the capture by Shalmaneser by two authorities, widely separated and unprejudiced, while a third, a native Assyrian one, gives data which fit well into the scheme. It will, therefore, not be difficult to assume that Samaria was taken by Shalmaneser in 723. " The cuneiform form of the Biblical Hamath varies between Ham- matu and Amattu. The name still lingered into Greek times as Amathe, Jos. Ant., I. 6. 2 although partially supplanted by the Seleucid Epiphania. It is now called Hama. We visited it July, 1904. "Annals, 152. Enilu was ruler at the time. 48 WESTERN ASIA IN THE DAYS OF SARGON stock which was now supplanting the older Hittite ; though that this gives a proof that the Hebrew Yahweh was wor- shiped in Hamath is not certain. ^^ While laubidi was the nominal leader of the revolt, we must see the real instigator no doubt in Rusash, the Haldian, whose influence in North Syria must still have been strong.^^ Of the other cities en- gaged, Arpad had but recently been the great center of Haldian influence in Syria and had been taken only after a three years' siege.^* Damascus had lost its independence only fifteen years before,^^ while Samaria had met the same " The more common form of the name is (m il) la-u-bi-'-di, D. 33 ; N. 8 ; S. 53, but in C. 25; A. 23 ; K. 1349, 16 we have (m) I-lu-bi-'-di. Since Schrader, Keilinschriften und A. T./ 4, some connection with the Hebrew Yahweh has been postulated and a worship of that deity as- sumed for N. Syria, cf., e. g., G. A. Barton, Semitic Origins, 1902, 284 n. M. Jastrow, Zeitschr. f. Assyr., 1895, 222 ff., has attacked this identification with Yahweh ; according to him, the Assyrian form repre- sents an original IIu yubidi and he compares the use of El with the imperfect in Hebrew names. The two variant forms would then be a correct imperfect and a learned assimilation of the scribe. But a com- parison of the names given by Johns, Doomsday Book, 40, Zerba'idi, Zerba'di, Sagil bi'di, Auba'di, Adadi bi'di, Atar bi'[di], Ilu ba[di], Hadad ba'ad, seems to show a lack of the imperfect preformative in the cases where we have a well known god. I suspect that Ilubidi is simply a (m il) la-u-bi-'-di with the la dropped out and the AN then read as ilu. " Cf. the account of Haldia in chap. H. The connection frequently assumed between the revolts of Hanunu and laubidi is possible but not proved. How C. 19 and B. 23 is a proof of this, Tiele, Gesch., 259, n. 3, I do not see. Rogers, History, II. 155, says that the Assyrians called Hanunu king of Hamath. This is evidently due to misunder- standing of Winckler, S argon. XIX. n. 3. " The Assyrian Arpadda, the modern Tell Arfad, north of Aleppo. Assyr. Chron., 743-740. A little later, horses came from Arpad, 91-5-9, 136 =:H. 395, a letter of Nadinu. "The Assyrian Dimashqu. Visited July, 1904. In K. 542 = H. 193, Harper, Amer. Jour. Sem. Lang., 1897, 13 f., a letter from Naid ilu, and therefore from our reign (cf. K. 665 where the mentions Sharru emur anni, eponym of 712). Shimpia, the Qupashi official of Damascus, is sent to the king according to orders. It may be that Shimpia was BABYLONIA AND SYRIA 49 fate but three years before.^^ Cimirra represented the Phoenician coast/^ and Tyre too seems to have taken part in this revolt.^ There are also indications that Bar Rekab the head of the Damascus revolt of 720. More probably, it was in 713 (Ashdod), or even later. His first occurrence in the contract literature is 707, his last, if it is the same, in 669. We are therefore rather to place him late. '' Cf. n. 9. " The place was known as Zamar to the Egyptians, W. M. Miiller, Asien und Europe, 1893, 187; was Cumuru in the Amarna Letters, 38^, in spite of Winckler, Mitth. Vorderasiat. Gesellsch., 4, 27 ; the Cemari of Gen. 10^*, I Chron. i^ ; the Simyra of Greek times, Ptol. V. 14. 3. The modern Sumra, some distance inland, preserves the name. The ancient site, however, was more probably where we have now the Bedawin town of Shakka, near the mouth of the Nahr el 'Abrash. We visited the latter twice in September, 1904. Both times we con- tented ourselves with a distant view of Sumra. This I regret the more, as there seems to be no record of a visit by any recent traveller. The only person who seems to describe the site from actual knowledge, the others pick out a site and then identify it with Simyra, is Thomas Shaw, Travels, 1757, 269, as Mr. Wrench points out to me. Some natives from a nearby town told me that there was nothing worth seeing there. They pronounced the name Samra, the first a being long. K. 596 = H. 190, Delattre, Proc. Soc. Bibl. Arch., 1901, 342 ff., states that a certain Shepa Ashur has gone with his servants from Dur Shar- rukin to Cimiri. He may have gone to become governor, or he may have gone for cedars for the new palace. ^* C. 21. For discussion see chap IV, n. 62. There were two Tyres, one on the mainland, the other on the island. For Egyptian times, cf. Miiller, op. cit., 189. Here Haven Tyre, the island city, seems to be the one to be distinguished from Tyre proper. In the Assyrian in- scriptions we have somewhat the same conditions, for we find a governor of Tyre in 648, Johns, Deeds, II. 136, the name being changed to Kar Esar haddon. Yet Island Tyre was always independent under kings. As Palaetyrus, the name still lingered in classical times, although the statements of Strabo, XVI. 2. 24, to the effect that it was thirty stades from the island city, and of Pliny, H. N. V. 19 (17). 76, that it was nineteen Roman miles in circuit must apply to the scattered suburbs all along the coast. In spite, then, of certain objectors, e. g., C. Clermont- Ganneau, Etudes d'Archeologie Orientale, 1880, 74, we have a right to assume a Tyre on the mainland and near the island city. Historic probability also leads us to the same conclusion. So long as it was 50 WESTERN ASIA IN THE DAYS OF SARGON of Sam'al, a state near to Arpad, forgot his allegiance to thought that the Phoenicians had held the control of the sea for in- definite ages, the situation of Tyre on an island need not be wondered at. But now we know that Egyptian and Mycenaean fleets swept the sea to a decidedly late period, certainly to a period later by much than the settlement of Phoenicians along the seaboard. We also have traditions that the Phoenicians were immigrants who came from the east. When they first reached the seacoast, being still landsmen, and found other and hostile, or at least piratical fleets controlling the sea, they would hardly choose an exposed island for their first home. They would rather do as was done at Tiryns, Corinth, Athens, Troy, and many another site of that age, choose an acropolis near enougn to the sea for trade but far enough away and defensible enough to be safe. Both natural conditions and the meaning of the name Cor, " rock," make us look for such an acropolis in the plain opposite the island. There is only one position which corresponds with what we demand. This is the isolated " rock " which rises abruptly from the plain about a mile and a half SE. by E. of the gate of Tyre. It was probably about two thirds of a mile from the original coast line. Tiryns, with which we may best compare it, is one and a quarter miles away from the coast, but much of this is late alluvial filling. The " rock " rises, according to Sepp, quoted Survey of Western Palestine, Memoirs, 1881, I. 69, forty or fifty feet high, and this I think not far wrong. Tiryns is fifty-seven feet high. Sepp makes it six hundred feet in circumference. I think this is too small, and I seem to be confirmed by the Saillardot-Renan map of Tyre and vicinity. Tiryns is nearly a thousand by over three hundred feet, but this space is divided into three terraces on which are three separate citadels. Kitchener, Survey, 50, estimates the present population at about thirty, and with this I agree. This space is certainly small for so famous a city as Tyre. But was the earliest Tyre so very large? If Tiryns, when a flourishing Mycenaean city, could keep its main buildings on so small a site, the much less important Tyre could surely hold our situation. This rock could easily accommodate several hundred persons, and the early village would hardly have more. As the city grew, the new houses would be grouped around the rock but the people would retire to its citadel when the enemy came. It is the usual fate of an acropolis to become the home of the gods after peace has allowed its citizens to descend to the more convenient plain. This seems to have happened in the case of old Tyre, for to-day the most prominent edifice on the rock is the shrine of the Muslim saint, Nebi Ma'shuk, and his wife, whose name, the " Beloved," would con- BABYLONIA AND SYRIA 51 Assyria, perhaps his boasted love to Tiglath Pileser^ did not extend to the supplanter of his dynasty, and joined the coaHtion.-^ The allies do not seem to have acted in concert, it would nect him with Tammuz-Adonis, the old Phoenician god, even did not another trace of his worship exist in the feast the Tyrians still celebrate in his honor, in July, the month which in antiquity bore the name of Tammuz. Sepp, /. c. When the Phoenicians gained control of the sea, the inland site was found inconvenient, especially since a fine site for a port existed among the islands just off the coast. An analogous situation was faced by Athens at the close of the Persian Wars. Before that, the acropolis and the region directly around it was the city par excellence. After that time, Athens held control of the sea, the Piraeus was rebuilt and became of even greater importance. Themistocles, who better than any other man in antiquity understood the meaning of " sea power," made no attempt to conceal the fact that he considered the Piraeus the more important of the two and often said that, if the Athenians ever were worsted on land, they should go to the Pireaus and use that as a base for a warfare on sea. Thuc. I. 93. What Themistocles saw, but could not persuade the Athenians to do completely, the less sentimental Tyrians did. The island city became the more im- portant, the shrines and public buildings were collected together in a situation which for more than a thousand years proved impregnable, and the old city, probably actually increased in numbers, became only a suburb. It is quite possible that this transfer of the main city to the island was caused by Hiram, for we are told that he connected the islands, built temples and the great square, Menander in Josephus. " The Bar Rekab inscription, in F. von Luschan, Ausgrabungen in Sendschirli, 1893, 79. ^*' Sam'al, which plays so large a part in earlier times, suddenly dis- appears. Prism B. is the only Sargon document which refers to it and the reference there must be placed in 720 cf. chap. I. n. 47. If it is allowable to connect the "my governor" of K. 1672. I. 3 with the " city Samalla " of 4, we may assume that Sam'al already had a gov- ernor, Winckler, Forsch., I. 22; II. y:^. At any rate, in 681 we have a governor of Sam'al as eponym. Winckler, Keilinschr. und Alte Test.^ 67 f. places here the reference to laudu in N. 8. After much hesitation, I am a little more inclined to attribute it to Judah. Maspero, Empires, 283, adds Bit Agusi to the list of revolted states. I do not know his authority. 52 WESTERN ASIA IN THE DAYS OF SARGON have been too much to expect of a Syrian confederation, or perhaps Sargon was too quick for them. laubidi took up his position at Qarqar,^^ to the north of Hamath, to meet the advancing Assyrians. Once before, 854, the Syrians had met Assyrians on this field and had defeated them and saved Syria for the time.-^ Now they were in turn defeated, and laubidi fell into the hands of the victors. This was the first success of the reign, and it needed to be emphasized. A horrible punishment, only too common, was decreed for the unfortunate laubidi. He was carried to Assyria and flayed alive. Later, a vivid bas-relief was set up on the walls of the new capital, a warning against revolt to the -^ For the name Qarqara Schrader, Keilinschr. und d. Alte Test.,^ 84, compares the Qarqor of Jud. 8^" and the Karkor of Eusebius, Onom. But the edition of Klostermann, 116, has Karkaria as the place existing in the days of Eusebius. The actual location of Qarqar is uncertain. Maspero, Empires, 70, n.* makes it Qala'at el Mudiq, the ancient Apamea of Lebanon, Ptol. V. 14. 15. Harper, Code of Hammurabi, 1904, 7, and cf. map, reads (al) IM.KI as Karkar, Code III. 61 and makes it the Syrian city. He also finds here the Syrian Aleppo. But this Hallab = ZA.RI.UNU.KI is clearly a Babylonian city, as is shown by the Hammurabi inscription, King V, and by the geographical lists where the names occur along with cities which are certainly Babylonian. Qarqar is called al naramishu, his " beloved city " in D. 34. This can hardly mean his capital. Possibly it means his birthplace. We should note that Qarqar is in his '' country " of Hamath, mat being regularly used before Hamath, This use of Hamath is also frequent in the Bible, e. g., Riblah is, according to II Kings 23^ in the land of Hamath. A hitherto unnoticed case of such use is to be seen in the expression usually translated " entrance of Hamath " which occurs in the delimination of the ideal boundaries of the Holy Land. The ex- planation current is not without difficulties, cf. e. g., G. B. Gray, Num- bers, 1903, 140. The Septuagint on Jud. 3^ Labo Emath, gives the clue. Libo is not a verbal form but a proper noun, the Libo of the Antonine Itinerary, 198. 3, and the modern Lebweh, which we visited July, 1904. K. 6674 = H. 225, Delattre, Proc. Soc. Bibl. Arch., 1900, 269, a letter from Uhati reads " peace to the desert of the land of Hamate." " Shalmaneser II, Monolith, II. 87 ff. BABYLONIA AND SYRIA 53 petty princes who brought their tribute to Dur Sharrukin.^^ After the battle, Qarqar was taken and burned and Hamath, which seems to have lain not far off, was also captured, its low-lying position giving little opportunity for defense. Of its inhabitants many were killed, others were made captive, while the flower of the troops, two hundred charioteers and six hundred horsemen, was added to the standing army which Sargon was now forming to take the place of the old feudal levy.^* The position of Hamath on the great road from the north to Egypt was important, as its relation to the modern railway shows. To secure it, a colony of six thousand three hundred native Assyrians was settled here, and an Assyrian governor was placed over them.^^ The site of this city is now represented, no doubt, by the big bare mound which stands in the center of the modern town, and here, if we should excavate, we should probably find not only the relics of an earlier Hittite people, but even cuneiform documents of the sort already found in the mounds of Palestine.^ The capture of Hamath seems to have ended the revolt ^^ Botta, Ninive, II. pi. 120; also in Maspero, op. cit., 235. ^* Cf. under the last chapter, ^A. 23 if.; D. 35 f.; especially S.I. 51 ff. which here adds much new matter. ^ In all Syria, I have not seen a mound which so struck me as worth excavating. It is a splendid big tell, in the middle of the town and at present absolutely bare. The railroad has now reached Hama, and in the growth which is likely to follow the mound will probably be covered with buildings. When we remember that already five Hittite inscriptions have been found at Hama, the outlook for results is promising. I do not think any trouble would need be feared. The accounts of the fanaticism of the people are much exaggerated. We visited without special escort and photographed the main mosque and the one where Abul feda is buried. 54 WESTERN ASIA IN THE DAYS OF SARGON in the north, and the other cities submitted.^^ Then he moved south to attack Hanunu of Gaza,- around whom the revolt in the south centered. Gaza held one of the most important positions in the ancient world. As the last Syrian city towards Egypt on the great Syro-Egyptian trade route, and as the seaport of the Arabian caravan road, its posses- sion was no less valuable from the commercial than from the military standpoint. This was thoroughly understood in Egypt where the holding of advance lines on Syrian soil has always been a fundamental part of the national policy. As soon as the Ethiopian rulers began to secure Lower Egypt, it was felt that an advance on Syria was to be part of the general prqgram. Already, in the time of Tiglath Pileser, the first attempt had been made and Hanunu had been won over. The attempt failed, and Hanunu was forced to flee to Egypt. During the weaker reign of Shalmaneser he returned, deposed the Assyrian protege Idibi'il, and re- gained his throne. In this he was helped by a certain Sibu ^ The sneering question, " where are the gods of Hamath and of Arpad?" II Kings i8**, cf. 19*', seems to refer to this event. What- ever its date, the source was good. Amos 6^ may be a possible inter- polation of this date, Bickell, in Schrader, Keilinschr. und d. Alte Test.,' 445 n. The part of the Annals which probably told of the conquest of the minor states is lost. ^ Hanunu is clearly the same name as Hanun king of Ammon, II Sam., 10^ ff.; II Chron. 19- ff.; and is identical with the well-known Carthaginian Hanno. Johns, Amer. Jour. Sem. Lang., 1902, 249, would apply here his rule that names in -anu are derived from cities and dis- covers a city Hana here. But it merely means " the favored one." Is it possible that we have a present-day remembrance of the old hero in the Muslim saint, Nebi Hanun, who lives at Bet Hanun, a little mud village surrounded by cactus hedges on the open plain a short distance northeast of Gaza? We visited and photographed the place in January, 1905. The modern Ghazzeh still preserves the ancient form Ghazzat, as it occurs in the South Arabian inscription, Glaser 1083, in Glaser, Die Abessinier in Arabien und Afrika, 1895, 75- The Hebrew 'Azzeh was BABYLONIA AND SYRIA 55 who was enabled by his success in Gaza to produce the rebelHon of Hoshea of Israel.- Shalmaneser secured the fall of Samaria, but was put out of the way before he could attack Gaza, and Sargon now took up his work. What happened when he reached Gaza is not clear, but he seems to have fought a battle before its gates. ^*^ The city was captured and the allies fell back toward Egypt, perhaps toward Rhinocolura, on the " Brook " of Egypt, where a frontier post seems always to have been held. Sibu summoned his tartan, or lieutenant, to come to also pronounced Ghazzeh, as the Greek Gaza shows. On the other hand, the Assyrians used the form Hazite, H being their usual transliteration of Ghain. The older city was undoubtedly near the present harbor or Mineh, the classical Maiuma. In spite of the steamers, there is still a brisk land trade with Egypt, and traces of Egyptian influence are much more marked than in any other part of Syria. There is no real harbor, but several tramp steamers lie off the coast to take on grain during harvest. Visited in January, 1905. ^ The Hebrew form So is admittedly incorrect. The pointing is gen- erally changed to Sewe. Eleven Greek MSS. quoted by Holmes and Parsons have Soba, Zoba, Somba with a b. The relation of these MSS. is not clear, but three seem to be Hesychian, that is, these read- ings go back to an Egyptian source. It is tempting to assume that this form actually goes back to some extra canonical source which knew of a Sibu, but it is perhaps more probable that in the b we have only a later transliteration oi a. v sound. It may be only a coincidence that Sibu and Shabaka look somewhat alike, but I am not quite sure yet. The change in the sibilants would make no trouble and H. Brugsch, History of Egypt, 1879, H. 273, followed by W. M. F. Petrie, History of Egypt, III. 1 90s, 284, believes that ka is a postfixed article. Stein- dortf, Beitr. zur Assyr., I. 342, denies the force of this, pointing oul that ki is rather the Dat.-Acc. ending. I know nothing of Nubian and therefore have no right to an opinion on this question. A more serious objection to the identification is the fact that Shabaku is actually found in Ashur bani pal. Ras. Cyl., II. 22. "^ A. 27 has ] kun ma. This may be restored Abiktushunu ash- ktinma, "their destruction I accomplished," Winckler, Sargon, XIX, n. 7, or itti Piru shar Muguri kidra ishkunma, " he made alliance with Piru, king of Egypt," Winckler, Untersuch., 93. I prefer the former. 56 WESTERN ASIA IN THE DAYS OF SARGON his aid, and the two armies met at Rapihu, where now the boundary between Egypt and Syria is marked and where later Lagidse and Seleucidae contested the control of South- ern Syria.^^ Sibu fled " as a shepherd deprived of his flock," so Sargon boasts, and Syria knew his intrigues no more. Hanunu was less fortunate, but was captured and taken to the city of Ashur with nearly ten thousand of his men. Rapihu,^^ probably at that time only a fortified camp, was destroyed, but Gaza,^^ perhaps as a reward for treachery, was spared.^* Under the direct control of the crown, it lasted on and flourished through Assyrian, Babylonian, and Persian times until Alexander, by his destruction of Tyre, showed his hostility to Syrian commerce. Then first Gaza resisted the powers that be and met its fate. '^ Rapihu is the Raphia where Ptolemy IV defeated Antiochus the Great in 217, Polyb. V. 82 ff., cf. for a good account of the battle, J. P. Mahaffy, Hermathena, X, 140 if. References to the mediaeval geographers who use the form Rafh, G. Le Strange, Palestine under the Moslems, 1890, 517. We visited the modern Tell and Bir Refah in February, 1905. The tell, which is rapidly being covered with sand, is a fine one and would merit excavation. The Display inscription makes Sibu himself tartan. I prefer the more accurate Annals where, though mutilated, we seem to be led to take the " his " in " his tartan " to refer to Sibu. 2A. 27 if.', D. 25 f.] XIV. 16 /.; P. IV. 38 ^. A deportation of gods can hardly be assumed with Cheyne, Expos. Times, June, 1899, art. Gaza. Ency. Bibl., from II Kings 17'*; 18^*; 19"; Isaiah 37^^ since the emendation he proposes *ZH (Gaza) for 'WH (Aveh), though easy, is unlikely. K. 1349 does not mention the Gaza expedition. Winckler, Keilinschr. und d. Alte Test.^ 67, therefore, would not accept the date of the Annals, Prism B., however, has a passage about Muguri and Martu (Syria) which seems to belong to year II. The statement that Hanunu was carried to Ashur may indicate that only a general was in charge. ^' We may surmise this from later conditions. "* A discussion of this campaign demands a consideration of the MuQri question which, since first laid down by Winckler in his Forschungen and more fully in the Mitth. V order asiat. GeselL, 1898, I, has become what is perhaps the most vexing problem in Oriental BABYLONIA AND SYRIA 57 It is interesting to note that Sargon did not attempt to follow up his advantages and attack Egypt or even Rhino- colura. Perhaps his forces had already suffered severely, or perhaps he felt that the conquest of Egypt was impos- sible, until he had secured a firmer hold in Syria. For the History. Briefly stated, the problem is as follows. Are all the references in the Bible to Migraim and to Mugri in the Assyrian in- scriptions to be assigned to Egypt, or is some other country or countries to be here considered? The present note cannot be, and does not pretend to be, an adequate study of this question. What is here aimed at is a discussion of the Assyrian sources with special reference to the question as to the exis- tence of a kingdom of Mugri. More general matters will be touched upon only where necessary for clearness. One fact gives me more confidence in undertaking this work. For the last three years, the members of the Semitic Department at Cornell University have been engaged in a study of the history of the Negeb or South Country, the region to the south of Judah. Two years ago, these members went to Syria as students in the American School for Oriental Study at Jerusalem, under Professor Schmidt's directorship. Three expeditions were made to the Negeb. All the sites of any special importance were visited. During these trips, important results from an archaeological and topographical standpoint were secured, and Professor Schmidt will soon issue a work on the historical geography of that region. During these trips, the pertinent literature was taken along and studied on the spot. The discussions with Professor Schmidt and Messrs. Charles and Wrench, both then and later, have been of great value and are thankfully acknowledged, but the ideas here given are primarily the results of the author's own study in his own special field, and the others should not be held responsible for these views. Other phases will be dealt with by them later. It should be noted that several distinct questions are here involved, and much of the confusion of thought on this subject seems due to a confusion of issues. These questions are as follows. First, were derivations from the root MCR used as the proper names of countries or regions other than Egypt? Second, was one of these names used in connection with the Negeb, in other words, are some of the references in the Bible to Migraim and in the Assyrian inscriptions to Mugri to be referred rather to the Negeb than to Egypt? It should be noted that an answer to this question is a matter of fact pure and simple and that an affirmative reply does not commit one to any theory as to 58 WESTERN ASIA IN THE DAYS OF SARGON next few years much attention was devoted to settlement of Syrian affairs. Those cities which were not directly impli- how the same name came to be applied to both the Negeb and to Egypt. Nor does an affirmative of necessity demand a like answer to the third question, " Does the acceptance of the term Mugri-Migraim as applied to the Negeb likewise require the acceptance of a theory that this Negeb Mugri was a kingdom important enough to take the place of Egypt for several centuries in contemporaneous thought ? " These theories and the questions they raise cannot be brushed aside as mere foolishness, as some seem inclined to do. The men who propose them have been the leaders in showing the importance of the South Arabian civilization and its possible influence on the near-by nations, while Winckler, the original author, is more at home in Assyrian than in anything else, wide as his interests are. A fair consideration of the theories is therefore demanded. Professor Winckler makes his main claim for support on the Assyrian data. Consideration of authorities cannot influence us. If, as Professor Winckler claims, Jensen is the only Assyriologist who openly opposes the theory, there is every reason to suppose that a large and influential body of Assyri- ologists have not written on the subject, because they do not consider the question probable enough for discussion. The Egyptologists are, it should be noted, strongly opposed to it, as is but natural. Certainly the evidence from Egyptian sources should be considered, and it is a pity that no Egyptologist has thought the question worth a thorough discussion from his standpoint. We also notice that some of the leaders in Palestinian topography are not followers of Winckler. The small number of the authorities we would expect to be interested who actually have thought this question worthy of even unfavorable com- ment is enough to make us pause, however enthusiastic we may be. To the first question, " Can the root MCR be used as the proper name for a boundary province ? " affirmative answer must be given. The noun migir is common in Assyrian, compare Muss-Arnolt. A moun- tain MuQur was near Dur Sharrukin, Cylinder 44. Other references to Mugur in north Syria are possible. Is the same true of Migraim in the Biblical writings? This is more doubtful. Leaving aside the question of the Negeb Mugri, we have I Kings 10^ and II Kings 7' cited as proof texts for a northern Mugri. In the former, it is per- fectly natural for Solomon to take horses from the Egyptians to the south of him and to sell them to the Hittites and Aramaeans to the north. To suppose, with Winckler, that he brought them, presumably by the sea the control of which he never had, from Que (Cilicia), and the Cappadocian Mugri, far to the north, and sold them to the BABYLONIA AND SYRIA 59 cated in the revolts were allowed to retain their autonomy under the local kings. Those which were, Samal Cimirra, kindred Hittites and the Aramaeans, again to the north, is to suppose that trade does not follow natural lines. This line is certainly un- natural, and a reason for this should be given. Nothing in the political or social situation justifies such an idea. As for the latter, would not the terror of the Aramaeans have been all the greater, if they feared they were being caught in a trap between the armies of the south and of the north ? And when could a better time for hiring Egyptian kings or princes be found than just when the dynasty which, from control of the camp of the mercenaries had gone to control of the kingdom, was breaking up, and all the petty Delta rulers were trying to follow suit. If, however, we cannot allow a Migraim other than the Migraim which may be Egypt or the Negeb, perhaps we may in the case of the South Arabian references. In Gl. 1155, 1183, 1302, we have references to a Migran which Winckler has naturally taken to be his Negeb Mugri. But can we accept this identification? In Gl. 1183, we have Migran Ma'in, " the boundary land of Ma'in." This seems to indicate that we have to do with the name of a mark which has grown up in Minaean territory independently and therefore has no necessary, per- haps better, has no probable connection with Egyptian territory. Note that it is Migran, not Migr, " the mark " par excellence, as the use of the article shows. It is in marked contrast to this that in the late Minaean sarcophagus inscription of Gizeh, we have Migr used of Egypt without the article. It would then seem that these two forms represent two independent developments. Nor do we in