    The Project Gutenberg EBook of History Of Egypt, Chaldęa, Syria,
    Babylonia, and Assyria, Volume 7 (of 12), by G. Maspero

    This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
    almost no restrictions whatsoever.  You may copy it, give it away or
    re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
    with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.net

    Title: History Of Egypt, Chaldęa, Syria, Babylonia, and Assyria, Volume 7 (of 12)

    Author: G. Maspero

    Editor: A.H. Sayce

    Translator: M.L. McClure

    Release Date: December 16, 2005 [EBook #17327]
    Last Updated: September 8, 2016

    Language: English

    Character set encoding: ISO-8859-1

    *** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK HISTORY OF EGYPT, CHALDĘA ***

    Produced by David Widger

    Character set: ISO-8859-1

# HISTORY OF EGYPT
CHALDEA, SYRIA, BABYLONIA, AND ASSYRIA

## By G. MASPERO,
Honorable Doctor of Civil Laws, and Fellow of Queen’s College,
Oxford; Member of the Institute and Professor at the College of France

### Edited by A. H. SAYCE,
Professor of Assyriology, Oxford

#### Translated by M. L. McCLURE,
Member of the Committee of the Egypt Exploration Fund

### CONTAINING OVER TWELVE HUNDRED COLORED PLATES AND ILLUSTRATIONS

### Volume VII.

### LONDON
THE GROLIER SOCIETY
PUBLISHERS

Slumber Song—After painting bv P. Grot. Johann

## THE ASSYRIAN REVIVAL AND THE STRUGGLE FOR SYRIA

ASSUR-NAZIR-PAL (885-860 B.C.) AND SHALMANESER III. (860-825 B.C.)—THE KINGDOM OF URARTU AND ITS CONQUERING PRINCES: MENUAS AND ARGISTIS.

The line of Assyrian kings after Assurirba, and the Babylonian dynasties: the war between Rammān-nirāri III. and Shamash-mudammiq; his victories over Babylon; Tukulti-ninip II. (890-885 B.C.)—The empire at the accession of Assur-nazir-pal: the Assyrian army and the progress of military tactics; cavalry, military engines; the condition of Assyria’s neighbours, methods of Assyrian conquest.

The first campaigns of Assur-nazir-pal in Nairi and on the Khabur (885-882 B.C.): Zamua reduced to an Assyrian province (881 B.C.)—The fourth campaign in Naīri and the war on the Euphrates (880 B.C.); the first conquest of BU-Adini—Northern Syria at the opening of the IXth century: its civilisation, arts, army, and religion—The submission of the Hittite states and of the Patina: the Assyrians reach the Mediterranean.

The empire after the wars of Assur-nazir-pal—Building of the palace at Calah: Assyrian architecture and sculpture in the IXth century—The tunnel of Negub and the palace of Balawāt—The last years of Assur-nazir-pal: His campaign of the year 867 in Naīri—The death of Assur-nazir-pal (860 B.C.); his character.

Shalmaneser III. (860-825 B.C.): the state of the empire at his accession—Urartu: its physical features, races, towns, temples, its deities—Shalmaneser’s first campaign in Urartu: he penetrates as far as Lake Van (860 B.C.)—The conquest of Bīt-Adini and of Naīri (859-855 B.C.)

The attack on Damascus: the battle of Qarqar (854 B.C.) and the war against Babylon (852-851 B.C.)—The alliance between Judah and Israel, the death of Ahab (853 B.C.); Damascus successfully resists the attacks of Assyria (849-846 B.C.)—Moab delivered from Israel, Mesha; the death of Ben-hadad (Adadidri) and the accession of Hazael; the fall of the house of Omri-Jehu (843 B.C.)—The defeat of Hazael and the homage of Jehu (842-839 B.C.). Wars in Cilicia and in Namri (838-835 B.c.): the last battles of Shalmaneser III.; his building works, the revolt of Assur-dain-pal—Samsi-rammān IV. (825-812 B.C.), his first three expeditions, his campaigns against Babylon—Bammdn-nirdri IV, (812-783 B.C.)—Jehu, Athaliah, Joash: the supremacy of Hazael over Israel and Judah—Victory of Bammdn-nirdri over Mari, and the submission of all Syria to the Assyrians (803 B.C.).

The growth of Urartu: the conquests of Menuas and Argistis I., their victories over Assyria—Shalmaneser IV. (783-772 B.C.)—Assurdān III. (772-754 B.C.)—Assur-niruri III. (754-745 B.C.)—The downfall of Assyria and the triumph of Urartu.

## CHAPTER I—THE ASSYRIAN REVIVAL AND THE STRUGGLE FOR SYRIA

Assur-nazir-pal (885-860) and Shalmaneser III. (860-825)—The kingdom of Urartu and its conquering princes: Menuas and Argistis.

Assyria was the first to reappear on the scene of action. Less hampered by an ancient past than Egypt and Chaldęa, she was the sooner able to recover her strength after any disastrous crisis, and to assume again the offensive along the whole of her frontier line.

         Image Drawn by Faucher-Gudin, from a bas-relief at Koyunjik
         of the time of Sennacherib. The initial cut, which is also
         by Faucher-Gudin, represents the broken obelisk of Assur-
         nazir-pal, the bas-reliefs of which are as yet unpublished.

During the years immediately following the ephemeral victories and reverses of Assurirba, both the country and its rulers are plunged in the obscurity of oblivion. Two figures at length, though at what date is uncertain, emerge from the darkness—a certain Irbarammān and an Assur-nadinakhź II., whom we find engaged in building palaces and making a necropolis. They were followed towards 950 by a Tiglath-pileser II., of whom nothing is known but his name.* He in his turn was succeeded about the year 935 by one Assurdān II., who appears to have concentrated his energies upon public works, for we hear of him digging a canal to supply his capital with water, restoring the temples and fortifying towns. Kammān-nirāri III., who followed him in 912, stands out more distinctly from the mists which envelop the history of this period; he repaired the gate of the Tigris and the adjoining wall at Assur, he enlarged its principal sanctuary, reduced several rebellious provinces to obedience, and waged a successful warfare against the neighbouring inhabitants of Karduniash. Since the extinction of the race of Nebuchadrezzar I., Babylon had been a prey to civil discord and foreign invasion. The Aramaean tribes mingled with, or contiguous to the remnants of the Cossoans bordering on the Persian gulf, constituted possibly, even at this period, the powerful nation of the Kaldā.**

         * Our only knowledge of Tiglath-pileser II. is from a brick,
         on which he is mentioned as being the grandfather of Rammān-
         nirāri II.

         ** The names Chaldęa and Chaldęans being ordinarily used to
         designate the territory and people of Babylon, I shall
         employ the term Kaldu or Kaldā in treating of the Aramęan
         tribes who constituted the actual Chaldęan nation.

It has been supposed, not without probability, that a certain Simashshikhu, Prince of the Country of the Sea, who immediately followed the last scion of the line of Pashź,* was one of their chiefs. He endeavoured to establish order in the city, and rebuilt the temple of the Sun destroyed by the nomads at Sippar, but at the end of eighteen years he was assassinated. His son Eāmukinshurnu remained at the head of affairs some three to six months; Kashshu-nadinakhź ruled three or six years, at the expiration of which a man of the house of Bāzi, Eulbar-shakinshumi by name, seized upon the crown.** His dynasty consisted of three members, himself included, and it was overthrown after a duration of twenty years by an Elamite, who held authority for another seven.***

         * The name of this prince has been read Simbarshiku by
         Peiser, a reading adopted by Rost; Simbarshiku would have
         been shortened into Sibir, and we should have to identify it
         with that of the Sibir mentioned by Assur-nazir-pal in his
         Annals, col. ii. 1. 84, as a king of Karduniash who lived
         before his (Assur-nazir-pal’s) time (see p. 38 of the
         present volume).

         ** The name of this king may be read Edubarshakīn-shumi. The
         house of Bāzi takes its name from an ancestor who must have
         founded it at some unknown date, but who never reigned in
         Chaldęa. Winckler has with reason conjectured that the name
         subsequently lost its meaning to the Babylonians, and that
         they confused the Chaldęan house of Bāzi with the Arab
         country of Bāzu: this may explain why in his dynasties
         Berosos attributes an Arab origin to that one which
         comprises the short-lived line of Bīt-Bāzi.

         *** Our knowledge of these events is derived solely from the
         texts of the Babylonian Canon published and translated by G.
         Smith, by Pinches, and by Sayce. The inscription of
         Nabubaliddin informs us that Kashu-nadīnakhź and Eulbar-
         shākinshumu continued the works begun by Simashshiku in the
         temple of the Sun at Sippar.

It was a period of calamity and distress, during which the Arabs or the Aramęans ravaged the country, and pillaged without compunction not only the property of the inhabitants, but also that of the gods. The Elamite usurper having died about the year 1030, a Babylonian of noble extraction expelled the intruders, and succeeded in bringing the larger part of the kingdom under his rule.*

* The names of the first kings of this dynasty are destroyed in the copies of the Royal Canon which have come down to us. The three preceding dynasties are restored as follows:—

Five or six of his descendants had passed away, and a certain Shamash-mudammiq was feebly holding the reins of government, when the expeditions of Rammān-nirāri III. provoked war afresh between Assyria and Babylon. The two armies encountered each other once again on their former battlefield between the Lower Zab and the Turnat. Shamash-mudammiq, after being totally routed near the Yalmān mountains, did not long survive, and Naboshumishkun, who succeeded him, showed neither more ability nor energy than his predecessor. The Assyrians wrested from him the fortresses of Bambala and Bagdad, dislodged him from the positions where he had entrenched himself, and at length took him prisoner while in flight, and condemned him to perpetual captivity.*

         * Shamash-mudammiq appears to have died about 900.
         Naboshumishkun probably reigned only one or two years, from
         900 to 899 or to 898. The name of his successor is destroyed
         in the Synchronous History; it might be Nabubaliddin, who
         seems to have had a long life, but it is wiser, until fresh
         light is thrown on the subject, to admit that it is some
         prince other than Nabubaliddin, whose name is as yet unknown
         to us.

His successor abandoned to the Assyrians most of the districts situated on the left bank of the Lower Zab between the Zagros mountains and the Tigris, and peace, which was speedily secured by a double marriage, remained unbroken for nearly half a century. Tukulti-ninip II. was fond of fighting; “he overthrew his adversaries and exposed their heads upon stakes,” but, unlike his predecessor, he directed his efforts against Naīri and the northern and western tribes. We possess no details of his campaigns; we can only surmise that in six years, from 890 to 885,* he brought into subjection the valley of the Upper Tigris and the mountain provinces which separate it from the Assyrian plain. Having reached the source of the river, he carved, beside the image of Tiglath-pileser I., the following inscription, which may still be read upon the rock. “With the help of Assur, Shamash, and Rammān, the gods of his religion, he reached this spot. The lofty mountains he subjugated from the sun-rising to its down-setting; victorious, irresistible, he came hither, and like unto the lightning he crossed the raging rivers.” **

         * The parts preserved of the Eponym canon begin their record
         in 893, about the end of the reign of Rammān-nirāri IL The
         line which distinguishes the two reigns from one another is
         drawn between the name of the personage who corresponds to
         the year 890, and that of Tukulti-ninip who corresponds to
         the year 889: Tukulti-ninip II., therefore, begins his reign
         in 890, and his death is six years later, in 885.

         ** This inscription and its accompanying bas-relief are
         mentioned in the Annals of Assur-nazir-pal.

He did not live long to enjoy his triumphs, but his death made no impression on the impulse given to the fortunes of his country. The kingdom which he left to Assur-nazir-pal, the eldest of his sons, embraced scarcely any of the countries which had paid tribute to former sovereigns. Besides Assyria proper, it comprised merely those districts of Naīri which had been annexed within his own generation; the remainder had gradually regained their liberty: first the outlying dependencies—Cilicia, Melitene, Northern Syria, and then the provinces nearer the capital, the valleys of the Masios and the Zagros, the steppes of the Khabur, and even some districts such as Lubdi and Shupria, which had been allotted to Assyrian colonists at various times after successful campaigns. Nearly the whole empire had to be reconquered under much the same conditions as in the first instance. Assyria itself, it is true, had recovered the vitality and elasticity of its earlier days. The people were a robust and energetic race, devoted to their rulers, and ready to follow them blindly and trustingly wherever they might lead. The army, while composed chiefly of the same classes of troops as in the time of Tiglath-pileser I.,—spearmen, archers, sappers, and slingers,—now possessed a new element, whose appearance on the field of battle was to revolutionize the whole method of warfare; this was the cavalry, properly so called, introduced as an adjunct to the chariotry. The number of horsemen forming this contingent was as yet small; like the infantry, they wore casques and cuirasses, but were clothed with a tight-fitting loin-cloth in place of the long kilt, the folds of which would have embarrassed their movements. One-half of the men carried sword and lance, the other half sword and bow, the latter of a smaller kind than that used by the infantry. Their horses were bridled, and bore trappings on the forehead, but had no saddles; their riders rode bareback without stirrups; they sat far back with the chest thrown forward, their knees drawn up to grip the shoulder of the animal.

         Drawn by Faucher-Gudin, from a bas-relief in bronze on the
         gate of Balawāt. The Assyrian artist has shown the head and
         legs of the second horse in profile behind the first, but he
         has forgotten to represent the rest of its body, and also
         the man riding it.

Each horseman was attended by a groom, who rode abreast of him, and held his reins during an action, so that he might be free to make use of his weapons. This body of cavalry, having little confidence in its own powers, kept in close contact with the main body of the army, and was not used in independent manouvres; it was associated with and formed an escort to the chariotry in expeditions where speed was essential, and where the ordinary foot soldier would have hampered the movements of the charioteers.*

         * Isolated horsemen must no doubt have existed in the
         Assyrian just as in the Egyptian army, but we never find any
         mention of a body of cavalry in inscriptions prior to the
         time of Assur-nazir-pal; the introduction of this new corps
         must consequently have taken place between the reigns of
         Tiglath-pileser and Assur-nazir-pal, probably nearer the
         time of the latter. Assur-nazir-pal himself seldom speaks of
         his cavalry, but he constantly makes mention of the horsemen
         of the Aramaean and Syrian principalities, whom he
         incorporated into his own army.

         Drawn by Faucher-Gudin, from one of the bronze bas-reliefs
         of the gate of Balawāt.

The army thus reinforced was at all events more efficient, if not actually more powerful, than formerly; the discipline maintained was as severe, the military spirit as keen, the equipment as perfect, and the tactics as skilful as in former times. A knowledge of engineering had improved upon the former methods of taking towns by sapping and scaling, and though the number of military engines was as yet limited, the besiegers were well able, when occasion demanded, to improvise and make use of machines capable of demolishing even the strongest walls.*

         * The battering-ram had already reached such a degree of
         perfection under Assur-nazir-pal, that it must have been
         invented some time before the execution of the first bas-
         reliefs on which we see it portrayed. Its points of
         resemblance to the Greek battering-ram furnished Hoofer with
         one of his mam arguments for placing the monuments of
         Khorsabad and Koyunjik as late as the Persian or Parthian
         period.

The Assyrians were familiar with all the different kinds of battering-ram; the hand variety, which was merely a beam tipped with iron, worked by some score of men; the fixed ram, in which the beam was suspended from a scaffold and moved by means of ropes; and lastly, the movable ram, running on four or six wheels, which enabled it to be advanced or withdrawn at will. The military engineers of the day allowed full rein to their fancy in the many curious shapes they gave to this latter engine; for example, they gave to the mass of bronze at its point the form of the head of an animal, and the whole engine took at times the form of a sow ready to root up with its snout the foundations of the enemy’s defences. The scaffolding of the machine was usually protected by a carapace of green leather or some coarse woollen material stretched over it, which broke the force of blows from projectiles: at times it had an additional arrangement in the shape of a cupola or turret in which archers were stationed to sweep the face of the wall opposite to the point of attack.

         Drawn by Faucher-Gudin, from one of the bronze bas-reliefs
         of the gate of Balawāt.

The battering-rams were set up and placed in line at a short distance from the ramparts of the besieged town; the ground in front of them was then levelled and a regular causeway constructed, which was paved with bricks wherever the soil appeared to be lacking in firmness. These preliminaries accomplished, the engines were pushed forward by relays of troops till they reached the required range. The effort needed to set the ram in motion severely taxed the strength of those engaged in the work; for the size of the beam was enormous, and its iron point, or the square mass of metal at the end, was of no light weight. The besieged did their best to cripple or, if possible, destroy the engine as it approached them.

         Drawn by Faucher-Gudin, from a bas-relief brought from
         Nimroud, now in the British Museum.

Torches, lighted tow, burning pitch, and stink-pots were hurled down upon its roofing: attempts were made to seize the head of the ram by means of chains or hooks, so as to prevent it from moving, or in order to drag it on to the battlements; in some cases the garrison succeeded in crushing the machinery with a mass of rock. The Assyrians, however, did not allow themselves to be discouraged by such trifling accidents; they would at once extinguish the fire, release, by sheer force of muscle, the beams which the enemy had secured, and if, notwithstanding all their efforts, one of the machines became injured, they had others ready to take its place, and the ram would be again at work after only a few minutes’ delay. Walls, even when of burnt brick or faced with small stones, stood no chance against such an attack.

         Drawn by Faucher-Gudin, from a bas-relief from Nimroud, now
         in the British Museum.

The first blow of the ram sufficed to shake them, and an opening was rapidly made, so that in a few days, often in a few hours, they became a heap of ruins; the foot soldiers could then enter by the breach which the pioneers had effected.

It must, however, be remembered that the strength and discipline which the Assyrian troops possessed in such a high degree, were common to the military forces of all the great states—Elam, Damascus, Naīri, the Hittites, and Chaldęa. It was owing to this, and also to the fact that the armies of all these Powers were, as a rule, both in strength and numbers, much on a par, that no single state was able to inflict on any of the rest such a defeat as would end in its destruction. What decisive results had the terrible struggles produced, which stained almost periodically the valleys of the Tigris and the Zab with blood? After endless loss of life and property, they had nearly always issued in the establishment of the belligerents in their respective possessions, with possibly the cession of some few small towns or fortresses to the stronger party, most of which, however, were destined to come back to its former possessor in the very next campaign. The fall of the capital itself was not decisive, for it left the vanquished foe chafing under his losses, while the victory cost his rival so dear that he was unable to maintain the ascendency for more than a few years. Twice at least in three centuries a king of Assyria had entered Babylon, and twice the Babylonians had expelled the intruder of the hour, and had forced him back with a blare of trumpets to the frontier. Although the Ninevite dynasties had persisted in their pretensions to a suzerainty which they had generally been unable to enforce, the tradition of which, unsupported by any definite decree, had been handed on from one generation to another; yet in practice their kings had not succeeded in “taking the hands of Bel,” and in reigning personally in Babylon, nor in extorting from the native sovereign an official acknowledgment of his vassalage. Profiting doubtless by past experience, Assur-nazir-pal resolutely avoided those direct conflicts in which so many of his predecessors had wasted their lives. If he did not actually renounce his hereditary pretensions, he was content to let them lie dormant. He preferred to accommodate himself to the terms of the treaty signed a few years previously by Rammān-nirāri, even when Babylon neglected to observe them; he closed his eyes to the many ill-disguised acts of hostility to which he was exposed,* and devoted all his energies to dealing with less dangerous enemies.

         * He did not make the presence of Cossoan troops among the
         allies of the Sukhi a casus belli, even though they were
         commanded by a brother and by one of the principal officers
         of the King of Babylon.

Even if his frontier touched Karduniash to the south, elsewhere he was separated from the few states strong enough to menace his kingdom by a strip of varying width, comprising several less important tribes and cities;—to the east and north-east by the barbarians of obscure race whose villages and strongholds were scattered along the upper affluents of the Tigris or on the lower terraces of the Iranian plateau: to the west and north-west by the principalities and nomad tribes, mostly of Aramoan extraction, who now for a century had peopled the mountains of the Tigris and the steppes of Mesopotamia. They were high-spirited, warlike, hardy populations, proud of their independence and quick to take up arms in its defence or for its recovery, but none of them possessed more than a restricted domain, or had more than a handful of soldiers at its disposal. At times, it is true, the nature of their locality befriended them, and the advantages of position helped to compensate for their paucity of numbers.

         Drawn by Boudier, from a photograph by M. Binder.

Sometimes they were entrenched behind one of those rapid watercourses like the Radanu, the Zab, or the Turnat, which are winter torrents rather than streams, and are overhung by steep banks, precipitous as a wall above a moat; sometimes they took refuge upon some wooded height and awaited attack amid its rocks and pine woods. Assyria was superior to all of them, if not in the valour of its troops, at least numerically, and, towering in the midst of them, she could single out at will whichever tribe offered the easiest prey, and falling on it suddenly, would crush it by sheer force of weight. In such a case the surrounding tribes, usually only too well pleased to witness in safety the fall of a dangerous rival, would not attempt to interfere; but their turn was ere long sure to come, and the pity which they had declined to show to their neighbours was in like manner refused to them. The Assyrians ravaged their country, held their chiefs to ransom, razed their strongholds, or, when they did not demolish them, garrisoned them with their own troops who held sway over the country. The revenues gleaned from these conquests would swell the treasury at Nineveh, the native soldiers would be incorporated into the Assyrian army, and when the smaller tribes had all in turn been subdued, their conqueror would, at length, find himself confronted with one of the great states from which he had been separated by these buffer communities; then it was that the men and money he had appropriated in his conquests would embolden him to provoke or accept battle with some tolerable certainty of victory.

Immediately on his accession, Assur-nazir-pal turned his attention to the parts of his frontier where the population was most scattered, and therefore less able to offer any resistance to his projects.*

         * The principal document for the history of Assur-nazir-pal
         is the “Monolith of Nimrud,” discovered by Layard in the
         ruins of the temple of Ninip; it bears the same inscription
         on both its sides. It is a compilation of various documents,
         comprising, first, a consecutive account of the campaigns of
         the king’s first six years, terminating in a summary of the
         results obtained during that period; secondly, the account
         of the campaign of his sixth year, followed by three
         campaigns not dated, the last of which was in Syria; and
         thirdly, the history of a last campaign, that of his
         eighteenth year, and a second summary. A monolith found in
         the ruins of Kurkh, at some distance from Diarbekir,
         contains some important additions to the account of the
         campaigns of the fifth year. The other numerous inscriptions
         of Assur-nazir-pal which have come down to us do not contain
         any information of importance which is not found in the text
         of the Annals. The inscription of the broken Obelisk, from
         which I have often quoted, contains in the second column
         some mention of the works undertaken by this king.

He marched towards the north-western point of his territory, suddenly invaded Nummi,* and in an incredibly short time took Gubbe, its capital, and some half-dozen lesser places, among them Surra, Abuku, Arura, and Arubi. The inhabitants assembled upon a mountain ridge which they believed to be inaccessible, its peak being likened to “the point of an iron dagger,” and the steepness of its sides such that “no winged bird of the heavens dare venture on them.” In the short space of three days Assur-nazir-pal succeeded in climbing its precipices and forcing the entrenchments which had been thrown up on its summit: two hundred of its defenders perished sword in hand, the remainder were taken prisoners. The Kirruri,** terrified by this example, submitted unreservedly to the conqueror, yielded him their horses, mules, oxen, sheep, wine, and brazen vessels, and accepted the Assyrian prefects appointed to collect the tribute.

         * Nummi or Nimmi, mentioned already in the Annals of
         Tiglath-pileser I., has been placed by Hommel in the
         mountain group which separates Lake Van from Lake Urumiah,
         but by Tiele in the regions situated to the southeast of
         Nineveh; the observations of Delattre show that we ought
         perhaps to look for it to the north of the Arzania,
         certainly in the valley of that river. It appears to me to
         answer to the cazas of Varto and Boulanīk in the sandjak of
         Mush. The name of the capital may be identified with the
         present Gop, chief town of the caza of Boulanīk; in this
         case Abuku might be represented by the village of Biyonkh.

         ** The Kirruri must have had their habitat in the depression
         around Lake frumiah, on the western side of the lake, if we
         are to believe Schrader; Jelattre has pointed out that it
         ought to be sought elsewhere, near the sources of the
         Tigris, not far from the Murad-su. The connection in which
         it is here cited obliges us to place it in the immediate
         neighbourhood of Nummi, and its relative position to Adaush
         and Gilzān makes it probable that it is to be sought to the
         west and south-west of Lake Van, in the cazas of Mush and
         Sassun in the sandjak of Mush.

The neighbouring districts, Adaush, Gilzān, and Khubushkia, followed their example;* they sent the king considerable presents of gold, silver, lead, and copper, and their alacrity in buying off their conqueror saved them from the ruinous infliction of a garrison. The Assyrian army defiling through the pass of Khulun next fell upon the Kirkhi, dislodged the troops stationed in the fortress of Nishtun, and pillaged the cities of Khatu, Khatara, Irbidi, Arzania, Tela, and Khalua; ** Bubu, the Chief of Nishtun,*** was sent to Arbela, flayed alive, and his skin nailed to the city wall.

         * Kirzāu, also transcribed Gilzān and Guzān, has been
         relegated by the older Assyriologists to Eastern Armenia,
         and the site further specified as being between the ancient
         Araxes and Lake Urumiah, in the Persian provinces of Khoī
         and Marand. The indications given in our text and the
         passages brought together by Schrader, which place Gilzān in
         direct connection with Kirruri on one side and with Kurkhi
         on the other, oblige us to locate the country in the upper
         basin of the Tigris, and I should place it near Bitlis-
         tchaī, where different forms of the word occur many times on
         the map, such as Ghalzan in Ghalzan-dagh; Kharzan, the name
         of a caza of the sandjak of Sert; Khizan, the name of a caza
         of the sandjak of Bitlis. Girzān-Kilzān would thus be the
         Roman province of Arzanene, Ardzn in Armenian, in which the
         initial g or h of the ancient name has been replaced in the
         process of time by a soft aspirate. Khubushkia or Khutushkia
         has been placed by Lenormant to the east of the Upper Zab,
         and south of Arapkha, and this identification has been
         approved by Schrader and also by Delitzsch; according to the
         passages that Schrader himself has cited, it must, however,
         have stretched northwards as far as Shatakh-su, meeting
         Gilzān at one point of the sandjaks of Van and Hakkiari.

         ** Assur-nazir-pal, in going from Kirruri to Kirkhi in the
         basin of the Tigris, could go either by the pass of Bitlis
         or that of Sassun; that of Bitlis is excluded by the fact
         that it lies in Kirruri, and Kirruri is not mentioned in
         what follows. But if the route chosen was by the pass of
         Sassun, Khulun necessarily must have occupied a position at
         the entrance of the defiles, perhaps that of the present
         town of Khorukh. The name Khatu recalls that of the Khoith
         tribe which the Armenian historians mention as in this
         locality. Khaturu is perhaps Hātera in the caza of Lidjō, in
         the sandjak of Diarbekīr, and Arzania the ancient Arzan,
         Arzn, the ruins of which may be seen near Sheikh-Yunus.
         Tila-Tela is not the same town as the Tela in Mesopotamia,
         which we shall have occasion to speak of later, but is
         probably to be identified with Til or Tilleh, at the
         confluence of the Tigris and the Bohtan-tcha. Finally, it is
         possible that the name Khalua may be preserved in that of
         Halewi, which Layard gives as belonging to a village
         situated almost halfway between Rundvan and Til.

         *** Nishtun was probably the most important spot in this
         region: from its position on the list, between Khulun and
         Khataru on one side and Arzania on the other, it is evident
         we must look for it somewhere in Sassun or in the direction
         of Mayafarrikin.

In a small town near one of the sources of the Tigris, Assur-nazir-pal founded a colony on which he imposed his name; he left there a statue of himself, with an inscription celebrating his exploits carved on its base, and having done this, he returned to Nineveh laden with booty.

         Drawn by Boudier, from a sketch taken by Layard.

A few weeks had sufficed for him to complete, on this side, the work bequeathed to him by his father, and to open up the neighbourhood of the northeast provinces; he was not long in setting out afresh, this time to the north-west, in the direction of the Taurus.*

         * The text of the “Annals” declares that these events took
         place “in this same limmu,” in what the king calls higher up
         in the column “the beginning of my royalty, the first year
         of my reign.” We must therefore suppose that he ascended the
         throne almost at the beginning of the year, since he was
         able to make two campaigns under the same eponym.

He rapidly skirted the left bank of the Tigris, burned some score of scattered hamlets at the foot of Nipur and Pazatu,* crossed to the right bank, above Amidi, and, as he approached the Euphrates, received the voluntary homage of Kummukh and the Mushku.** But while he was complacently engaged in recording the amount of vessels of bronze, oxen, sheep, and jars of wine which represented their tribute, a messenger of bad tidings appeared before him. Assyria was bounded on the east by a line of small states, comprising the Katna*** and the Bīt-Khalupi,**** whose towns, placed alternately like sentries on each side the Khabur, protected her from the incursions of the Bedāwin.

         * Nipur or Nibur is the Nibaros of Strabo. If we consider
         the general direction of the campaign, we are inclined to
         place Nipur close to the bank of the Tigris, east of the
         regions traversed in the preceding campaign, and to identify
         it, as also Pazatu, with the group of high hills called at
         the present day the Ashit-dagh, between the Kharzan-su and
         the Batman-tchai.

         ** The Mushku (Moschiano or Meshek) mentioned here do not
         represent the main body of the tribe, established in
         Cappadocia; they are the descendants of such of the Mushku
         as had crossed the Euphrates and contested the possession of
         the regions of Kashiari with the Assyrians.

         *** The name has been read sometimes Katna, sometimes Shuna.
         The country included the two towns of Kamani and Dur-
         Katlimi, and on the south adjoined Bīt-Khalupi; this
         identifies it with the districts of Magada and Sheddadīyeh,
         and, judging by the information with which Assur-nazir-pal
         himself furnishes us, it is not impossible that Dur-Katline
         may have been on the site of the present Magarda, and Kamani
         on that of Sheddadīyeh. Ancient ruins have been pointed out
         on both these spots.

         **** Suru, the capital of Bīt-Khalupi, was built upon the
         Khabur itself where it is navigable, for Assur-nazir-pal
         relates further on that he had his royal barge built there
         at the time of the cruise which he undertook on the
         Euphrates in the VIth year of his reign. The itineraries of
         modern travellers mention a place called es-Sauar or es-
         Saur, eight hours’ march from the mouth of the Khabur on the
         right bank of the river, situated at the foot of a hill some
         220 feet high; the ruins of a fortified enclosure and of an
         ancient town are still visible. Following Tomkins, I should
         there place Suru, the chief town of Khalupi; Bīt-Khalupi
         would be the territory in the neighbourhood of es-Saur.

They were virtually Chaldęan cities, having been, like most of those which flourished in the Mesopotamian plains, thoroughly impregnated with Babylonian civilisation. Shadikanni, the most important of them, commanded the right bank of the Khabur, and also the ford where the road from Nineveh crossed the river on the route to Hariān and Carche-mish. The palaces of its rulers were decorated with winged bulls, lions, stelae, and bas-reliefs carved in marble brought from the hills of Singar. The people seem to have been of a capricious temperament, and, nothwithstanding the supervision to which they were subjected, few reigns elapsed in which it was not necessary to put down a rebellion among them. Bīt-Khalupi and its capital Suru had thrown off the Assyrian yoke after the death of Tukulti-ninip; the populace, stirred up no doubt by Aramęan emissaries, had assassinated the Harnathite who governed them, and had sent for a certain Akhiababa, a man of base extraction from Bīt-Adini, whom they had proclaimed king. This defection, if not promptly dealt with, was likely to entail serious consequences, since it left an important point on the frontier exposed: and there now remained nothing to prevent the people of Adini or their allies from spreading over the country between the Khabur and the Tigris, and even pushing forward their marauding bands as far as the very walls of Singar and Assur.