the Assyrian inscriptions have any form which seems to point to use of final nun. If this Migran really was the boundary mark of Ma'in, we should naturally place it somewhere to the north where Minaean control seems to be proved. A good site would be the region around El Oela where Doughty found two Minaean inscriptions and which we must place near the most northern part where definite Minaean control can be assumed. At any rate, we have no right to assume that the Migran of the South Arabian inscriptions is a Negeb Mugri, or is Egypt, without consideration of these points. As regards the second question, an affirmative answer is again re- quired. In many Biblical passages, as already pointed out by Winckler and Cheyne, Migraim is used for a region to the east and north of the Isthmus of Suez and therefore outside of Egypt proper. What does this fact prove as to political history? Absolutely nothing, although it may suggest certain interesting questions. That a Migrite 60 WESTERN ASIA IN THE DAYS OF SARGON Damascus, the mainland Tyre, and Samaria, soon appear with Assyrian governors, and it is probable that this took is an inhabitant of the Negeb does not prove that he is subject to Egypt, that his Negeb is independent, or anything of the sort. The United States government officially calls itself " American " yet there is no reason for assuming that an " American " is a citizen of the United States, is a member of an independent republic, or is not loyal to King Edward VII. Nor does the fact that an immigrant inspector returns a man as a " Turk " prove that he is not a Christian Syrian from the Lebanon. At the same time, some sort of connection of the terms at some time is rendered probable, and the fact that the adjoining countries of Egypt and the Negeb bore similar names would prove some sort of connection, even if we did not know that, at a time earlier than any of our references to a Negeb Mugri, Egypt held more or less secure control of the Negeb. We should then suppose that Egypt had caused its name to be extended over the lands conquered. But Mugri is unfortunately not the native name of Egypt and is rather a Semitic form. What then was its origin and how did it come to be used by natives of Egypt themselves? Answers that are satisfactory are not forthcoming. Any attempt to answer must note that already in the Amarna tablets the king of Egypt acknowledged the title " king of Migri," even when communicating with the kings of Assyria and Babylonia. The antiquity of the application of the term to Egypt is therefore considerable. But, as already stated, affirmative answers to the first two questions do not of necessity demand an affirmative answer to the third, and indeed I would return a decided negative to the question. Was there during the later Assyrian period a kingdom of Mugri in the Negeb which was not only independent but so powerful that it for some centuries took the place of Egypt as the great antagonist of Assyria in the con- test for Syria? The mere supposition is difficult to make that two kingdoms of exactly similar names should exist side by side (Winckler's attempts to distinguish between Mugri and Migri are admitted failures), one a great power which has retained its essential identity from the dawn of history to the present day and has often taken its place as one of the great world powers, the other springing suddenly out of obscurity, taking the place of the other, holding its position in the face of the greatest empire the world had yet seen, then suddenly once more disappearing into a like obscurity while as suddenly Egypt once more comes into conflict with Assyria. We are naturally prejudiced against such a theory and, as we advance, new objections appear. BABYLONIA AND SYRIA 6 1 The Negeb Mugri kingdom, to accept the conjectures of Winckler, lasted about as long a time and was nearly as important as the king- dom of Haldia which succeeded in holding Armenia against the con- stant attacks of the Assyrians. Armenia has been continuously oc- cupied since and there has been ample opportunity for destruction of monuments, yet we have several hundred inscriptions in the Haldian language and important architectural remains. The Negeb has been a desert for at the very least half the time since the Negeb Mugri is supposed to have existed. Where are the monuments? There are, to be sure, fine ruins in the Negeb, but they are all Roman and mostly Christian at that. This is clearly proved by the late type of the archaeology and the late dates of the inscriptions. Another noticeable feature is that the towns are generally built in the plain, thus showing a period of peace. We are probably to place the full civilization of this region only in the second century A. D. Much stronger are two negative facts. One is the absence of pre-Roman pottery. At every site, we eagerly searched for such, but among the great heaps only Roman types were found. The other fact is the absence of tells, or artificial mounds, in the Negeb region proper. To be sure, we have a fine tell at Raphia, but this is on the direct road to Egypt and in part is surely Graeco-Roman. In the days of the kingdom of Judah, that is in the days when the Mugri kingdom is supposed to have flourished, the boundary was from Geba to Beersheba, cf. " Dan to Beersheba." Beersheba would appear to have been the southern boundary of civil- ization to the Israelites and this is confirmed by the fact that, while along this border and to the north there is a good plenty of tells, to the south, in the Negeb proper, there is an utter absence of such mounds, the only example being an insignificant one in the Wadi el *Ain. No doubt the Negeb was inhabited before Roman times and perhaps even settled, as the Joshua lists indicate, but a civilization which, on the broad fertile plains which make up half the Negeb could not leave tells or pottery deposits, may safely be assumed not to have been important enough to have taken the place of Egypt in general history for several centuries. If strong negative objections can be gained from lack of remains of a real civilization, even stronger are those connected with his- torical geography. Where the topography is so all compelling as in Syria, history may be expected to, and does, repeat itself very closely. In studying the operations of the various armies, ancient and modern, one is amazed to see how alike these operations are and how the details of one account may be used to supplement the gaps of another. It is therefore evidence of no small value when we can show that, age after age, Egypt has been in the position of a fortified camp, always 62 WESTERN ASIA IN THE DAYS OF SARGON open to attack most seriously on its northeast frontier and therefore always having its advanced lines as far as possible on Syrian soil. That this has always been so and is so to-day may be seen from a brief survey of Egypt's history with this one point in view. From the time of the first dynasty, Egypt held the Sinaitic peninsula. Stress has hitherto been laid entirely on the commercial reasons for this. But it must also have its military importance in keeping back those Bedawin whose conquest is so often mentioned. With the Hyksos conquest, the danger clearly showed itself, a forerunner of the many conquests of Egypt from this side. The reaction against these Hyksos, as is well known, resulted in a sudden extension of the frontier to the Euphrates. We have no reason to suppose that this sudden advance was due entirely, or even primarily, to desire for revenge, to lust for conquest, or to hopes of gain. By this time, it must have been apparent to thinking Egyptians that Egypt proper could be protected against barbarian inroads only when a buffer on Syrian soil existed. In very truth, when once these Syrian barriers have been beaten down, generally by long patient attack, Egypt itself nas been taken with a rush. How important this outer line was considered may be seen from the frantic attempts of the Ramessidae to hold it against ever increasing odds. At last, all was lost and the last important attempt to hold Syria was that of Shishak. Now, it will be generally admitted, it is Egypt and no other power which is interfering in Syria. Under no circumstances can room be found for a Negeb Mugri, for we have the accounts of the Egyptian rulers themselves in good Egyptian. We have, then, no inscriptional proof of such a Negeb kingdom until at least after 948 or thereabouts, since Shishak was then the leading power on the south frontier. Nor do the advocates of the theory find any such proof after 674, when Esarhaddon made the first of his attacks on Egypt. All the political events, then, in which Mugri can have been concerned as a nation, must have occurred, if at all, between 948 and 674. Let us, however, for the moment, leave these centuries aside and continue our study of Egypt in Syria. The Assyrian conquest of Egypt was temporary. As soon as they were expelled, we find the new native dynasty, not content with Egypt alone, trying to secure advanced lines in Syria. Psammetichus about 640 besieged Ascalon. Necho managed for three years, 608-605, to hold the whole country to the Euphrates. Even after his defeat by Nebuchadnezzar, he retained, if we can trust II Kings 24^, the territory to the south of the brook of Egypt. It was on the help of Apries of Egypt that Zedekiah relied when he revolted from the Babylonians. The conquest of Syria by the Persians naturally led to the easy con- BABYLONIA AND SYRIA 63 quest of Egypt. Conversely, when the Egyptians revolted against Persia, the first idea was to block Persian advance by implicating Syria in the revolt. Examples are the invasion of Syria by Tachos and the revolt of Sidon instigated by Nectanebo. When Sidon fell, note again the close connection, Artaxerxes III had no difficulty in again taking the Nile valley. It is a commonplace among historians that, of all the generals of Alexander, Ptolemy was the wisest in that he laid aside hopes of general dominion and concentrated his energies on one definite and distinct part of the empire, there to found a kingdom. Remembering this, it is extremely interesting to see that he too saw the necessity of the Syrian barrier. So long as this barrier was held, Egypt was per- fectly secure, but when Antiochus III in 198 won Palestine, the way was opened for the advance of Antiochus I V and only the intervention of Rome to preserve an artificial balance of power prevented the natural result, the conquest of Egypt, from following this loss. We see exactly the same condition of affairs during the Crusades. The Muslims of Egypt never felt safe while Syria was in the hands of the Franks and strove, generally with success, to hold a part of Southern Syria as a barrier. On the other hand, the possession of a base in Syria, whence wealthy Egypt might be attacked, played no small part in Crusading policy. Nor is it out of place to mention the tenacity of Mamluk control of Southern Syria. The same conditions have held good in modern times. Napoleon saw how weak was his power in Egypt when Syria was in the hands of the enemy, and failure there led in no small measure to the failure in Egypt. Muhammed Ali as clearly recognized the need of Syria to his attempt to found a dynasty in Egypt. And to-day it is the same. England in Egypt has seen this need, and the boundary is not at the Isthmus of Suez, the seemingly natural boundary, but at Raphia, five days to the northeast across the desert. The most northern garrison of Egypt to-day is at el 'Arish, the ancient Rhinocolura, on the banks of what was once the " brook of Egypt." Geographically, both Raphia and Rhinocolura belong to Syria, not Egypt, for the real desert begins to the south. I do not see how one can stand under the Egyptian flag, remember the long history which has shown the urgent need for Egypt of advanced lines in Syria, and still deny that the dry torrent bed at one's feet was called the nahal Migraim because it was the frontier of that country. Now it may be said that these facts do not absolutely disprove Winckler's theory. In a sense this is true. What has been shown is that all the indications of all the history, except that period in dis- pute, point to Egypt as the one great power on the southern frontier 64 WESTERN ASIA IN THE DAYS OF SARGON of Syria. In other words, we have what is called in law a rebuttal presumption, a presumption which will be accepted as presumed fact unless definite evidence to the contrary is brought up. This may be stated as follows: In all periods save 948-674, the great, for any im- portant purpose, the only intriguing power on the south Syrian frontier was Egypt. Therefore, general physical and political conditions re- maining the same, approximately, we may assume that it was also Egypt which was the disturbing force in that period of less than three centuries. This is certainly a fair presumption, and we must have strong evidence to the contrary to force us to abandon it. Such evidence can hardly be shown to be forthcoming. Such deduc- tions as we can draw from general considerations are distinctly un- favorable to Winckler's theory. It is true that a trade route ran from South Arabia to Gaza, although it is a serious question as to how important this was as compared with the Red Sea ports. Nor has ever an important army come from Arabia along this route. It is also true that a large number of movements of tribes fr'^m South Arabia to the Syrian regions have taken place. But they have not followed the Gaza road. In the greatest of these, that of the Muslim conquest, the main army followed the Haj road to Damascus, and Antioch was taken at about the same time as Gaza. So far as we can see, all the tribal movements from. South Arabia have followed the same course. It has always been easy for the Arabian invaders to follow the Haj road. It was only when they left and turned west that the advance was checked. Often there has been practically no advance, as in the case of the Ghassanidae, at other times, it has been comparatively small as with the Nabataeans. A good modern case of a tribe migrat- ing to Syria from South Arabia is that of the Beni Sakhr. Why did they settle east of the Jordan instead of in the Negeb? Much must be attributed to the somewhat greater fertility of the East Jordan country, though the Negeb can be made again fertile by irrigation, as in Roman times. But a greater objection is the difficulty of access to the Negeb from the east. Much has been made by the geographers of the great Jordan rift and its divisive influences. After personal knowledge of both parts of the depression, I feel sure that the Arabah, the region south of the Dead Sea, is far more of a barrier with its terribly steep and rough trails. The Negeb seems to be Arabic, not as a result of the great waves of migration but as the result of a gradual infiltration. We shall naturally expect, then, that Egyptian influence will be felt strongly, if not exclusively, on the southwest, while such South Arabian influence as there may have been, there is no proof that it was strong, would be exerted on the southeast and so most strongly on the East Jordan country. BABYLONIA AND SYRIA 6$ Let us now take up in some detail the events of the period in which Mugri of the Negeb is supposed to have played a part. It is somewhat surprising to find in the Very first reign we take up, that of Ashur bani pal, no reference to Mugri of the Negeb, but plenty of references to Egypt under the same name. Why is this? Because the references to Mugri are now so detailed that identification with Mugri must be made. Many of these Mugrites are actually known to us as rulers from their own inscriptions written in Egyptian, and the greater part of the long list of localities named by Ashur bani pal can be located in the Nile valley. No theory can force us to find a Mugri of the Negeb here. This being so, let us see what we can learn of Egypt. First as to the use of terms. Ashur bani pal twice describes the objective of the expeditions. Once, Ras. CyL, I. 53, it is against Magan and Meluhha, once L 57, it is against Mugur and Kusi. Here Magan and Meluhha are merely the high sounding, archaistic forms of Mugur and Kusi. This use of old names to represent altered political conditions is quite characteristic of the Sargonid dynasty, compare the use of Mash, Martu, Gutium, Hashmar. Clearly, then, to Ashur bani pal, whatever the earlier significance, Magan stood for Mugur, and Meluhha was Kusi. The possibility of such extension or transference of names is of course one of the commonplaces of historical geography, com- pare, e. g., Hilakku north of the Taurus, the later Cilicia south of it. But, to that ruler, Mugur meant Egypt and Kusi Ethiopia as I. 122 /. shows. Meluhha, then, was, at this time, Ethiopia. It is then probable that during the half century which had elapsed since the accession of the dynasty, there had been no important change in the nomenclature. If this is true, then the reference to Mugri, a region of Ethiopia, by Sargon simply shows that he knew, and it would be amazing if he did not, that Ethiopians were in control of Egypt. Another sig- nificant fact it is that he received " great horses " as tribute from Egypt (Mugur). Sargon extended his boundary to the "brook of Egypt," nahal Mugri. He also mentions " great horses " of Muguri, A. 440. We may feel that the earlier lack of horses in Egypt ought to forbid finding them there in the Sargonid period, but when we actually do find them, and " great horses " at that, in the time of Ashur bani pal, we have no right to deny the Egyptian origin of " great horses " from Muguri claimed by a king who but fifty years before had reached the boundary of Egypt. Much stress has been laid on the difference in form, Mugri, Mugur, Muguri, Migir, Migri, It is to be feared that those who do so depend too much on rules of phonetics as found in grammars. All that is indi- cated by these different forms, strange as it may seem to one accus- tomed to the more fixed character of Aryan vowel sounds, is that the 5 66 WESTERN ASIA IN THE DAYS OF SARGON ancient orientals, like the modern, must have felt perfectly at liberty to modify, elide, or insert one of the obscure short vowels. Any unfortunate traveller who has attempted to write down exactly the vowel sounds in a new proper name from the mouth of a native will understand the modification such words are capable of. We have already seen that Muguri and Mugur must be connected. Ashur bani pal uses the form Mugur, but the Babylonian Chronicle IV. 30 uses the form Migir, while the Amarna tablets regularly use Migri. The step to MuQri is short. The final conquest of Egypt was due to Ashur bani pal, but the earlier expeditions were led by his father Esarhaddon. Indeed, it is generally recognized that the expedition of year I of Ashur bani pal according to his Prism is that attributed to year XII of Esarhaddon by Bab. Chron., IV. 30. The expedition of year X, ih., IV. 23, was also clearly against Egypt, for Memphis is mentioned by name as captured. The three battles they were now forced to fight would make us suspect that the last expedition was not a success, and indeed under year VII, ib. IV. 16, we are told that the Assyrians were defeated in Egjrpt. In year VI, Meluhha is attacked, if we are to accept Winckler's restoration. As this is a Babylonian document, Meluhha more probably meant the Sinaitic peninsula, though its use as meaning " South West Land," corresponding to Martu for " West Land," is perhaps as probable. We have then a definite advance in years VI, VII, X, XII. Year VI was 675 and year VII 674. We should therefore expect some reference to so important an event as the invasion of Egypt in the Prisms of Esarhaddon, which date from 673. Only one place is possible. This is where we have the mutilated lines I. 55-II. 5. The Arzani city of I. 55 is a problem, but the nahal Miigri, " brook of Egypt," shows where we are. Another reference which clearly locates this " rook of Egypt " is the fragment of Esarhaddon's Annals, K. 3082 + 3086 ;+ S. 2027, first published by Boscawen, Trans. Soc. Bibl. Arch., IV. 84 if., and more fully by Budge, Hist, of Esarhaddon, 1881, 114 ff. The reverse refers to the Arabian campaign. The expedition took place in Nisan of year X, 1. 12, This is clearly the one of year X when Memphis was taken, Bab. Chron., IV. 23. That this refers to Egypt is further proved by 1. 15 where we hear of Baal of Tyre trusting to Tarqu of Kusi who is, of course, Taharka of Ethiopia. Esarhaddon claims the victory, and the impartial Babylonian Chronicle states that he conquered Memphis. On the other hand, he made no expedition in the next year, according to the same source, and it is therefore probable that, when he says that he directed his way from Mugur to Meluhha, he was really falling back from Egypt. Here Meluhha is used clearly in a different and older sense, for it is the BABYLONIA AND SYRIA 6/ region on the immediate frontier of Egypt through which he retreats. He went thirty kasbu from the city Apqu (Aphek?) of the region (or boundary, pat) of Samena (Simeon?) to the city of Rapihi. to the frontiers of nahal Mugri, a place where a river, nar, was not, so that they were forced to transport water. Whether Samena be the tribe of Simeon, a possible identification, Rapihi is certainly Raphia, and the reference to frontiers, iteti, in the land of Egypt, can hardly b'e ex- plained as other than being at Raphia, a situation agreeing well with what we know of other periods and of our own day. This definite statement that there was no nar, river, at the nahal Mugri, seems to me to bt very strange. A curious confirmation of the quite widely spread theory that ehir nari, " the region across the river," grew up in this region ! I do not know what linguistic reasons the supporters may have for calling a stream bed which sometimes, as, for example, in the year we visited it, has not in the whole twelve months a drop of water flowing, a river, nor do I know any case where the modern nahar or its equivalents in other languages are used for what is properly a nahal or wadi. Certainly Esarhaddon's direct denial of this term to our stream bed seems final. In this connection, I may note that Winckler's attempt to identify the nahal Mugri with the wadi at Raphia is not well taken. So far from there being a stream bed there, important enough to mark a boundary, one must needs search to find such a depression at all. There is no real stream bed worthy of the name south of the wadi of Gaza until one reaches the Wadi el 'Arish, and this is much more marked than the Gaza wadi. We have seen one case where Meluhha was not Ethiopia. The tablet, Keilinschr. Bibl., II. 150 gives Esarhaddon the title "the king of the kings of Mugur, Paturisi, Kusi." That these refer to the various kings who ruled in Egypt can hardly be doubted. But another, probably later, gives to Esarhaddon himself the title " King of Mugur " and adds " who took captive the King of Meluh." The king who is so definitely pointed out in a short display inscription as worthy of special note cannot be a petty Negeb chief of a wandering tribe. He can only be the greatest of the Assyrian's rivals, Taharka of Ethiopia. But then Meluh must be Ethiopia. We have a similar agreement of data in the accounts of Semacherib's dealings with Egypt. II Kings 19 distinctly states that Taharka, king of Kush (Kusi or Ethiopia), made an advance against Sennacherib. It is unfortunate that just here we are very uncertain as to what were the original sources of the various versions so badly welded together, but that they are nearly contemporaneous and fairly accurate seems certain. Whatever errors in detail, I do not see how the author of such a document could fail to know what Egyptian king, in an advance 68 WESTERN ASIA IN THE DAYS OF SARGON on another Assyrian king, saved Jerusalem. That Taharka had some reason for his boasting may perhaps be surmised from his Karnak lists, cf, Maspero, Empires, 368. Whatever his exaggerations, the basis may well have been a victory in Syria. Of great evidential value, because from so totally different a source, is the story of Herodotus II. 141 which naturally goes back to Egyptian beginnings. Here Sanacharibos invades Egypt, gets as far as Pelusium, a short distance beyond 'Arish, and is driven back by divine inter- vention. The story no doubt is fantastic and incorrectly located in Egyptian history. But how the real name of an Assyrian king, correct in every consonant, could have lingered on in Egypt as part of folk story for over two centuries I can only explain by believing that some such expedition was actually undertaken. We have thus two foreign and absolutely unconnected sources stating that Sennacherib had important dealing with Egypt. It would be ex- tremely strange, if we should find no trace of such connections in Sennacherib's own inscriptions. Yet this is what we must face, if, with Winckler, we ascribe Prism II. 73 ff. to his Negeb Mugri. Now it has been said that the real Egyptian relations were after 691 when the Prism ends, the date of the capture of Babylon. The Babylonian Chronicle also stops here, and the rest of the region is blank. Why? It is hardly going too far to assume that these last ten years were years of comparative peace. Sennacherib could not have been a very young man, when he ascended the throne, and he was now probably becoming old and less energetic. We would then be driven to take the Altaqu campaign. Certainly there is nothing in the account which forbids our taking Muguri as Egypt. There is no better time than just now for kings instead of a single king to rule Egypt, for now was the period of the Delta kings. Nor need we be troubled by these kings calling in the king of Meluhha or Ethiopia. That is just what was done. At least, the Ethiopian came in and probably he was invited. The king had a body of chariots. It would be perfectly easy for chariots to come through the level desert from Egypt. If we should take Meluhha to be Ma'in, one would like to know just what route these chariots took in their way down Ma'in to Altaqu. Our own difficulties in carrying pack mules over the steep slippery passes of the Arabah would make us doubt the possibility of the attempt. It is possible that the Egyptian who led this expedition was Shabaka. At any rate, we know he had dealings with Assyria in this period. His seals have been found at Kalhu, attached originally to a treaty, as the string marks on the lumps of clay indicate. These are 51-9-2, 43, and 81-2-4, 352, Layard, Nineveh and Babylon, 156 ff., the inscrip- tions, E. A. W. Budge, Mummy, 1893, 249. Layard, op. cit., 159, BABYLONIA AND SYRIA 69 attributes this to Sennacherib, Budge, Egypt, 1902, VI. 127, to Sargon. The latter is perhaps more probable, as Kalhu was rather more occupied by him. Perhaps a comparison with the other seals of Sargon, K. 391. 3781, S. 2276, might settle the question. For Sargon's reign we have only general probability and topography to guide us, but our experience thus far will materially assist. In 713 we have the revolt of Ashdod instigated by Piru, king of Mugri, whom we naturally take to be a Pharaoh of Egypt. But Winckler makes him a ruler of the Negeb Mugri. We may indeed compare the "Arabian" Piram of Jarmuth, Josh. 10'. But Pharaoh is regularly used for a king of Egypt, sometimes alone, sometimes prefixed to the proper name as Pharaoh Necho. Just at this period Pera is used in this sense by the Egyptians themselves. The Hebrews regularly used Pharaoh as a proper name, and the Assyrians took lanzu in the same fashion, though it is the Kashshite for " king." There are therefore good grounds for supposing similar action in changing pera into Piru. Egyptian intrigue here is the most natural, and the mention of a Pharaoh at just the time when this title was most in use in Egypt seems quite conclusive. If the kihri nari can be taken, Ashdod 42, in the face of the statement of the Esarhaddon Annals, to refer to Wadi el 'Arish, then lamani would be fleeing to cross the border at 'Arish. The explanation given above of Mugri, a country of Ethiopia, would then fit well. We may suspect that perhaps Egypt did not give up the fugitives. Two versions of lamani's fate agree with two regarding Merodach Baladan. The third admits that the latter escaped. Was the same true of the former? Piru appears already in 716 in company with Samse, queen of Aribbi and Itamra the Sabaean. Much has been made of this. In the Display Inscription, 23, he follows Sibu of Muguri, which shows that the two are to be connected topographically. In Annals 97, he follows Samaria. Perhaps this is because mention of that city recalled to the scribe the ruler who intrigued with it. Sibu of Muguri was the cause of the revolt of Hanunu of Gaza. He is clearly identical, as all have seen, with the So who caused the falling away of Samaria, his name perhaps being read really Sibu or the like. Perhaps we are not justified in comparing Shabaka, even if we take the ka to be a suffix. At the same time, the resemblance seems hardly an accident. Whether we take Sibu as Shabaka will depend in the last resort on the settlement of the still too uncertain chronology of the time in Egypt. There is one difficult question for the advocates of the theory to answer. If Sibu was falling back from Gaza to a Negeb Mugri or to Ma'in itself, why did he go southwest to Raphia? This is on the road to Egypt. To go into the Negeb proper, he should have proceeded 70 WESTERN ASIA IN THE DAYS OF SARGON south^a^f along the well-travelled road to Khalaga (Elusa). If Sibu was an Egyptian, all is clear. He was falling back on the Egyptian frontier at Rhinocolura ('Arish) whence he had summoned his tartan or general, for so we must take it with the Annals ; the Display Inscrip- tion puts Sibu and Piru together and has place for only one king. He was naturally overtaken at Raphia, his tartan had probably come up, and the battle was fought at Raphia, where later the Seleucidae and Lagidae contended for Palestine and where the present Egyptian frontier is situated. Much stress is also laid on the appointment of Idib'ili, a tribe (or less well a man) to the office of qeputi^ over {eli) Mugri, by Tiglath Pileser III, Clay Tablet of Nimrud, 56, etc. The Assyrian king had just driven out Hanunu from Gaza. The next thing was an advance on Egypt. To do so in safety, it was necessary to buy off the Arabian tribes who now, as in the days of Cambyses, could make advance on Egypt impossible. Our passage probably means only that these tribes were won over or at least rendered neutral by the legalization of their attacks, at least on Egypt, by making them a sort of officials, A close parallel is the recognition of the status quo among the Kurds by the present Sultan of Turkey legalizing these robber bands by calling them imperial regiments. May we go a step further and see in the Mugrai of Shalmaneser II, Monolith, II. 92, Egyptians? We note at once that there is no topo- graphical order in the list of contingents and thus we can not utilize this means. We also note the small number, one thousand, and the fact that no leader is named. This agrees well with the weak condition of Egypt at this time, less than a century after Shishak invaded Palestine in person. In this connection, it is perhaps significant that W. M. Miiller, Zeitschr. f. Assyr., 1893, 209 if., seems to have shown that the animals attributed to Mugri in the Black Obelisk are really Egyptian. Such are the main passages of the Assyrian inscriptions in which a Negeb Mugri has been found. How many difficulties are in the way have been indicated. One more question occurs. It is generally agreed that the main narrative parts of the Pentateuch have assumed their present form about 850 to 650 B. C, that is, in the very time in which it is assumed that Mugri was an independent power. Scholars are agreed that the touches of local Egyptian color in these stories date from just this same period. It seems to be an important part of the Mugri theory to assume that the story of the Exodus from Egypt was in some attenuated form an exodus from the Negeb Mugri. Now the question is just this. How was it that the exodus story was trans- ferred from Mugri to Egypt and adorned with local color just at the BABYLONIA AND SYRIA /I place at the present time.