    Drawn by Faucher-Gudin,
    from Layard’s sketch

Without losing a moment, Assur-nazir-pal marched down the course of the Khabur, hastily collecting the tribute of the cities through which he passed. The defenders of Sura were disconcerted by his sudden appearance before their town, and their rulers came out and prostrated themselves at the king’s feet: “Dost thou desire it? it is life for us;—dost thou desire it? it is death;—dost thou desire it? what thy heart chooseth, that do to us!” But the appeal to his clemency was in vain; the alarm had been so great and the danger so pressing, that Assur-nazir-pal was pitiless. The town was handed over to the soldiery, all the treasure it contained was confiscated, and the women and children of the best families were made slaves; some of the ringleaders paid the penalty of their revolt on the spot; the rest, with Akhiabaha, were carried away and flayed alive, some at Nineveh, some elsewhere. An Assyrian garrison was installed in the citadel, and an ordinary governor, Azilu by name, replaced the dynasty of native princes. The report of this terrible retribution induced the Laqī* to tender their submission, and their example was followed by Khaian, king of Khindanu on the Euphrates. He bought off the Assyrians with gold, silver, lead, precious stones, deep-hued purple, and dromedaries; he erected a statue of Assur-nazir-pal in the centre of his palace as a sign of his vassalage, and built into the wall near the gates of his town an inscription dedicated to the gods of the conqueror.

         * The Laqī were situated on both banks of the Euphrates,
         principally on the right bank, between the Khabur and the
         Balikh, interspersed among the Sukhi, of whom they were
         perhaps merely a dissentient fraction.

Six, or at the most eight, months had sufficed to achieve these rapid successes over various foes, in twenty different directions—the expeditions in Nummi and Kirruri, the occupation of Kummukh, the flying marches across the mountains and plains of Mesopotamia—during all of which the new sovereign had given ample proof of his genius. He had, in fine, shown himself to be a thorough soldier, a conqueror of the type of Tiglath-pileser, and Assyria by these victories had recovered her rightful rank among the nations of Western Asia.

The second year of his reign was no less fully occupied, nor did it prove less successful than the first. At its very beginning, and even before the return of the favourable season, the Sukhi on the Euphrates made a public act of submission, and their chief, Ilubāni, brought to Nineveh on their behalf a large sum of gold and silver. He had scarcely left the capital when the news of an untoward event effaced the good impression he had made. The descendants of the colonists, planted in bygone times by Shalmaneser I. on the western slope of the Masios, in the district of Khalzidipkha, had thrown off their allegiance, and their leader, Khulaī, was besieging the royal fortress of Damdamusa.* Assur-nazir-pal marched direct to the sources of the Tigris, and the mere fact of his presence sufficed to prevent any rising in that quarter. He took advantage of the occasion to set up a stele beside those of his father Tukulti-ninip and his ancestor Tiglath-pileser, and then having halted to receive the tribute of Izalla,** he turned southwards, and took up a position on the slopes of the Kashiari.

         * The position of Khalzidipkha or Khalzilukha, as well as
         that of Kina-bu, its stronghold, is shown approximately by
         what follows. Assur-nazir-pal, marching from the sources of
         the Supnat towards Tela, could pass either to the east or
         west of the Karajah-dagh; as the end of the campaign finds
         him at Tushkhān, to the south of the Tigris, and he returns
         to Naīri and Kirkhi by the eastern side of the Karajah-dagh,
         we are led to conclude that the outgoing march to Tela was
         by the western side, through the country situated between
         the Karajah-dagh and the Euphrates. On referring to a modern
         map, two rather important places will be found in this
         locality: the first, Arghana, commanding the road from
         Diarbekīr to Khar-put; the other, Severek, on the route from
         Diarbekīr to Orfah. Arghana appears to me to correspond to
         the royal city of Damdamusa, which would, thus have
         protected the approach to the plain on the north-west.
         Severek corresponds fairly well to the position which,
         according to the Assyrian text, Kinabu must have occupied;
         hence the country of Khalzidipkha (Khalzilukha) must be the
         district of Severek.

         ** Izalla, written also Izala, Azala, paid its tribute in
         sheep and oxen, and also produced a wine for which it
         continued to be celebrated down to the time of
         Nebuchadrezzar II. Lenormant and Finzi place this country-
         near to Nisibis, where the Byzantine and Syrian writers
         mention a district and a mountain of the same name, and this
         conjecture is borne out by the passages of the Annals of
         Assur-nazir-pal which place it in the vicinity of Bīt-Adini
         and Bīt-Bakhiāni. It has also been adopted by most of the
         historians who have recently studied the question.

At the first news of his approach, Khulai had raised the blockade of Damdamusa and had entrenched himself in Kinabu; the Assyrians, however, carried the place by storm, and six hundred soldiers of the garrison were killed in the attack. The survivors, to the number of three thousand, together with many women and children, were, thrown into the flames. The people of Mariru hastened to the rescue;* the Assyrians took three hundred of them, prisoners and burnt them alive; fifty others were ripped up, but the victors did not stop to reduce their town. The district of Nirbu was next subjected to systematic ravaging, and half of its inhabitants fled into the Mesopotamian desert, while the remainder sought refuge in Tela at the foot of the Ukhira.**

         * The site of Mariru is unknown; according to the text of
         the Annals, it ought to lie near Severek (Kinabu) to the
         south-east, since after having mentioned it, Assur-nazir-pal
         speaks of the people of Nirbu whom he engaged in the desert
         before marching against Tela.

         ** Tila or Tela is the Tela Antoninopolis of the writers of
         the Roman period and the present Veranshehr. The district of
         Nirbu, of which it was the capital, lay on the southern
         slope of the Karajah-dagh at the foot of Mount Urkhira, the
         central group of the range. The name Kashiari is applied to
         the whole mountain group which separates the basins of the
         Tigris and Euphrates to the south and south-west.

The latter place was a strong one, being surrounded by three enclosing walls, and it offered an obstinate resistance. Notwithstanding this, it at length fell, after having lost three thousand of its defenders:—some of its garrison were condemned to the stake, some had their hands, noses, or ears cut off, others were deprived of sight, flayed alive, or impaled amid the smoking ruins. This being deemed insufficient punishment, the conqueror degraded the place from its rank of chief town, transferring this, together with its other privileges, to a neighbouring city, Tushkhān, which had belonged to the Assyrians from the beginning of their conquests.* The king enlarged the place, added to it a strong enclosing wall, and installed within it the survivors of the older colonists who had been dispersed by the war, the majority of whom had taken refuge in Shupria.**

         * From this passage we learn that Tushkhān, also called
         Tushkha, was situated on the border of Nirbu, while from
         another passage in the campaign of the Vth year we find that
         it was on the right bank of the Tigris. Following H.
         Rawlinson, I place it at Kurkh, near the Tigris, to the east
         of Diarbekīr. The existence in that locality of an
         inscription of Assur-nazir-pal appears to prove the
         correctness of this identification; we are aware, in fact,
         of the particular favour in which this prince held Tushkhān,
         for he speaks with pride of the buildings with which he
         embellished it. Hommel, however, identifies Kurkh with the
         town of Matiātō, of which mention is made further on.

         ** Shupria or Shupri, a name which has been read Ruri, had
         been brought into submission from the time of Shalmaneser I.
         We gather from the passages in which it is mentioned that it
         was a hilly country, producing wine, rich in flocks, and
         lying at a short distance from Tushkhān; perhaps Mariru,
         mentioned on p. 28, was one of its towns. I think we may
         safely place it on the north-western slopes of the Kashiari,
         in the modern caza of Tchernik, which possesses several
         vineyards held in high estimation. Knudtzon, to whom we are
         indebted for the reading of this name, places the country
         rather further north, within the fork formed by the two
         upper branches of the Tigris.

He constructed a palace there, built storehouses for the reception of the grain of the province; and, in short, transformed the town into a stronghold of the first order, capable of serving as a base of operations for his armies. The surrounding princes, in the meanwhile, rallied round him, including Ammibaal of Bīt-Zamani, and the rulers of Shupria, Naīri, and Urumi;* the chiefs of Eastern Nirbu alone held aloof, emboldened by the rugged nature of their mountains and the density of their forests. Assur-nazir-pal attacked them on his return journey, dislodged them from the fortress of Ishpilibria where they were entrenched, gained the pass of Buliani, and emerged into the valley of Luqia.**

         * The position of Bīt-Zamani on the banks of the Euphrates
         was determined by Delattre. Urumi was situated on the right
         bank of the same river in the neighbourhood of Sumeisat, and
         the name has survived in that of Urima, a town in the
         vicinity so called even as late as Roman times. Nirdun, with
         Madara as its capital, occupied part of the eastern slopes
         of the Kashiari towards Ortaveran.

         ** Hommel identifies the Luqia with the northern affluent of
         the Euphrates called on the ancient monuments Lykos, and he
         places the scene of the war in Armenia. The context obliges
         us to look for this river to the south of the Tigris, to the
         north-east and to the east of the Kashiari. The king coming
         from Nirbu, the pass of Buliani, in which he finds the towns
         of Kirkhi, must be the valley of Khaneki, in which the road
         winds from Mardin to Diarbekir, and the Luqia is probably
         the most important stream in this region, the Sheikhān-Su,
         which waters Savur, chief town of the caza of Avinch. Ardupa
         must have been situated near, or on the actual site of, the
         present Mardīn, whose Assyrian name is unknown to us; it was
         at all events a military station on the road to Nineveh,
         along which the king returned victorious with the spoil.

    Drawn by Faucher-Gudin,
    from a sketch by Layard.

At Ardupa a brief halt was made to receive the ambassadors of one of the Hittite sovereigns and others from the kings of Khanigalbat, after which he returned to Nineveh, where he spent the winter. As a matter of fact, these were but petty wars, and their immediate results appear at the first glance quite inadequate to account for the contemporary enthusiasm they excited. The sincerity of it can be better understood when we consider the miserable state of the country twenty years previously. Assyria then comprised two territories, one in the plains of the middle, the other in the districts of the upper, Tigris, both of considerable extent, but almost without regular intercommunication. Caravans or isolated messengers might pass with tolerable safety from Assur and Nineveh to Singar, or even to Nisibis; but beyond these places they had to brave the narrow defiles and steep paths in the forests of the Masios, through which it was rash to venture without keeping eye and ear ever on the alert. The mountaineers and their chiefs recognized the nominal suzerainty of Assyria, but refused to act upon this recognition unless constrained by a strong hand; if this control were relaxed they levied contributions on, or massacred, all who came within their reach, and the king himself never travelled from his own city of Nineveh to his own town of Amidi unless accompanied by an army. In less than the short space of three years, Assur-nazir-pal had remedied this evil. By the slaughter of some two hundred men in one place, three hundred in another, two or three thousand in a third, by dint of impaling and flaying refractory sheikhs, burning villages and dismantling strongholds, he forced the marauders of Naīri and Kirkhi to respect his frontiers and desist from pillaging his country. The two divisions of his kingdom, strengthened by the military colonies in Nirbu, were united, and became welded together into a compact whole from the banks of the Lower Zab to the sources of the Khabur and the Supnat.

During the following season the course of events diverted the king’s efforts into quite an opposite direction (B.C. 882). Under the name of Zamua there existed a number of small states scattered along the western slope of the Iranian Plateau north of the Cossęans.* Many of them—as, for instance, the Lullumź—had been civilized by the Chaldęans almost from time immemorial; the most southern among them were perpetually oscillating between the respective areas of influence of Babylon and Nineveh, according as one or other of these cities was in the ascendant, but at this particular moment they acknowledged Assyrian sway. Were they excited to rebellion against the latter power by the emissaries of its rival, or did they merely think that Assur-nazir-pal was too fully absorbed in the affairs of Naīri to be able to carry his arms effectively elsewhere? At all events they coalesced under Nurrammān, the sheikh of Dagara, blocked the pass of Babiti which led to their own territory, and there massed their contingents behind the shelter of hastily erected ramparts.**

         * According to Hommol and Tiele, Zamua would be the country
         extending from the sources of the Radanu to the southern
         shores of the lake of Urumiah; Schrader believes it to have
         occupied a smaller area, and places it to the east and
         south-west of the lesser Zab. Delattre has shown that a
         distinction must be made between Zamua on Lake Van and the
         well-known Zamua upon the Zab. Zamua, as described by Assur-
         nazir-pal, answers approximately to the present sandjak of
         Suleimaniyeh in the vilayet of Mossul.

         ** Hommol believes that Assur-nazir-pal crossed the Zab near
         Altin-keupru, and he is certainly correct: but it appears to
         me from a passage in the Annals, that instead of taking
         the road which leads to Bagdad by Ker-kuk and Tuz-Khurmati,
         he marched along that which leads eastwards in the direction
         of Suleimaniyeh. The pass of Babiti must have lain between
         Gawardis and Bibān, facing the Kissź tchai, which forms the
         western branch of the Radanu. Dagara would thus be
         represented by the district to the east of Kerkuk at the
         foot of the Kara-dagh.

Assur-nazir-pal concentrated his army at Kakzi,* a little to the south of Arbela, and promptly marched against them; he swept all obstacles before him, killed fourteen hundred and sixty men at the first onslaught, put Dagara to fire and sword, and soon defeated Nurrammān, but without effecting his capture.

         * Kakzi, sometimes read Kalzi, must have been situated at
         Shemamek of Shamamik, near Hazeh, to the south-west of
         Erbil, the ancient Arbela, at the spot where Jones noticed
         important Assyrian ruins excavated by Layard.

As the campaign threatened to be prolonged, he formed an entrenched camp in a favourable position, and stationed in it some of his troops to guard the booty, while he dispersed the rest to pillage the country on all sides.

One expedition led him to the mountain group of Nizir, at the end of the chain known to the people of Lullumź as the Kinipa.* He there reduced to ruins seven towns whose inhabitants had barricaded themselves in urgent haste, collected the few herds of cattle he could find, and driving them back to the camp, set out afresh towards a part of Nizir as yet unsubdued by any conqueror. The stronghold of Larbusa fell before the battering-ram, to be followed shortly by the capture of Bara. Thereupon the chiefs of Zamua, convinced of their helplessness, purchased the king’s departure by presents of horses, gold, silver, and corn.** Nurrammān alone remained impregnable in his retreat at Nishpi, and an attempt to oust him resulted solely in the surrender of the fortress of Birutu.*** The campaign, far from having been decisive, had to be continued during the winter in another direction where revolts had taken place,—in Khudun, in Kissirtu, and in the fief of Arashtua,**** all three of which extended over the upper valleys of the lesser Zab, the Radanu, the Turnat, and their affluents.

         * Mount Kinipa is a part of Nizir, the Khalkhalān-dagh, if
         we may-judge from the direction of the Assyrian campaign.

         ** None of these places can be identified with certainty.
         The gist of the account leads us to gather that Bara was
         situated to the east of Dagara, and formed its frontier; we
         shall not be far wrong in looking for all these districts in
         the fastnesses of the Kara-dagh, in the caza of
         Suleimaniyeh. Mount Nishpi is perhaps the Segirmc-dagh of
         the present day.

         *** The Assyrian compiler appears to have made use of two
         slightly differing accounts of this campaign; he has twice
         repeated the same facts without noticing his mistake.

         **** The fief of Arashtua, situated beyond the Turnat, is
         probably the district of Suleimaniyeh; it is, indeed, at
         this place only that the upper course of the Turnat is
         sufficiently near to that of the Radanu to make the marches
         of Assur-nazir-pal in the direction indicated by the
         Assyrian scribe possible. According to the account of the
         Annals, it seems to me that we must seek for Khudun and
         Kissirtu to the south of the fief of Arashtua, in the modern
         cazas of Gulanbar or Shehrizōr.

The king once more set out from Kakzi, crossed the Zab and the Eadanu, through the gorges of Babiti, and halting on the ridges of Mount Simaki, peremptorily demanded tribute from Dagara.* This was, however, merely a ruse to deceive the enemy, for taking one evening the lightest of his chariots and the best of his horsemen, he galloped all night without drawing rein, crossed the Turnat at dawn, and pushing straight forward, arrived in the afternoon of the same day before the walls of Ammali, in the very heart of the fief of Arashtua.** The town vainly attempted a defence; the whole population was reduced to slavery or dispersed in the forests, the ramparts were demolished, and the houses reduced to ashes. Khudun with twenty, and Kissirtu with ten of its villages, Bara, Kirtiara, Dur-Lullumź, and Bunisa, offered no further resistance, and the invading host halted within sight of the defiles of Khashmar.***

         * The Annals of Assur-nazir-pal go on to mention that
         Mount Simaki extended as far as the Turnat, and that it was
         close to Mount Azira. This passage, when compared with that
         in which the opening of the campaign is described, obliges
         us to recognise in Mounts Simaki and Azira two parts of the
         Shehrizōr chain, parallel to the Seguirmé-dagh. The fortress
         of Mizu, mentioned in the first of these two texts, may
         perhaps be the present Gurān-kaleh.

         ** Hommel thinks that Ammali is perhaps the present
         Suleimaniyeh; it is, at all events, on this side that we
         must look for its site.

         *** I do not know whether we may trace the name of the
         ancient Mount Khashmar-Khashmir in the present Azmir-dagh;
         it is at its feet, probably in the valley of Suleimanabad,
         that we ought to place the passes of Khashmar.

One kinglet, however, Amika of Zamru, showed no intention of capitulating. Entrenched behind a screen of forests and frowning mountain ridges, he fearlessly awaited the attack. The only access to the remote villages over which he ruled, was by a few rough roads hemmed in between steep cliffs and beds of torrents; difficult and dangerous at ordinary times, they were blocked in war by temporary barricades, and dominated at every turn by some fortress perched at a dizzy height above them. After his return to the camp, where his soldiers were allowed a short respite, Assur-nazir-pal set out against Zamru, though he was careful not to approach it directly and attack it at its most formidable points. Between two peaks of the Lara and Bidirgi ranges he discovered a path which had been deemed impracticable for horses, or even for heavily armed men. By this route, the king, unsuspected by the enemy, made his way through the mountains, and descended so unexpectedly upon Zamru, that Amika had barely time to make his escape, abandoning everything in his alarm—palace, treasures, harem, and even his chariot.* A body of Assyrians pursued him hotly beyond the fords of the Lallu, chasing him as far as Mount Itini; then, retracing their steps to headquarters, they at once set out on a fresh track, crossed the Idir, and proceeded to lay waste the plains of Ilaniu and Suāni.**

         * This raid, which started from the same point as the
         preceding one, ran eastwards in an opposite direction and
         ended at Mount Itini. Leaving the fief of Arashtua in the
         neighbourhood of Suleimaniyeh, Assur-nazir-pal crossed the
         chain of the Azmir-dagh near Pir-Omar and Gudrun, where we
         must place Mounts Lara and Bidirgi, and emerged upon Zamru;
         the only-places which appear to correspond to Zamru in that
         region are Kandishin and Suleimanabad. Hence the Lallu is
         the river which runs by Kandishin and Suleimanabad, and
         Itini the mountain which separates this river from the
         Tchami-Kizildjik.

         ** I think we may recognise the ancient name of Ilaniu in
         that of Alan, now borne by a district on the Turkish and
         Persian frontier, situated between Kunekd ji-dagh and the
         town of Serdesht. The expedition, coming from the fief of
         Arashtua, must have marched northwards: the Idir in this
         case must be the Tchami-Kizildjik, and Mount Sabua the chain
         of mountains above Serdesht.

Despairing of taking Amika prisoner, Assur-nazir-pal allowed him to lie hidden among the brushwood of Mount Sabua, while he himself called a halt at Parsindu,* and set to work to organise the fruits of his conquest.

         * Parsindu, mentioned between Mount Ilaniu and the town of
         Zamru, ought to lie somewhere in the valley of Tchami-
         Kizildjik, near Murana.

He placed garrisons in the principal towns—-at Parsindu, Zamru, and at Arakdi in Lullumź, which one of his predecessors had re-named Tukulti-Ashshur-azbat,* —“I have taken the help of Assur.” He next imposed on the surrounding country an annual tribute of gold, silver, lead, copper, dyed stuffs, oxen, sheep, and wine. Envoys from neighbouring kings poured in—from Khudun; Khubushkia, and Gilzān, and the whole of Northern Zamua bowed “before the splendour of his arms;” it now needed only a few raids resolutely directed against Mounts Azīra and Simaki, as far as the Turn at, to achieve the final pacification of the South. While in this neighbourhood, his attention was directed to the old town of Atlīla,** built by Sibir,*** an ancient king of Karduniash, but which had been half ruined by the barbarians. He re-named it Dur-Assur, “the fortress of Assur,” and built himself within it a palace and storehouses, in which he accumulated large quantities of corn, making the town the strongest bulwark of his power on the Cossęan border.

         *The approximate site of Arakdi is indicated in the
         itinerary of Assur-nazir-pal itself; the king comes from
         Zamru in the neighbourhood of Sulei-manabad, crosses Mount
         Lara, which is the northern part of the Azmir-dagh, and
         arrives at Arakdi, possibly somewhere in Surtash. In the
         course of the preceding campaign, after having laid waste
         Bara, he set out from this same town (Arakdi) to subdue
         Nishpi, all of which bears out the position I have
         indicated. The present town of Baziān would answer fairly
         well for the site of a place destined to protect the
         Assyrian frontier on this side.

         ** Given its position on the Chaldęan frontier, Atlīla is
         probably to be identified with the Kerkuk of the present
         day.

         *** Hommel is inclined to believe that Sibir was the
         immediate predecessor of Nabubaliddin, who reigned at
         Babylon at the same time as Assur-nazir-pal at Nineveh;
         consequently he would be a contemporary of Rammān-nirāri
         III. and of Tukulti-ninip II. Peiser and Rost have
         identified him with Simmash-shikhu.

         Drawn by Boudier, from a photograph by M. de Morgan.

The two campaigns of B.C. 882 and 881 had cost Assur-nazir-pal great efforts, and their results had been inadequate to the energy expended. His two principal adversaries, Nurrammān and Amika, had eluded him, and still preserved their independence at the eastern extremities of their former states. Most of the mountain tribes had acknowledged the king’s supremacy merely provisionally, in order to rid themselves of his presence; they had been vanquished scores of times, but were in no sense subjugated, and the moment pressure was withdrawn, they again took up arms. The districts of Zamua alone, which bordered on the Assyrian plain, and had been occupied by a military force, formed a province, a kind of buffer state between the mountain tribes and the plains of the Zab, protecting the latter from incursions.

Assur-nazir-pal, feeling himself tolerably safe on that side, made no further demands, and withdrew his battalions to the westward part of his northern frontier. He hoped, no doubt, to complete the subjugation of the tribes who still contested the possession of various parts of the Kashiari, and then to push forward his main guard as far as the Euphrates and the Arzania, so as to form around the plain of Amidi a zone of vassals or tutelary subjects like those of Zamua. With this end in view, he crossed the Tigris near its source at the traditional fords, and made his way unmolested in the bend of the Euphrates from the palace of Tilluli, where the accustomed tribute of Kummukh was brought to him, to the fortress of Ishtarāti, and from thence to Kibaki. The town of Matiatź, having closed its gates against him, was at once sacked, and this example so stimulated the loyalty of the Kurkhi chiefs, that they ha*tened to welcome him at the neighbouring military station of Zazabukha. The king’s progress continued thence as before, broken by frequent halts at the most favourable points for levying contributions on the inhabitants.1 Assur-nazir-pal encountered no serious difficulty except on the northern slopes of the Kashiari, but there again fortune smiled on him; all the contested positions were soon ceded to him, including even Madara, whose fourfold circuit of walls did not avail to save it from the conqueror.** After a brief respite at Tushkhān, he set out again one evening with his lightest chariots and the pick of his horsemen, crossed the Tigris on rafts, rode all night, and arrived unexpectedly the next morning before Pitura, the chief town of the Dirrabans.*** It was surrounded by a strong double enceinte, through which he broke after forty-eight hours of continuous assault: 800 of its men perished in the breach, and 700 others were impaled before the gates.

         * It is difficult to place any of these localities on the
         map: they ought all to be found between the ford of the
         Tigris, at Diarbeldr and the Euphrates, probably at the foot
         of the Mihrab-dagh and the Kirwāntchernen-dagh.

         ** Madara belonged to a certain Lapturi, son of Tubusi,
         mentioned in the campaign of the king’s second year. In
         comparing the facts given in the two passages, we see it was
         situated on the eastern slope of the Kashiari, not far from
         Tushkhan on one side, and Ardupa—that is probably Mardin—?
         on the other. The position of Ortaveran, or of one of the
         “tells” in its neighbourhood, answers fairly well to these
         conditions.

         *** According to the details given in the Annals, we must
         place the town of Bitura (or Pitura) at about 19 miles from
         Kurkh, on the other side of the Tigris, in a north-easterly
         direction, and consequently the country of Lirrā would be
         between the Hazu-tchaī and the Batman-tchaī. The Matni, with
         its passes leading in to Naīri, must in this case be the
         mountain group to the north of Mayafarrikīn, known as the
         Dordoseh-dagh or the Darkōsh-dagh.

Arbaki, at the extreme limits of Eirkhi, was the next to succumb, after which the Assyrians, having pillaged Dirra, carried the passes of Matni after a bloody combat, spread themselves over Naīri, burning 250 of its towns and villages, and returned with immense booty to Tushkhān. They had been there merely a few days when the newt arrived that the people of Bīt-Zamāni, always impatient of the yoke, had murdered their prince Ammibaal, and had proclaimed a certain Burramman in his place. Assur-nazir-pal marched upon Sinabux and repressed the insurrection, reaping a rich harvest of spoil—chariots fully equipped, 600 draught-horses, 130 pounds of silver and as much of gold, 6600 pounds of lead and the same of copper, 19,800 pounds of iron, stuffs, furniture in gold and ivory, 2000 bulls, 500 sheep, the entire harem of Ammibaal, besides a number of maidens of noble family together with their dresses. Burramman was by the king’s order flayed alive, and Arteanu his brother chosen as his successor. Sinabu* and the surrounding towns formed part of that network of colonies which in times past Shalmaneser I. had organised as a protection from the incursions of the inhabitants of Naīri; Assur-nazir-pal now used it as a rallying-place for the remaining Assyrian families, to whom he distributed lands and confided the guardianship of the neighbouring strongholds.

         * Hommel thinks that Sinabu is very probably the same as the
         Kinabu mentioned above; but it appears from Assur-nazir-
         pal’s own account that this Kinabu was in the province of
         Khalzidipkha (Khalzilukha) on the Kashiari, whereas Sinabu
         was in Bīt-Zamāni.

The results of this measure were not long in making themselves felt: Shupria, Ulliba, and Nirbu, besides other districts, paid their dues to the king, and Shura in Khamanu,* which had for some time held out against the general movement, was at length constrained to submit (880 B.C.).

         * Shur is mentioned on the return to Nairi, possibly on the
         road leading from Amidi and Tushkhān to Nineveh. Hommel
         believes that the country of Khamanu was the Amanos in
         Cilicia, and he admits, but unwillingly, that Assur-nazir-
         pal made a detour beyond the Euphrates. I should look for
         Shura, and consequently for Khamanu, in the Tur-Abdin, and
         should identify them with Saur, in spite of the difference
         of the two initial articulations.

However high we may rate the value of this campaign, it was eclipsed by the following one. The Aramęans on the Khabur and the middle Euphrates had not witnessed without anxiety the revival of Ninevite activity, and had begged for assistance against it from its rival. Two of their principal tribes, the Sukhi and the Laqi, had addressed themselves to the sovereign then reigning at Babylon. He was a restless, ambitious prince, named Nabu-baliddin, who asked nothing better than to excite a hostile feeling against his neighbour, provided he ran no risk by his interference of being drawn into open warfare. He accordingly despatched to the Prince of Sukhi the best of his Cossoan troops, commanded by his brother Zabdanu and one of the great officers of the crown, Bel-baliddin. In the spring of 879 B.C., Assur-nazir-pal determined once for all to put an end to these intrigues. He began by inspecting the citadels flanking the line of the Kharmish* and the Khabur,—Tabiti,** Magarisi,*** Shadikanni, Shuru in Bīt-Khafupi, and Sirki.****

         * The Kharmish has been identified with the Hirmās, the
         river flowing by Nisibis, and now called the Nahr-Jaghjagha.

         ** Tabiti is the Thebeta (Thebet) of Roman itineraries and
         Syrian writers, situated 33 miles from Nisibis and 52 from
         Singara, on the Nahr-Hesawy or one of the neighbouring
         wadys.

         *** Magarisi ought to be found on the present Nahr-
         Jaghjagha, near its confluence with the Nahr-Jerrāhi and its
         tributaries; unfortunately, this part of Mesopotamia is
         still almost entirely unexplored, and no satisfactory map of
         it exists as yet.

         **** Sirki is Circesium at the mouth of the Khabur.

Between the embouchures of the Khabur and the Balīkh, the Euphrates winds across a vast table-land, ridged with marly hills; the left bank is dry and sterile, shaded at rare intervals by sparse woods of poplars or groups of palms. The right bank, on the contrary, is seamed with fertile valleys, sufficiently well watered to permit the growth of cereals and the raising of cattle. The river-bed is almost everywhere wide, but strewn with dangerous rocks and sandbanks which render navigation perilous. On nearing the ruins of Halebiyeh, the river narrows as it enters the Arabian hills, and cuts for itself a regular defile of three or four hundred paces in length, which is approached by the pilots with caution.*

         * It is at this defile of El-Hammeh, and not at that of
         Birejik at the end of the Taurus, that we must place the
         Khinqi sha Purati—the narrows of the Euphrates—so often
         mentioned in the account of this campaign.

Assur-nazir-pal, on leaving Sirki, made his way along the left bank, levying toll on Supri, Naqarabāni, and several other villages in his course. Here and there he called a halt facing some town on the opposite bank, but the boats which could have put him across had been removed, and the fords were too well guarded to permit of his hazarding an attack. One town, however, Khindānu, made him a voluntary offering which, he affected to regard as a tribute, but Kharidi and Anat appeared not even to suspect his presence in their vicinity, and he continued on his way without having obtained from them anything which could be construed into a mark of vassalage.*

         * The detailed narrative of the Annals informs us that
         Assur-nazir-pal encamped on a mountain between Khindānu and
         Bīt-Shabaia, and this information enables us to determine on
         the map with tolerable certainty the localities mentioned in
         this campaign. The mountain in question can be none other
         than El-Hammeh, the only one met with on this bank of the
         Euphrates between the confluents of the Euphrates and the
         Khabur. Khindānu is therefore identical with the ruins of
         Tabus, the Dabausa of Ptolemy; hence Supri and Naqabarāni
         are situated between this point and Sirki, the former in the
         direction of Tayebeh, the latter towards El-Hoseīniyeh. On
         the other hand, the ruins of Kabr Abu-Atīsh would correspond
         very well to Bīt-Shabaia: is the name of Abu-Sbé borne by
         the Arabs of that neighbourhood a relic of that of Shabaia.
         Kharidi ought in that case to be looked for on the opposite
         bank, near Abu-Subān and Aksubi, where Chesney points out
         ancient remains. A day’s march beyond Kabr Abu-Atīsh brings
         us to El-Khass, so that the town of Anat would be in the
         Isle of Moglah. Shuru must be somewhere near one of the two
         Tell-Menakhīrs on this side the Balikh.