^^ Hamath, as already noted, was made an Assyrian colony. In the case of one city, Samaria,^^ the native records tell us a little more of this process of settlement. The city itself had already been taken by Shalmaneser, but all further ar- rangements seem to have been left to Sargon. Twenty- seven thousand of the leading citizens of the kingdom were deported^^ and settled in Mesopotamia and Media,^ there to time when, according to the theory, Mugri was the one great power of the southwestern world? Until this and similar questions and objections are answered, we may very properly refuse to accept an independent Mugri in the Negeb. ^'A governor of Dimashqu is known in 694, one of Samalla in 681, of Samaria in 645, of Cimirra in 693, of Curri (Tyre) in 648, of Arpad in 692, Johns, Deeds, II. 135 If. None of Hamath is known. In 702, Cil Bel was king of Gaza, Sennacherib, Prism, III. 25. ^ The more usual Assyrian form is Samerina A. 25, 97, D. 22, 33, B. 21, but Samirina occurs, D. 33, XIV. 15, P. IV. 31. For discussion as to the actual form of the name vocalized in the present Hebrew text Shomeron, but more probably Shamerain or Shameron, cf. B. Stade, Zeitschr. f. Alttest. Wiss., IV. 165 if. The present name, Sebastieh, is one of the rare instances of a Greek name, Sebaste, supplanting an earlier Semitic one. Visited in April, 1905- '^ The number of deported, 27,290, agrees very well with the 10,000 taken by Nebuchadnezzar from the much poorer Judah, II Kings, 24". Both, if somewhat exaggerated, have the look of probability as compared with the 200,150 taken from Judah by Sennacherib, Prism, III. 17. It is curious to note that most writers, even Maspero, have 27,280. '^The data for this deportation are found in II Kings 17'; 18", which seem to rest on nearly contemporary, perhaps Assyrian, sources. Of the two centers, one is clearly in Mesopotamia. Halah seems to be the Chalkitis of Ptol. V. 17. 4, a region of Mesopotamia and may possible be the Chalkidike, east of Apamaea, of Strabo, XVI. 2. 11. That it is also the Kalachene of Strabo XVI and Ptol. VI is asserted by Jeremias, Beitr. z. Assyr. III. 92 and Johns, Deeds, III. 478. It is clearly the city Halahha of the Geographical Catalogue II. R. 53, 36, of K. 10922, and of 79-7-8, 303, 4, Schrader, Keilinschr. und d. Alte Test., and Winckler, Forsch. I. 292. Jensen, /. c, and Johns, /. c, place this latter in Assyria proper on the basis of an identification of the city of Arbaha which is next mentioned in the list, with the 'J2 WESTERN ASIA IN THE DAYS OF SARGON form a nucleus for that community of Jews, who for a long time made the east the real center of Jewish thought. But Samaria was not abandoned. The city was rebuilt and the Armenian Albagh. But the connection with Harran in K. 10922 and with Ragapa in II R. 53 clearly shows it to be rather in Mesopotamia. This location is confirmed by the letter 83-1-18, 6 = H. 421, discussed by Johns, Doomsday Book, 25. This letter, written probably in the patois of the district, is from a certain Marduk shum ugur who informs the king that ten homers of seed land in the land of Halahhu, granted by his royal father, perhaps Sargon, have been confiscated by the gov- ernor of Baralgu. He prays for redress, as he cannot leave the palace, on account of his duties there, to attend to the suit in person. While it might be rash to assert that Marduk shum ugur was actually one of the absentee landlords who held their serfs by the feudal tenure we so often see, the fact that Bible, census, and letter, dovetail so neatly into each other makes the probability of such a fact strong. K. 123 ^ J. 750 is another document of this sort, for it is a list of lands in Hilahha belonging to Ahi iaqamu and gives the names of owners and of farm- steads. We have here a good instance of the danger of conjectural emendation. Winckler, in Alttest. Untersuch., 108 if., suggested Balah for Halah. Fischer has done exactly the same thing in reading Balichitis for Chalcitis in Ptol. V. 17, 4, while Muller read Charritis or Harran. We now know that the manuscript reading is to be retained in each case, and Winckler, Forsch., I. 292, has withdrawn his conjecture. The Habor is clearly the Mesopotamian Habur, the Chaboras of the Greeks. Jeremias, /. c, is therefore incorrect in making it the small Assyrian river of that name north of Mosul. Gozan again is not the Guzan southwest of Lake Van, Schrader, Keilinschr. u. d. Alte Test., 275, but the city of Guzana, II. R. 53 43a, etc., the Guazanitis of Ptol. VI. 17. 4. An absolute proof of this Jewish settlement is found in K. 1366 = H. 662, discussed by Johns, Proc. Soc. Bibl. Arch., 1905, 188. Here we have not only several lau (Yahweh) names but a certain Halbishu who is called the Samaritan (Samirinai). Spiegel, in Delattre, Mkdes, no, reads hare, " mountains," for 'are, " cities," of the Medes, on the basis of Septuagint. I have long suspected myself that a more radical emendation is needed to find a Mesopotamian town or country but have had no success. However, Ainsworth, Proc. Soc. Bibl. Arch., 1892, 72, may be right in understanding the Medes here as Mitani. BABYLONIA AND SYRIA 73 survivors made Assyrian citizens with the usual tribute to be paid to the Assyrian governor.^^ The system of deportation was in common use at this time, the purpose being to break up the local attachments and to make the new settlers, naturally on bad terms with the original inhabitants of the land, feel that they owed everything to the protection of the imperial power. Five cases are known at least. In 720 the Aramaean tribes from near Dur ilu, the Tumunu and the Mattisai, were settled in Syria, probably at Hamath.*^ In 717 the revolted Papa and Lallukua, two tribes of Hittite origin, were settled in Da- mascus.*^ In 715 Sargon claims to have settled tribes in Samaria from Arabia. More probably this was merely an acknowledgment of the accomplished fact. As the Syrian localities gradually became deserted owing to the constant civil wars and the attacks of Assyria, the resistance to the constant pressure from the desert weakened and the Arabs pushed in even as they have to this day, when we still have Bedawin considerable distances west of the Jordan. If they only paid tribute, the Assyrians could have no ob- jections to their settlement, and so to this cause perhaps as "''A. II fF.; D. 24 /.; XIV. 15; P. IV. 3.1 / ; B. 21 ; C. 19. The last three refer to the conquest of the land of Bit Humri, "the house of Omri." A discussion of the general question of the settlement of Syria would carry me too far afield. It should be noted, however, that II Kings 17^*"^, which is often assigned to this reign, can hardly be so placed. After stripping off the Deuteronomic accretions, we seem to have an authentic core. The settlement of cultured men from Babylon can hardly be ascribed to the Sargon who cared so well for that city. Such a proceeding would be appropriate rather to Sennacherib or to Ashur bani pal. Hamath is the only place mentioned in the Biblical lists which could be well ascribed to Sargon's reign, and in this case it is unlikely that men from Hamath should be settled so near home as Samaria. * See above. D. 49, 56. J^4 WESTERN ASIA IN THE DAYS OF SARGON much as any other we owe the Aramaization of this region.*^ Daiukku (Deioces) of Media and Itti of Allabria were set- tled at Hamath.*^ These four desert tribes of the " distant Arabs " ** were the Tamudi, the ibadidi,*^ the Marsimani,'*'' and the Haiapa. Their former location, if we can judge from the identifica- tion of the Haiapa with the Midianite clan Ephah,*^ was on the Gulf of Aqabah and along the eastern shore of the Red Sea. It is also in this region, at the ruins of Medain Calih, that we have localized the story of the Thamud, clearly the Tamudi of our inscriptions. This Thamud, according to the prophet Mohammed, was a great prehistoric tribe, the successor of 'Ad. In the pride of their hearts they " made from the plains castles and dug out the mountains into houses." At last there came unto them the prophet Calih who preached to them the doctrine of the Unity. Never- theless, they would not accept the manifest sign of the she camel, sprung from the rock in witness against them, but hardened their hearts and hamstrung her. Then came the great earthquake, and in the morning they all lay on their faces, dead in their houses. Such was the tale told by the prophet to point the moral to those who would not accept "A. 52. A. 94 ^. " These Arbai had already been " conquered " by Tiglath Pileser, Annals J 219. "According to Halevy, Rev. Btud. Juives, 1884, 12, the Ibadidi are the Ibad Ded, the servants of the well-known god Dad. * The Marsimani are, according to F. Delitzsch, Wo lag das Parodies, 1 88 1, 304, the Maisaimameis of Ptolemy. F. Hommel, Ancient Hebrew Tradition, 1897, 195, reads Mar Isimani and compares the Jeshimon of Num. 21*, etc., and the lasumunu of K. 3500. " Gen. 25*, etc. Delitzsch, Paradies, 304. For their location, cf. E. Glaser, Skizze der Gesch. u. Geog. Arabiens, 1890, II. 261. BABYLONIA AND SYRIA 75 his own teaching.*^ In reality, Thamud was a petty tribe in Assyrian times, and as a petty tribe it was still known to the Roman geographers.* To the same year we have assigned the " tribute " the senders no doubt considered it only a present from ruler to ruler, of Piru of Mu<;ri (Pharaoh of Egypt) ,^^ Samsi queen of the land of Aribbi, and of Itamra of Saba. Does this "tribute" of Pharaoh mean a settlement by treaty of the Syrian question by the two powers interested? The fact that there has been found at Kalhu, where Sargon at this time resided, a bit of clay, evidently affixed to a parch- ment or papyrus document, bearing the seals of Shabaka and of an unknown Assyrian ruler, seems to point in this direction.^^ Samsi, queen of Aribbi, is interesting to us as representing the older matriarchal form of authority current in Arabia, the classic example of which is found in the Queen of ^* The story is given in greatest detail in Sura VII. 71 if. Elsewhere we have frequent references, often extended. Thus, for example, Sura XIV is called Al Hajr, " the rock," since our story holds the main place in it. The later writers add nothing of value, * The form Thamudenoi occurs, Diod. III. 44 ; Agatharcides, Geog. Min., I. 181 ; Plin., N. H., 28, 32. Stephen of Byzantium, sub voc, quotes Uranius for the form Thamuda. The Thamyditae of Ptol. VI 7. 4 may be the same, Schrader, Keilinschr. u, Geschforch., 263. Per- haps we are also to see it in the Thamad of the Talmud, Wiesner, Ben. Han., talm. forsch., no. 39, p. iii quoted A. Neubauer, Geog. du Talmud, 1868, 300 n.' Glaser, op. cit., places them about Mecca, but the legend seems to place it further north, at Medain Calih, where we have the important Nabataean inscriptions. Stress has been laid on the connection of Mucri with Aribbi. Has it ever been noted that Mugri follows Samaria? May not the mention of Samaria have suggested that the scribe should place here the sub- mission of the power which had supported Samaria in its last revolt? "A. H. Layard, Nineveh and Babylon, 1853, 156. jd WESTERN ASIA IN THE DAYS OF SARGON Sheba who visited Solomon. ^^ Samsi, who probably lived in the desert region immediately south of the Euphrates rather than in Arabia proper,^^ had already sent " tribute " to Tiglath Pileser.^* The mention of Itamra the Sabaean is of great importance for our knowledge of Arabian history. Itamra must be one of the mukarrib (princes) or kings who appear as Yatha- 'amar in the Sabaean inscriptions,^*^ and thus a clue is se- cured for the chronology of pre-Muslim Arabia.^^ It also gives us a new conception of conditions in that region. If this was not a tribute, but rather a present from equal to equal, why was it sent? No doubt, it was felt that the two civilized powers ought to unite against the more barbarous tribes between. Again, as the two countries had no mutual boundaries to cause friction, so they had no commercial rivalries, but rather they had goods each wished to exchange with the other. Thus far, this trade had been in the hands of Syrians, but the merchants of Assyria would be glad to import their goods themselves and by a less round-about route. The most important reason, no doubt, was the wish of the Sabaeans to displace the older power of Ma'in. To do this a stroke directed at their commerce would accom- plish most. Assyria now held Gaza, the Mediterranean port " With the name of the queen Samsi we should probably compare the form Samsi used for the sun god Shamash in the Harran Census. This is another hint as to location. ^ These Aribbi are probably to be located on the north border of the desert near the Euphrates. Here Xenophon, Anab., I, 5. i found an Arabia, here were the Arabes Skenitai of Strab. XVI. i. 3. ''^ Annals 210. " For a list of these Yatha 'amars, see Mordtmann and Miiller, Sabdische Denkmdler, 1883, 108. Cf. the Ithamar, son of Aaron, Ex. 6^. '^ This chronology is still uncertain, since we do not know whether we are dealing with a real king or with an earlier makrab. BABYLONIA AND SYRIA JJ of the Minaeans. Assyria seems to have taken the side of Saba and thus accelerated the decay of Ma'in.*^^ For about six years after the settlement of 720 Syria re- mained fairly quiet. But, whatever the truth about a treaty with Egypt, that country continued to intrigue with the Philistine coast. About 714 Azuri,^^ king of Ashdod/ withheld tribute and instigated a revolt of his neighbors. This was quickly quelled and his brother,^*^ Ahimiti, the crown prince,^^ elevated to the throne. His reign was short, for the anti-Assyrian party was still in control, and as soon as the Assyrian army retired to go into winter quarters he was overthrown and a mercenary Greek soldier from Cy- prus, called lamani or "the Ionian," was chosen in his place.^2 The revolt spread rapidly, Gath, Judah, Moab, and Edom taking part.**^ " The early history of Arabia is worked out by E. Glaser, Skizze der Gesch, Arabiens, 1889, a privately published work, impossible to secure, cf. his Abessimier, 30. See also Winckler, in Helmolt, History of the World, III. 248 and often in his Forsch. Here also should be placed K. 1265, published by Winckler, Sammlung, II. 62; Johns, Deeds, 752 ; translated by Winckler, Forsch., I. 465, and discussed by Johns, op. cit.. III. 538. It seems to report a tribute of 164 white camels sent by Hataranu and larapa, the headmen, rab kigir, who present the tribute of this same Samsi of Aribbi. Other camels are sent by Ganabu and Tamranu who are soldiers. For the names, cf. Johns, /. c, where all are shown to bear good Arabic names. ** We also have Aziru in Amarna, 41 etc. Tiele, Gesch., 270 com- pares the Biblical Azariah. Schrader, op. cit., 162 equates with 'Azur. Ashdod was called Ashdudu by the Assyrians, Azotus by the Greeks, and is the modern Esdud. Visited in January, 1905- ** Schrader, op. cit., 162, makes it Ahimiti, "my brother is man" or " brother of death," comparing Ahimoth of I Chron. 6*". *^ For talimu, cf. Winckler, Forsch., II. 193. ^ The name is generally written lamani, but in A. 220 the form latna is used. We should compare the similar change from latnana and lamna as applied to. Cyprus. Johns, Deeds, III. 124 cites the forms lamanni, lamanu, lamani. Winckler, Mittheil. Vorderasiat. Gesellsch., 78 WESTERN ASIA IN THE DAYS OF SARGON How important this outbreak was is shown by the haste with which Sargon acted. Although it was still early in the year 713,^* too early for the feudal levy to be called out, he did not hesitate, but sent his tartan, Ashur igka danin,^ with only the few hundred"^ in his own body guard. The Tigris and Euphrates were crossed at full flood, and he I. 26 n. I, would see in him a Yemanite rather than an Ionian. But we know that only a little later Cyprus was in close relations with Assyria, and it is certainly far easier for a Greek to come across the sea from Cyprus than for a South Arabian to cross that country to the Philistine seacoast. Indeed, a better time for the intervention of a Greek could hardly be found. The almost total cessation of direct intercourse between Egypt and Greece which had begun at the end of the Mycenaean period proper, was now past and the century 750-650 marks the ever-increasing extension of the Greeks. As H. R. Hall, Oldest Civilization of Greece, 1901, 269 n.**, well observes, the passage Odyss. XIV. 257 if., where we have Cretan pirates plundering the Egyptian coast until the king comes out in person, must refer to this very time when the " Delta kings " divided the sovereignty of Egypt. So strong was this Greek influence and so nurflerous were the Greek emigrants that barely a half century later than Sargon, the Greeks had their own cities in Egypt, the Melesian Fort, Daphnae^ and Naucratis. It is the most natural thing in the world to assume that, in this great outpouring of the Greek nation, a Greek pirate turned up in Ashdod, and, in virtue of his superior armor and superior military training which was already admitted, should take charge of affairs. It is rather more difficult to see such a leader in the conductor of a Minaean caravan. Compare also the Krethim of David's body guard, called Cretans by the Greek version. The Assyrian forms are Piliste, Gimtu, laudu, Udumu, Mabu. On our last trip, we visited Edom and Moab. ** I have finally concluded that the chronology of the Prism is the more probable. The Annals gives 711. See introduction. ^ That he was tartan is shown by K. 998, quoted by Johns, Deeds, II. 69. Note also that lamani is carried to Sargon's presence, D. 109 fF.', XIV. 14. ^ If Winckler correctly understands K. 82-3-23, 131, he had but 420. ^^ G. Smith, Discoveries, 293, compares the similar action of Hezekiah, II. Chron. 2^-*. I do not see where the water came from. Only wells are used now. BABYLONIA AND SYRIA 79 suddenly appeared in Syria. lamani had made his prepa- rations, had surrounded the low-lying city with a trench, secured a water supply from outside the city,^^ and called to his aid troops from other parts of the country. In spite of all this, he lost his heart when the Assyrians appeared so suddenly and fled to Egypt whence he was extradited and handed over to Sargon.^^ The cities of the Philistine plain were thus left defense- less and at least Ashdod with its port^^ and Gath^*^ were taken. Their inhabitants, men and gods alike, were carried **A. 225 states that he was carried from Ashdod directly, yet D. 109 ff.) XIV. 14, states that he fled to Egypt and was extradited from thence. We have also two such statements in the case of Merodach Baladan along side of a third which relates his escape. Is such a third pos- sibility to be considered here? When Muguri is said to be sha pat of the region of Meluhha, need it mean more than that the fact of Ethiopic control was known in Nineveh? It is well known that the famous treaty between Ramessu II and the Hittites contained an ex- tradition clause. Such treaties may still have been made. The use of Meluhha for Ethiopia is a mere archaism such as is very common in the later Assyrian empire, cf. e. g., Martu, Muski, Hashmar, Mash, not one name of which seems really to correspond to conditions in the time of Sargon. This is clearly shown in Ashur bani pal, Ras, Cyl., where I 52 ana Magan u Meluhha exactly corresponds with ana Mugur u Kusi. Called Asdudimmu which Cheyne, Book of Isaiah, 1895, 121, com- pares with Ashdod hay Yam or the seaport. It was the Azotas Paralios of the classical writers and the Mahuz Azdud of Muqadasi, Le Strange, Palestine, 24. Its present name, Minet el Qal'a, is derived from the little modern fort which is the only building now there. The ruins of the classical city are low lying and covered with sand and so worked over by diggers that excavations would be of little value. Much fine marble is dug up and many trinkets were offered us for sale. The city seems to have been large and important and lay directly on the sea. There was no harbor. To reach it is now a hard hour's struggle over the blown sands. Visited in January, 1905. " Gath is the Gimtu of the Assyrians. Its site is not known but Tell es Safi, which we visited in January, 1905, is a splendid situation and is not forbidden by the data we possess. 80 WESTERN ASIA IN THE DAYS OF SARGON off into captivity. But these towns were too important to remain desolate long. They were therefore rebuilt and set- tled with loyal colonists. Over them was probably placed that Mitinti we meet as king early in the reign of Sennache- rib."^^ The other revolted states probably remained un- conquered. If Sargon now held the cities of the Philistine plain and controlled the great trade routes, he could afford to permit a precarious liberty to the mountaineers of Judah, Moab, and Ammon.'^ This sudden punishment seems to have strongly impressed the imagination of the Syrians and to have had a good effect in keeping Syria quiet. There are no further accounts of revolts. For the twelve years which extend to the invasion of Sennacherib in 701, there is absolutely not a single fact known in regard to the history of Syria. "According to A. 271, a governor was placed over the city but this is probably a mere formula, as Sennacherib, Prism II. 51 (702) already knows Mitinti as king. "A. 215 ff.; XIV. 14; D. 90 ff. The fragments of Prism A. give more detail. A few additions are made from K. 82-3-23, 131, published by Winckler, Forsch., II. 570 if. Ascalon seems to have remained quiet under its pro-Assyrian king, Rukibti, Sennacherib, Prism II. 62. CHAPTER IV THE NORTHWEST FRONTIER The second of the frontiers was that on the northwest which we have already touched upon in mentioning Samal.^ Here the greatest advance in the reign took place, although the region had already been conquered by Shalmaneser I and Tiglath Pileser I. The half-century-long weakness of Assyria had given Haldia control of this region. Tiglath Pileser HI broke the power of Sardurish and forced the states to pay tribute. For some reason he did not attempt to inflict his provincial system on them. Consequently, on his death, Haldia once more gained the ascendency.^ Conditions were, however, changed, and Haldia found a new power which was, if a rival, also an ally against Assyria. This new power was that of Mita of Muski, or, to give him the name he more commonly is known by, Midas the Phrygian.^ ^ Cf. chap. III. n. 20. ^ Annals, 59 If. ^ The fact that Midas and Mita were equivalent was first noted by H. Rawlinson, in G. Rawlinson, Herodotus,^ I. 131, quoted by G. Rawlinson, Monarchies, II. 151, n. 7. The definite working out of this identifica-. tion was first done by Winckler, Forsch,, II. 136. He seems to think that Mita was actually the Midas of the Greeks. But I rather believe that the Mita lord of the [city] of the oracle 83-1-18, 557 =: Kn. 51 is the Midas who killed himself when defeated by the Cimmerians, Strabo, I. 3. 21. The names of Gordius and Midas alternated in the Phrygian dynasty, and I would, therefore, make this Mita the grand- father of the last of the line. In the time of Tiglath Pileser I, Prism, I. 62 if., the Muski are on the upper Euphrates. From that to the days of Sargon, there is no reference to them, I believe that Winckler, /. c, is right in thinking that Midas the Phygian is called the Muskian 6 81 82 WESTERN ASIA IN THE DAYS OF SARGON Some centuries earlier a number of Thracian tribes had invaded Asia Minor. The most important of these were the Phrygians, who seem to have already worked their way well to the east by the time of Tiglath Pileser. An oppor- tunity for decided advance was here presented. Sardurish was weakened by defeats and Shalmaneser was weak in character. By the time when Sargon came to the throne, all Asia Minor was Phrygian, or under Phrygian influence. His actual frontier left the Mediterranean at Cilicia Trachaea and ran past Lake Tatta to the Halys river, the earlier Haldian boundary. Pteria itself, the old Hittite capital in this region, was probably in his hands, and perhaps from this fact he gained the title of the Muskian. He thus had, it would seem, as large an immediate kingdom as the later Lydians, while his influence beyond his borders to the east was greater. It is rather startling to find Carchemish on the Euphrates revolting at Phrygian instigation. The first operations in this region took place in 718. In this year, Kiakki of Shinuhtu,* a petty chieftain of Tabal, a somewhat ill-defined term applied to southern Cappadocia,*^ by the Assyrians only because he had conquered the territory once held by the Muski. With them are identical the Meshech of Gen. lo^ and the Moschoi of Herod. III. 94, etc. Their present location was prob- ably about Caesarea Mazaka, for Philostorgius, Hist. EccL, IX. 12, makes as eponymous founder of that city, Mosoch, the ancestor of the Cappadocians. * Delattre, L'Asie Occidentale, quoted by Maspero, op. cit.^ 239 n.', makes Shinuhtu the capital of a district on the Saros. This would bring it only a few miles east of Tyana. But between that valley and the Tyana region, there are two mountain ranges running north and south, one over ten thousand feet high, and there are no roads between. If we assume that the advance was across the Cilician Gates and that Shinuhtu was between them and Tyana, on the great road, we have no objection, and the whole series of campaigns has a beginning we can understand. ^ Tabal corresponds to the Tibarenoi of Herod. III. 94, etc. At this time, it clearly means South Cappadocia in general. THE NORTHWEST FRONTIER 83 refused to send tribute any longer, instigated, it may be presumed, by Midas. An army was sent against him, prob- ably that commanded by the governor of eastern Cilicia or Que. Tarsus appears to have been the base. From this the army followed the time-honored war route which led through the Cilician Gates.' In the rough Taurus country to the north the war dragged on until finally Kiakki and his fight- ing men were captured and deported.^ Shinuhtu was not made a separate province, perhaps be- cause it was too small and too poor to be worth the trouble. A certain Matti of Tuna (Tyana) offered to pay a higher ' Que is the eastern part of the classical Cilicia whose capital was Tarzi or Tarsus, Sachau, Zeitschr. /. Assyr.^ 1892, 98, the Koaios of Hicks, Jour. Hellen. Stud., XI. no. VI. i, and the Kouas of CIG. 4402, 4410. For the Assyrian forms Qu, Qua, Quai, Quia, cf. Johns, Deeds, III. 463. W. M. Miiller, Mitth. Vorderasiat. Gesell, 1898, 3, 59 com- pares Kyinda = Que plus nda. '' Cyrus the younger and Alexander, for example, took this road. In mediaeval times, it was the Darb es Salamah, the great war route leading north from the Bab al Jihad or " Gate of the Holy War," whence each year an army went forth against the Christians, cf. Le Strange, Eastern Caliphate, 133 /. The new railway crosses the Taurus by the same route. ' A. 42 ff. ; D. 28 /. That he is called shar Tabali does not mean that he is king of all Tabal, N. 11. Shar may here mean only " prince." "Tuna, or, with prosthetic aleph, Atuna, occurs also in Annals 153 of Tiglath Pileser. I have no doubt that it is the classical Tyana, a highly important place, cf. W. Ramsay, Hist. Geog. Asia Minor, 1890, 546 n., and Tyanitis, the region immediately about it. The fact that Hittite inscriptions have been found at the nearby Bor is a further confirmation. Sachau, Zeitsch. f. Assyr., 1892, 98 and Maspero, op. cit., 239 n.^ think it rather the Tynna of Ptol. V. 6. 