At length, on reaching Shuru, Shadadu, the Prince of Sukhi, trusting in his Cossoans, offered him battle; but he was defeated by Assur-na’zir-pal, who captured the King of Babylon’s brother, forced his way into the town after an assault lasting two days, and returned to Assyria laden with spoil. This might almost be considered as a repulse; for no sooner had the king quitted the country than the Aramaeans in their turn crossed the Euphrates and ravaged the plains of the Khabur.* Assur-nazir-pal resolved not to return until he was in a position to carry his arms into the heart of the enemy’s country. He built a flotilla at Shuru in Bīt-Khalupi on which he embarked his troops. Wherever the navigation of the Euphrates proved to be difficult, the boats were drawn up out of the water and dragged along the banks over rollers until they could again be safely launched; thus, partly afloat and partly on land, they passed through the gorge of Halebiyeh, landed at Kharidi, and inflicted a salutary punishment on the cities which had defied the king’s wrath on his last expedition. Khindānu, Kharidi, and Kipina were reduced to ruins, and the Sukhi and the Laqi defeated, the Assyrians pursuing them for two days in the Bisuru mountains as far as the frontiers of Bit-Adini.**

         * The Annals do not give us either the limmu or the date
         of the year for this new expedition. The facts taken
         altogether prove that it was a continuation of the preceding
         one, and it may therefore be placed in the year B.C. 878.

         ** The campaign of B.C. 878 had for its arena that of the
         Euphrates which lies between the Khabur and the Balikh; this
         time, however, the principal operations took place on the
         right bank. If Mount Bisuru is the Jebel-Bishri, the town of
         Kipina, which is mentioned between it and Kharidi, ought to
         be located between Maidān and Sabkha.

A complete submission was brought about, and its permanency secured by the erection of two strongholds, one of which, Kar-assur-nazir-pal, commanded the left, and the other, Nibarti-assur, the right bank of the Euphrates.*

This last expedition had brought the king into contact with the most important of the numerous Aramaean states congregated in the western region of Mesopotamia. This was Bīt-Adini, which lay on both sides of the middle course of the Euphrates.** It included, on the right bank, to the north of Carchemish, between the hills on the Sajur and Arabān-Su, a mountainous but fertile district, dotted over with towns and fortresses, the names of some of which have been preserved—Pakarrukhbuni, Sursunu, Paripa, Dabigu, and Shitamrat.*** Tul-Barsip, the capital, was situated on the left bank, commanding the fords of the modern Birejīk,**** and the whole of the territory between this latter and the Balīkh acknowledged the rule of its princes, whose authority also extended eastwards as far as the basaltic plateau of Tul-Abā, in the Mesopotamian desert.

         * The account in the Annals is confused, and contains
         perhaps some errors with regard to the facts. The site of
         the two towns is nowhere indicated, but a study of the map
         shows that the Assyrians could not become masters of the
         country without occupying the passes of the Euphrates; I am
         inclined to think that Kar-assur-nazir-pal is El-Halebiyeh,
         and Nibarti-assur, Zalebiyeh, the Zenobia of Roman times.

         ** Bīt-Adini appears to have occupied, on the right bank of
         the Euphrates, a part of the cazas of Aīn-Tab, Rum-kaleh,
         and Birejīk, that of Suruji, minus the nakhiyeh of Harrān,
         the larger part of the cazas of Membīj and of Rakkah, and
         part of the caza of Zōr, the cazas being those represented
         on the maps of Vital Cuinet.

         *** None of these localities can be identified with
         certainty, except perhaps Dabigu, a name we may trace in
         that of the modern village of Dehbek.

         **** Tul-Barsip has been identified with Birejīk.

To the south-east, Bīt-Adini bordered upon the country of the Sukhi and the Laqi,* lying to the east of Assyria; other principalities, mainly of Aramoan origin, formed its boundary to the north and north-west—Shugab in the bend of the Euphrates, from Birejīk to Samosata,** Tul-Abnī around Edessa,*** the district of Harrān,**** Bīt-Zamani, Izalla in the Tektek-dagh and on the Upper Khabur, and Bīt-Bakhiāni in the plain extending from the Khabur to the Kharmish.^

         * In his previous campaign Assur-nazir-pal had taken two
         towns of Bīt-Adini, situated on the right bank of the
         Euphrates, at the eastern extremity of Mount Bisuru, near
         the frontier of the Lāqi.

         ** The country of Shugab is mentioned between Birejīk (Tul-
         Barsip) and Bīt-Zamani, in one of the campaigns of
         Shalmaneser III., which obliges us to place it in the caza
         of Rum-kaleh; the name has been read Sumu.

         *** Tul-Abnī, which was at first sought for near the sources
         of the Tigris, has been placed in the Mesopotamian plain.
         The position which it occupies among the other names obliges
         us to put it near Bīt-Adini and Bīt-Zamani: the only
         possible site that I can find for it is at Orfah, the Edessa
         of classical times.

         **** The country of Harrān is nowhere mentioned as belonging
         either to Bīt-Adini or to Tul-Abnī: we must hence conclude
         that at this period it formed a little principality
         independent of those two states.

         ^ The situation of Bīt-Bakhiāni is shown by the position
         which it occupies in the account of the campaign, and by the
         names associated with it in another passage of the Annals.

Bīt-Zamani had belonged to Assyria by right of conquest ever since the death of Ammibaal; Izalla and Bīt-Bakhiāni had fulfilled their duties as vassals whenever Assur-nazir-pal had appeared in their neighbourhood; Bīt-Adini alone had remained independent, though its strength was more apparent than real. The districts which it included had never been able to form a basis for a powerful state. If by chance some small kingdom arose within it, uniting under one authority the tribes scattered over the burning plain or along the river banks, the first conquering dynasty which sprang up in the neighbourhood would be sure to effect its downfall, and absorb it under its own leadership. As Mitāni, saved by its remote position from bondage to Egypt, had not been able to escape from acknowledging the supremacy of the Khāti, so Bīt-Adini was destined to fall almost without a struggle under the yoke of the Assyrians. It was protected from their advance by the volcanic groups of the Urāa and Tul-Abā, which lay directly in the way of the main road from the marshes of the Khabur to the outskirts of Tul-Barsip. Assur-nazir-pal, who might have worked round this line of natural defence to the north through Nirbu, or to the south through his recently acquired province of Lāqi, preferred to approach it in front; he faced the desert, and, in spite of the drought, he invested the strongest citadel of Tul-Abā in the month of June, 877 B.C. The name of the place was Kaprabi, and its inhabitants believed it impregnable, clinging as it did to the mountain-side “like a cloud in the sky.” *

         * The name is commonly interpreted “Great Rock,” and divided
         thus—Kap-rabi. It may also be considered, like Kapridargila
         or Kapranishā, as being formed of Kapru and abi; this
         latter element appears to exist in the ancient name of
         Telaba, Thallaba, now Tul-Abā. Kapr-abi might be a fortress
         of the province of Tul-Abā.

    Drawn by Boudier, from a bas-relief.

The king, however, soon demolished its walls by sapping and by the use of the ram, killed 800 of its garrison, burned its houses, and carried off 2400 men with their families, whom he installed in one of the suburbs of Calah. Akhuni, who was then reigning in Bīt-Adini, had not anticipated that the invasion would reach his neighbourhood: he at once sent hostages and purchased peace by a tribute; the Lord of Tul-Abnī followed his example, and the dominion of Assyria was carried at a blow to the very frontier of the Khāti. It was about two centuries before this that Assurirba had crossed these frontiers with his vanquished army, but the remembrance of his defeat had still remained fresh in the memory of the people, as a warning to the sovereign who should attempt the old hazardous enterprise, and repeat the exploits of Sargon of Agadź or of Tiglath-pileser I. Assur-nazir-pal made careful preparations for this campaign, so decisive a one for his own prestige and for the future of the empire. He took with him not only all the Assyrian troops at his disposal, but requisitioned by the way the armies of his most recently acquired vassals, incorporating them with his own, not so much for the purpose of augmenting his power of action, as to leave no force in his rear when once he was engaged hand to hand with the Syrian legions. He left Calah in the latter days of April, 876 B.C.,* receiving the customary taxes from Bīt-Bakhiāni, Izalla, and Bīt-Adini, which comprised horses, silver, gold, copper, lead, precious stuffs, vessels of copper and furniture of ivory; having reached Tul-Barsip, he accepted the gifts offered by Tul-Abni, and crossing the Euphrates upon rafts of inflated skins, he marched his columns against Oarchemish.

         * On the 8th Iyyār, but without any indication of limmu, or
         any number of the year or of the campaign; the date 876 B.C.
         is admitted by the majority of historians.

The political organisation of Northern Syria had remained entirely unaltered since the days when Tiglath-pileser made his first victorious inroad into the country. The Cilician empire which succeeded to the Assyrian—if indeed it ever extended as far as some suppose—did not last long enough to disturb the balance of power among the various races occupying Syria: it had subjugated them for a time, but had not been able to break them up and reconstitute them. At the downfall of the Cilician Empire the small states were still intact, and occupied, as of old, the territory comprising the ancient Naharaim of the Egyptians, the plateau between the Orontes and the Euphrates, the forests and marshy lowlands of the Amanos, the southern slopes of Taurus, and the plains of Cilicia.

Of these states, the most famous, though not then the most redoubtable, was that with which the name of the Khāti is indissolubly connected, and which had Carchemish as its capital. This ancient city, seated on the banks of the Euphrates, still maintained its supremacy there, but though its wealth and religious ascendency were undiminished, its territory had been curtailed. The people of Bīt-Adini had intruded themselves between this state and Kummukh, Arazik hemmed it in on the south, Khazazu and Khalmān confined it on the west, so that its sway was only freely exercised in the basin of the Sajur. On the north-west frontier of the Khāti lay Gurgum, whose princes resided at Marqasi and ruled over the central valley of the Pyramos together with the entire basin of the Ak-su. Mikhri,* Iaudi, and Samalla lay on the banks of the Saluara, and in the forests of the Amanos to the south of Gurgum. Kuī maintained its uneventful existence amid the pastures of Cilicia, near the marshes at the mouth of the Pyramos. To the south of the Sajur, Bīt-Agusi** barred the way to the Orontes; and from their lofty fastness of Arpad, its chiefs kept watch over the caravan road, and closed or opened it at their will.

         * Mikhri or Ismikhri, i.e. “the country of larches,” was the
         name of a part of the Amanos, possibly near the Pyramos.

         ** The real name of the country was Iakhānu, but it was
         called Bīt-Gusi or Bīt-Agusi, like Bīt-Adini, Bīt-Bakhiāni,
         Bīt-Omri, after the founder of the reigning dynasty. We must
         place Iakhānu to the south of Azaz, in the neighbourhood of
         Arpad, with this town as its capital.

They held the key of Syria, and though their territory was small in extent, their position was so strong that for more than a century and a half the majority of the Assyrian generals preferred to avoid this stronghold by making a detour to the west, rather than pass beneath its walls. Scattered over the plateau on the borders of Agusi, or hidden in the valleys of Amanos, were several less important principalities, most of them owing allegiance to Lubarna, at that time king of the Patina and the most powerful sovereign of the district. The Patina had apparently replaced the Alasia of Egyptian times, as Bīt-Adini had superseded Mitāni; the fertile meadow-lands to the south of Samalla on the Afrīn and the Lower Orontes, together with the mountainous district between the Orontes and the sea as far as the neighbourhood of Eleutheros, also belonged to the Patina.

         Drawn by Faucher-Gudin, from a sketch by Perrot and Chipiez.

On the southern frontier of the Patina lay the important Phoenician cities, Arvad, Arka, and Sina; and on the south-east, the fortresses belonging to Hamath and Damascus. The characteristics of the country remained unchanged. Fortified towns abounded on all sides, as well as large walled villages of conical huts, like those whose strange outlines on the horizon are familiar to the traveller at the present-day. The manners and civilisation of Chaldęa pervaded even more than formerly the petty courts, but the artists clung persistently to Asianic tradition, and the bas-reliefs which adorned the palaces and temples were similar in character to those we find scattered throughout Asia Minor; there is the same inaccurate drawing, the same rough execution, the same tentative and awkward composition.

         Drawn by Boudier, from a photograph reproduced in Peters.

The scribes from force of custom still employed the cuneiform syllabary in certain official religious or royal inscriptions, but, as it was difficult to manipulate and limited in application, the speech of the Aramęan immigrants and the Phoenician alphabet gradually superseded the ancient language and mode of writing.*

         * There is no monument bearing an inscription in this
         alphabet which can be referred with any certainty to the
         time of Assur-nazir-pal, but the inscriptions of the kings
         of Samalla date back to a period not more than a century and
         a half later than his reign; we may therefore consider the
         Aramęan alphabet as being in current use in Northern Syria
         at the beginning of the ninth century, some forty years
         before the date of Mesha’s inscription (i.e. the Moabite
         stone).

Thus these Northern Syrians became by degrees assimilated to the people of Babylon and Nineveh, much as the inhabitants of a remote province nowadays adapt their dress, their architecture, their implements of husbandry and handicraft, their military equipment and organisation, to the fashions of the capital.*

         * One can judge of their social condition from the
         enumeration of the objects which formed their tribute, or
         the spoil which the Assyrian kings carried off from their
         country.

Their armies were modelled on similar lines, and consisted of archers, plkemen, slingers, and those troops of horsemen which accompanied the chariotry on flying raids; the chariots, moreover, closely followed the Assyrian type, even down to the padded bar with embroidered hangings which connected the body of the chariot with the end of the pole.

         Drawn by Faucher-Gudin, from a bronze bas-relief on the
         gates of Balawāt.

The Syrian princes did not adopt the tiara, but they wore the long fringed robe, confined by a girdle at the waist, and their mode of life, with its ceremonies, duties, and recreations, differed little from that prevailing in the palaces of Calah or Babylon. They hunted big game, including the lion, according to the laws of the chase recognised at Nineveh, priding themselves as much on their exploits in hunting, as on their triumphs in war.

         Drawn by Boudier, from a photograph by Hogarth, published in
         the Recueil de Travaux.

Their religion was derived from the common source which underlay all Semitic religions, but a considerable number of Babylonian deities were also worshipped; these had been introduced in some cases without any modification, whilst in others they had been assimilated to more ancient gods bearing similar characteristics: at Nerab, among the Patina, Nusku and his female companion Nikal, both of Chaldęan origin, claimed the homage of the faithful, to the disparagement of Shahr the moon and Shamash the sun. Local cults often centred round obscure deities held in little account by the dominant races; thus Samalla reverenced Uru the light, Bekubźl the wind, the chariot of El, not to mention El himself, Besheph, Hadad, and the Cabin, the servants of Besheph.

    Drawn by Faucher-
    Gudin, from the
    photograph in
    Luschan.

These deities were mostly of the Assyrian type, and if one may draw any conclusion from the few representations of them already discovered, their rites must have been celebrated in a manner similar to that followed in the cities on the Lower Euphrates. Scarcely any signs of Egyptian influence survived, though here and there a trace of it might be seen in the figures of calf or bull, the vulture of Mut or the sparrow-hawk of Horus. Assur-nazir-pal, marching from the banks of the Khabur to Bīt-Adini, and from Bīt-Adini passing on to Northern Syria, might almost have imagined himself still in his own dominions, so gradual and imperceptible were the changes in language and civilisation in the country traversed between Nineveh and Assur, Tul-Barsip and Samalla.

His expedition was unattended by danger or bloodshed. Lubarna, the reigning prince of the Patina, was possibly at that juncture meditating the formation of a Syrian empire under his rule. Unki, in which lay his capital of Kunulua, was one of the richest countries of Asia,* being well watered by the Afrin, Orontes, and Saluara;** no fields produced such rich harvests as his, no meadows pastured such cattle or were better suited to the breeding of war-horses.

         * The Unki of the Assyrians, the Uniuqa of the Egyptians, is
         the valley of Antioch, the Amk of the present day. Kunulua
         or Kinalia, the capital of the Patina, has been identified
         with the Gindaros of Greek times; I prefer to identify it
         with the existing Tell-Kunāna, written for Tell-Kunāla by
         the common substitution of n for l at the end of proper
         names.

         ** The Saluara of the Assyrian texts is the present Kara-su,
         which flows into the Ak-Denīz, the lake of Antioch.

         Drawn by Faucher-Gudin, from the impression taken from a
         Hittite cylinder.

His mountain provinces yielded him wood and minerals, and provided a reserve of semi-savage woodcutters and herdsmen from which to recruit his numerous battalions. The neighbouring princes, filled with uneasiness or jealousy by his good fortune, saw in the Assyrian monarch a friend and a liberator rather than an enemy. Carchemish opened its gates and laid at his feet the best of its treasures—twenty talents of silver, ingots, rings, and daggers of gold, a hundred talents of copper, two hundred talents of iron, bronze bulls, cups decorated with scenes in relief or outline, ivory in the tusk or curiously wrought, purple and embroidered stuffs, and the state carriage of its King Shangara. The Hittite troops, assembled in haste, joined forces with the Aramęan auxiliaries, and the united host advanced on Coele-Syria. The scribe commissioned to record the history of this expedition has taken a delight in inserting the most minute details. Leaving Carchemish, the army followed the great caravan route, and winding its way between the hills of Munzigāni and Khamurga, skirting Bīt-Agusi, at length arrived under the walls of Khazazu among the Patina.*

         * Khazazu being the present Azaz, the Assyrian army must
         have followed the route which still leads from Jerabis to
         this town. Mount Munzigāni and Khamurga, mentioned between
         Carchemish and Akhānu or Iakhānu, must lie between the Sajur
         and the Koweik, near Shehab, at the only point on the route
         where the road passes between two ranges of lofty hills.

The town having purchased immunity by a present of gold and of finely woven stuffs, the army proceeded to cross the Apriź, on the bank of which an entrenched camp was formed for the storage of the spoil. Lubarna offered no resistance, but nevertheless refused to acknowledge his inferiority; after some delay, ifc was decided to make a direct attack on his capital, Kunulua, whither he had retired. The appearance of the Assyrian vanguard put a speedy end to his ideas of resistance: prostrating himself before his powerful adversary, he offered hostages, and emptied his palaces and stables to provide a ransom. This comprised twenty talents of silver, one talent of gold, a hundred talents of lead, a hundred talents of iron, a thousand bulls, ten thousand sheep, daughters of his nobles with befitting changes of garments, and all the paraphernalia of vessels, jewels, and costly stuffs which formed the necessary furniture of a princely household. The effect of his submission on his own vassals and the neighbouring tribes was shown in different ways. Bīt-Agusi at once sent messengers to congratulate the conqueror, but the mountain provinces awaited the invader’s nearer approach before following its example. Assur-nazir-pal, seeing that they did not take the initiative, crossed the Orontes, probably at the spot where the iron bridge now stands, and making his way through the country between laraku and Iaturi,* reached the banks of the Sangura* without encountering any difficulty.

         * The spot where Assur-nazir-pal must have crossed the
         Orontes is determined by the respective positions of Kunulua
         and Tell-Kunāna. At the iron bridge, the modern traveller
         has the choice of two roads: one, passing Antioch and Beīt-
         el-Mā, leads to Urdeh on the Nahr-el-Kebīr; the other
         reaches the same point by a direct route over the Gebel
         Kosseir. If, as I believe, Assur-nazir-pal took the latter
         route, the country and Mount laraku must be the northern
         part of Gebel Kosseir in the neighbourhood of Antioch, and
         Iaturi, the southern part of the same mountain near Derkush.
         laraku is mentioned in the same position by Shalmaneser
         III., who reached it after crossing the Orontes, on
         descending from the Amanos en route for the country of
         Hamath.

         ** The Sangura or Sagura has been identified by Delattre
         with the Nahr-el-Kebīr, not that river which the Greeks
         called the Eleutheros, but that which flows into the sea
         near Latakia. Before naming the Sangura, the Annals
         mention a country, whose name, half effaced, ended in -ku:
         I think we may safely restore this name as [Ashtama]kou,
         mentioned by Shalmaneser III. in this region, after the name
         of laraku. The country of Ashtamaku would thus be the
         present canton of Urdeh, which is traversed before reaching
         the banks of the Nahr-el-Kebīr.

After a brief halt there in camp, he turned his back on the sea, and passing between Saratini and Duppāni,* took by assault the fortress of Aribua.** This stronghold commanded all the surrounding country, and was the seat of a palace which Lubarna at times used as a similar residence. Here Assur-nazir-pal took up his quarters, and deposited within its walls the corn and spoils of Lukhuti;*** he established here an Assyrian colony, and, besides being the scene of royal festivities, it became henceforth the centre of operations against the mountain tribes.

         * The mountain cantons of Saratini and Duppāni (Kalpāni
         l’Adpāni?), situated immediately to the south of the Nahr-el-
         Kebīr, correspond to the southern part of Gebel-el-Akrad,
         but I cannot discover any names on the modern map at all
         resembling them.

         ** Beyond Duppāni, Assur-nazir-pal encamped on the banks of
         a river whose name is unfortunately effaced, and then
         reached Aribua; this itinerary leads us to the eastern slope
         of the Gebel Ansarieh in the latitude of Hamath. The only
         site I can find in this direction fulfilling the
         requirements of the text is that of Masiad, where there
         still exists a fort of the Assassins. The name Aribua is
         perhaps preserved in that of Rabaō, er-Rabahu, which is
         applied to a wady and village in the neighbourhood of
         Masiad.

         *** Lukhuti must not be sought in the plains of the Orontes,
         where Assur-nazir-pal would have run the risk of an
         encounter with the King of Hamath or his vassals; it must
         represent the part of the mountain of Ansarieh lying between
         Kadmus, Masiad, and Tortosa.

The forts of the latter were destroyed, their houses burned, and prisoners were impaled outside the gates of their cities. Having achieved this noble exploit, the king crossed the intervening spurs of Lebanon and marched down to the shores of the Mediterranean. Here he bathed his weapons in the waters, and offered the customary sacrifices to the gods of the sea, while the Phoenicians, with their wonted prudence, hastened to anticipate his demands—Tyre, Sidon, Byblos, Mahallat, Maīza, Kaīza, the Amorites and Arvad,* all sending tribute.

         * The point where Assur-nazir-pal touched the sea-coast
         cannot be exactly determined: admitting that he set out from
         Masiad or its neighbourhood, he must have crossed the
         Lebanon by the gorge of the Eleutheros, and reached the sea-
         board somewhere near the mouth of this river.

One point strikes us forcibly as we trace on the map the march of this victorious hero, namely, the care with which he confined himself to the left bank of the Orontes, and the restraint he exercised in leaving untouched the fertile fields of its valley, whose wealth was so calculated to excite his cupidity. This discretion would be inexplicable, did we not know that there existed in that region a formidable power which he may have thought it imprudent to provoke. It was Damascus which held sway over those territories whose frontiers he respected, and its kings, also suzerains of Hamath and masters of half Israel, were powerful enough to resist, if not conquer, any enemy who might present himself. The fear inspired by Damascus naturally explains the attitude adopted by the Hittite states towards the invader, and the precautions taken by the latter to restrict his operations within somewhat narrow limits. Having accepted the complimentary presents of the Phoenicians, the king again took his way northwards—making a slight detour in order to ascend the Amanos for the purpose of erecting there a stele commemorating his exploits, and of cutting pines, cedars, and larches for his buildings—and then returned to Nineveh amid the acclamations of his people.

In reading the history of this campaign, its plan and the principal events which took place in it appear at times to be the echo of what had happened some centuries before. The recapitulation of the halting-places near the sources of the Tigris and on the banks of the Upper Euphrates, the marches through the valleys of the Zagros or on the slopes of Kashiari, the crushing one by one of the Mesopotamian races, ending in a triumphal progress through Northern Syria, is almost a repetition, both as to the names and order of the places mentioned, of the expedition made by Tiglath-pileser in the first five years of his reign. The question may well arise in passing whether Assur-nazir-pal consciously modelled his campaign on that of his ancestor, as, in Egypt, Ramses III. imitated Ramses II., or whether, in similar circumstances, he instinctively and naturally followed the same line of march. In either case, he certainly showed on all sides greater wisdom than his predecessor, and having attained the object of his ambition, avoided compromising his success by injudiciously attacking Damascus or Babylon, the two powers who alone could have offered effective resistance. The victory he had gained, in 879, over the brother of Nabu-baliddin had immensely flattered his vanity. His panegyrists vied with each other in depicting Karduniash bewildered by the terror of his majesty, and the Chaldęans overwhelmed by the fear of his arms; but he did not allow himself to be carried away by their extravagant flatteries, and continued to the end of his reign to observe the treaties concluded between the two courts in the time of his grandfather Rammān-nirāri.*

         * His frontier on the Chaldęan side, between the Tigris and
         the mountains, was the boundary fixed by Rammān-nirāri.

He had, however, sufficiently enlarged his dominions, in less than ten years, to justify some display of pride. He himself described his empire as extending, on the west of Assyria proper, from the banks of the Tigris near Nineveh to Lebanon and the Mediterranean;* besides which, Sukhi was subject to him, and this included the province of Rapiku on the frontiers of Babylonia.**

         * The expression employed in this description and in similar
         passages, ishtu ibirtan nāru, translated from the ford
         over the river, or better, from the other side of the
         river, must be understood as referring to Assyria proper:
         the territory subject to the king is measured in the
         direction indicated, starting from the rivers which formed
         the boundaries of his hereditary dominions. From the other
         bank of the Tigris means from the bank of the Tigris
         opposite Nineveh or Oalah, whence the king and his army set
         out on their campaigns.

         ** Rapiku is mentioned in several texts as marking the
         frontier between the Sukhi and Chaldęa.

He had added to his older provinces of Amidi, Masios and Singar, the whole strip of Armenian territory at the foot of the Taurus range, from the sources of the Supnat to those of the Bitlis-tchaī, and he held the passes leading to the banks of the Arzania, in Kirruri and Gilzān, while the extensive country of Naīri had sworn him allegiance. Towards the south-east the wavering tribes, which alternately gave their adherence to Assur or Babylon according to circumstances, had ranged themselves on his side, and formed a large frontier province beyond the borders of his hereditary kingdom, between the Lesser Zab and the Turnat. But, despite repeated blows inflicted on them, he had not succeeded in welding these various factors into a compact and homogeneous whole; some small proportion of them were assimilated to Assyria, and were governed directly by royal officials,* but the greater number were merely dependencies, more or less insecurely held by the obligations of vassalage or servitude. In some provinces the native chiefs were under the surveillance of Assyrian residents;** these districts paid an annual tribute proportionate to the resources and products of their country: thus Kirruri and the neighbouring states contributed horses, mules, bulls, sheep, wine, and copper vessels; the Aramaeans gold, silver, lead, copper, both wrought and in the ore, purple, and coloured or embroidered stuffs; while Izalla, Nirbu, Nirdun, and Bīt-Zamāni had to furnish horses, chariots, metals, and cattle.

         * There were royal governors in Suru in Bit-Khalupi, in
         Matiāte, in Madara, and in Naīri.

         ** There were “Assyrian” residents in Kirruri and the
         neighbouring countries, in Kirkhi, and in Naīri.

The less civilised and more distant tribes were not, like these, subject to regular tribute, but each time the sovereign traversed their territory or approached within reasonable distance, their chiefs sent or brought to him valuable presents as fresh pledges of their loyalty. Royal outposts, built at regular intervals and carefully fortified, secured the fulfilment of these obligations, and served as depots for storing the commodities collected by the royal officials; such outposts were, Damdamusa on the north-west of the Kashiari range, Tushkhān on the Tigris, Tilluli between the Supnat and the Euphrates, Aribua among the Patina, and others scattered irregularly between the Greater and Lesser Zab, on the Khabur, and also in Naīri. These strongholds served as places of refuge for the residents and their guards in case of a revolt, and as food-depots for the armies in the event of war bringing them into their neighbourhood. In addition to these, Assur-nazir-pal also strengthened the defences of Assyria proper by building fortresses at the points most open to attack; he repaired or completed the defences of Kaksi, to command the plain between the Greater and Lesser Zab and the Tigris; he rebuilt the castles or towers which guarded the river-fords and the entrances to the valleys of the Gebel Makhlub, and erected at Calah the fortified palace which his successors continued to inhabit for the ensuing five hundred years.

Assur-nazir-pal had resided at Nineveh from the time of his accession to the throne; from thence he had set out on four successive campaigns, and thither he had returned at the head of his triumphant troops, there he had received the kings who came to pay him homage, and the governors who implored his help against foreign attacks; thither he had sent rebel chiefs, and there, after they had marched in ignominy through the streets, he had put them to torture and to death before the eyes of the crowd, and their skins were perchance still hanging nailed to the battlements when he decided to change the seat of his capital. The ancient capital no longer suited his present state as a conqueror; the accommodation was too restricted, the decoration too poor, and probably the number of apartments was insufficient to house the troops of women and slaves brought back from his wars by its royal master. Built on the very bank of the Tebilti, one of the tributaries of the Khusur, and hemmed in by three temples, there was no possibility of its enlargement—a difficulty which often occurs in ancient cities. The necessary space for new buildings could only have been obtained by altering the course of the stream, and sacrificing a large part of the adjoining quarters of the city: Assur-nazir-pal therefore preferred to abandon the place and to select a new site where he would have ample space at his disposal.

         Drawn by Boudier, from Layard. The pointed mound on the left
         near the centre of the picture represents the ziggurāt of
         the great temple.

He found what he required close at hand in the half-ruined city of Calah, where many of his most illustrious predecessors had in times past sought refuge from the heat of Assur. It was now merely an obscure and sleepy town about twelve miles south of Nineveh, on the right bank of the Tigris, and almost at the angle made by the junction of this river with the Greater Zab. The place contained a palace built by Shalmaneser I., which, owing to many years’ neglect, had become uninhabitable. Assur-nazir-pal not only razed to the ground the palaces and temples, but also levelled the mound on which they had been built; he then cleared away the soil down to the water level, and threw up an immense and almost rectangular terrace on which to lay out his new buildings.

    Drawn by Faucher-Gudin,
    from a photograph by Mansell.

The king chose Ninip, the god of war, as the patron of the city, and dedicated to him, at the north-west corner of the terrace, a ziggurāt with its usual temple precincts. Here the god was represented as a bull with a man’s head and bust in gilded alabaster, and two yearly feasts were instituted in his honour, one in the month Sebat, the other in the month Ulul. The ziggurāt was a little over two hundred feet high, and was probably built in seven stages, of which only one now remains intact: around it are found several independent series of chambers and passages, which may have been parts of other temples, but it is now impossible to say which belonged to the local Belīt, which to Sin, to Gula, to Rammān, or to the ancient deity Rā. At the entrance to the largest chamber, on a rectangular pedestal, stood a stele with rounded top, after the Egyptian fashion. On it is depicted a figure of the king, standing erect and facing to the left of the spectator; he holds his mace at his side, his right hand is raised in the attitude of adoration, and above him, on the left upper edge of the stele, are grouped the five signs of the planets; at the base of the stele stands an altar with a triangular pedestal and circular slab ready for the offerings to be presented to the royal founder by priests or people. The palace extended along the south side of the terrace facing the town, and with the river in its rear; it covered a space one hundred and thirty-one yards in length and a hundred and nine in breadth. In the centre was a large court, surrounded by seven or eight spacious halls, appropriated to state functions; between these and the court were many rooms of different sizes, forming the offices and private apartments of the royal house. The whole palace was built of brick faced with stone. Three gateways, flanked by winged, human-headed bulls, afforded access to the largest apartment, the hall of audience, where the king received his subjects or the envoys of foreign powers.* The doorways and walls of some of the rooms were decorated with glazed tiles, but the majority of them were covered with bands of coloured** bas-reliefs which portrayed various episodes in the life of the king—his state-councils, his lion hunts, the reception of tribute, marches over mountains and rivers, chariot-skirmishes, sieges, and the torture and carrying away of captives.