22 and C.I.L. VI. 5076. It is very peculiar that a name so similar to Tyana should be found so near it, but the epigraphical evidence seems to prove its sepa- rate existence. The maps omit it. But whether there was a Tynna or not, I cannot understand the reasoning which would prefer a practically unknown town to a city so old that it was later considered sacred and so important that it gave its name to a strategeia. Winckler, in his map opposite p. 86, Helmolt, History, places it at Albistan. He thus 84 WESTERN ASIA IN THE DAYS OF SARGON tribute of horses and mules, of gold and silver, and so the country was handed over to him in the hope, vain as it proved, that a buffer state could here be made against Phrygia. In this way, too, an excuse could be found for an attempted control of Tyana itself. That city, even then probably an important religious and political center, com- manded the great cross road which ran from Tarsus through the Cilician Gates past Pteria and on to Sinope on the Black Sea. When Matti no longer was faithful. Tuna came under the direct control of the Assyrians. ^^ The next year, 717, we find an expedition against Car- is forced to deny any connection between Tuna and Tyana. But such a location likewise has serious topographical difficulties. To reach Albistan, he must pass Mar'ash or Malatia, and both were yet uncon- quered. Tuna also cuts in between the city from which Kammanu took its name and its capital Meliddu. Furthermore, in the second cam- paign against Tuna,- mentioned only in Prism B. and therefore probably unnoticed by Winckler when he made this identification, we have first Tuna and then Hilakku attacked, although Malatia and Mar'ash are still unconquered, and the road between Albistan and Mazaka was not easy. On the other hand, if we still allow Tuna to be Tyana, we have identification with a well-known later site and we have a gradual and natural advance from a natural base in Tarsus, along one of the most famous and important war routes of the ancient world, and are naturally led on to Mazaka around which Hilakku must be placed. Billerbeck, in his general map of the east, Ency. Bibl., still clings to Tyana. Both Professor Sterrett and Professor Ramsay believe Tyana to be the most inviting site for excavations in Asia Minor. Professor Sterrett states that the Mar'ash-Albistan and Malatia-Albistan roads are extremely diffi- cult and notes that Albistan is decidedly off the main lines of travel. " Cf. Ramsay, op. cit., 228. For the whole chapter, I have found this work of Ramsay of the utmost value. The best map of Asia Minor is that by J, G. Anderson, 1905, which, though on a comparatively small scale, has contour lines, and the Roman roads, and thus makes the topography capable of being understood. I am not personally acquainted with the country, but this is to be the less regretted, as I have been able to utilize the detailed knowledge of the whole of eastern Asia Minor which Professor J. R. S. Sterrett has obtained in his numerous and fruitful expeditions for the exploration of that part of the East. THE NORTHWEST FRONTIER 85 chemish undertaken.^^ Why it had been so long spared by the Assyrians we can only surmise. Probably it was, like the Phoenician cities, predominantly mercantile, perfectly willing to pay tribute so long as it could trade, and careless as to the political changes going on about it. During the period of Assyrian decline, it seems to have been left in peace to its own devices and naturally resented the loss of freedom and especially the tribute inflicted by Tiglath Pi- leser, since it probably was forced to make up arrears.^^ Pisiris, who had held the throne since at least 740, was at last induced by Midas to throw off completely the Assyrian yoke. The loss of Carchemish was serious. It commanded the great high road to Asia Minor and to Egypt, and its posses- sion by a foreign power blocked the way to the west for both caravans and armies. Furthermore, as an advanced post for Midas it was dangerously near the old capital of Mesopotamia, Harran. Add to this the fact that Carchemish was the great commercial rival of Kalhu, and it may be seen that the commercial classes of Assyria would be bitterly opposed to passing over this revolt. In spite of the evident importance of the site, neither Rusash nor Midas gave adequate support. A good fight was made, but the city was at length captured, Pisiris de- throned, and the country made a regularly organized Assy- "Gargamish in the Assyrian. Johns, Deeds, III. 525, suggests that Gar here is only a West Semitic form of Kar, " fortress." But the whole make-up of the word Gargamish is Asianic, not Semitic. "Sargon only uses the form Pisiri but Tiglath Pileser shows that Pisiris was used. This s is clearly the nominal ending. We must compare the ss of Asianic place names and the curious T-shaped sign = j^ on the Lygdamis inscription from Halicarnassus. It is inter- esting to find that in certain forms of modem Greek 5J or even j before i is pronounced sh, W. M. Leake, Morea, 1830, I. XI. OF THE ( UNIVERSITY V OF 86 WESTERN ASIA IN THE DAYS OF SARGON rian province/^ From this time on, so long as the empire itself lasted, Assyria held the great western road.^* As might be expected, the sack of so great a city, perhaps the most important trading city of its time in the world, produced enormous booty. According to the official ac- counts, perhaps not to be entirely trusted, the value of the precious metals alone amounted to the huge sum of eleven talents of gold and twenty-one hundred of silver. Among other valuables carried off and laid up in Kalhu against the day when they should adorn Dur Sharrukin were bronze, ivory, and elephant hides. Carchemish, like other mercan- tile cities, had her army, perhaps all mercenaries. These were taken over in a body and added to the new standing army.^** While the danger to Assyria from a free Carchemish was thus great and its capture correspondingly important, the effect of its loss on the Hittite peoples has been much exag- gerated.^^ No doubt, it was their greatest commercial city and the transfer of commercial supremacy from an allied to a purely alien race made a difference. But we must remember that the " Hittite Empire," whatever it really was, had long been a thing of the past and that there was no organic union between the petty Hittite states which had taken its place. The allies had been, not these little states, but the greater rulers. Some were brought under Assyrian control, others never were, but all retained enough individuality to influence considerably the later peoples. "A governor of Carchemish occurs already in 691, Johns, Deeds, III. 228. ^*A. 46 ff. " N. 21. This inscription seems to have been erected especially to commemorate the fall of Carchemish. Cf. also XIV. 42 ff. ; A. 49. As the Maganubba charter shows, actual work on Dur Sharrukin was begun in 714. " Especially by Maspero, Empires, 240. THE NORTHWEST FRONTIER 8/ If Carchemish was actually destroyed after the siege, it did not long remain in ruins, for it had too important a situation. Sargon himself rebuilt portions, as we now know,^^ while under his successors it became, as the relative rank of its governors shows, one of the greatest cities in the empire. Even though many of its inhabitants had been deported, it still retained a large Hittite element, and this mixing with Mesopotamian and Aramaean elements, pro- duced a new race of which we should gladly know more. In many ways this new race must have improved upon the old. In art, for example, if we can judge from the exquisite stele of the mother goddess.^^ We have here the same phe- nomenon which we see later in Asiatic or Egyptian art of the Greco-Roman period, the old religious conceptions pre- served and reproduced, but with a temperance and a skill of technique which show superior artistic ability. As a center of commerce its influence was greatest. It is a sig- nificant proof of this, that, throughout the entire period of the later Assyrian empire, the most important commercial documents were reckoned according to the "mina of Car- chemish." ^ The fall of Carchemish put out of the way a dangerous enemy in the rear of the governor of Cilicia.^^ It was, there- " The excavations carried on here in 1880 revealed a room in the northwest of the acropolis, where two large Hittite slabs were found in situ. Here were also found bricks built in bearing Sargon's name. These excavations have not, so far as I know, been further published, at least I know only the account in the London Graphic, Dec. 11, 1880, 582, abstracted also in Perrot and Chipiez, History of Art in Sardinia, etc., 1890, n. 279 ff. ^* I owe my knowledge of this to a fine photograph taken by the Wolfe expedition to Babylonia, and loaned me by Professor Sterrett. "Cf. Johns, Expositor, Nov., 1899, 398, and Deeds, H. 268 ff. He believes that this Carchemish mina of one half the Assyrian weight, was a sort of an actual coin. ^ The reference in A. 372 to the governor of Que makes it probable that all these campaigns were under him. 88 WESTERN ASIA IN THE DAYS OF SARGON fore, possible for another advance to be made here. The Tyana road was, for the time at least, passed over. Instead, an attempt was to be made (716),^^ directly on Iconium where Midas himself seems to have had his capital.^^ Midas called Rusash to his aid.^^ A battle was fought near the sea- coast, near the mouth of the Calycadnus, and Sargon claims the victory. As a result, several towns long held by Midas were conquered and added to the province.^* But the main object, the gaining of the road to Iconium, was not se- cured.^^ The inhabitants of Cilicia Trachaea have always been wild and difficult to conquer, and so the war dragged on until at least 709.^^ ^ The Annals has this under 715 but Prism B., if I have arranged it correctly, places it in 716. ^A battle where mountain and sea are close together must have been fought along the coast road to the southwest of Tarsus. If so, only two roads are possible. One would be the road which continues along the coast, around Cilicia Trachaea, and so to Pamphilia. This road is easily defended and little used and the villages along its line, even in Roman times, were probably of little importance. The other ran up the Calycadnus river along the line of the one Roman road through Cilicia Trachaea. At its end is one of the greatest cities of eastern Asia Minor, Iconium. If this really was the objective, who but Midas would be likely to hold it? Our data seem to indicate that Midas had his headquarters not far from the actual seat of operations. Our scanty notices of Phrygia in the Greek sources seem to bear this theory out. Iconium is the last town of Phrygia according to Xen., Anab., I. 2. 19. Here also, according to Steph. Byz., 5. v. Ikonion, and Suidas, s. v. Nannakos, ruled the prehistoric Phrygian king and hero Nannakos. If these mean anything at all, do they not imply a vague idea that Iconium once had been the capitol of Phrygia? If so, where is a better time than the one we are dealing with ? ^ So Prism B. '*The names of Harrua, Ushnanish, Ab-?-a-? are preserved. None have been identified. *A. 92-94, 99-100. The Annals is badly mutilated here. Winckler, Sargon, XXV n.", connects C. 21, the pacification of Que. 'A. 372. THE NORTHWEST FRONTIER 89 In 714" Sargon definitely took up the question of advance in this region. Once more, as in 718, the road through the CiHcian Gates was taken. Matti of Tyana had recognized the real meaning of the Assyrian policy and had gone over to Midas.2 He was now attacked and deposed. Sargon moved on to the north and attacked the Tabal clan of Bit Buritash.^ Here a certain HulH had ruled in the days of Tiglath Pileser.^ On his death Sargon recog- nized his son, Ambaris,^^ as his successor and, to bind him more closely to his cause, gave him his daughter, Ahata- bisha.^2 He also granted to him Hilakku (Cilicia), which at this time was north of the Taurus, about where the later ^^ I have followed the date of Prism B. Annals gives one year later. ^* Prism B. S. 2022 II Matti of Atuna trusted [Mita] the Musician. ^ The forms are Bit Buritash and Burutash. P. Jensen, Hittiter und Armenier, 1898, 117, compares the Soruth and Voruth of Hiibschmann's list, Festgruss an Rudolf Roth, 1893, 100, as well as the Uorodes of the Parthians. None are probable, and the possibility rests on the Iranian character of the Hittites. The location is clearly on the Tyana-Mazaka road and between the two, cf. the modern Bor. Winckler, Forsch., II. 121, makes Bit Buritash to have the hegemony over all Tabal. This is unlikely. ^ Clay inscription, Rev. 15. For Hulli names, cf. Johns, Deeds, III. 460. Halevy, Rev. Semitique, 1893, 132, compares the Ollis of the in- scriptions and Olymbros, " 01 is king," found, however, not in Hesychius, but in Steph. Byz., ^. v., Adana. Cf. the 01 names of Asia Minor cities. Jensen, Hittiter, 116, identifies it with the Glak of Hiibsch- mann's list, but a reference to the introduction prefixed to the translation of Zenob of Glag in V. Langlois, Historiens de I'Armenie, 1880, I. 335, shows that Glag is not Armenian at all. " The name occurs as Ambaris, Amris, Ambaridi. Jensen, op. cit., 82, finds here two separate stems. The real name is Am-ba-ri-is. In Amris, the sign ba was omitted by mistake. In Ambaridi, the di is simply is with the last half of the ri repeated by dittography. Pro- fessor Sterrett compares the place name Ambar Arasii. "^ So Winckler, Forsch., I. 365 n.'. Ahat abisha is a princess of Tabal who sends news to Sargon through her steward, K. 181. She would now be queen mother. 90 WESTERN ASIA IN THE DAYS OF SARGON strategeia of Cilicia was situated,^^ although it is quite possible that he simply gave him the privilege of conquering it, if he could. The royal lady seems to have been unable to keep her husband true. He, too, went over to Midas and Rusash.^"* But, as usual, they proved broken reeds to lean upon, for Ambaris was captured and carried off with all his father's house. One hundred chariots were impressed into the royal army, the leading citizens were deported, and prisoners from other quarters settled in their place. Then, after Tabal had been thoroughly ravaged, a governor was placed over it, and the country was made an Assyrian province.^^ This campaign had opened up the Tarsus-Tyana-Mazaka road to the Halys River, which would thus form the northern boundary of the province to be established. Along the west, *^ The identity of Hilakku with Cilicia is proved by the coins bearing the legend HLK issued by the Persian satraps of Cilicia, cf. B. Head, Historia Nummorum, 1887, 613. For the earlier location of Cilicia north of the Taurus, see Herod. I. 72 ; V. 52 ; Strabo XIV. 5. 24, and cf. the note by Niese, in Jensen, Hittiter, 195 f. For the later strategeia of Cilicia, in Cappadocia, cf. Ramsay, op. cit., 303. Its location is well shown by K. 11490 = Knudtzon 60 where the Tabalai ana Hilikai are about to invade Que, the Cilicia of later times. It is not necessary with Winckler, Forsch., II. 12, to assume a former Assyrian conquest of Cilicia. Rulers often give away what they do not possess. ^ According to the Assyrian scribe, Rusash had been dead a year. Does this mention of him here imply a slip on the part of the scribe, betraying what we know from Haldian sources, the fact that Rusash was still alive? "'A. 168 ff.', D. 29 if. What Bit Buritash sha Bit Akukanina means is not clear. Winckler, Forsch., 1. 366, believes that the new province was not united to Que. But such a connection of Cilicia, which be- longs rather to Syria than to Asia Minor, with a legion across the Taurus is against the analogy drawn from later history. It is true that we have no mention of such a province elsewhere, but this is not strange, for the Assyrian hqldings in Cappadocia seem to have been soon lost. THE NORTHWEST FRONTIER 9 1 Lake Tatta would serve as a boundary, but to the south of that the ground would be debatable. To the east, the Eu- phrates would naturally be taken, for Haldia had now with- drawn behind that river. Thus the new province could be given, on nearly every side, a boundary which might be truly called " scientific." It was to the securing of this fron- tier that the operations of the next year were directed. The greater part of this coveted territory was known as Kammanu. Its name was derived, no doubt, from the old sacred city of Comana, which was situated in the bare desert cleft in the western part of this region.^^ At present, the capital was Meliddu, which has always been, both as the classical Melitene and the Malatia of modern times, the center of a great road-complex and therefore a position of importance.^^ Some time before this, a certain Gunzinanu had been deposed,^* and Tarhunazi had taken his place.^^ ^ The earliest reference to Kammanu is to be found, with Winckler, Gesch., 246, in the Qumani of Tiglath Pileser I, Prism, V. 82. Since Delattre, L'Asie, 65, this has been seen to be connected with Comana. Winckler and Billerbeck on their maps confine Kammanu to the region about Comana. If Meliddu really is the capital of Kammanu, then it must have extended much further to the east. While Comana has not easy communications with the east, still the extension of the name would be in this direction rather than to the west where we have the huge Mt. Argaeus completely blocking the way, as Professor Sterrett points out to me. ^^ Meliddu is the Milidia of Tiglath Pileser I, Prism V. 34. For the Greek Melitene, see Ramsay, Hist. Geog., 313 ; for the Haldian Helita, Sayce, XXXIII, 16, etc.; for the Arab Malatiyah, Le Strange, East. Caliph., 120; for recent change of site, J. R, S. Sterrett, Epigraphical Journey, 1888, 300. 83-1-18, 41 = H. 375, also Harper, Amer. Jour. Sem. Lang., 1897, is a horse tablet from Nabu shum iddin, and refers to horses from the land of Melitai. ^* Jensen, op. cit., compares the Kuntsik of Hiibschmann's list, 105, and, for the latter part, the -nesis in Syennesis, etc. ^ Cf. the Tarhunazi of K. 301 = J. 308, who lived in the reign of Ashur bani pal. The first part is clearly the god Tarhu. For the Greek 92 WESTERN ASIA IN THE DAYS OF SARGON Sargon had recognized, if not encouraged, the change, and had added some lands. When Ambaris revolted, Tarhunazi seems to have followed his example, at least so far as to withhold his tribute. The advance on Meliddu seems to have been made from Amida as a base. Kammanu was devastated and the capital taken. Tarhunazi fled westward to his strong fortress of Tulgarimmu, the Biblical Togor- mah,*** where he was besieged and forced to surrender. He was cast into chains, and, with wife, children, and five thousand troops, carried off to Ashur, where the party was settled." The required lines had now been secured, at least after a fashion, and the subjugation of the less important interior might be left to time. The frontier itself needed fortifica- tion. First Tulgarimmu was rebuilt with Meliddu. Then three forts were erected on the west against Midas, two on the north as protection against the barbarians, and five along the Euphrates on the Haldian frontier.'*^ The space thus Tarko names, cf. Sachau, Zeitschr. f. Assyr., 1892, 90 if.; for a con- nection with the Biblical Terah, Jensen, ib., 1892, 70; for the Kashshite Turgu, Hilprecht, ib., 1892, 317 n. Nazi is frequent in Kashshite, Hilprecht, /. c, cf. also Tarmanazi, Tiglath Pileser III, A. 144. Jensen, Hittiter, 202, curiously enough, refuses to see Hittite names at all in Tarhunazi and Tarhulara. *" Halevy, Rev. Critique, 1881, 483, has made this identification and it has generally been followed. Professor Sterrett points out to me that Derende, the classical Dalanda, cf. Ramsay, Hist. Geog., 309, where we have a fine and almost impregnable castle of later date, see Sterrett, Epig. Jour., 301, would be a fine site. It would be on a natural line up the Tokhma Su, Professor Sterrett himself followed this road, is due west of Melitene, and is on the way to, and not far from, Gurun, the classical Guraina, cf. Ramsay, op. cit., 309, the Guriana of the letters, Sayce, Proc. Soc. Bibl. Arch., 1903, 148. Winckler and Billerbeck, on their maps, place Tulgarimmu at Gurun itself. "A. 178 ^.; D. 78 if. " The location of these forts is very important, as by their aid we can gain a very definite idea of the boundary at this time. Usi, the Uesi THE NORTHWEST FRONTIER 93 enclosed, a wedge thrust forward between Haldia and Phrygia, was made a province under the usual forms of administration and settled by captives from various parts of the empire, the last instalment of Sute not arriving until after the capture of Babylon (710).*^ of the letters, is probably the Euaissai, Avisai of Notitiae III, X, XIII, quoted Ramsay, op. cit., 283, the Euaisse of the Notitia published by Gelzer, Milnchen Abhandl. Philos.-phil. Classe, 1901, 551, and the Euaisenoi to whom Basil of Caesarea sent Epistle CCLI. Cf. also the Uschi of the Holy Legend, Jan. 31, quoted by Mordtmann, Zeitschr. Deutsch. Morg. GeselL, 1877, 423, Ramsay, op. cit., 305 identifies it with Yogounnes. This is rather far north of the Halys, but is not entirely out of the question. The Usi-ilu of Winckler's edition should be read Usian, the Uasaun of K. 181. It is clearly the Osiana of the Antonine Itinerary, 206. Ramsay, op. cit., 295, sees in the name only a corruption of Soanda which he places at Nev Sheher. But Kiepert, both in his wall map of Asia Minor, 1888, and in his Atlas Antiquus, places Osiana to the northwest of Soanda, and this separate existence seems to be proved by this Assyrian form. In Uargin, we probably have a form akin to Argaios or Argos, Steph. Byz., s. v., which Ramsay, op. cit., 353, believes to be the word for mountain in the native dialect. I would locate this, not at the better known Mt. Argaios, the present Arjish, but rather in the Mt. Argaios, the modern Hassan Dagh, south- east of Lake Tatta. This would be half way between Tyana and Osiana and would furnish a very good frontier line. I cannot make any sug- gestion as to the two forts, Ellibir and Shindarara, erected on the north boundary. On the east boundary, the Euphrates must have been be- tween the new province and Haldia. Luhsu might be the Leugaisa of Ptol. V. 6. 21, but this is inland and to the southwest of Melitene. I rather prefer Dagusa of the same section which was on the Euphrates and north of Melitene. Delta for lambda is a common error, while a guttural g would naturally be represented in Assyrian by h. It is only fair to state, however, that Dagusa may be an error for Daskusa. Budir, Anmurru, and Anduarsalia are unknown. With the place Ki , we may compare the Kiakis of Ptol., /. c, the Ciaca XVIII m. p. north of Melitene of the Antonine Itinerary. Uargin is identified with Guraina by Jensen, Zeitschr. Deutsch. Morg. GeselL, 1894, 47 1> and Winckler, Forsch., II. 135, but there is no phonetic basis, and Guraina must be reserved for Guriana. "Jensen, Rec. de Trav., 1896, 116, restores A. 195 a\di {mat) nagi Isha limitsu ana'\ Mutallu Qummuhai addin, " with the surrounding 94 WESTERN ASIA IN THE DAYS OF SARGON The next year an opportunity came for securing the most important site in the interior still unconquered. At Mar- regions, I gave to Mutallu of Qummuh." The addin, " I gave " is extremely doubtful on the original ; in fact, no definite reading can be given. The use of addin can therefore only be defended by appealing to its naturalness in the light of other events. But it is very unlikely that Sargon gave lan^ to one who is so clearly an enemy as Mutallu. It is more probable that the Mutallu began a new paragraph, the re- mainder of which was on the lost slab between A. 195 and A. 196, cf. Winckler, Sargon, 33 n. In the text, I have followed what seems the natural order of events. According to this view, Meliddu is the capital of Kammanu. Gunzinanu, the former king, A. 188 if.; D. 83, according to whose quota the new province was taxed, seems to have been the predecessor of Tarhunazi. According to XIV. 9-10; P. IV. 23-27, he was deposed and carried off from Meliddu, his royal city. This is probably true. The further statement, however, that a governor was appointed, cannot stand in the face of A. 180 f., where it is said that he granted this land to Tarhunazi. Winckler, Sargon, XXIX, on the other hand, argues that Tarhunazi, ruler of Meliddu, drove out Gunzinanu of Kammana and annexed Kammanu to Meliddu. In this, he is followed by Maspero, Empires, 252 n. i, and Rogers, History, II. 168. Yet Winckler still translates A. 180 as before, Forsch., II. 132, and this states that Sargon himself deposed Gunzinanu and placed Tarhunazi on the vacant throne. Nor do I see that D. 83 and A. 189 to which he appeals, prove his case. They simply prove that there was an earlier king, Gunzinanu. But it is the use of the place names which is most troublesome, if we accept Winckler's theory. We would then have Meliddu, which is always a city, not a country, the capital (A., 183) of an unknown land, ruled by Tarhunazi, while a land of Kammanu has no known capital, and for king we must take Gunzinanu who is distinctly said to be an earlier king. It assumes that the accounts in XIV and P. IV are entirely wrong and that that in A. is half incorrect. This may be true, but we demand some evidence as well as a consideration of the facts mentioned above. The conquests in this region were only temporary and perhaps were largely swept away by the barbarian wars at the close of the reign. Already in his fifth campaign, Sennacherib was forced again to destroy Tulgarimmu, Constantinople Ins., 19. No eponym of Meliddu is known, but Assyria seems to have held it till the later days of Esarhaddon, when, as we learn from the prayers to the sun god, Knudtzon 54 if., it passed into the hands of Mugallu of Tabal. THE NORTHWEST FRONTIER 95 qasi/* the modern Mar'ash, the Hittite ruler, Tarhulara,*^ had been murdered by his anti-Assyrian son, Mutallu. Sar- gon, however, took him prisoner, armies could easily be concentrated on him from several sides,*^ and carried him off with all the tribe of Bit Pa'alla and much booty. Gur- gume,*'^ from which Tarhulara had come, was rebuilt, and an Assyrian governor installed in Marqasi.*^ ** A governor of Marqasi is known in 682, and in 680, Johns, Deeds ; II. 136. For the classical Gernianiceia, cf. Ramsay, Hist. Geog., 297. In later times, it became Mar'ash, the change from qoph to 'ain being, as Mr. B. B. Charles points out to me, fairly common in certain dia- lects of the Syrian Arabic of to-day. The form Mersin is common among the writers on the Crusades but a curious instance of survival of the older form with qoph is to be found in Anna Comnena, XI. 329 ; XIII. 413 where a genitive Markeos occurs. The editors of the Rec. de I'Hist. des Croisades, Hist. Grec, II. 59 have rightly seen that it was connected with Mar'ash, but probably were unaware of the Assyrian form. *^ The first part is Tarhu, cf. n. 39. For the second, Jensen, Hittiter, 22^, compares the Mongerlaris of Heberdey and Wilhelm, Abhandl. of Vienna Academy, 1896, 138 ^. I was inclined to identify the name with the Tourkoleis of Sachau, op. cit., 99, but a reference to the original inscription, no. LXXV, of Hicks, Jour, of Hellen. Studies, 1891, shows that we really have Toukoleis. The rho is probably merely a misreading of the division line in the transliteration. " From Melitene, Samosata, Samal, Carchemish, Tarsus, all of which were in the hands of Assyria. This shows how necessary it was to take the country which lay in the center of the half circle. " Gurgume already appears in the Monolith, I. 40, II. 84, of Shal- maneser II. It is then ruled by an earlier Mutallu. For an ex- haustive account of the Arabic Gurgume, see Sachau, Sitzungsherichte of the Berlin Academy, 1892, 329 fF. Sachau there compares the GRGM of the Panammu inscription. The identity with Mar'ash seems to have been independently discovered by Tomkins, Bah. Orient. Record, III. 3, and Sachau, op. cit., 313. Professor Sterrett suggests that we may have a trace of the root in Gulgurum, the classical Gorgorome, near Fassiler where Hittite remains are found. *^ In the text, the version of A. 208 ff. ; D. 83 if. is followed. Ac- cording to XIV. 10; P. IV. 28; B. 26; Tarhulara was deposed directly by Sargon and Gurgume is at once made a province. This does not g6 WESTERN ASIA IN THE DAYS OF SARGON In the next years, probably 711-709, the final pacification of Que proper was accomplished by its governor. In three expeditions* the infantry penetrated the Taurus, took two fortresses situated on hilltops and made twenty-four hun- dred prisoners. Of these, nearly a thousand were carried the whole length of the empire from Que to the king, as he lay encamped at Irma'mi in Elam.^^ To take their place other Assyrian subjects were settled.''^ But it now began to be seen that a crossing of Cilicia Trachaea was impracticable, and the advance was stopped. It is even probable that some sort of an understanding with Midas was arrived at, for in no other way can we explain the " tribute " Sargon claims to have received from him.'^^ necessarily conflict with the other, for, if Mutallu deposed his father at Assyrian suggestion, Sargon would claim it. But Mutallu would seem to represent the anti-Assyrian party. Then we can explain Sar- gon's boast only in the light of the usual tendency of the Assyrians to " claim everything in sight." I think that this Mutallu was not the same as the Mutallu of Qummuh, although I know the reverse may be argued. Winckler restores A. 209 (V) " Hull[i Mut]tallu his son." What can this possibly mean ? For the fact of Hittite occupation, cf. the well-known Mar'ash lion with the Hittite inscription. Here is probably to be placed 82-3-23, 131, published and translated, Winckler, Forsch., II. 570 if. Winckler has seen that the second part refers to the Ashdod revolt. He places the first part in Armenia, but the relation to the Ashdod revolt account seems rather to refer to our own events. The mountain top like a dagger point where the cliff fort Azaqa was situated may as well be found in Asia Minor. Azaka has a " Hittite " sound and if we compare Caesarea Mazaka, we may place the mountain top at the nearby Mt. Argaios. *'A. 373, cf. Winckler, op. cit., II. 133. ""A. 378. K. 833 = J. 1099 seems to belong here. It is a report of various classes of captives who have been brought from Que. The total is 976, as against the 1000 of the Annals, a better showing for accuracy than we should expect. " K. 3061 = J. 743 shows that Assyrian colonists were settled in Que probably at this time. "A. 379 if. A governor of Que in 685, Johns, Deeds, II. 137. THE NORTHWEST FRONTIER 9/ At about the same time or perhaps a little later,''^ trouble broke out on the extreme north, where Mutallu of Qummuh, a land situated somewhat to the north of the later Comma- gene,^* had abandoned friendly relations with Sargon and gone over to Argishtish, who had recently succeeded Rusash in Haldia. The governor of the new province invaded his country, took some of his fortresses and much booty, and even some of his family. But Mutallu himself simply re- tired to the wild mountains nearby. The lowland regions were settled by captives from Bit lakin, to which place the Qummuh men were in their turn deported.*^^ This seems to "The exact date is uncertain. In both Rm, 2, 97 and II R. 69, we have a campaign against Qummuh under 708, and this is the more probable date. Winckler, Sargon, XLI, has shown that a date cannot be inserted before the Qummuh campaign in the Annals. The date in that document would then be 709. If there were a real question of date, we should prefer that of the chronological documents. In reality, we are probably to see here a series of guerilla wars, extending over several years. Cf. the mention of Mutallu of Qummuh in A. 195 under 712. "Qummuh occurs already in the time of Tiglath Pileser I, Prism, I. 59. The connection with the classical Commagene is generally recognized. In these days, it seems to have been further north. Its site at this time seems to be marked by the fortress of Kamacha, Ramsay, Hist. Geog., 448. This is the Kamakh of the Arabs, Le Strange, East. Caliph., 118. It might be objected that an Assyrian qoph can hardly be represented by the Arabic kaph. But the Assyrian qoph is properly transliterated by the Greek kappa, while this is again represented correctly, if the Arabic form came directly from the Greek and not from the native form. Mutallu also occurs on the Monolith of Shalmaneser II, I. 40. We cannot with Sachau, /. c, and Johns, Deeds, III. 458, compare the Motales of Hicks, op. cit., 27, 40 for Heberdey and Wilhelm, op. cit., no 155, show this to be a misreading. Jensen, op. cit., 223, compares the Moutalaske of the Vita Sahce, cited by Ramsay, Hist. Geog., 295. " The list of tribute is instructive. It included horses, mules, asses, camels, herds and flocks, gold, silver, various cloths, elephants* hides, ivory, ushu and ukarinu wood, the treasures of his palace, and his royal throne. The mention of camels and elephants in this locality is 7 98 WESTERN ASIA IN THE DAYS OF SARGON be the high-water mark of Assyrian influence in this region. Before the end of the reign the Iranians began to come in and the frontier receded.^^ In connection with affairs on this frontier, we may note the Assyrian relations with Cyprus. Here the Greeks had gradually been settling until by now they seem to have gained control of the greater part of the island. They nat- urally, as enemies of the Phoenicians in the island, were inclined to be friendly with the Assyrians who had already secured control of the Phoenicians on the mainland. No doubt, too, Midas had tried to conquer the Greeks along the coast, as the Lydians tried later, and enmity to him would again make them favorable to Sargon. On the other hand, the Assyrians had no fleet, and so there was little danger of conquest from them. Furthermore, friendship with the great empire would mean commercial privileges throughout the whole of its provinces, and the Greeks would not forget this. We can therefore well understand why, when Sargon was still in Babylon, probably after his return from the extreme south (709),^^ he received an embassy and presents, curious. Were camels used for caravans? It is well known that large numbers of beautiful rugs are still made at home in Asia Minor. Does the mention of these various cloths point to home manufacture of such a sort at this time? We learn further of this production of cloth in K. 125 = H. 196, Johns, Laws, 345, which dates about 708, cf. chap. VIII. The heads of Qummuh have come to Kalhu where they are lodged in the house reserved for that nation. They bear tribute, seven mares of mules each and fruit as well as cloth and seven talents, apparently some sort of a tax on that product. They are discontented at present conditions, say their produce has decreased under present circumstances, and wish the work to be under the direction of the royal weavers. '^''A. 372 if., D. 112 if. " A. 388. The order of the Annals calls for 709. Maspero, Empires, 260, and Rogers, History, 178 prefer 708, while Winckler, Sargon, XL advocates 710. THE NORTHWEST FRONTIER 99 gold and silver, it is curious that we have no mention of the copper which received its name from the island, ushu and ukarinu woods, from the land of la',^^ a region^ of latnana, as the Assyrians named Cyprus.^^ In return, Sar- ^ The land la' should be compared with the Cilician names of Sachau, op. cit., 1891, 81, lazamos and lanbies where la is a god, Jensen, Hittiter, 126. Johns, Deeds, III, 122, compares the witness la-ai of K. 422 J. 75. '^ The Assyrian for " region " is Nage. Winckler, Sargon, XL n. 6, makes la'nage a folk etymology from an lonikoi, or, as modified, Farsch., I, 367 n. I, for lonike. No form of Ionian occurs in any of the Cypriote inscriptions in Collitz, Sammlung der griech. Dialekt-In- schriften, I. 1884, or in any of the Semitic inscriptions from Cyprus given in the Corpus. Pape's Handworterbuch does not give a single instance where lonikoi is used for lones or where lonike is used for Ionia. I have indeed found a statement in Steph. Byz. s. v. Ionia, to the effect that lonikoi is a form used of natives of Ionia, but a reference to his use of lonikoi as applied to the Illyrians, s. v. las, seems to show that its use for lones is the result of a confusion. I therefore doubt if lonikoi was ever used for lones or lonike for Ionia. If so used, it must have been very rare, since no certain trace is left. Winckler's clever conjecture is accordingly not supported by Hellenic usage. But there is a more serious objection. In all forms of the root, a digamma was felt as the Hebrew Javan, Arabic Yunani, Sanskrit lavana show. This digamma was felt in Cypriote, as their inscriptions indicate. In Assyrian, as the name of the Ashdod leader, lamani, shows, this w sound, as usual, was represented by m. It is difficult to believe, at least I know of no examples to prove it, that the sign which repre- sents the lost guttural sounds in Assyrian could stand for a digamma. If it could, it ought to appear before, not after, the a which I suppose Winckler would make correspond to the o of lonikes-Ionike. * The form Atnana is probably merely a scribal error, the la before at being lost through similarity of signs, Sachau, Zeitschr. f. Assyr, 1888, 112. Perhaps Cheyne, Ency. Biblica. art. Javan, is right in thinking that the explanation " Ionian island " is mere folk etymology. It is even more probable that there is no actual connection between it and lones. Oppert, Literatur-Blatt fur Orient. Philologie, III. 82 fF. identifies the word with Itanus, a place in eastern Crete. While this is impossible, the agreement in names may perhaps indicate that the inhabitants of Crete before the coming of either Phoenician or Greek were of the same Eteocretic race as those in Cyprus. lOO WESTERN ASIA IN THE DAYS OF SARGON gon sent to Cyprus the splendid " image of his majesty," which is now in BerUn.^ The Greeks of Cyprus continued to keep in friendly relation with succeeding kings, and once in a while sent presents. To the end, however, they retained their independence and Assyria never really ruled the island.^ " S. 43-47- Cf. chap. I, n. 41. 'A. 383 ff.; D. 145 if.; S. 28 ^. In A., we seem to have tribute held back, an overthrow of the rebels, and a governor appointed. This seems to be only a case of formula. D. and S., the latter to be read in Cyprus itself, content themselves with the mere report of the royal power as cause for the tribute. A few lines further we have a pas- sage, not translated by Winckler, of some interest. The context can- not be made out but we have mention of a man named ?-il-da- ?-qu-ra-ai, A. 383 (V), of a city Ma(?)-?-na, A. 385 (V), and of another person called I-da-[ . . . a]i, A. 387 (II). The first is without doubt a name ending in -agoras, the most common of all Cypriote personal endings. Compare, in Collitz, op. cit., Evagoras (Ewvakoro), Aristagoras (Arisitakorau), Pnytagoras (Punu . . .), Pasagoras (Pasa- korani), Cypragoras (Kupurakorao), Onasagoras (Onasakorau). It is interesting to note that the Assyrian agrees with the Cypriote in changing the g to 2l k or q. I do pot know what to make of the first part. Perhaps the first sign is pa. Parthagoras is then possible. Of course, this is mere conjecture. The city Ma(?)-?-na I do not know. The I-da-[ . . . a]i I should make " the man from Idalion, a city which occurs on both Phoenician and Cypriote inscriptions. Any attempt to further work out the general relations of the Greeks must be very hazardous. The reference to the lamnai in C. 21 is not at all clear. We there learn that Sargon dragged them from the sea with a net ( ?) like fish from the midst of the sea and pacified Que and Curri (Tyre). If the translation is correct here, we may compare the " netting " saganeuein of Persian times. As C. is a display inscription, it is not very probable that the references to the lamnai are to be taken in connection with those of Tyre and Que. For the same reason, it is not sure that these passages are anything more than an idle boast. Winckler, Forsch., I. 360 ff., places here the passages from Euseb. Chron., ed. Schone, I. 27, 35. The former is quoted from Alexander Polyhistor, the latter from Abydenus, but both go back to Berossus and are nearly identical. According to these, the lones made war with Sen- nacherib. They were defeated, in a naval battle, according to Abydenus. THE NORTHWEST FRONTIER Id Sennacherib then erected a monument and founded Tarsus. This monument is clearly the one at Anchiale, generally attributed to Sardanapallos (Ashur bani pal), of. e. g., Suidas, s. v. Sardanapallus, while Tarsus existed at least as early as Shalmaneser II. From the time of Sennacherib on, the account of Berossus is fairly full and, where it can be tested, as trustworthy as can be expected. There is, how- ever, no reason to suppose that his sources were less full for Sargon or Tiglath Pileser III than for Sennacherib or Nebuchadnezzar. The only reason why we do not have this section is that the Christian ex- cerptors did not think it of value as illustrating Biblical history. Have we, then, the right to take an event which two different versions agree in giving to Sennacherib and assign it to Sargon? Certainly not. Why should we assign a naval battle to Sargon? There is no proof that he had a navy or knew its value. The one Assyrian ruler who did understand the value of sea power was, as everybody knows, Senna- cherib, and why a naval battle, ascribed to him by a double line of tradition, should be taken away from him, I cannot see. While, however, there can be no doubt that Sennacherib is correctly named as the victor, there is a question in my mind as to the correctness of the name given to the vanquished. Berossus, the Babylonian, would be unlikely to make a mistake as to which one of the rulers of his own country won a great battle in the western seas, but he might well be- come confused as to just which western power it was. In his own days, the Greeks were all-powerful, and he may have been led to give them the same place in the west in earlier times. But the good rela- tions between Greeks and Assyrians, for there is no inscriptional proof that the two peoples ever came into actual conflict, hardly allow us to place a war with them here. If not the Greeks, then who ? The answer may be found in the list of thalassocracies, or periods of sea power, held by the various peoples, in Euseb. Chron., 225. Winckler, Forsch., II. 288 fF., assigns the Cypriote period to about 700-677, and I think he is correct. He also rightly assumes that this rise of the Cypriote power was due to the union with Assyria. If so, then this means that the Greeks and Assyrians must have put down the naval power of the people which last held the supremacy at sea. But these were the Phrygians ! Is not all now clear ? Sargon warred with Midas by land. The Cypriote Greeks, as noted above, would be natural enemies of Midas as well as of the Phoenicians. Union with Assyria was therefore natural. Sargon did not see the value of friendly rela- tions with Cyprus any more than he did that of Uperi of Tilmun in the Persian Gulf. His successor saw the need of Assyrian control of the seas. We have his own account of his operations on the Persian Gulf. Midas had been checked by Sargon on land. Sennacherib 102 WESTERN ASIA IN THE DAYS OF SARGON ruined his power at sea, aided, of course, by the Cypriote fleet. The control of the sea would then naturally pass from the Phrygians to the Cypriotes. This working out seems to be only the logical result of Winckler's own discussion of the thalassocracies. We may presume, therefore, that he has abandoned his earlier views, Forsch., I. 360 ff. Other views in Schrader, Sitzungsber, of Berlin Academy, 1890, 340 if. ; Delitzsch, Paradies, 248 ; Maspero, Empires, 260, 284. Kition is the place where the stele was found and is therefore the most im- portant place in the island. It is the QartihadastI of Esarhaddon's Broken Cyl. V. 19 ff. and the QRTHShT of the Baal Lebanon inscrip- tion. For this Cypriote Carthage, cf. Corpus Ins. Semit., I. 26, 98 ; Schrader, op. cit., 339 ; Jastrow, Proc. Amer. Orient. Soc, 1890, LXX ff. In the above mentioned inscription of Esarhaddon, Idalion occurs as Edi'al. The forms Pilagura (Pythagoras) and Unasagusu (Onisagoras) are less close to the Cypriote form than are our forms. CHAPTER V THE ARMENIAN WARS As we have already seen, one of the antagonists most to be feared by Assyria was Rusash of Haldia. His attempts to regain the lost Haldian conquests west of the Euphrates have been noted in the last chapter. In this, we shall see the efforts of Sargon to bring the war directly home to him.^ When Sargon turned his attention to affairs on this part of his frontier, in 719, he found a good base for attack in the large and important tribe of the Mannai who lived to the southeast of Haldia.- As next-door neighbors to that power, they naturally threw in their lot with Assyria. At this time their chief was Iranzu, who seems to have been devoted to his Assyrian ally. To the south of the Mannai ^ For discussion of Haldian affairs in general, see chapter II. ^ The Mannai are among the most important tribes of this region. References in the letters and other documents are frequent. Their location is somewhat indefinite, probably because they covered a large area, which shifted more or less at various times. In general, they were allied with the Assyrians. A large part, as their names would seem to show, were Iranian, yet other parts seem to be akin to the Haldians. They seem later to have been confused with the Madai. Note that our Daiukku of Mannai founds the Median empire according to Herodotus. Hommel, Gesch., 598, 713, n. 3, and Schrader, Sitzungsher., of Berlin Academy, 1890, 331, place them in the region between the Araxes and Lake Urmia. This may be true so far as it goes, but they certainly came further south. The same may be said of their location to the northwest of the lake by Streck, Zeitsch. f. Assyr., 1899, 143, and Sayce, Jour. Roy. Asiat. Soc, 1882, 497. Winckler, Gesch., 200, places them to the west, Billerbeck, Beitr. z. Assyr., III. 139, to the southwest, and Belck, Verhandl. Berl. Anthrop. Gesellsch., 1894, 479. to the southwest and southeast. This last is seem- ingly correct. 103 I04 WESTERN ASIA IN THE DAYS OF SARGON lay Zikirtu,^ whose chief, Mittatti, just as naturally allied himself with Rusash against the Mannai. While Sargon, or at least his armies, were engaged elsewhere, Mittatti per- suaded two of the Mannai towns, Shuandahuh and Dur- dukka,* to revolt against Iranzu, and sent a garrison to hold them. Iranzu appealed to Sargon, and Sargon sent an army. 50 well garrisoned were they that a regular siege with siege engines was needed to capture them. When taken, they were burned and their inhabitants deported.*^ At about the same time, the three neighboring towns of Sukkia, Bala, and Abitekna were captured and the people carried off to Syria. Again, in 717, there were disturbances in this region, as the Papa and Lallukna^ were ravaging the friendly land of Kakme.^ They were conquered and deported to Damascus. ' The identification of Zikirtu with the Persian clan of the Sagartioi, Herod. I. 125, is generally accepted. It was near to Mannai on the south, yet was passed by the Assyrians in going to Mugagir. I should therefore place it southeast of Mugagir, about at Pasava. Billerbeck's map places its capital, Parda, at Marand, northeast of Lake Urmia. * These places must be north of Zikirtu, about east of the Kelishin Pass. The Durdukka of A. is the Zurzukka of D.. With the latter, Winckler, Sargon, XX, n. i, compares Zurzua of Ptol. V. 12. 7. He might also have compared the Zaruana of the same section. But both are too far north to make an identification probable. ' A. 32 ff. ; D. 48. 'A. 40 ff.; D. 57; XIV. 30; C. 28. The passages in D. and C. at first seem to indicate that they, with the Papa and Lallukna, annoyed Kakme and were therefore carried off to Damascus. This is the view of Streck, op. cit., 132. But this is merdy the usual merging due to geographical contiguity. The real order is given in A. ^ The form Pappa seems due to confusion with Pappa-Paphos of Cyprus. The normal form is therefore not Pappa, as Streck, op. cit., 133, but Papa. * Streck, op. cit., 132, translates the very doubtful passage C. 28 = A. 51 " welche gegen dasselbe ganz offentlich Plane geschmiedet hatten." This would make the deportation the result of depredations committed by the highland tribes on the lowlanders, the pro-Assyrian people of THE ARMENIAN WARS IO5 About this time the Mannai themselves went over to Haldia. Iranzu, the friend of Assyria, died, or to use the more picturesque Assyrian expression, " his fate came upon him." His son and successor, Aza, was also a "lover of the yoke of Ashur." The " yoke of Ashur," however, was anything but light, and Rusash, who had already made trouble for Assyria,^** persuaded the commons to strike for liberty. Perhaps we may see in it a revolt of the Aryans against the older race for the new ruler. Bagdatti^^ of Uishdish^^ bears an Iranian name, and was supported by Kakme, But, on this assumption, how can we explain N. 9, " who shook the breast of Kakme, men who were hostile and wicked " ? This inscription dates to within a year of the actual events and is there- fore worthy of a certain belief, even if only a display inscription. In this latter passage, Streck takes mutaqin with the clause just noted. But this is entirely contrary to the usage of these display inscriptions where the participle precedes the noun it governs. Does A. 51 point to a treacherous understanding between the Papa and Lallukna and certain officials of the palace? ' Johns, Doomsday Book, 46, notes an Azi baal and an Azi ilu and therefore makes Aza a Semite. But the large number of Iranian names beginning with Aza fully justifies Justi, Namenhuch, s. v., in placing Aza among them. "In 719 according to Prism B. Cf. note below on chronology. " The first part of the name Bagdatti is clearly Baga, " god," the latter comes from the word " to give." We have therefore an exact parallel in Iranian to the Greek Theodotus, cf. Mithridates. Accord- ingly, we cannot accept the theory of Jensen, Zeitschr. f. Assyr., 1893, 378, that Datti is a god, nor that of Johns, Doomsday Book, 40, who compares a Bagdadi and sees in the second part the well-known Semitic love deity. "D. 37, 49 reads (mat)U-ish-di-ish-ai. Winckler takes the first ish as mil. But ish is the common value of this sign in Assyrian and the only value in Haldian. We should therefore read Uishdish. In XIV. 47 the first ish is merely dropped out, while in A. no, U-e-di-ish, the e is an easy error for ish, as Winckler sees. Streck, op. cit., 140, 146, compares the Ishdish of Tiglath Pileser I, Prism II. 68, 78, read Mildish by Budge and King. He places it, op. cit., 146, southwest of the Mannai and south of Lake Van on the very doubtful assumption that I06 WESTERN ASIA IN THE DAYS OF SARGON Mitatti of Zikirtu. Aza was deposed and his dead body ex- posed on Mount Uaush. His reign, too, was short, for the Assyrians took him alive, flayed him, and exposed his bleeding form on this same Mount Uaush.^^ He was succeeded by Ullusunu, the brother of Aza,^* who had thus a legitimate claim to the throne. Whether placed on the throne by the Assyrians or not,^^ he soon saw that Rusash was the nearer and more dangerous foe. He there- fore made his peace with Haldia and handed over, probably not without compulsion, twenty-two towns as proof of his good faith. As a result of his defection from Assyria, Ashur liu^^ of Karalla,^' and Itti of AUabria^^ followed his example. the Aruma of Uishdish is the Arua of Kirhu. We should rather place it among the Mannai and near Zikirtu, that is somewhere east of Kelishin Pass and south of Lake Urmia. Cf. also the Ashdiash of Ashur bani pal, Cyl. B., III. 34. " D. 37 adds the (amel) (mat) Misiandai to Bagdatti and Mitatti as instigators of the revolt. Who he was, we do not know. We should probably see in the second part Andia, cf. below, Hommel, Gesch., 713 n. Is Misi the name of the man ? The scribe has clearly made an error here. The " governors " of A. may refer to these men or to the Mannai chieftains. The former is the more probable. Maspero, Empires, 240, greatly exaggerates the importance of Mitatti in this revolt. " Ullusunu is generally taken to be the son of Iranzu and brother of Aza, for it is to the latter that it seems we should refer the ahishu, "his brother," of A. 57. Streck, op. cit., 135 refers this to Bagdatti and makes him the brother of Ullusunu and son of Aza, but this is very unlikely. No stress can be laid on D. 39, " on the throne of his father," for this is merely a formal statement. XIV. 53, " Ullusunu on the throne of Aza established himself," shows no recognition of Bagdatti as regular ruler. "Tiele, Gesch., 262 n. i, does not think Sargon had anything to do with the accession of Ullusunu. In XIV. 53, usheshibu may be a first as well a third person. " On the basis of his Assyrian name, " Ashur is mighty," Winckler, Gesch., 241 n., suggests that he may have been a revolted Assyrian THE ARMENIAN WARS IO7 All these events seem to have taken place in 717, if not earlier.^ Now, in 716, a new expedition was sent out, seem- ingly under the Nabuhashadua, whose report on the affairs of Ashur liu and Ullusunu has come down to us.-^ The expedition succeeded. Ullusunu took to the hills on their approach, but when he saw the burning and plundering of governor who carved out a kingdom for himself in the troublous times before the accession of Sargon. But the fact that his brother was named Amitashshi seems to prove that the Assyrian name was given or assumed only to indicate Assyrian leanings. " Karalla is placed to the east of Lake Urmia, Maspero, op. cit., 141 map, and to the northeast by Billerbeck, map. Streck, op. cit., 163 if., places it near the Mannai, between them and Kirruri, the latter of which he places, op. cit., 169, to the west and southwest of Lake Urmia. This is more probable. Karalla appears only in the time of Sargon. As it was annexed to the empire, while Allabria was not, it was probably nearer to Assyria. " Allabria or Allabra first occurs in the Annals of Ashur nagir pal, in. 109. Here it is connected with Amedi and Kashiari. Streck is therefore right in placing it in Tur 'Abdin, in the Koros Mts., or in those to the east along the Tigris, op. cit., 87. But while this location is no doubt correct for that early time, it will not do for the days of Sargon. Maspero, op. cit., 141, 193, maps, puts it to the east of Karalla, which itself is placed to the east of Lake Urmia. Winckler, on his map, also places it to the east. I would rather place it to the south- west of the lake and beyond Karalla. " Cf. the chronological note below. ^ Sm. 935 unpublished. Reference in Bezold, Catalogue. ^^ Izirtu is probably the Zirta of Obelisk, 166, of Shalmaneser IL It is already the capital of the Mannai. Streck, op. cit., 138 f., compares the first part of the Haldian Sisirihadiris of Sayce XXXIII. 39. Billerbeck, map in Ency. Bibl., places Izirtu at the Arza of Kiepert's map, half way between Van and Urmia and on the direct road between the two places. The situation is probable, but we can place no confidence in the name, for it appears as Arza and Atis on Kiepert's map, while on that of Lynch it is Argis. The whole topographical study is still very difficult. The general outlines of the natural topography is fairly well known, but the nomenclature is in the greatest confusion. Instead of the present crude transliterations of names, we need to have these presented both in the Armenian and Turkish characters with I08 WESTERN ASIA IN THE DAYS OF SARGON his capital, Izirtu,^^ as well as some of his other cities," he came out and sued for peace. This was granted with alacrity, showing either that his defection was considered due to force or that the friendship of the Mannai was too important for Sargon to risk it by severe measures. The two chieftains who had followed his example did not come off so easily, for an example was needed, and they were not important enough to make severe treatment dan- gerous. Ashur liu was flayed alive and his men deported to Hamath, where they were joined by Itti and his family. Karalla was made a province, while Allabria was granted to a certain Adar aplu iddin, whose name indicates his As- syrian leanings.^^ which they are written and in a transcription which will represent the actual pronunciation. Even with this, work will be difficult. The place must first be located approximately on purely topographical grounds. Similarity of names is then a welcome rather than neces- sary confirmation. Shifting of population has caused a large propor- tion of names to be lost or changed in location, while shifting in pronunciation, which has taken place to a marked degree in Armenian, makes resemblances deceptive and hides real traces. Much work is still needed here, especially for the rural dialects. ^ These were Zibia or Izibia, doubtfully identified by Streck, op. cit., 139 n. I, with the Uzbia of the Cyl. B. III. 47 of Ashur bani pal, men- tioned in connection with Izirtu, a very probable conjecture. Armaid, Armeid, or Armeidda, is identified by Streck, op. cit., 139, with the Araid of A. 119 on the border of the sea, Lake Van, according to Streck, but more probably Urmia. Urmaid is also mentioned on Prism B with Kishesim under year V (717). Here also should perhaps be placed the Is-ha-?-gur, a fortress of the Mannai, whose capture is represented in Sculp. XIV. 2. ^ Our main authority for these events is A. 52-64. It is clear that more than one year is represented here. The order is correct, although the definite chronology is not. The events are badly dis- torted in D., not only by the usual dividing into geographical sections, but also by ascriptions to the various actors and confusion with those of the following year. The pertinent sections are D. 36-42 50-51 for Ullusunu, 49 for Bagdatti, 55-66 for Ashur liu and Itti. K. 1660, THE ARMENIAN WARS IO9 The next year, 715, the results were more or less unim- portant. One expedition was directed against a certain Daiukku, a Mannai governor, who had given his son to Rusash as a hostage. Rusash, however, gave no help, and Daiukku was deported to Hamath. The name of the man is more interesting than his personality. Daiukku is nothing but Deiokes, and it is quite possible that the proto- type of the Median prince who founded, according to Herodotus, the Median kingdom at this very time, is to be seen in this underling. We should also note that the name is Iranian. Do we see here, as in the case of Bagdatti, another reaction of the Iranian element in the Mannai against the non-Iranian ? ^* published by Winckler, Sammlung, II. 4, is a Babylonian fragment, probably of a display inscription. It mentions Ashur liu and Itti as well as Kammanu and Tarhulara of Marqasha (Marqasi). We there- fore have no chronology here ; against Bezold, Catalogue, who ascribes it to year VI. The letter S. 935 has already been referred to. Prism B., which mentions Ashur liu, Ullusunu and Itti and describes the booty as horses, herds, flocks, and cloth stuffs, is important for the chronology and will be discussed below. ^From the time of F. Lenormant, Lettres Assyrologiques, I. 55, the verbal identity of this Daiukku, as well as of the Bit Daiukku of A. 140, with the Deoikes of Herod. I. 16, etc., has not been questioned. The date, say 708, of Herodotus agrees so closely with our data that I can hardly believe that there is no connection. If already there were Median tales afloat in regard to a certain Deiokes, founder of the Median empire, it would be perfectly natural for some one who was acquainted with cuneiform to localize him by identifying him with the Daiukku of our lists. A somewhat similar case is the placing of Abraham in the days of Hammurabi. If so, then the chronology of the kings is not that of Herodotus, but of his oriental sources. It is well known that the chronology of Ctesias is a curious amplification of that of Herodotus, but it is also clear that he had cuneiform sources for his names. Is it possible that his chronology is based on a native source directly rather than on Herodotus? Perhaps we may compare the (amel) Daiku of K. 2852, Winckler, Forsch., II. 28 if. Sayce makes the Mandaukas of Ctesias, Fr. 47 = Man ,+ Deiokes, Zeitschr. f. Assyr., but the better reading is Madaukes. no WESTERN ASIA IN THE DAYS OF SARGON Sargon next turned his attention to the twenty-two towns recently " given " to Rusash and won them back. The fact that they were restored to Ullusunu is another proof that his defection was unwilHng. Even when Sargon erected a stele in Izirtu, his capital, he remained true to Assyria. ^^ Another interesting event was the receiving of tribute from the ianmi-^ of Nairi at his capital of Hubushkia.