         * At the east end of the hall Layard found a block of
         alabaster covered with inscriptions, forming a sort of
         platform on which the king’s throne may have stood.

         ** Layard points out the traces of colouring still visible
         when the excavations were made.

Incised in bands across these pictures are inscriptions extolling the omnipotence of Assur, while at intervals genii with eagles’ beaks, or deities in human form, imperious and fierce, appear with hands full of offerings, or in the act of brandishing thunderbolts against evil spirits. The architect who designed this imposing decoration, and the sculptors who executed it, closely followed the traditions of ancient Chaldęa in the drawing and composition of their designs, and in the use of colour or chisel; but the qualities and defects peculiar to their own race give a certain character of originality to this borrowed art. They exaggerated the stern and athletic aspect of their models, making the figure thick-set, the muscles extraordinarily enlarged, and the features ludicrously accentuated.

         Drawn by Boudier, after Layard.

Their pictures produce an impression of awkwardness, confusion and heaviness, but the detail is so minute and the animation so great that the attention of the spectator is forcibly arrested; these uncouth beings impress us with the sense of their self-reliance and their confidence in their master, as we watch them brandishing their weapons or hurrying to the attack, and see the shock of battle and the death-blows given and received. The human-headed bulls, standing on guard at the gates, exhibit the calm and pensive dignity befitting creatures conscious of their strength, while the lions passant who sometimes replace them, snarl and show their teeth with an almost alarming ferocity.

         Drawn by Boudier, from a photograph of the sculpture in the
         British Museum.

    Drawn by Faucher-Gudin,
    from a sketch by Layard.

The statues of men and gods, as a rule, are lacking in originality. The heavy robes which drape them from head to foot give them the appearance of cylinders tied in at the centre and slightly flattened towards the top. The head surmounting this shapeless bundle is the only life-like part, and even the lower half of this is rendered heavy by the hair and beard, whose tightly curled tresses lie in stiff rows one above the other. The upper part of the face which alone is visible is correctly drawn; the expression is of rather a commonplace type of nobility—respectable but self-sufficient. The features—eyes, forehead, nose, mouth—are all those of Assur-nazir-pal; the hair is arranged in the fashion he affected, and the robe is embroidered with his jewels; but amid all this we miss the keen intelligence always present in Egyptian sculpture, whether under the royal head-dress of Cheops or in the expectant eyes of the sitting scribe: the Assyrian sculptor could copy the general outline of his model fairly well, but could not infuse soul into the face of the conqueror, whose “countenance beamed above the destruction around him.”

The water of the Tigris being muddy, and unpleasant to the taste, and the wells at Calah so charged with lime and bitumen as to render them unwholesome, Assur-nazir-pal supplied the city with water from the neighbouring Zab.* An abundant stream was diverted from this river at the spot now called Negub, and conveyed at first by a tunnel excavated in the rock, and thence by an open canal to the foot of the great terrace: at this point the flow of the water was regulated by dams, and the surplus was utilised for irrigation** purposes by means of openings cut in the banks.

         * The presence of bitumen in the waters of Calah is due to
         the hot springs which rise in the bed of the brook Shor-
         derreh.

         ** The canal of Negub—Negub signifies hole in Arabic—
         was discovered by Layard. The Zab having changed its course
         to the south, and scooped out a deeper bed for itself, the
         double arch, which serves as an entrance to the canal, is
         actually above the ordinary level of the river, and the
         water flows through it only in flood-time.

The aqueduct was named Bābilat-khigal—the bringer of plenty—and, to justify the epithet, date-palms, vines, and many kinds of fruit trees were planted along its course, so that both banks soon assumed the appearance of a shady orchard interspersed with small towns and villas. The population rapidly increased, partly through the spontaneous influx of Assyrians themselves, but still more through the repeated introduction of bands of foreign prisoners: forts, established at the fords of the Zab, or commanding the roads which cross the Gebel Makhlub, kept the country in subjection and formed an inner line of defence at a short distance from the capital.

         Drawn by Boudier, from a photograph by Rassam.

Assur-nazir-pal kept up a palace, garden, and small temple, near the fort of Imgur-Bel, the modern Balawāt: thither he repaired for intervals of repose from state affairs, to enjoy the pleasures of the chase and cool air in the hot season. He did not entirely abandon his other capitals, Nineveh and Assur, visiting them occasionally, but Calah was his favourite seat, and on its adornment he spent the greater part of his wealth and most of his leisure hours. Only once again did he abandon his peaceful pursuits and take the field, about the year 897 B.C., during the eponymy of Shamashnurī. The tribes on the northern boundary of the empire had apparently forgotten the lessons they had learnt at the cost of so much bloodshed at the beginning of his reign: many had omitted to pay the tribute due, one chief had seized the royal cities of Amidi and Damdamusa, and the rebellion threatened to spread to Assyria itself. Assur-nazir-pal girded on his armour and led his troops to battle as vigorously as in the days of his youth. He hastily collected, as he passed through their lands, the tribute due from Kipāni, Izalla, and Kummukh, gained the banks of the Euphrates, traversed Grubbu burning everything on his way, made a detour through Dirria and Kirkhi, and finally halted before the walls of Damdamusa. Six hundred soldiers of the garrison perished in the assault and four hundred were taken prisoners: these he carried to Amidi and impaled as an object-lesson round its walls; but, the defenders of the town remaining undaunted, he raised the siege and plunged into the gorges of the Kashiari. Having there reduced to submission Udā, the capital of Lapturi, son of Tubisi, he returned to Calah, taking with him six thousand prisoners whom he settled as colonists around his favourite residence. This was his last exploit: he never subsequently quitted his hereditary domain, but there passed the remaining seven years of his life in peace, if not in idleness. He died in 860 B.C., after a reign of twenty-five years. His portraits represent him as a vigorous man, with a brawny neck and broad shoulders, capable of bearing the weight of his armour for many hours at a time. He is short in the head, with a somewhat flattened skull and low forehead; his eyes are large and deep-set beneath bushy eyebrows, his cheek-bones high, and his nose aquiline, with a fleshy tip and wide nostrils, while his mouth and chin are hidden by moustache and beard. The whole figure is instinct with real dignity, yet such dignity as is due rather to rank and the habitual exercise of power, than to the innate qualities of the man.*

         * Perrot and Chipiez do not admit that the Assyrian
         sculptors intended to represent the features of their kings;
         for this they rely chiefly on the remarkable likeness
         between all the figures in the same series of bas-reliefs.
         My own belief is that in Assyria, as in Egypt, the sculptors
         took the portrait of the reigning sovereign as the model for
         all their figures.

    Drawn by Boudier,
    from a photograph
    by Mansell, taken
    from the original
    stele in the British
    Museum.

The character of Assur-nazir-pal, as gathered from the dry details of his Annals, seems to have been very complex. He was as ambitious, resolute, and active as any prince in the world; yet he refrained from offensive warfare as soon as his victories had brought under his rule the majority of the countries formerly subject to Tiglath-pileser I. He knew the crucial moment for ending a campaign, arresting his progress where one more success might have brought him into collision with some formidable neighbour; and this wise prudence in his undertakings enabled him to retain the principal acquisitions won by his arms. As a worshipper of the gods he showed devotion and gratitude; he was just to his subjects, but his conduct towards his enemies was so savage as to appear to us cruel even for that terribly pitiless age: no king ever employed such horrible punishments, or at least none has described with such satisfaction the tortures inflicted on his vanquished foes.

Perhaps such measures were necessary, and the harshness with which he repressed insurrection prevented more frequent outbreaks and so averted greater sacrifice of life. But the horror of these scenes so appals the modern reader, that at first he can only regard Assur-nazir-pal as a royal butcher of the worst type.

Assur-nazir-pal left to his successor an overflowing treasury, a valiant army, a people proud of their progress and fully confident in their own resources, and a kingdom which had recovered, during several years of peace, from the strain of its previous conquests. Shalmaneser III.* drew largely on the reserves of men and money which his father’s foresight had prepared, and his busy reign of thirty-five years saw thirty-two campaigns, conducted almost without a break, on every side of the empire in succession. A double task awaited him, which he conscientiously and successfully fulfilled.

         * [The Shalmaneser III. of the text
         is the Shalmaneser II.
         of the notes.—TR.]

Assur-nazir-pal had thoroughly reorganised the empire and raised it to the rank of a great power: he had confirmed his provinces and vassal states in their allegiance, and had subsequently reduced to subjection, or, at any rate, penetrated at various points, the little buffer principalities between Assyria and the powerful kingdoms of Babylon, Damascus, and Urartu; but he had avoided engaging any one of these three great states in a struggle of which the issue seemed doubtful. Shalmaneser could not maintain this policy of forbearance without loss of prestige in the eyes of the world: conduct which might seem prudent and cautious in a victorious monarch like Assur-nazir-pal would in him have argued timidity or weakness, and his rivals would soon have provoked a quarrel if they thought him lacking in the courage or the means to attack them. Immediately after his accession, therefore, he assumed the offensive, and decided to measure his strength first against Urartu, which for some years past had been showing signs of restlessness. Few countries are more rugged or better adapted for defence than that in which his armies were about to take the field. The volcanoes to which it owed its configuration in geological times, had become extinct long before the appearance of man, but the surface of the ground still bears evidence of their former activity; layers of basaltic rock, beds of scorias and cinders, streams of half-disintegrated mud and lava, and more or less perfect cones, meet the eye at every turn. Subterranean disturbances have not entirely ceased even now, for certain craters—that of Tandurek, for example—sometimes exhale acid fumes; while hot springs exist in the neighbourhood, from which steaming waters escape in cascades to the valley, and earthquakes and strange subterranean noises are not unknown. The backbone of these Armenian mountains joins towards the south the line of the Grordyasan range; it runs in a succession of zigzags from south-east to northwest, meeting at length the mountains of Pontus and the last spurs of the Caucasus.

         Drawn by Boudier, from a photograph by A. Tissandier.

Lofty snow-clad peaks, chiefly of volcanic origin, rise here and there among them, the most important being Akhta-dagh, Tandurek, Ararat, Bingoel, and Palandoeken. The two unequal pyramids which form the summit of Ararat are covered with perpetual snow, the higher of them being 16,916 feet above the sea-level. The spurs which issue from the principal chain cross each other in all directions, and make a network of rocky basins where in former times water collected and formed lakes, nearly all of which are now dry in consequence of the breaking down of one or other of their enclosing sides. Two only of these mountain lakes still remain, entirely devoid of outlet, Lake Van in the south, and Lake Urumiah further to the south-east. The Assyrians called the former the Upper Sea of Naīri, and the latter the Lower Sea, and both constituted a defence for Urartu against their attacks. To reach the centre of the kingdom of Urartu, the Assyrians had either to cross the mountainous strip of land between the two lakes, or by making a detour to the north-west, and descending the difficult slopes of the valley of the Arzania, to approach the mountains of Armenia lying to the north of Lake Van. The march was necessarily a slow and painful one for both horses and men, along narrow winding valleys down which rushed rapid streams, over raging torrents, through tangled forests where the path had to be cut as they advanced, and over barren wind-swept plateaux where rain and mist chilled and demoralized soldiers accustomed to the warm and sunny plains of the Euphrates. The majority of the armies which invaded this region never reached the goal of the expedition: they retired after a few engagements, and withdrew as quickly as possible to more genial climes. The main part of the Urartu remained almost always unsubdued behind its barrier of woods, rocks, and lakes, which protected it from the attacks levelled against it, and no one can say how far the kingdom extended in the direction of the Caucasus. It certainly included the valley of the Araxes and possibly part of the valley of the Kur, and the steppes sloping towards the Caspian Sea. It was a region full of contrasts, at once favoured and ill-treated by nature in its elevation and aspect: rugged peaks, deep gorges, dense thickets, districts sterile from the heat of subterranean fires, and sandy wastes barren for lack of moisture, were interspersed with shady valleys, sunny vine-clad slopes, and wide stretches of fertile land covered with rich layers of deep alluvial soil, where thick-standing corn and meadow-lands, alternating with orchards, repaid the cultivator for the slightest attempt at irrigation.

History does not record who were the former possessors of this land; but towards the middle of the ninth century it was divided into several principalities, whose position and boundaries cannot be precisely determined. It is thought that Urartu lay on either side of Mount Ararat and on both banks of the Araxes, that Biainas lay around Lake Van,* and that the Mannai occupied the country to the north and east of Lake Urumiah;** the positions of the other tribes on the different tributaries of the Euphrates or the slopes of the Armenian mountains are as yet uncertain.

         * Urartu is the only name by which the Assyrians knew the
         kingdom of Van; it has been recognised from the very
         beginning of Assyriological studies, as well as its identity
         with the Ararat of the Bible and the Alarodians of
         Herodotus. It was also generally recognised that the name
         Biainas in the Vannic inscriptions, which Hincks read Bieda,
         corresponded to the Urartu of the Assyrians, but in
         consequence of this mistaken reading, efforts have been made
         to connect it with Adiabene. Sayce was the first to show
         that Biainas was the name of the country of Van, and of the
         kingdom of which Van was the capital; the word Bitāni which
         Sayce connects with it is not a secondary form of the name
         of Van, but a present day term, and should be erased from
         the list of geographical names.

         ** The Mannai are the Minni of Jeremiah (li. 27), and it is
         in their country of Minyas that one tradition made the ark
         rest after the Deluge.

The country was probably peopled by a very mixed race, for its mountains have always afforded a safe asylum for refugees, and at each migration, which altered the face of Western Asia, some fugitives from neighbouring nations drifted to the shelter of its fastnesses.

The principal element, the Khaldi, were akin to that great family of tribes which extended across the range of the Taurus, from the shores of the Mediterranean to the Euxine, and included the Khalybes, the Mushku, the Tabal, and the Khāti. The little preserved of their language resembles what we know of the idioms in use among the people of Arzapi and Mitānni, and their religion seems to have been somewhat analogous to the ancient worship of the Hittites. The character of the ancient Armenians, as revealed to us by the monuments, resembles in its main features that of the Armenians of the present time. They appear as tall, strong, muscular, and determined, full of zest for work and fighting, and proud of their independence.

         Drawn by Faucher-Gudin, from a photograph by Hormuzd Rassam.

Some of them led a pastoral life, wandering about with their flocks during the greater part of the year, obliged to seek pasturage in valley, forest, or mountain height according to the season, while in winter they remained frost-bound in semi-subterranean dwellings similar to those in which descendants immure themselves at the present day. Where the soil lent itself to agriculture, they proved excellent husbandmen, and obtained abundant crops. Their ingenuity in irrigation was remarkable, and enabled them to bring water by a system of trenches from distant springs to supply their fields and gardens; besides which, they knew how to terrace the steep hillsides so as to prevent the rapid draining away of moisture. Industries were but little developed among them, except perhaps the working of metals; for were they not akin to those Chalybes of the Pontus, whose mines and forges already furnished iron to the Grecian world? Fragments have been discovered in the ruined cities of Urartu of statuettes, cups, and votive shields, either embossed or engraved, and decorated with concentric bands of animals or men, treated in the Assyrian manner, but displaying great beauty of style and remarkable finish of execution.