^' Nairi, which here occurs for the last time, a comparatively re- stricted district, was once applied to all the tribes of the northern frontier.^* Tribute was also received from eight towns of the land of Tuaiadi, which was ruled by Telusina the Andian, and over four thousand men were deported from it.2 Tide, art. Persia, Ency. Bibl., doubts the identity of this Hamath with the Syrian city of that name. The numerous settlements in Syria, however, make such an identity practically certain. ^A. 77, by the usual anticipation, places the capture of these forts in year VII, and Winckler, Sargon, XXIV ; Tiele, Gesch., 263 ; Maspero, Empires 242, place it accordingly in 715. It is rather to be placed in the year or years preceding, in accordance with the testimony of D. 39, 44, 52, where a more natural order is given. For the actual date, see below. ^ The Assyrian scribes both here and in the case of the iansti of Namri, Shalmaneser II, Obelisk, 112, took it as a proper name. The Cossaean list however, quoted as 82-9-18, there is no such number in the Catalogue, Delitzsch, Koss'der, 1884, 29 if., shows it to be a title by giving it as the equivalent of sharru, " king." ^^ Sachau, Zeitschr. f. Assyr., 1897, 53; Schrader, Keilinschr. und Geschichtsforschung, 164, places it too far to the northwest; Belck, Verh. Berl. Anthrop. GeselL, 1894, 483, and later writers place it more to the south. Sayce, Jour. Roy. Asiat. Soc, 1882, 674, makes the name Vannic. Sachau, /, c, identifies it with the classical Moxoene, the Armenian Mokkh. ^ A. 75 ff. ; D. 52 ff. The reference to nine towns of five regions belonging to Ursa of Urartu, A. 79, and the annexation of these towns, is not clear. ^ A. 81 ff.; D. 45 /. According to Delattre, Medes, 82 f., Andia is east of the Matai, between the mountains of Matai, Urmia and THE ARMENIAN WARS I I I The following year matters became more serious. To follow the Assyrian account we should assume that a direct attack was made on Rusash, that a great defeat was inflicted and that this defeat was so crushing that " when Ursa of Urartu heard of the destruction of Mugagir, the capture of his god, Haldia, with his own hand, with the iron dagger of his girdle, his life he ended." ^ In several ways, neverthe- less, the story does not ring true, and even without docu- ments from the Haldian side, its truth might be doubted. With the account of Rusash himself we can understand the general course of events.^^ The Mannai lay between Haldia and Mugagir.^^^ Nat- urally, the two were united against them. As the more powerful, Rusash controlled Mugagir. As a perpetual re- minder of this control, Rusash followed Assyrian precedents and erected a statue of his national god Haldia^^ in Mugagir, Parachoatras (Elburz). Billerbeck, Suleimania, 156, places them north of L. Urmia in the Anzal region. We may see another reference to Andia in the Kalhu inscription, 9, of Adad nirari. * ^D. 76 /. ^^ The Topsana stele. Cf. chap. I. n, 63. ^^ The place is called Mugagir in the Assyrian, but Ardine in the Haldian Topsana stele. The latter is clearly related to the Haldian sun god Ardinish, although curiously enough the gods of the city are Haldia and Bagabartu. The site has been fixed by the discovery of this stele as at a ruin between Sidikin and the Kelishin Pass, Belck, Zeitschr. f. Ethn., 1899, 103. ^ That the Haldia of the Assyrian inscriptions was the chief god Haldish of the Haldians was already seen by Oppert, Pastes, 8 n. 3. The use of Haldi as a god's name is common in the later days of Assyria, cf. Johns, Deeds, index. The contract K. 358 =: J. 416 is especially interesting, for we have here a Rusa', a Haldi ibni, and a Haldi ugur, and this in the year 710. Cf. also the Elamite deity, as e. g., in Humma haldash. Perhaps Oppert, Zeitschr. f. Assyr., 1887, 106, is right in comparing the Handita (Haldita), the father of Arahu, the Armenian, Behistun Ins., HI. 78. 112 WESTERN ASIA IN THE DAYS OF SARGON while the native, and probably Iranian, Bagabartu,^* was degraded to the station of a consort. Sargon took the field, probably in person, to aid the Mannai against this combination. After a preliminary ex- pedition against Elli and Zikirtu, he found himself within the great mountain barrier which now forms the boundary between Persia and Turkey,^^ and within striking distance of Mugagir. Rusash hurried south, breaking through the Mannai, to come to the help of his ally. As Sargon ad- vanced, Rusash took up his position on Mount Uaush. A battle was fought and Sargon was victorious, the body guard, two hundred and forty Haldians of the blood royal, being completely destroyed.^ Then, after a stop at Hu- '* Rost, Mittheil, Vorderasiat. Gesellsch., 1897, 2, 86 reads the name of Bagabartu as Bagamashtu, i. e., Baga, " god," plus Mazda. Even if sht can represent zd, op. cit., 11 1 f., it is still unlikely that the third sign should be read mash instead of bar. The former is used in Assyrian and, according to Jensen, Wiener Zeitschr. f. Kunde Morgenl., VI. 61, is the Elamitish value also. But bar is the common value in Assyrian and the only one in Haldian. As Assyrian was used in Mugagir, as the seal of Urzana and his letters show, and as Haldian also was probably known, since we have the Topsana stele close to Mugagir and a Haldian hegemony in that region, we must prefer the value bar. For bartu, cf. Bardanes or Bardiya. Baga is generally taken to mean god and to indicate that this is an Iranian deity. On the other hand, K. 1067 =:H. 139, with its mention of Teshv^ and the name Urzana itself, seems to point to Haldian. It is probable that both in Mannai and in Mugagir, Iranian and Haldian elements were pretty much intermingled by this time. Prism B. calls Bagabartu the ishtar or consort of Haldia. For a weaker god thus becoming the consort of a stronger, cf. M. Jastrow, Religion of Assyria and Babylonia, 1898, 49. ^ The topography as well as the strategy of this campaign has been most admirably worked out as a result of minute personal knowledge gained on the spot, by W. Belck, Zeitschr. f. Ethn., 1899, 99 fF. In general, I have followed his reconstructions. ^A. 107 if. Rusash is said to have mounted a mare and fled to Haldia. For the flight on mare's back and its disgrace, cf. the mare THE ARMENIAN WARS II3 bushkia to receive again the tribute of the iansu of Nairi, he suddenly turned to the west and made a dash upon Mugagir. The Httle mountain stronghold, confident in the inaccessibility of the direct road from Arbela, was taken in the rear by this dash through the Kelishin Pass,^^ and cap- tured. Urzana,^^ its king, fled to Rusash and left his city episode of Sardurish after the battle with Tiglath Pileser III, Nimnid II, 35. Land for five kasbu from Mt. Uaush to Mt. Ziharadussu and Mt. Uishdish was taken and given to Ullusunu. The Annals has next a mutilated passage naming places captured. They are probably to be referred to the Mannai, though Streck, op. cit., wavers between these and Urartu. They are Ushqaia at the entrance of the land of Zaran- ? ; ?-ibr(?)ina; Mallau ; Durigliraksatu( ?) with 140 of its towns; the city of Ashtania which is in Bit Sangibuti, this last being clearly out of place. Billerbeck, Suleimania, 80 n. 2 ; the cities of Tarui and Tarmukisa in the land of Dala- ? ; Ulhu which lay at the foot of Mt. Kishpal ; X,+ 2i strongholds and 140 towns of Mt. Arzabria, this also in K. 5464; X strongholds, 30 towns in the land of Armadalli(?) ; some regions near Mt. Ubianda ; the city of Arbu where Rusash did something; the city ?-tar(?) sha and two others; some strongholds of the land of Araid, perhaps Armaid, Streck, op. cit., 139, which was on the sea shore, naturally of Urmia, though Streck, /. c, takes it to be Van ; the cities of Ar- ?-u and Kadulania on Mt. Argi- ? and in the regions of Mt. Arzunia(?); and 5 strongholds and 30 lowns of Mt. Uaiaush, perhaps to be connected with Mt. Uaush. In the text, I have followed Belck's reconstruction of the campaign. But S. I. 46 ff. places the great battle after the capture of Mugagir. Although the stele is a display inscription, it belongs to the better class and may be correct here. A defeat by Rusash after the capture of Mugagir would certainly account for the Assyrian evacuation and retreat as well as for the return of Rusash. Still, this may be a mere error and the winter a sufficient cause for retreat. " The mountains are Seak, Ardi- ?-shi, Ulaiau, Alluria. Maspero, Empires, 248, reads the second as Ardinish, probably correctly, com- paring it with the Haldian sun god. It is probably to be connected with the native name of Mugagir, Ardine. ^ Urzana is called Urz an ashe and Urzanani on the Topsana stele. Streck, op. cit., 63 n. i, makes the name Urza plus na. His seal is often pictured, e. g., Maspero, Empires, 249. He is the author of the letter Rm. 2, 2 = H. 409 (cf. last chapter) and of S. 1056 = H. 768, 8 I 14 WESTERN ASIA IN THE DAYS OF SARGON to be plundered. The relief which Sargon erected to com- memorate the plunder of the great temple and the carrying of the gods, Haldia and Bagabartu, into captivity, has been preserved and merits study. On it we have the temple with its curiously Greek pediment, its banded columns, its votive shields hung up in front, its great bull-footed lavers in the forecourt, and its statue of a she wolf suckling her young in front. Here, too, we have the Assyrian soldiers climbing to the top or running along its sloping roof, while on a nearby tower an Assyrian officer sits on a camp-stool and the scribes stand before him to reckon up the spoil. And, indeed, they might reckon it in good earnest, for, if we could believe the Assyrian scribes themselves, the spoil from this little mountain village was greater than that taken from Carchemish, the great merchant city of the West ! ^ Thus far we have followed the Assyrian account, and in general it has seemed trustworthy enough. Here it sud- denly breaks off, and we have no further military informa- tion. Instead, we are told of the suicide of Rusash. It would be difficult to give a rational reason for this suicide, for a single defeat in the enemy's country and the capture of a god in a city a hundred miles away from his own capital is hardly enough. Fortunately, we have his own account to guide us from this point. about the transport of horses and sheep. S. 358 mentions his brother. He is mentioned in connection with a military report in 81-7-27, 46, while Rm. 554 not only refers to Urzana, but also to Uasi and to Hubushkia, cf. Bezold, Catalogue. Rost, op. cit., 113, compares the Uarzan of the Median list. ^ The bas relief is Botta II. 141, often published, e. g., Maspero, Empires, 59. The booty included mules, oxen(?), sheep,, gold, silver, bronze, jewels, masses of colored stuffs and clothing. We are told that there was taken 34 talents of gold, 160 of silver. Compare this with the modest 1 1 of gold from Carchemish. Here we may mention Uabti, a city of Mugagir, mentioned on the Urzana seal. THE ARMENIAN WARS 115 The greater part of the year had evidently been taken up with these operations. Winter was now coming on. With the scarcity of forage on these mountain heights, to winter in Mugagir was impossible. Yet the direct road home through Arbela was impractical for an army, even if there was no enemy to harass his retreat. The only thing to do was to turn back and follow his old track. Rusash returned, re-established Urzana, and rebuilt the temple. The next year Rusash took the offensive and " went to battle to the Assyrian mountains,'' "^^ probably by the Arbela road. As no victories are claimed it may be presumed that none were gained. Rusash then erected a stele near Mugagir detailing his version of the events. Later, perhaps in the year fol- lowing, a fresh expedition by the Assyrians again succeeded in reaching the place and partially mutilated this record of their disgrace.*^ This is the last we hear of Rusash. His work was done, and Assyria had learned that Haldia was not to be con- quered. He died about 711, and was succeeded by his son, Argishtish. Under this new ruler new conditions arose which must be discussed in a later chapter.'*^ " Topsana stele, i6. " D. 78 would seem to indicate another invasion of Haldia which took place after the alleged death of Rusash. But this is identical with S. I. 42-45, where it is placed after the capture of Mugagir, but before the death story. Both appear to be abbreviations of the badly mutilated A. 132-137. This belongs, not to Urzana, as a first glance might indicate, but to Rusash himself. Itti at the beginning of 132 is frequently used to add one account to another. Sums of money are given. "Ursa their king," 136, clearly refers back, not forward. The account ends with the addition of the land of Mashshi to Assyria and the placing over it the chief of the palace. Prism B. deals in detail with this expedition, but practically nothing can be gained, as the long lists of booty cannot be assigned to any event or place. " The chronology of the Armenian campaigns here given varies much from that of the Annals. It has already been seen, Winckler, Il6 WESTERN ASIA IN THE DAYS OF SARGON S argon, XXII, n. 2, that the events of 716 in the Annals really ex- tended over several years. Prism B. has references to Urartu and to Mannai already in year III, 719, and here we must begin the wars. Unfortunately, we cannot make out enough of year IV, 718, to be sure what country was attacked. Rm. 2, 97, however, helps us out, for under 718 we have ana a]lu(?) Mannai, "against Mannai." To 719 we must attribute, with the Annals, the revolt of the towns from Iranzu. In 718, we would have the death of Iranzu, the short reigns of Aza and of Bagdatti, and the accession of Ullusunu. The Annals places the Papa and Lallukna episode in 717. More probably it, too, should be in 718. We know that all this must be before 717, for the Annals, whose order seems generally to be better than its ascription of dates, makes all these events precede the expedition against Ashur liu of Karalla, and his account begins year V, 717, in Prism B. Here, too, belongs the appointment of governors, Rm. 2, 97. We place therefore the troubles with Ullusunu, with Ashur liu, and with Itti in 717. As we have thus taken one year earlier in the Annals, we expect that the events there listed under 715 really belong to 716. This is confirmed by Rm. 2, 97, for under this year we have ? di (al) Mugagir Haldia. While it is not clear just what this means, it certainly shows that Haldia and Mugagir were the center of attraction in that year. Prism B. only lets us know that Rusash was this year intriguing in Que. Following our plan of subtracting one year from the Annals date, we would place the great Mugagir war in 715. Rm. 2, 97, disappoints us by no reference to Haldia, but this is more than made up by Prism B. where col. III. is entirely devoted to the events of year VII, 715, and deals only with Haldia and the large booty taken thence. The year 714 would then be free for the expedition of Rusash against Assyria men- tioned on the Topsana stele, Prism B. dealing only with small wars in the east, while Rm. 2, 97 has nothing at all of a military nature. Then 713 would do for the return trip of Sargon, and sure enough we have a mention of an expedition against Mugagir on Rm. 2, 97 for this year. This ended the Armenian wars, for Rm. 2, 97 under 712 has ina mati, " in the land." About this time, or a little later, Rusash probably died. CHAPTER VI THE MEDIAN WARS Judged rather by their results than by the details of their progress, the wars with the Median tribes, begun under Shalmaneser II in 836 and carried on by the later Assyrian kings with ever-decreasing hopes of success, deserve a large part in general history. Drifting westward as petty un- connected tribes, at war often with each other, they gradu- ally drove in or conquered the more or less Assyrianized tribes along the eastern frontier, and then began to assail the empire itself. For a time the better trained Assyrian soldiers succeeded in beating them off, but the task was never-ending and the drain severe. The destruction of one clan meant only room for another to expand in, while all the time they were learning from the enemy. At last As- syria, now defended almost exclusively by mercenaries, them- selves of Iranian extraction in many cases, fell, and then the collapse of Babylon was merely a question of time. Yet so thoroughly had they been transformed by the contact with their more civilized neighbors that, when at last they had conquered what was then the civilized world, they were found to stand for almost the same ideas in government and social life as did those who had preceded them in the way of empire. Here we have an interesting parallel in the evolution which led our Germanic ancestors from the idea of the rude chief with his band of personal attendants to the conception of the Holy Roman Empire. Interesting, however, as a study of these general movements may be, the 117 Il8 WESTERN ASIA IN THE DAYS OF SARGON details of this constant border warfare are dry to study and difficult to handle. Thanks to the exertions of Tiglath Pileser III and to the provincial organization he brought to so high a pitch of efficiency, Sargon was well situated as regards these tribes. On the northeast and between Arbela and Mugagir was the province of Kirruri which had been Assyrian territory since the ninth century.^ At this time the governor was Shamash upahhir.- To the south of this was Parsuash,^ and again, to the south of this last, between the l-ower Zab and the Diyala, on the first outliers of the eastern mountains, lay that of Arapha,* now governed by Ishtar Duri.^ To the east of this was Lullume, an ill-defined province in the ^For Kirruri, cf. A. Billerbeck, Suleimania, 1898, 20 If. This elabo- rate and painstaking work gives references to, and discusses all the sections of, the inscriptions dealing with this frontier. Naturally, in such pioneer work, the identifications can only be approximate. In the case of the regions to the north, they are to be considerably cor- rected by the location of Mugagir by Belck, cf. chap. V. n. ^2. In this very case, for example, he places Kirruri with its center at the Kelishin Pass. It is rather the region between Mugagir and Arbela. ^ That Shamash up ahhir was governor of Kirruri in 708 we know from Rm. 2, 97. For other references, cf. Johns, Deeds, III. 112. In his list of governors, II. 136, Shamash upahhir should be read for Shamash bel ugur. It is of course not proved that Shamash upahhir was governor already at this time, but it seems probable. ' Billerbeck, op. cit., 60, places Parsua in the Persian region of Minde south of Lake Urmia. While this may mark the extreme limits of the region called by that name, I feel that the province was much more to the west. We know from A. 67 that Parsuash was a province at this time, but no governor is known by name till much later, Johns, Deeds, II. 137. * Arapha is thus located by Billerbeck, op. cit., 68. Its correctness can hardly be doubted. "For Ishtar Duri, see Johns, Deeds, III. 95; cf. also II. 135. He was eponym in 714. " For Lullume, the home of the early Lulli people, cf. Billerbeck, op. cit., 7 /. It was a region which seems never to have been very clearly THE MEDIAN WARS II9 Shehrizor highland, whose governor, Sharru emur ani,"^ whose residence probably was at the modern Suleimania, bore the brunt of the conflict. We may now take up the operations in detail. First we have the operations of the governor of Parsuash (717). A number of towns^ of the land Niksama were plundered, and Sipu sharru, the ruler of Shurgardia, probably a re- volted subject,^^ was captured. Lying as they did on the Parsuash frontier, they were naturally added to that province. The governor next advanced to Kishesim,^^ the most important town in the Parsuash region, and captured and carried off the komarch Bel shar ugur, whose name re- minds us of the Biblical Belshazzar. The site of Kishesim seemed well adapted to be the seat of a province. The name was accordingly changed to Kar Adar, the Ashur cult introduced, and the usual stele erected. The new province whose capital Kar Adar became, embraced the greater part of the Parsuash region.^^ defined. As a province, Lullume seems only a later name for Mazamua, cf. Billerbeck, op. cit., 39 if. The last reference to Mazamua is in 7ZZ, the first to Lullume in 712, ^Sharru emur ani was governor of Lullume in 712, Johns, Deeds, n. 136; in. 188. Prism B. expressly ascribes one of these expeditions to the governor of Lullume, see below. * These were Ganun of the land of La( ?) and six towns of Niksama. ' Niksama is the Sauch Bulak region, Billerbeck, op. cit.^ 95. ^ Winckler, Gesch., 242. " Kishesim is placed by Billerbeck, op. cit., 98, at the great ruins of Shah i viran, north of Sauch Bulak, at Sikkis, or at the ruins of Siama between Serdesht and Bane. " So Billerbeck, op. cit., 97. Prism B. repeats some of these facts and adds tribute of treasure, horses, and mules. Kishassu, as it was then called, was still in the hands of the Assyrians in the last days of Esarhaddon, K. 4668 = Knudtzon No. i. The relief Botta I. 68, 68, cf. Maspero, Empires, 241, represents the firing and capture of I20 WESTERN ASIA IN THE DAYS OF SARGON Troubles in Harhar^^ next engaged the attention of the governor. Here the pro-Assyrian feelings of the komarch Kibaba had caused his expulsion, and Harhar was brought into close relation to Dalta of Elli. As that individual had not yet won the fame of a " loyal vassal who loved my yoke,"^* praise so gladly given when Dalta was dead and the strife of his sons gave so good an opportunity for inter- vention, this was considered good ground for similar action here. To be sure, poor Kibaba was not reinstated. In fact, if we may accept one account,^^ he was actually made captive himself. The city of Harhar, defended, as one of the reliefs shows,^^ by an isolated rock citadel within the city, which itself was surrounded by a good-sized stream, was taken and plundered, its men impaled, and the usual procedure of setting up the stele, the introducing of the Ashur cult, and the settling of foreigners, gone through, while the name of the city which was defended by high triple walls with crenallations. Winckler, Gesch., 242, thinks that here, as in the case of Ashur liu, the Assyrian name means a revolted governor. But it only shows Assyrian or perhaps rather Babylonian influence. Certain other lands were also added to the province. Bit Sagbat is the city Sagbat of D. 139 and the Bit Sakbat of Tiglath Pileser III, Clay Tablet, 31. Biller- beck, op. cit., 92, places it at an earlier time northeast of Lake Zeribor ; but at this time it was more to the south on the Khorkhoran and upper Kisil usen, ib., 96. The land of Bit Umargi is compared, Rost, Mitth. Vorderasiatischer Gesellschaft, 1897, 2, 87, with the Amyrgioi of Herod. VII. 64 and Steph. Byz., s. v., Amyrgion, a Scythian clan. The next city is read Hashubarban by Winckler, Har Bagmashtum by Hiising, in Rost, op. cit., 87. The other cities are Kilambati and Armangu. In A. and XIV, they are called " lands," in D. 60 " towns." Billerbeck, op. cit., 97, makes their conquest due only to a desire to protect the Parsua province against the Medes. " Harhar is placed by Billerbeck, op. cit., 63, at Hejaj on the upper Dyala. " D. 117. The statement "Dalta was restored to favor," Maspero, op. cit., 242, cannot be accepted. "D. 61. " Botta I. 55, also in Maspero, Empires, 357. THE MEDIAN WARS 121 the place was changed to Kar Sharrukin, or Sargon's fortress.^^ To the province thus formed were added the six small " states " now plundered and taken.^^ At about the same time the governor in his new capital received the tribute from twenty-eight komarchs of the "mighty Medes." " In the next year, 716, the efforts to extend the province were continued. Some of the towns conquered the last year were again forced to pay tribute, while more new ones were visited.-^ The details of some of these campaigns are " Billerbeck, op. cit., 99 n., makes the statement that the old name Harhar is more used in later times than Kar Sharrukin. But the latter occurs in the letter Rm. 2, 464, as well as in K. 609 = H. 126, 650 = H. 128, 683 =:H. 556, S. 167. "The upper canal of Aranzeshu, the Erinziashu of Tiglath Pileser III, Annals, 43, in the region either of the Belad Russ stream, or the old stream between the Kisil robat and the Khanikhend rud, Biller- beck, op. cit., 75. The lower canal of Bit Ramatua, the Raraatea of Tiglath Pileser, Annals, 44, the rich region between the Elvend rud, the Dyala, and the Guovratro, Billerbeck, op. cit., 76 ; Urikatu. Sikris, the Shikra (ki) of the Clay Tablet, 32, 37 ; Slab II. 23, perhaps at Sirkuh east of Kameron and north of Dinaver, or else further east at Sirkau at the south foot of Elvend, Billerbeck, op. cit., 90. Shaparda. Uriakku. Here too, with Billerbeck, op. cit., 80 n. 2, we should prob- ably place the reference to Ashtania of Bit Sangibuti in A. 113 where it is clearly out of place. Billerbeck, /. c, locates it in the Derud valley. "Whether the Medes, the "mighty" Medes, the "distant" Medes, and the " Medes of the region of the eastern Arabs " are all of the same race is not certain. ^ We have again mention of the upper and lower canals of Bit Sangibuti which takes the place of the Bit Ramatua of the other list, of Upparia which stands for Uriakku, of Sikris, of Shuparda, A. 83-84. Another list, A. 85-86, gives the cities of Kaqunakinzarbara, of Halbuknu, of Shu . . . al, of Anzaria, a region on the lower canal. Upparia, the Niparia of Tiglath Pileser, Slab II, 22; Clay Tablet, 31, is placed by Billerbeck, op. cit., 90, south of the Gabe rud and east of Shaho Dagh. It occurs in Prism A. as Uppuria. Shuparda would appear to be the Sapardai of Knudtzon 11, mentioned with the Mannai 122 WESTERN ASIA IN THE DAYS OF SARGON shown in the bas-rehefs which once adorned the palace of Sargon. On one-^ we see Kindau, a town with high walls around a great central tower. It is situated in a swamp across which a causeway leads to the town. On another^^ we see Gauguhtu, a city on a hill with double walls against which mining operations are being carried on. A third^^ shows us Kisheshlu with its double wall around a rocky hill surrounded by water, with three battering rams working against them. These cities, once taken, were given Assy- rian names and formed into Assyrian municipalities.^* Kar Sharrukin was again strengthened against the Medes, who still remained dangerous, even if twenty-two chiefs did send presents.-^ Indeed, the operations continued the next year, 715. The as well as with the Persian Sparda which has generally been identified with the Sepharad of Obadiah, 20. ^Botta I. 61. ^ Botta II. 28. Billerbeck, op. cit., 102, compares the Ginhuhtu of Shamshi Adad. III. 58, but this is in the north. ^^ Botta, II, 147. These places are located northeast and east of Shehrizor, Billerbeck, op. cit., 102. ^* These were Kisheshlu, Kinddau, Auzaria, Bit Bagaia (var. Bit Gabaiia), their names being changed to Kar Nabu, Kar Siu, Kar Adad, Kar Ishtar. We have sculptures of Ganguhtu, ?ambarukur( ?), Sinn, ?ikrakka, Kindau, Kisheshlu, Bit Bagaia. Rost, op. cit., 86 n. i, com- pares the Persian Bagaios of Herod. Ill, 128. Does the variation between Bagaia and Gabaia indicate confusion caused by an Aramaean scribe accustomed to write from right to left? ^A. 89, cf. D. 66. The campaign ended with the capture of twenty- five hundred men from Kimirra, a city of Bit Hamban. A Bit Su-?-za(?) is also mentioned. Bit Hamban or Habban is in the Hurin valley northwest of Zohab, Billerbeck, op. cit., 14. These references to Bit Hanban, Namri, Hashmar in the introductions are probably not to be taken seriously, as they seem to be only learned touches. Biller- beck, op. cit., 104, sees in the whole series of movements a reconnaissance in force of the passes along the Susian border in preparation for a Susian campaign. I believe my reconstruction much more nearly represents the truth. THE MEDIAN WARS I 23 Mannai and Elli were once more forced to pay tribute, as well as certain princelets who had never done the like to the kings, his fathers.^^ The main event of the year, however, was the defeat of Mitatti of Zikirtu,-^ who had twice con- spired to raise a revolt among the Mannai. At last, an attempt was made thoroughly to root out the Zikirtai. Their three strong places, their twenty-four towns, even their capital, Parda, was taken, plundered, and burned. Mitatti was forced to flee, and " his place of abode was not found." ^^ A few years later Zikirtai was once more in revolt. Thus far we seem to be dealing only with the unknown governor of Parsuash. In 714 we learn of the operations of Sharru emur ani, the governor of LuUume.^^ As a result of the troubles of 717, Karalla had been made part of the ^A. loi if. Only Ziziragala is mentioned by name. " The identification of Zikirtu with the Persian clan Sargartioi, Herod. I. 125, is now accepted. ^*A. 107, paraphrased by Maspero, Empires, 24,7, "disappeared from the pages of history." Just below, A. 106, adi is " samt," not '"de- serted by" as Maspero, /. c. Billerbeck, op. cit., 103, places here D. 70. We may note in this place the Zikirtian town of Ki- ?-bi of the sculptures. The list of Median princelings in Prism A. has been placed in various years by various authors. On that prism it occurs just after the Dalta episode. If we may trust that document, and I thinly we may, I do not see where else we can place it than here, for we have a suitable tribute of the Medes and the main Dalta story just previous. The list has been so well studied by Rost, Mitth. Vorderasiat. Gesellsch., 1897, 2, iii if., that I shall merely refer to it and not repeat the names. The identifications with places mentioned in Ptolemy and other classical authors are numerous. Where the list throws light on other matters, it is quoted. On Luh barbari, however, cf. also Johns, Deeds, III. 413, where it is explained "jackal's jaw." A comparison there given of various place names from a root Ih' is more valuable perhaps. ^ Prism B. states that this region was handed over to the governor of Lullume who was Sharru emur anni, as Johns, Deeds^ III. 188, shows. He was eponym in 712. 124 WESTERN ASIA IN THE DAYS OF SARGON province.^^ Under Amitashshi, the brother of the unfor- tunate Ashur liu, the natives rose and drove out their As- syrian oppressors. Sharru emur ani returned with an army, and a battle was fought on the mountain called Ana.^^ The people of Karalla were defeated and Amitashshi, bound hand and foot, was carried off to Assyria, while two thou- sand of his troops were forced to take service in the royal armv.^2 Bit Daiukku and the surrounding lands were raided and plundered, and the whole of the newly-conquered region added to the Lullume province.^^ At about the same time operations were carried on along the Elli frontier, perhaps by Sharru emur ani, more prob- ably by Ishtur Duri, the governor of Arapha.^* Dalta^'' had ^ The passage in A. 68 is mutilated, but this formation of a province is proved by A. 140 ff. ^^ The name of the mountain is written An-a. This is probably the correct reading, but one suspects the possibility of some folk etymology connected with the other values of An, shatnu, " heaven," then a " mountain heaven high " or ilu, " god," a " mountain of the gods." Both are unlikely. '^A. 141 ff. Sculp., i., VIII. 17, B, 14. ^ This Bit Daiukku of A. 140 has clear affinities with Deiokes, as does the Daiukku already discussed, cf. chap. V. n. 24. Winckler, Unter- such., 117, accepts the connection with the latter, but not with the former. A. 140-57 seems to fall into three sections corresponding to the Elli, Bit Daiukku, and Karalla of A. 139-40. As A. 140-43 belongs to the last and 152-57 to the first, the remainder must belong to the other. These lines are too mutilated for Winckler to translate. We have here a plunder of the land of Mapatira, a reference to Elli, and something done to or for Azuk. In the version of Hall V, we have references to the land of Mi-?-ku, of ?-me- ?melu-hal, and two others, and to the city of Hubahme. In Prism B. we have Rakkairi and Irakka who seem to be some sort of foreign officials sent with the tribute of Amitashshi. The land was handed over to the governor of Lullume and tribute inflicted on Kirhi, Karalla, and Namri. ^For full account of Elli, see Billerbeck, op. cit., 157 ff. The name is written Ellipi or EUibi, but this last part is only the plural sign, Billerbeck, /. c. ^'' Dalta is interpreted by Justi, Nanienhuch, s. v., as the " supporter THE MEDIAN WARS 125 now changed his poUcy ; for the revolt of five of his border districts, seemingly to the Elamitish ruler, had forced him to invite the Assyrians to assist him. The Assyrians ac- cepted gladly and secured the districts in question, but there is no proof that they were ever returned to Dalta. Elli was now brought fairly within the Assyrian sphere of in- fluence, and only the death of Dalta was needed to produce actual intervention.^^ In this connection we are told of tribute received by the governor of Parsuash. This was probably not all taken in one year. It must rather represent the relations of that official with the tribes to the east during the interval for which we have no other history. Certain it is that we can- not see here actual expeditions in the field. Among the of the state." If this is correct, then we have a Median ruling race among the old Anzanitish peoples, Billerbeck, op. cit., 162. ^A. 152 if. is badly mutilated, D. 70 ff. is less full, the Prisms add a little. In both, he is called malik or " prince." There seems to be a reference to the princes of Haldini. Or should we read Haldinishe and see in the last sign the Haldian nominative? He took upon him- self the ilqu or feudal obligation of [Rusash], but when Sargon came, took to a high mountain from which he was brought down, K. 560 = H. 227 is a letter from Nergal etir, perhaps the well-known astrologer, concerning a messenger from Dalta who has come before the king on business apparently connected with horses. This has already been referred to Sargon by Johns, Deeds, II. 149. In K. 526 =: H. 226 = Delitzsch, Beitr. z. Assyr., I, 202 if., the same official states that a man detailed from the body guard came on the sixth of Airu and the horses were brought on the next day. The two seem to go together. Biller- beck, op. cit., 105, who thinks that all troubles here were connected with Susa, makes this an attempt of the Assyrian general staff to learn, by a reconnaissance in force, the practicability of certain passes leading into Elam. But local conditions sufficiently explain all the movements. K. 665 = H. 194 a letter from Naid ilu refers to D]alta in an un- certain connection. The writer refers to the collecting of Bit Ukanai, if the name is to be so read, and asks that a letter be sent regarding Sharru emur anni, the eponym of 712, who was governor of Lullume and as such charged with the pacification of this region, cf. n. 29. 126 WESTERN ASIA IN THE DAYS OF SARGON tribes which sent presents were those of the Bikni^' or Demavend region, clearly near the Caspian and as clearly in a region where no Assyrian army ever penetrated.^* These were next neighbors to the somewhat mysterious Arabs of the east^^ and of the land of Nagira**' of the ^ These were the city of Erishtana, the Diristanu of D. 67, with the towns around it in the land of Ba'it ili, a region of Media in the land of EUi, according to Sayce, Records of the Past^V. 153, the country about Bisutun, but better taken with Billerbeck, op. cit., 106 n. i, as the region about Kirmanshah ; the lands of Absahutti ; Parnuatti ; Utirna ; Uriakki ; Rimanuti, a region of Uppuria, Uiadane ; Bustus, also Tiglath Pileser, Clay Tablet, 31 ; Slab, II. 22, according to Billerbeck, /. c. Takht i Bostan or rather the region to the south of it about Bisutun for which see Steph, Byz., s. v., Bagisiana ; Azazi, according to Rost, op. cit., 83, the Azaza of Ptol. VI. 2. 8, but Billerbeck, op. cit., 105, places Azazi and Uaidame about Kirmanshah and the rich region of Dinaver and Kasr i Shirin ; Ambanda, according to Justi, Beitr. zur Alien Geog. Persiens, 1869, I. 23, quoted Billerbeck, op. cit., 105 n. 2, is the Achaemenian Kampanda, the present Chamabadan on the upper Gamas ab, but according to Billerbeck, op. cit., 106 n. 3, it is about Nehavend where there are important ruins ; Dananu the Zangun south- east of Doletabad, Billerbeck, op. cit., 106 n. 4; these last three are distant regions bordering on the "eastern Arabs." A. 158 if. D. 67 if. ^ Bikni is not mentioned in the Annals, a proof of its being " learned." It seems to be the Demavend, Winckler, Sargon, XXVII n. 3. Rost, op. cit., 77, compares the Abakaina of Ptol. VI. 2. 17. ^ These eastern Aribi are very puzzling. Delitzsch, Kossder, II. n. 3, takes Aribi as a general word for nomad and compares the " Arabian " dynasty of Berossus which is really Kossaean. I suspect there is some truth in this view. Finzi, Ricerche, 514 /., quoted by A. Delattre, Medes., 1883, 106, compares the Aribes of Strabo. XV. 2. i, and of Dionysius Periegetes 1096. For these Aribes, Arbies, etc., of the east, see the full discussion in note, Geog. Minor es, I. 335. Delattre, /. c, compares with more probability the Arabians of Iran who were forced to submit to Seleucus, Appian, Syriaca, 55. Billerbeck, op. cit., 108, would find their descendants in the nomad races who still wander in winter to the salt marshes of Tushu Gol near Sultanabad, but in the summer come far west, nearly to the frontier, *Nagiru is placed by Billerbeck, op. cit., 107, about Kengovar Tulan and the region Mekhoran near the head of the Gamas rud. THE MEDIAN WARS 12/ '' mighty " Mandai*^ who had thrown off the yoke of Ashur and were encamped on mountain and steppe. The tribute received from Ullusunu of Mannai and of Adar aplu iddin was more in the nature of the real thing. But, again, in the tribute of several thousand horses and mules, sheep and cattle sent in by forty-five chiefs of the "mighty" Medes, we have only the usual presents.*- Only once more does there seem to have been trouble along this frontier, and then it was not serious. By 708 Dalta of Elli had ''gone the way of death," and his two sons, Nibe and Ishpabara,''^ contested his throne. Nibe called in Shutruk nahunta, none the worse it would seem for his Assyrian wars, while his brother summoned Sargon. Shutruk nahunta sent four thousand five hundred bowmen to garrison Elli, but the seven generals of Sargon won the day. The capital, Marubishtu,^* situated on a high moun- " It is tempting to connect the Mandai with the Umman Manda of the later inscriptions or even with the Mandaeans or so-called Sabaeans. Neither is at all probable. Winckler, Sargon, XXVII. n. 3, has shown that they are Medes. I would go a step further and suggest that Mandai dannuti is a mere error for Madai danniiti, the '' power- ful " Medes. Did the scribe start to write Mannai ? Winckler, Forsch., II. 74, sees in Sharrakish, " desert," the first use of Saracen. But it would be certainly curious to find it first used in Media. "A. 162 ff.; D. 69. Prism B. gives to this year also an expedition against the land of Bagris and the leader of the opposition was brought to Sargon. Billerbeck, op. cit., 106 if., has worked out an elaborate system of campaigning, parallel columns and all the rest. The vital objection to all this is that we have to do, not with real expeditions, but merely with tribute presentations. ** Justi, Namenbuch, s. v., makes Nibe the old Persian waiha, the Pahlevi Niwika, and Ishpabara or Ashpabara the Astibares of Ctesias and a number of other Iranian forms all meaning " Ritter." In K. 1025 = H. 159, Eshtar duri sends the king certain information about the cavalry of Nibe. The rest is too mutilated for translation. "Billerbeck, op. cit., 127, compares with Marubishti the region Mahidesht. He locates it between Kirmanshah and Hulelan, at the pass south of Kargan. 128 WESTERN ASIA IN THE DAYS OF SARGON tain, was captured and rebuilt, Nibe made prisoner, and Ishpabara placed on the throne."*^ The revolt of Ishpabara only six years later* is only one indication among many of the untenable position the As- syrians held in Media. The attempt to hold back the ad- vancing Median hordes was an impossible one, but Sargon did what he could and at least somewhat postponed the evil day. "A. 402 if.; D. 117 ff. *" Prism II. 8 fF. The prayers, Knudtzon 23, 75, etc., show that by the time of Esarhaddon, Elli was entirely lost. *^ In the account of the Median wars, I have again followed the chronology of Prism B. in preference to that of the Annals, thus placing the events one year earlier than is usually done. The only additional evidence is to be gained from Rm. 2, 97, where an expedition against Elli is given for 715. This agrees well enough with Prism B. Nat- urally, any definite chronology of such continuous frontier wars must be somewhat artificial. CHAPTER VII THE ELAMITISH WARS AND THE CONQUEST OF BABYLON The campaigns of Sargon, after the first Babylonian troubles, fall into a definite series of movements. First came the settlement of Syrian affairs, then the advances on the northwest frontier and the struggles with Rusash and Midas. After this there had been no great movements, but constant wars along the Median and Asia Minor fron- tiers had exercised the troops as well as extended the boun- daries. At the same time an opportunity was given for recuperation and for preparation for new wars. The Median wars had already shown the influence of Shutur nahundi, who had ruled in Elam since 717.^ In Babylon, too, it was Elamitish support which helped to keep Merodach Baladan on the throne, and a movement to re- cover the old sacred city could not be better begun than by an attempt to disable the usurper's ally.^ Shutur nahundi held the same place in the affairs of the southeast as did Rusash in the north, Midas on the northwest, and Egypt on the southwest. Around each all the disaffection of that section centered and a conquest of each was essential to a lasting peace on that frontier. ^ Bab. Chron., I. 38 if. These lines are found in Delitzsch, Lesestiicke* not in the earlier editions. He is there called Ishtar hundu. The native name is Shutruk nahunta, cf., e. g., the brick in M. Dieulafoy, L'Acropole de Suse, 1893, 31 1- The Assyrian form is Shutur nahundi. ^ Lenormant, Les Premieres Civilizations, II. 202, made him a Baby- lonian patriot. Delattre, Rev. Quest. Hist., 1877, I. 538, and later writers go to the other extreme and make him a tyrant. It is only fair to read both sides of the case. 9 129 130 WESTERN ASIA IN THE DAYS OF SARGON It was therefore as a preliminary to the conquest of Babylon that Elam was invaded.^ Confused though the accounts are, we can yet, by the aid of the topography, give a fairly correct account of the operations. One division moved down southeast behind the Hamrin Hills, the first important elevation beyond the Babylonian plain, and at- tacked Dur Athara,* a Gambulu fort only sixty miles from Susa itself and on the direct road between that city and Babylon. This important post had already been fortified by Merodach Baladan and was now still more strengthened. Its walls were raised, a canal from the Surappu^ river drawn about it, and a force of four hundred infantry and six hun- dred cavalry thrown in. In spite of all this preparation, the fort was quickly taken, before nightfall, the scribes of Sar- gon boast, and the usual prisoners and booty of live stock carried off.^ If the plan of Sargon had been to advance from here direct upon Susa, he was doomed to disappoint- ment, for the road, though short, was too rough for an army - These campaigns have been worked out in detail by Billerbeck in his Susa, 1893. He has since, in his Suleimania, 1898, changed his opinion on certain points, but has not gone over again the ground in detail. As in the case of the Median wars, the excellence of his work must be admitted without believing that the last word has been said. * Billerbeck, Susa, 80, first placed Dur Athara on the Mendeli. Later he placed it more to the south at Sebo'a Kherib, Suleimania, 113 n, . Maspero, Empires, 256 n. 4, seems to have arrived independently at the same conclusion. In all probability, it is correct. ^ The Surappu has been identified with the Umm el Jemal by Delitzsch, Paradies, 195, and the Kekha by Delattre, Les Travaux, 39 n. 4, cited by Maspero, /. c. Neither is probable. Billerbeck, Mitth. Vorderasiat. Gesellsch., 1898, 2, 28, reconstructs the rivers of south Babylonia in ancient times and makes the Tigris of that time the Shatt el Hai, while the present lower Tigris is made the Surappu. I am more inclined to agree with Maspero, /. c, in making it the Tib; for this is the river naturally to be used, if Dur Athara is to be placed, with Billerbeck himself, at Sebo'a Kherib. A. 245 if. ELAMITISH WARS AND CONQUEST OF BABYLON I3I easily to traverse it even in time of peace, while in the face of an enemy it was utterly impossible."^ Something, however, had been accomplished. The direct road between Susa and Babylon was held by Dur Athara which was made the capital of a new province, while Dur ilu held the Susians back from a return attack on Assyria. With the new capital as a base, further advances were made. One detachment, perhaps trying to go around the south end of the Hamrin chain and so attack Susa on the flank, in- vaded the Uknu region,^ where, among their reed beds and swamps, the natives felt secure.^ Nevertheless, their towns were taken and eight chiefs came forth from their retreat and paid tribute in livestock.^^ All the region thus far taken was made a new province, that of Gambulu, with Dur Athara, now called Dur Nabu, as its capital. The nomads were ordered to settle,^^ and a cash tribute added to a tax of one out of twenty from their flocks. This province seems to have been well Assyrianized, and Dur Nabu, unlike most of these re-christenings, long retained that name. Years later, when Gambulian exiles are found settled near Harran, we find a Dur Nabu as one of their foundations.^^ Next came the attempt to extend the province to the south as well as to the southeast, a movement of importance, 'Thus Billerbeck, Suleimania, 114. 'Delitzsch, op. cit., 194, identified the Uknu with the Kerkha and this has been generally followed. The region here indicated seems to be the lower swamps of that stream, the Shatt el Jamus, so called from the buffaloes spending the day there with only their noses out of the water. *This we learn from H. Cf. Peiser, Zeitschr. f. Assyr., 1889, 412. "These were Ba(?)ar(?) ; Hazailu, cf. Johns, Deeds, III. 453; Handanu; Zabidu; Amai, cf. the city Ama of A. 275; la ; Amelu sharru iddin ; Aisam.mu. " So it would seem from A. 254 if. "Johns, Doomsday Book, 2, I. 19; cf. 4. III. 18. 132 WESTERN ASIA IN THE DAYS OF SARGON as it brought the army close to the ancestral home of Mero- dach Baladan. Here was captured Qarad Nanni, a town of Nabu ugalla, six regions of the Gambulu, and four of their strongholds.^^ Then, moving northeast, he attacked some of the greater tribes of the country, the Ru'a,^* the Pu- qudu,^^ the latburu,^ and the Hindaru. From the two somewhat different accounts which the scribe has neglected to amalgamated^ we learn that they fled by night and occu- pied the morasses of the Uknu. The Assyrian army first devastated their land and cut down their main means of support, the date palms. Then they advanced into the swamp where they found the Dupliash^ dammed and forti- " These were the Husiqanu, Tarbugati, Tibarsunu, Pashur, an un- known land, Hirutu, Hilmun. For the last, cf. the Hillimmu of D. 20. Winckler in his transliteration gives a break between 263 and 264. This is unjustified. In XII, the text is continuous, while in the other the six named lands of the one line correspond with the VI nage of the next. "According to Glaser, Skizze, 1890, 408, the Re'u of Gen. 11". K. 530 = H. 158 is from Ishtar duri, the well-known official. It describes how Nabu zer ibni, chief of the Rua, has escaped from Damascus from Bel duri who seems to have been the governor of that place. The name of the man he escaped to is mostly gone ; but traces allow us to restore Merodach Baladan who is mentioned later. He fled to the city Abdudi and his men met him. Just what the operations next described were the mutilated state of the text does not allow us to learn, but Me Turnat seems to have been surrounded. Some sort of a victory is probable where some were captured and settled. " The Peqod of Ezek. 23=^. "latbur was a rather ill-defined region extending along the Elamitish foothills. Billerbeck, Suleimania, map, brings it nearly as far north as the Dyala ; but this is certainly too far north for our present opera- tions. " A. 264-71 := 271-78. "The name of the stream generally given as Umliash is read, prob- ably correctly, by Billerbeck, Mitth. Vorderasiat. Gesellsch., 1898, 2, Dupuliash, Dupliash, on the basis of K. 1146, Winckler, Sammlung, II. 43, a letter from a chief of Nar Tupuli'ash to the king, perhaps to be placed here, Billerbeck, ib. Billerbeck, /. c, makes it the Duwary. ELAMITISH WARS AND CONQUEST OF BABYLON 1 33 fied by two strongholds. An indecisive battle was fought, but surrender was finally forced by starvation. Fourteen towns on the banks of the Uknu, the names differ in the two versions," presented their tribute of livestock to the governor in Dur Athara. Hostages were taken, taxes as- sessed, and they, too, became part of the new province.^^ Parallel with all these operations of one corps were those of another, which had its base at Dur ilu, and which directed its attention to the country to the north of Elam proper, where Elamitish influence was still strong. Here again we have two conflicting versions.^^ Two important places, Sam'una^^ and Bab duri,^^ were .taken, though whether they " The first version has lanuku of Zame ; Nabu ugalla of Qarad Nanni, according to H. 2 but now of Abure ; Pashshunu and Haukanu of Nuhanu; Sa'lu, a man in A. 268, a city in 275 (C), Sahalu, 275 (XIII), of Ibulu. All these were chiefs of the Puqudu. Abhata of the Ru'a ; Huninu, Same', Sapharu, Rapi', from the Hindaru. In the other list we have Zame, Abure, laptiru, Mahigu, Hilipanu, Dandan, Pattianu, Haimanu, Gadiati, Nuhanu, Ama, Hiuru, Sa'lu. In spite of the differences, we have here clearly two accounts of the same campaign. ^ While these conquests are frequently mentioned in the introductions of the various display inscriptions, cf. Billerbeck, /. c, 35 ff., there is a detailed and consecutive account only in the Annals. I have followed Maspero, Empires, 256, rather than Billerbeck, Susa, 80, Suleimania, 117 ff., in my location. I do not see how these tribes can be placed further north than I have done. The references to the marshes of the Uknu and to the palms seem to me to leave no other alternative. In the text, I have followed the account of the Annals. But I am not sure that all these do not refer to one series of more or less connected fights in the swamps. The Labdudu, or should we read Kaldudu? are mentioned only in P. IV. 72; D. 18, cf. K. 4286, Johns, Deeds, II. 171, and 83-1-18, 215, Winckler, Forsch., II 3 if. K. 1023 = H. 798 from Shamash bel ugur refers to flocks of the Labdudi. 2^ A. 178-81 = 281-84. ^ Samuna occurs also in Ashur bani pal, Rm. Cyl., V. 55 ; Sennacherib, Prism, V. 33. Maspero, Empires, 256 n. 2^ places it near Zirzirtepe, Billerbeck, Suleimania, 118, near Mendeli. ^ Bab duri is placed by both Maspero, /. c, and Billerbeck, op. cit., 117, at Hussenieh on the Aft ab. 134 WESTERN ASIA IN THE DAYS OF SARGON were outposts which Shutur nahundi had fortified against latburu, as one of the versions would have us believe,-* or whether these were towns of latburu and it was the towns of Ahilimmu and Pillutu^^ that were Elamitish, as the other asserts,^ we cannot pretend to know. The commanders of these cities, Sadunu and Sinlishshibu,-" were forced to sur- render, together with nearly twenty thousand soldiers, over a third of whom were Elamitish. In addition, there was taken much booty of wagons, horses, mules, asses, and camels. Samuna was rebuilt and named Bel ikisha. While still in camp here, tribute was received from a number of latburu chiefs whose tribes^^ were settled on the banks of the Naditu.2 The operations came to an end with the conquest of certain important towns in Rashi,^^ Til Humba, Dunni Shamash, Bube, and Hamanu.^^ The inhabitants retired to '' A. 278. ^Andreas, art. Alexandreia, 13, Pauly-Wissowa, Real Encyl., identi- fies Pillutu with the Pagum Pellaeum of Plin., VI. 138. Billerbeck, op. cit., 118, places it at Desht i Gulam, Maspero, /. c, at Tepe Ghulamen. A. 283 f. ^ Or perhaps Singamshibu, as Winckler, ad loc. ^ These were Mushezibu, Natnu, Ailunu, Daizzanu of the land of Lahiru, Airimmu, the komarch of Sulaia. Winckler for this last reads Bel Mahazu as a proper name since C. has VI nasikate but II. 26 which he seems not to have used reads only V and this is preferable. Lahiru or Lahirimmu is placed by Billerbeck, /. c, in a side valley of the Aft ab; by Maspero, /. c, at Jughai ben Ruan. The duplicate 283-84 has the city Lahira of the land of ladibiru, Sulaia, Zu(?)-?-muk, Samu'na, Babduri, Lahirimmu, Pillutu. ^ The Naditu is the Aft ab according to Maspero, /. c, and Biller- beck, op. cit., 116. According to the latter, here was the fort of Nabu damiq ilani of A. 368. Cf. the city Naditu of Sennacherib, Prism, IV. 59. ^ Rashi is the upper Pusht i Kuh region, according to Maspero, Empires, I. c, and Billerbeck, op. cit., 120. The latter believes the Rashi expedition to be separate. ^^ Til Humba evidently has the name of the old Elamitish god Humba. It is Gilan, according to Billerbeck, op. cit., 124. Dunni ELAMITISH WARS AND CONQUEST OF BABYLON I 35 Bit Imbi,^- which does not seem to have been taken, while Shutur nahundi, the instigator of all this resistance, retired to the mountains.^^ That he should have been engaged here while the Assyrians further south were striving to find a road to his capital shows how safe he felt that to be behind its mountain walls. How thorough all this conquest was is shown by the fact that Sargon's own son, Sennacherib, informs us that some of it was already lost in the days of his father.^* While these two divisions had been conquering the coun- try east of the Tigris and thus driving a wedge between Elam and Babylonia, Sargon, with the main army, was mov- ing directly upon Babylon. Here, for twelve years,^^ Mero- dach Baladan had held his own. Even if not a native patriot, as the earlier scholars assumed,^*' he was still looked upon as Shamash he places, /, c, at Desht i Kasimban, Bube on the Kanischend Rud. cf. Sennacherib, Prism, IV. 51, and Hamanu at the pass from Kifraur valley. ^^Maspero, /. c, and Billerbeck, op. cit., 122 f., place Bit Imbi in Desht i Gaur, a very fertile region and a road center. It was a royal city, Sennacherib, Prism, IV. 54; Ashur bani pal, Rm. Cyl., IV. 124. ^A. 28 fF. Here should be placed the names of D. 18 if., and P. IV. 71 ff., cf. Billerbeck, Mitth. Vorderasiat. Gesellsch., 1898, 2, 35 ff. Here we may place K. 7299 = H. 799 from Shamash bel ugur, eponym in 710 where we are told that the king of Elam went on the 11 Tammuz to Bit Bunaki and on the 13 to land of U. On the edge is a reference to Balasu (Belysis). ^* Prism IV. 43 if. The towns which are distinctly said to have been taken from the Assyrian territory are Bit Ha'iri and Raga. But other towns which Sargon claims to have conquered, such as Bube, Dunni Shamash, Bit Imbia, Til Humbi, are again taken as foreign places. Again, at the battle of Halulu, Sennacherib is opposed by many of these conquered tribes such as Hindaru, Rapiqu, Ru'a, Gambulu, Puqudu, Bit Amukkana, Samuna, Sulai, etc. Prism, V. 30 fF. A. 228; Bah. Chron., II. i. ^ Cf. n. 2, For an ancient appreciation of the fact that the Chaldaeans were not the same as the Babylonians, see Strabo, XVI. i. 6. 136 WESTERN ASIA IN THE DAYS OF SARGON a foreign deliverer by a large anti-Assyrian party, whose property had been confiscated and who had been imprisoned during the last period of foreign rule.^^ The majority of our documents come from the priestly class, who would nat- urally favor so pious a king as Sargon, but their version should not make us forget that there must have been a large military class and a still larger commercial one which was the natural enemy of Assyria. In his inscriptions Sargon tells us that the Chaldaean usurper imprisoned the leading men of the land, although they had committed no crime, and confiscated their prop- erty.* No doubt this is all true enough. But when Mero- dach Baladan did all this he was, only inflicting on the pro- Assyrian party severities which they themselves had em- ployed on their rivals of the other party. In the royal charter granting lands to Bel ahe erba,^ we are told of lands torn from their rightful owners, of forgotten boundaries and destroyed boundary stones, and all this took place in the days when the Assyrian enemy devastated the land and " there was no king " in Babylon. Peaceable people must indeed have suflfered when the land was torn between the two factions, and could have had as little love for one as the other. While, therefore, the accusations of the two enemies throw light on the conduct of each other, Sargon is deliber- ately telling an untruth, when he states that Merodach Bala- dan did not respect the gods, but removed them and allowed their sacrifices to fall into neglect. If the Babylonian priest- hood remained hostile to the Chaldaean, it was from no lack ^^ See the discussion of the boundary charter under Sources, chap. I. n. 56. '^A. 359 ^. '' Cf. n. 37. ELAMITISH WARS AND CONQUEST OF BABYLON 1 37 of effort on his part to win them over. Like all other for- eign conquerors of Babylon, he became a votary of the gods of the land. Thus, in the above-mentioned inscription, we have the same glorification of Marduk, Nabu and Ea, the same recognition of dependence on them, as we meet in those of the native rulers. Nor was this homage confined to words alone. He adorned and rebuilt the ancient temples, one of which was that of Nana at Uruk,*^ and provided for their maintenance and their revenues.^^ Special attention, too, was given to the ancient and revered cities of Sippar, Nip- pur, and Babylon.*^ It is therefore probable that the mass of the people were well enough content with his rule. Other- wise, it is difficult to understand why he so easily won back Babylon so soon after Sargon died. The settlement of Merodach Baladan at the gates of As- syria was a grave danger, for it was a constant incitement to the other subject states to follow the example of a suc- cessful revolt. In addition, there were sentimental reasons which would induce any Assyrian ruler, much more one so religious and so interested in antiquity as Sargon, to attempt the conquest. This constant desire to conquer the seemingly eternal city of Babylon, " seize the hands of Bel," and thus become the vice gerent of Marduk on earth, has been well compared with the equally constant desire of the Germanic kings to be crowned emperor at Ronie.*^ In many ways the attitude of respectful mastership assumed by Rome in her dealings with Greece would be a comparison more to the point. But neither is close enough. We have here no for- *" Brick I. R. 5. XVII in the pavement at the base of the Bowarieh mound at Warka. Transliterated and translated by Winckler, Zeitschr. f. Assyr., 1892, 184. " Boundary Stone, II. 4 ff. *^Ib. II. 8 ff.; III. 10 ff. *' Winckler, Sargon, XXXIII. 138 WESTERN ASIA IN THE DAYS OF SARGON eign countries separated as much by barriers of speech and custom as by sea or mountain. In its origin Assyria seems to have been a Babylonian colony. In language there was less difference than between Athens and Sparta. The only natural boundary was the line of the alluvium, and that was no barrier. On the other hand, the two great navigable rivers, the numberless canals, the roads with easy grades, all brought the two countries into close relations with each other. The result was what might have been expected. To the end Assyria was like Rome, the faithful copyist of Baby- lonia in most that did not relate to war or government. In art, in literature, in law, even in the trivial details of every- day life, Assyria leaned upon Babylon. Above all, this was true of religion, although Assyria did indeed have a national Ashur cult. But even this could not prevent the older gods of the south from usurping to a considerable degree his place. The earlier Assyrian kings could ascribe victory to Ashur. The later ones did not feel their world empire sure until Bel Marduk of Babylon had allowed them to seize his hands in the " city of the lord of gods." ** Sargon seems to have collected his troops at Ashur, which he perhaps inhabited at this time. He then would have moved down the west bank of the Tigris and crossed the Euphrates, probably at Falujah, where the last hills retreat from the river.*^ From here he entered the country of Bit **D. 124. " It is possible that this is the place where Trajan crossed. Phalga is mentioned by Arrian, Parthica, X = Frag. 7, Steph. Byz. s. v. It is there observed that the word means middle which would agree with Falujeh from root f 1 j. The following fragments are in Babylonia. In fact, frag. 8, from the same book X, is Choke near Seleucia and the Tigris. The preceding fragments seem to point to a line like that followed by Sargon, along the Tigris, e. g., frag. 6, from Book IX, is Libanai, a city of (As)syria near Hatra. A pontoon bridge was made across the Tigris at the Carduchian mountains, Die Cassius, LXVIII. ELAMITISH WARS AND CONQUEST OF BABYLON 1 39 Dakkuri,*^ not perhaps without a battle, where he found the ruined fort of Dur Ladina, about where we now have the sacred city of Kerbela. As this was a good outpost against Babylon, it was rebuilt and garrisoned. The position of Merodach Baladan had now become untenable. On the west, Dur Ladina, on the north Kutha^^ were in the hands of the Assyrians, and each was but a few miles from Baby- lon. On the east the whole of the Elamitish foothills had 26. 2, and Arbela passed, ib. 4. What other evidence we have seems to indicate that the march was, as might be expected, along the usual route across Mesopotamia close to the mountains and thence down the Tigris. The very unusual route straight down the Euphrates has only one point in its favor and many against, but this one point is difficult to get rid of. Phalga is said to be half way between Seleucia and Pieria and to be in Mesopotamia ; and this statement is confirmed by the detailed itinerary in Isidore of Charax, where Phalga or Phaliga oc- cupies a position corresponding to the later Circesium. Since the position of a Phalga is thus fixed, we must either, on the strength of this one quotation and against natural probability and the general tenor -of the other pertinent passages, make the troops go by the Euphrates route direct, or we must assume a confusion, either in the mind of Arrian or of Stephen, between the Babylonian Falujah and the better known town of the same name near the Roman frontier. In the condition of our sources, scanty and mutilated as they are, it is im- possible to come to a definite conclusion, but I incline to the second. " Bit Dakkuri is placed by Winckler, map, and Billerbeck, map, west of the Euphrates and of Babylon. Bab. Chron., II. 2, seems to place here a regular battle. Here also seems to belong K. ii4i=:H. 542 = IV. R. 46. I (53. i). Information is sent the king that Bit Dakkuri has sent to make common cause with Merodach Baladan. The forces of Bit Dakkuri now seem to be at Bit Qa. It is hoped they will proceed to Bab Bit Qa. The king sent a message to the governor Ana Nabu takkalla. Reference is made to the son of lashunu with his clan who were settled somewhere. Daini is also mentioned. The land of Rabiti has been brought back and the strongholds have been occupied. " Assyrian control of Kutha seems proved by the absence of any mention of its capture by Sargon. This seems to be confirmed by Rm. 2, 97 where under 719 we have the building of a Nergal temple, seemingly the great one at that place. 140 WESTERN ASIA IN THE DAYS OF SARGON fallen into their hands, and a part of their troops was already working their way through the swamps toward Dur lakin and threatening his rear. He was accordingly forced to retreat. At first he with- drew to latbur along the Tigris.*^ From here he sent a " tribute," as the Assyrian writer sarcastically calls his presents to Shutur nahundi, begging for Elamitish aid. The Assyrian insinuates that Shutur nahundi did not come, because he did not wish to, and portrays with deep feeling ^' Here again, equally with its connection with the Uknu swamps, we see that latbur is much more to the south than is usually assumed. If we locate latbur as I do, it would be perfectly natural for Merodach Baladan to take the direct road east to Susa and then, finding this road blocked by the Assyrian advance, to fall back southeast to Dur lakin. On the other hand, it is absurd to suppose that he fled far to the north- east and then retraced his steps through country already conquered by Sargon. Billerbeck, Suleimania, 114 n., believes that Merodach Baladan fled to latbur early in the year and then returned to Babylon. This is not only unsupported by any direct evidence, but, as it seems to me, is difficult to understand in the light of the topography and of the statements of the sources themselves. It is the news of these earlier expeditions of Sargon, threatening his flank and even his rear, which were, as we are expressly told in A. 288 if., the cause of his retreat to latbur. But then all the region about Dur Athara and to the north was in the hands of Sargon and so retreat to or through these was impossible. A. 291 ff. shows what he was trying to do, to get in touch with Elam and to do this he would naturally try the direct road to Susa. When he found this road blocked by Dur Athara which was now in Assyrian hands, he naturally retreated. This was first to Iqbi Bel and then to Dur lakin. Between the two parts of the retreat, the Assyrian scribes put the entrance of Sargon into Babylon and I do not see why this should not be accepted. But if so, then the retreat to Iqbi Bel is part of the retreat to Dur lakin. At any rate, I do not see how he could have gone back to Babylon. It seems to me that my reconstruction of the military operations is clear, I cannot under- stand the military reasons which compelled these operations according to Billerbeck's theory. Bah. Chron., II. 3, says that Merodach Baladan fled to Elam and puts it under 710. The whole general condition seems to prove that either the Bah. Chron. is mistaken or, more probably, that ana means " towards " in this place. ELAMITISH WARS AND CONQUEST OF BABYLON I4I the scene which took place when Merodach Baladan learned the news, how he threw himself on the ground, tore his clothes, and filled the air with his loud lamentations. As we have already seen, the Elamite king was busy in the north at this time and perhaps did not know of the plight of his ally. Besides, he had all the fighting he needed in this part of the field. As Merodach Baladan was unable by himself to break through to Elam and as Shutur nahundi could not or would not come to his aid, he was forced to fall back along the Tigris to Iqbi Bel, perhaps the present Amara.*^ With the retreat of Merodach Baladan, Babylon opened its gates. In long procession, the citizens of Babylon and Borsippa, magistrates, trade guilds, artisans, carried to Sar- gon, as he lay encamped at Dur hadina, the greeting of the great gods, Bel Marduk and Zarpanit, Nabu and Tashmit. The envoys were received graciously by the pious monarch, who showed by his sacrifices his respect for the old order of things.*^^ It was now late in the year, and New Year's Day was approaching. Sargon resolved to " seize the hands of Bel " himself and thus assume personal rule over Babylon. **Iqbi Bel seems to have been on the banks of the Tigris, above Dur lakin. If Merodach Baladan actually advanced as far as Dur Athara (Serboa Kherib), he would naturally fall back first to 'Amara at the junction of the Tib and the Tigris. A. 287 ff.; D. 121 fF. K. 7426 =: H. 30 is from Arad Ea, evidently not the well-known physician who lived later, Johnston, Jour. Amer. Orient. Soc, 1897, I, 160. Reference is made to Merodach Baladan and there is a direct address to Sargon by name. Unfortunately, it is too mutilated to be translated. It would seem as if the Chaldaean Belibni who was later made king of Babylon by Sennacherib was at this time carried to Assyria to be educated at Sargon's court, cf. Bellino CyL, 13. ^A. 296 ff. In three years Sargon gave over 150 talents of gold and 1600 of silver besides much bronze, iron, stone, wood, and clothing to the Babylonian gods, D. 140 if. 142 WESTERN ASIA IN THE DAYS OF SARGON For the approaching ceremony the old canal of Borsippa was restored in order that it might be used as the festival street along which Nabu might pass to greet Marduk on this auspicious day. Sargon now went into winter quarters at Babylon where the tribute of some of the Arimi, or Aramaeans, of the Bit Amukani, and of Bit Dakkuri, was received. At the same time the conquest of North Babylonia was completed by the subjugation of the Hamarana, one of the "helper" tribes of Merodach Baladan. They had retreated across the Eu- phrates before the Assyrian advance and established them- selves in Sippar. The Babylonians attempted to drive them out, but failed. An Assyrian force was detached from the main body and sent under a governor against them. A wall of circumvallation was thrown around Sippar and the Hamarana were forced to surrender.'*^ The great prize was now Sargon's. On New Year's Day he " seized the hands of Bel " and became king of Babylon with all due pomp and ceremony.^- A month was still needed for the settlement of Babylon, and then, in the month of May, he set out for his final attack on Merodach Bala- dan. On his advance, the Chaldaean fell back to Dur lakin^^ " A. 301 ff. Perhaps here belongs K. 507 = H. 88 = Delitzsch, Beitr. zur Assyr., II. z^ if.j a letter written by Tab gil esharra from Ashur to the king who is elsewhere, seemingly further north. The cause of its sending is to excuse Nabu bel shumate the qepu of Birat who could not visit the king at the appointed time because he must, with his forces, drive back the Uppai who have plundered Sippar. Is it possible that this indicates that Sargon was not with any of the armies attacking Babylon ? Many of these conquests were not permanent as Sennacherib was compelled to reconquer them, Prism, V. 51 fF. "A. 309 ff. Tiele takes this to be in 710, since the Annals places it under year XII, Gesch., 276, but this is only the usual anticipation. ^^ Andreas, art. Alexandreia, 13, Pauly-Wissowa, Real Encykl., identi- fies Dur lakin with the urhs regia D urine of Plin., H. N., VI 138, and ELAMITISH WARS AND CONQUEST OF BABYLON 1 43 in the marshes of the Mar Marrati,^* the swamps at the head of the Persian Gulf. Here he prepared to make his last stand. The nomad troops were collected, the city fortified, and a canal from the Euphrates brought around the place, the bridges destroyed, and the whole country made a morass by the breaking down of the dams. Outside the walls, earthworks were thrown up and troops posted in them. " Like eagles " Sargon's troops crossed the streams and advanced to the attack. The nomads were forced back and a hand-to-hand conflict took place before the walls. Mero- dach Baladan was wounded in the arm and obliged to take refuge within the city. His troops, nevertheless, Puqudu, Marsamai, Sute,^^ resisted to the last and were slaughtered before the gate. Rich booty was taken, including the king's furniture and plate,^^ in addition to captives and the various domestic animals. For three days the city was given over to plunder. Then it was burned, its towers thrown down, its very foundations torn up, and the place given over to utter ruin. Yet the real object of the expedition was not accomplished. Merodach Baladan escaped, as one of the versions is forced to admit. Other versions, indeed, give the history as it also with the Aginis, s. v., of Strabo, XV. 3. 5. The place must be somewhere near Qorneh, quite probably at the small nearby hill of Jebel Beni Mangur, Billerbeck, Mitth. Vorderasiat. Gesell, 1898, 2, 47. Dieulafoy, Suse, 6^, suggests Durak Gadim, a tumulus northeast of Mohammereh. The identity of name is remarkable, but I cannot satisfy myself that Dur lakin lay so far south or east. If it actually did, there must be some changes in our generally accepted topography. ^ According to Andreas, op. cit., art. Aginis, this is the Melitene of Ptol. VI. 3. 3. ^ Sute was a common word for nomad, cf . W. M. Miiller, Asien, 20, 46 ; Winckler, Forsch., II. 254, reads Shuth in Ezek. 23^^ and compares the Sittakenoi of Arr. Anab. III. 8. 5. ^ In one version, they are nearly all gold, in the other nearly all silver. What was the original material? 144 WESTERN ASIA IN THE DAYS OF SARGON should have been, with Merodach Baladan as a captive or as a pardoned rebel with his tribute paid and his fortresses dis- mantled, but the course of later events proves that he did indeed escape. He remained safe in the marshes of the extreme south until Sargon died, when once more, for a short time, he held the throne of Babylonia.*^^ The remainder of the year was taken up with the settle- ment of affairs in South Babylonia. The political prisoners from Babylon, Sippar, Nippur, and Borsippa, were freed from their confinement at Dur lakin and restored to their homes and lands. Religion once more became supreme. The gods were restored to the cities and new buildings erected. The whole of the region along the Elamitish bor- der, Dur lakin included, was settled by captives from Qum- muh, hardly a wise proceeding for the change from the cold bracing highlands along the upper Euphrates to the hot, fever-laden swamps of this region must have soon proved fatal to the majority of them. A strong fort was built against Elam at Sagbat by Nabu damiq ilani, who seems to be the governor of Gambulu mentioned immediately after. The control of this frontier was confided to him and to the gov- ernor of Babylon.^^ "A. 317 if.; D. 126 ff.; Bah. Chron., II. 6; Rm. 2, 97. "A Nabu damiq alani is given by Johns, Deeds, III. 119, but is hardly this person. Sagbat is clearly not the Bit Sagbat of A. 69. Billerbeck, Suleimania, 97, 116, places it at Kala Janshur, at the Aft ab pass to the east of Dur ilu. Billerbeck, op. cit., 96, speaks " von der Griindung einer neuen Stadt Nabu damiq ilani *ina(mhz) Sagbad." I do not see how he gets this. The Nabu damiq ilani has the sign of the person before it. It would therefore be possible to take it as Sagbat of the man Nabu damiq ilani and compare the Dur Bel Harran Bel UQur which that official founded, see Scheil, Rec. de Trav., 1894 (XVI), 176 if. The rarity of such an action and the unlikelihood of a ruler publishing such an act of almost actual usurpation of sovereign power, especially when he never names his governors at all, makes this very unlikely. But if this will not go, then there seems to be ELAMITISH WARS AND CONQUEST OF BABYLON 1 45 At almost the same time Sargon's vanity was flattered by " tribute " from two distant islands at the two extreme corners of the known world. We have already seen the reason for his relations with Cyprus. What led Uperi, king of Tilmun, a half mythical island lying a sixty hours' jour- ney down the gulf, " like a fish in the sea," to open relations with Sargon is not so clear. Probably it was for commercial reasons. If Tilmun was indeed the present Bahrein, we may perhaps see in it a wish to secure a market for the pearls which have made the island so famous in modern times.^^ Sargon remained for some time in Babylonia, receiving the submission of the natives and attempting to put affairs in order.^^ In 707 all seemed to be quiet, or at least matters were becoming more serious to the north. The king re- turned to Assyria, after having brought back the gods of the only one other possibility and that is to translate eli migir Elamtu ina Sagbat Nabu damiq Hani ana shuprus shapa Elami usharkis birtu ex- actly as Winckler does, " gegen das gebiet van Elam Hess ich Nabu damqu ilani in Sagbat, um die Elamiter aufzuhalten, eine festung bauen." For this sense of usharkis, see Muss Arnolt, s. v., rakasu. I there- fore do not see how I can take it otherwise than in the text. *A. 359 ff.\ D. 134 ff.; 144 Z^. This Tilmun is no doubt tne Tylos of Arr, Anab., VII. 20. 12; Artemidorus, in Steph. Byz., s. v.; Ptol. VI. 7. 47; Pliny, H. N., VI. 28. 148. The last speaks of its pearl fisheries. It is now the island of Bahrein where pearl fisheries are still carried on, cf. S. M. Zwemer, Arabia [1900], 97 ff. For dis- cussion, cf. Oppert, Journal Asiatique, 1880, I. 90 ff.; H. Rawlinson, Jour. Roy. Asiat. Soc, 1880, 201 ff. For the ancient ruins still there, see Durand, Jour. Roy. Asiat. Soc, 1880, 189 ff. ** H. 196, e. g., is a letter from Sennacherib in Kalhu to his father Sargon who seems still to be in Babylon. Under 708, the Bab. Chron., has ina, " in," mati, " land," is generally supplied. A statement that there was no war seems rather out of place in a Babylonian chronicle which does not go by years, and is not parallel elsewhere. I should compare Rm. 2, 97, under 710, and read ina Kesh (ki), "in Kesh," or ina Babili, " in Babylon." The second part of 708 in Rm. 2, 97, as I now think, (amel)-pehu shakin, " a governor appointed," would rather refer to Babylon than to Qummuh. 10 146 WESTERN ASIA IN THE DAYS OF SARGON sea lands to their ancestral seats, taking with him a body of captives to be settled there.^^ But these northern troubles seem once more to have aroused the south, and the settlers placed in Dur lakin were driven out in 706.^^ In 705 we have the news of a capture of Dur lakin. By this time " II. R. 69 reads " On the 22 of Tashrit, the gods of Dur Sharrukin " and this has generally, with Tiele, Gesch., 281, been taken to refer to a great festival procession which took place when the gods entered the new city. But Bah. Chron., II. 8, under year XV, on the same day of the same month says that the gods of the sealands to their places came back. I do not quite see how Dur Sharrukin came to take the place of (mat) tamdim, but the agreement of date and of so many signs makes me feel sure that the two refer to the same fact. This literal agreement of signs seems to point to some connection be- tween the two documents. The Chronicle continues " BAD.MESh were established in Assyria." Winckler, Keilinschr. Bibl., ad he, refuses a translation, Barta, in Harper, Literature, 201, reads dame, " bloods," and so makes it refer to sacrifices made in Assyria. I am now a little inclined to compare Briinnow, 1525, nisu, "remove," per- haps nisute, " those who were removed, t. e., the captives, were settled in Assyria." II. R. 69 also reads under 707 issuhra ga rah (pi) shal-lu. Schrader, Keilinschr. Bihl., ad loc, considers ga rah (pi) an easy mistake for ekallati, " palaces." But then we do not know what to do with the shal-lu. Schrader considers them to be an error for the longer form of u which they do closely resemble. But it is more natural to supply shal-lu-Ue, "captive." This then throws doubt on the " houses." An easy correction for ga rah (pi) is Hani rahute, " the great gods." The line is then to be read with tEe one succeeding. " He returned the great gods who were capti[ve. Cn the XXII of Tashrit the gods of (the sea land) [to their places came back]." Rm. 2, 97, under 707 states that the king returned from Babylon, which agrees with the second part of Bah. Chron. * Rm. 2, 97, under 706 read sha (al) Dur lakin nag a. Winckler reads "von D. wurde vertrieben (?)." I would translate "He of Dur lakin was driven out." For this use of sha, cf. Muss-Arnolt, e. g., sha hit gihitti, " prisoner." Is sha here rather taken collectively ? Under 70s, Rm. 2, 97, has only Dur lakin nahil, " Dur lakin was destroyed." The failure to remark the death of Sargon is noteworthy. In this it seems to agree with Bah. Chron., another point seeming to show a southern connection for Rm. 2, 97. ELAMITISH WARS AND CONQUEST OF BABYLON 1 4/ it would seem as if South Babylonia was all in revolt. For a time Sennacherib was able to hold Babylon and the North, but even this finally went over to Merodach Baladan, who once more for a short while held rule over all Babylonia.^ ""The whole history of this later part of Sargon's reign and the first part of Sennacherib is very obscure, especially as it relates to Babylon. The text furnishes only a working hypothesis. CHAPTER VIII THE LAST YEARS With the accession of Argishtish IP to the throne of Haldia, about the year 711, the situation became once more as serious as it had been under Rusash. As usual, the new king was more anxious for war than his father, and hostili- ties, which seem to have been intermitted for two or three years, broke out anew. The first year or two of his reign seems to have been spent in building for himself a new city, Argishtihina, whose ruins are probably to be found at Arjish,^ and in constructing a reservoir for it.^ In 710 the opportunity seemed to have come. Sargon was in Babylonia with his best troops and engaged with powerful enemies who, if allied with Argishtish, as seems to have been the case, would no doubt call upon him to make a diversion. For the events of these last few years we de- pend, not on the edited documents intended to glorify the king, but on the very letters which passed between the gen- erals in the field and the king himself or his son, Sen- nacherib, who was left in charge of the north with head- quarters at Kalhu, while his father was at Babylon.* Thus, * Argishtish appears as Argista in the letters and as Argisti in D. 113. Argishtu is mentioned in the inscription of an unknown Assyrian king from Dehok, Belck and Lchmann, Sitzungsher. Berl. Acad., 1900, 624, no. 12. ' H. Lynch, Armenia, 1901, II. 29. 'No. 130, 131 of Belck and Lehmann, /. c. * In K. 125 = H. 196; also Winckler, Samnilung, II. 16; Johns, Proc. Soc. Bibl. Arch., 1895, 2^6 f. ; Bah. and Assyr. Laws, Contracts and Letters, 1904, 345, we have a letter from Sennacherib sending some Qummuh chiefs on to his father at Babylon. In K. 5464 = 1!. 198, 148 THE LAST YEARS 149 in spite of the difficulty of interpretation and of arrangement, we are enabled to gain a far more correct and more vivid idea of the campaigns than we can for any other part of the reign.^ Our first letters would seem to come from the winter of 710-9, when Sargon was already in control of Babylon. At this time Argishtish seems to have been collecting his troops at his new city of Argishtihina, which lay on the north side and might therefore be supposed to be out of sight from the Assyrians. But Sargon had a good intelligence depart- ment, and rumors began to reach him. Ashur rigua, for also Winckler, op. cit., II. 8; Johns, Proc, 230 if.; Laws, 339 ff.; Sennacherib, again writing to his father, says that a messenger has come to Kalhu. In Rm, 2, 2, 14:=!!. 730, Johns, Proc. Soc. Bibl. Arch., 1895, 238 if., also by Sennacherib, we have references to Nabu from Kalhu and to Nabu etir napshati, according to Sargon, 12, 45, the scribe of the governor of that city. ^ The Assyrian letters, after a few had been published in desultory fashion, are now being edited as a complete corpus by Harper, Assyrian and Babylonian Letters. References to other publications of individual texts are given under each separate letter. The first collection of letters dealing with this period was given by Johns, Proc, 1895, 220 if. Later Thompson, Amer. Jour. Sem. Lang., 1901, 162 if., gave an important sketch of the history to be gained from these letters but gave no extended quotations. Some letters are still known only from his references. Although he was mistaken in placing these events in the time of Rusash, as is now quite clear, he grasped the general arrangement of the material that was required, and I have quite generally followed his order. On the basis of his notes, I began the study of the untranslated letters he pointed out, so far as they were published, but was forced to lay aside the work when I began to prepare for Syria. On my return, I found that this work was rendered useless by the translations of all the piiblished texts referring to the Armenian wars by Johns, Laws, 338 if. Aside from this group, my work on the letters has been sporadic. Some references to them will be found in other chapters. During the last year, I collected a considerable mass of data in preparation for an assignment of these letters to various reigns and to historic events or groups of events. 150 WESTERN ASIA IN THE DAYS OF SARGON example, who so often appears in these events,^ was ordered to send one of his spies to Turushpa, the older capital of Haldia, on the site of the present Van/ whence a raid might be expected. As a result, perhaps, of this investiga- tion, Ashur rigua next learned that Argishtish had now entered Turushpa and had there captured the second tartan, Urgine, with his Assyrian army. The tartan, it would seem, had advanced incautiously, thinking that the Haldian was still at Argistihina. Now his brother, Apli uknu, had gone off to see him, presumably under a truce, and was about to investigate the cause of the capture. The near approach of the Haldian army had quite naturally led to disaffection among Sargon's soldiers, many of them captives who had seen their homes destroyed and relatives killed by the men who now forced them to fight their cause. Narage, a rab kigir, plotted revolt, and was followed by twenty of his men. Ashur rigua, however, detected it in time and the plotters were sent back from the front.^** Another example of the disaffection felt may be seen in a letter from Sha Ashur dubbu, governor of Tushhan. Two officers and six men were sent with warrants, seal in hand, the Assyrian says, for deserters in Penza on the Haldian frontier. "Johns, Laws, 341, is no doubt correct in making him the head scribe of the harem, Sarg 12, 45, Strassmaier, Alphabet. Verzeich., 880, dated Kalhu, 709. ' For the various forms of Turushpa or Tushpa, the classical Lake Thospites, the Armenian Tosp, cf. Sayce, Jour. Roy. Asiat. Soc, 1882. 'K. 1907 = H. 148. Badly mutilated and little to be gotten out of it. Cf. Thompson, /. c, 163, and Johns, Laws, 342. ' Is he the amel shanute to whom Ashur rigua writes a very urgent letter, 81-7-27, 199 = H. 382, requesting a reply to his former message? If so, then perhaps he was already a prisoner and this just precedes the next letter quoted, n. 10. ^^ K. 194 =:H. 144, a letter of Ashur rigua, referred to Thompson, 164, and Johns, 341 f. The second part does not seem to refer to the THE LAST YEARS I5I While on their way they fell into an ambush set by a Shu- prian whose brother had just been treacherously eating with them to throw them off their guard. Fortunately they es- caped. The governor has ordered a guard, for he has cavalry as well as infantry, to be stationed here and will carry on a full investigation.^^ Another letter of his gives further news of the Penza affair, it would seem, as well as of conditions on the frontier. A messenger of Bagteshub has brought news from the front, but Bagteshub himself has not obeyed orders, and a copy of the reprimand sent him is given.^^ Frontier conditions were certainly growing alarming. Akkul anu was cut off and besought the king for a reply.^* Another letter from Upahhir Bel, governor of Ameda, re- ports that he is still in Harda and has sent a scout to the frontier. The governor of an unknown city, perhaps Akku- lanu, has sent asking aid. Upahhir Bel replies by urging him to remain shut up close in his forts and he will deliver him.^* But this must have been a boast which Upahhir Bel was unable to fulfil, for when we next hear of him he has been forced to fall back, and Haldian officials are at Harda, "K. 469 = H.' 138; Johnston, Jour. Amer. Orient. Soc, 1897, 152 /. = Harper, Literature, 2^7. " K. 1067 = H. 139, cf. Johnston, op. cit., 151. "K. 604 = H. 444; Smith, Ashur bani pal, II. 15; Delitzsch, Beitr. z. Assyr., I. 222. " K. 593 = H. 548, cf. Johns, Proc. Soc. Bibl. Arch., 1902, 297, and Laws, 344. Johns is perfectly justified in attributing it to Upahhir Bel as the reconstruction shows. But he makes one very curious error. A slightly mutilated line which can be restored only as (amel)aqi, " messenger," and noting that he was sent to Haldia according to orders from the king, is read Argista by Johns. He then, neglecting the fact that the appeal and reply relate to a governor, reconstructs the history in a rather surprising way, making this a submission of the Haldian king to Assyrian suzerainty on account of the Cimmerian in- va