         Drawn by Boudier, from a photograph by M. Binder.

Their towns were generally fortified or perched on heights, rendering them easy of defence, as, for example, Van and Toprah-Kaleh. Even such towns as were royal residences were small, and not to be compared with the cities of Assyria or Aram; their ground-plan generally assumed the form of a rectangular oblong, not always traced with equal exactitude.

         Drawn by Boudier, from a photograph by Hormuzd Rassam.

The walls were built of blocks of roughly hewn stone, laid in regular courses, but without any kind of mortar or cement; they were surmounted by battlements, and flanked at intervals by square towers, at the foot of which were outworks to protect the points most open to attack. The entrance was approached by narrow and dangerous pathways, which sometimes ran on ledges across the precipitous face of the rock. The dwelling-houses were of very simple construction, being merely square cabins of stone or brick, devoid of any external ornament, and pierced by one low doorway, but sometimes surmounted by an open colonnade supported by a row of small pillars; a flat roof with a parapet crowned the whole, though this was often replaced by a gabled top, which was better adapted to withstand the rains and snows of winter. The palaces of the chiefs differed from the private houses in the size of their apartments and the greater care bestowed upon their decoration. Their faēades were sometimes adorned with columns, and ornamented with bucklers or carved discs of metal; slabs of stone covered with inscriptions lined the inner halls, but we do not know whether the kings added to their dedications to the gods and the recital of their victories, pictures of the battles they had fought and of the fortresses they had destroyed. The furniture resembled that in the houses of Nineveh, but was of simpler workmanship, and perhaps the most valuable articles were imported from Assyria or were of Aramaean manufacture. The temples seemed to have differed little from the palaces, at least in external appearance. The masonry was more regular and more skilfully laid; the outer court was filled with brazen lavers and statues; the interior was furnished with altars, sacrificial stones, idols in human or animal shape, and bowls identical with those in the sanctuaries on the Euphrates, but the nature and details of the rites in which they were employed are unknown. One supreme deity, Khaldis, god of the sky, was, as far as we can conjecture, the protector of the whole nation, and their name was derived from his, as that of the Assyrians was from Assur, the Cossęans from Kashshu, and the Khati from Khātu.

This deity was assisted in the government of the universe by Teisbas, god of the air, and Ardinīs the sun-god. Groups of secondary deities were ranged around this sovereign triad—Auis, the water; Ayas, the earth; Selardis, the moon; Kharubainis, Irmusinis, Adarutas, and Arzi-melas: one single inscription enumerates forty-six, but some of these were worshipped in special localities only.

         Drawn by Faucher-Gudin, from Botta. Scribes are weighing
         gold, and soldiers destroying the statue of a god with their
         axes.

It would appear as if no goddesses were included in the native Pantheon. Saris, the only goddess known to us at present, is probably merely a variant of the Ishtar of Nineveh or Arbela, borrowed from the Assyrians at a later date.

The first Assyrian conquerors looked upon these northern regions as an integral part of Naīri, and included them under that name. They knew of no single state in the district whose power might successfully withstand their own, but were merely acquainted with a group of hostile provinces whose internecine conflicts left them ever at the mercy of a foreign foe.* Two kingdoms had, however, risen to some importance about the beginning of the ninth century—that of the Mannai in the east, and that of Urartu in the centre of the country. Urartu comprised the district of Ararat proper, the province of Biaina, and the entire basin of the Arzania.

         * The single inscription of Tiglath-pileser I. contains a
         list of twenty-three kings of Nairi, and mentions sixty
         chiefs of the same country.

         Drawn by Faucher-Gudin, from one of the bas-reliefs on the
         bronze gates of Balawāt.

Arzashkun, one of its capitals, situated probably near the sources of this river, was hidden, and protected against attack, by an extent of dense forest almost impassable to a regular army. The power of this kingdom, though as yet unorganised, had already begun to inspire the neighbouring states with uneasiness. Assur-nazir-pal speaks of it incidentally as lying on the northern frontier of his empire,* but the care he took to avoid arousing its hostility shows the respect in which he held it.

         * Arzashku, Arzashkun, seems to be the Assyrian form of an
         Urartian name ending in -ka, formed from a proper name
         Arzash, which recalls the name Arsčne, Arsissa, applied by
         the ancients to part of Lake Van. Arzashkun might represent
         the Ardzik of the Armenian historians, west of Malasgert.

    Drawn by Faucher-Gudin, from
    one of the bas-reliefs on the
    bronze gates of Balawāt.

He was, indeed, as much afraid of Urartu as of Damascus, and though he approached quite close to its boundary in his second campaign, he preferred to check his triumphant advance rather than risk attacking it. It appears to have been at that time under the undisputed rule of a certain Sharduris, son of Lutipri, and subsequently, about the middle of Assur-nazir-pal’s reign, to have passed into the hands of Aramź, who styled himself King of Naīri, and whose ambition may have caused those revolts which forced Assur-nazir-pal to take up arms in the eighteenth year of his reign. On this occasion the Assyrians again confined themselves to the chastisement of their own vassals, and checked their advance as soon as they approached Urartu. Their success was but temporary; hardly had they withdrawn from the neighbourhood, when the disturbances were renewed with even greater violence, very probably at the instigation of Aramź. Shalmaneser III. found matters in a very unsatisfactory state both on the west and south of Lake Van: some of the peoples who had been subject to his father—the Khubushkia, the pastoral tribes of the Gordęan mountains, and the Aramęans of the Euphrates—had transferred their allegiance elsewhere. He immediately took measures to recall them to a sense of their duty, and set out from Calah only a few days after succeeding to the crown. He marched at first in an easterly direction, and, crossing the pass of Simisi, burnt the city of Aridi, thus proving that he was fully prepared to treat rebels after the same fashion as his father. The lesson had immediate effect. All the neighbouring tribes, Khargęans, Simisęans, the people of Simira, Sirisha, and Ulmania, hastened to pay him homage even before he had struck his camp near Aridi. Hurrying across country by the shortest route, which entailed the making of roads to enable his chariots and cavalry to follow him, he fell upon Khubushkia, and reduced a hundred towns to ashes, pursuing the king Kakia into the depths of the forest, and forcing him to an unconditional surrender. Ascending thence to Shugunia, a dependency of Aramź’s, he laid the principality waste, in spite of the desperate resistance made on their mountain slopes by the inhabitants; then proceeding to Lake Van, he performed the ceremonial rites incumbent on an Assyrian king whenever he stood for the first time on the shores of a new sea. He washed his weapons in the waters, offered a sacrifice to the gods, casting some portions of the victim into the lake, and before leaving carved his own image on the surface of a commanding rock. On his homeward march he received tribute from Gilzān. This expedition was but the prelude of further successes. After a few weeks’ repose at Nineveh, he again set out to make his authority felt in the western portions of his dominions.

Akhuni, chief of Bīt-Adini, whose position was the first to be menaced, had formed a league with the chiefs of all the cities which had formerly bowed before Assur-nazir-pal’s victorious arms, Gurgum, Samalla, Kuī, the Patina, Car-chemish, and the Khāti. Shalmaneser seized Lalati* and Burmarana, two of Akhuni’s towns, drove him across the Euphrates, and following close on his heels, collected as he passed the tribute of Gurgum, and fell upon Samalla.

         * Lalati is probably the Lulati of the Egyptians. The modern
         site is not known, nor is that of Burmarana.

Under the walls of Lutibu he overthrew the combined forces of Adini, Samalla, and the Patina, and raised a trophy to commemorate his victory at the sources of the Saluara; then turning sharply to the south, he crossed the Orontes in pursuit of Shapalulme, King of the Patina.

         Drawn by Faucher-Gudin, from one of the bas-reliefs on the
         bronze gates of Balawāt.

Not far from Alizir he encountered a fresh army raised by Akhuni and the King of Samalla, with contingents from Carchemish, Kuī, Cilicia, and Iasbuki:* having routed it, he burnt the fortresses of Shapalulme, and after occupying himself by cutting down cedars and cypress trees on the Amanos in the province of Atalur, he left a triumphal stele engraved on the mountain-side.

         * The country of Iasbuki is represented by Ishbak, a son of
         Abraham and Keturah, mentioned in Genesis (xxv. 2) in
         connection with Shuah.

Next turning eastwards, he received the homage offered with alacrity by the towns of Taia, Khazazu, Nulia, and Butamu, and, with a final tribute from Agusi, he returned in triumph to Nineveh. The motley train which accompanied, him showed by its variety the immense extent of country he had traversed during this first campaign. Among the prisoners were representatives of widely different races;—Khāti with long robes and cumbrous head-dresses, following naked mountaineers from Shugunia, who marched with yokes on their necks, and wore those close-fitting helmets with short crests which have such a strangely modern look on the Assyrian bas-reliefs. The actual results of the campaign were, perhaps, hardly commensurate with the energy expended. This expedition from east to west had certainly inflicted considerable losses on the rebels against whom it had been directed; it had cost them dearly in men and cattle, and booty of all kinds, and had extorted from them a considerable amount of tribute, but they remained, notwithstanding, still unsubdued. As soon as the Assyrian troops had quitted their neighbourhood, they flattered themselves they were safe from further attack. No doubt they thought that a show of submission would satisfy the new invader, as it had satisfied his father; but Shalmaneser was not disposed to rest content with this nominal dependence. He intended to exercise effective control over all the states won by his sword, and the proof of their subjection was to be the regular payment of tribute and fulfilment of other obligations to their suzerain. Year by year he unfailingly enforced his rights, till the subject states were obliged to acknowledge their master and resign themselves to servitude.

The narrative of his reiterated efforts is a monotonous one. The king advanced against Adini in the spring of 859 B.C., defeated Akhuni near Tul-barsip, transported his victorious regiments across the Euphrates on rafts of skins, seized Surunu, Paripa, and Dabigu* besides six fortresses and two hundred villages, and then advanced into the territory of Carchemish, which he proceeded to treat with such severity that the other Hittite chiefs hastened to avert a similar fate by tendering their submission.

         * Shalmaneser crossed the Euphrates near Tul-barsip, which
         would lead him into the country between Birejīk, Rum-kaleh,
         and Aintab, and it is in that district that we must look for
         the towns subject to Akhuni. Dabigu, I consider, corresponds
         to Dehbek on Rey’s map, a little to the north-east of
         Aintab; the sites of Paripa and Surunu are unknown.

The very enumeration of their offerings proves not only their wealth, but the terror inspired by the advancing Assyrian host: Shapalulmź of the Patina, for instance, yielded up three talents of gold, a hundred talents of silver, three hundred talents of copper, and three hundred of iron, and paid in addition to this an annual tribute of one talent of silver, two talents of purple, and two hundred great beams of cedar-wood. Samalla, Agusi, and Kummukh were each laid under tribute in proportion to their resources, but their surrender did not necessarily lead to that of Adini. Akhuni realised that, situated as he was on the very borders of Assyrian territory, there was no longer a chance of his preserving his semi-independence, as was the case with his kinsfolk beyond the Euphrates; proximity to the capital would involve a stricter servitude, which would soon reduce him from the condition of a vassal to that of a subject, and make him merely a governor where he had hitherto reigned as king. Abandoned by the Khāti, he sought allies further north, and entered into a league with the tribes of Naīri and Urartu. When, in 858 B.C., Shalmaneser III. forced an entrance into Tul-barsip, and drove back what was left of the garrison on the right bank of the Euphrates, a sudden movement of Aramź obliged him to let the prey escape from his grasp. Rapidly fortifying Tul-barsip, Nappigi, Aligu, Pitru, and Mutkīnu, and garrisoning them with loyal troops to command the fords of the river, as his ancestor Shalmaneser I. had done six centuries before,* he then re-entered Naīri by way of Bīt-Zamani, devastated Inziti with fire and sword, forced a road through to the banks of the Arzania, pillaged Sukhmi and Dayaīni, and appeared under the walls of Arzashkun.

         * Pitru, the Pethor of the Bible (Numb. xxii. 5), is
         situated near the confluence of the Sajur and the Euphrates,
         somewhere near the encampment called Oshériyéh by Sachau.
         Mutkīnu was on the other bank, perhaps at Kharbet-Beddaī,
         nearly opposite Pitru. Nappigi was on the left bank of the
         Euphrates, which excludes its identification with Mabog-
         Hierapolis, as proposed by Hommel; Nabigath, mentioned by
         Tomkins, is too far east. Nappigi and Aligu must both be
         sought in the district between the Euphrates and the town of
         Saruj.

Aramź withdrew to Mount Adduri and awaited his attack in an almost impregnable position; he was nevertheless defeated: 3400 of his soldiers fell on the field of battle; his camp, his treasures, his chariots, and all his baggage passed into the hands of the conqueror, and he himself barely escaped with his life. Shalmaneser ravaged the country “as a savage bull ravages and tramples under his feet the fertile fields;” he burnt the villages and the crops, destroyed Arzashkun, and raised before its gates a pyramid of human heads, surrounded by a circle of prisoners impaled on stakes. He climbed the mountain chain of Iritia, and laid waste Aramali and Zanziuna at his leisure, and descending for the second time to the shores of Lake Van, renewed the rites he had performed there in the first year of his reign, and engraved on a neighbouring rock an inscription recording his deeds of prowess.

         Drawn by Faucher-Gudin, from one of the bas-reliefs on the
         Black Obelisk.

He made his way back to Gilzān, where its king, Shua, brought him a war-horse fully caparisoned, as a token of homage. Shalmaneser graciously deigned to receive it, and further exacted from the king the accustomed contributions of chariot-horses, sheep, and wine, together with seven dromedaries, whose strange forms amused the gaping crowds of Nineveh. After quitting Gilzān, Shalmaneser encountered the people of Khubushkia, who ventured to bar his way; but its king, Kakia, lost his city of Shilaia, and three thousand soldiers, besides bulls, horses, and sheep innumerable. Having enforced submission in Khubushkia, Shalmaneser at length returned to Assur through the defiles of Kirruri, and came to Calah to enjoy a well-earned rest after the fatigues of his campaign.

         Drawn by Faucher-Gudin, from one of the bas-reliefs on the
         bronze gates of Balawāt.

But Akhuni had not yet lost heart. Though driven back to the right bank of the Euphrates, he had taken advantage of the diversion created by Aramź in his favour, to assume a strong position among the hills of Shitamrat with the river in his rear.*

         * The position of Shitamrat may answer to the ruins of the
         fortress of Rum-kaleh, which protected a ford of the
         Euphrates in Byzantine times.

Shalmaneser attacked his lines in front, and broke through them after three days’ preliminary skirmishing; then finding the enemy drawn up in battle array before their last stronghold, the king charged without a moment’s hesitation, drove them back and forced them to surrender. Akhuni’s life was spared, but he was sent with the remainder of his army to colonise a village in the neighbourhood of Assur, and Adini became henceforth an integral part of Assyria.

         Drawn by Faucher-Gudin, from one of the bas-reliefs on the
         Black Obelisk.

The war on the western frontier was hardly brought to a close when another broke out in the opposite direction. The king rapidly crossed the pass of Bunagishlu and fell upon Mazamua: the natives, disconcerted by his impetuous onslaught, nevertheless hoped to escape by putting out in their boats on the broad expanse of Lake Urumiah. Shalmaneser, however, constructed rafts of inflated skins, on which his men ventured in pursuit right out into the open. The natives were overpowered; the king “dyed the sea with their blood as if it had been wool,” and did not withdraw until he had forced them to appeal for mercy.

In five years Shalmaneser had destroyed Adini, laid low Urartu, and confirmed the tributary states of Syria in their allegiance; but Damascus and Babylon were as yet untouched, and the moment was at hand when he would have to choose between an arduous conflict with them, or such a repression of the warlike zeal of his opening years, that, like his father Assur-nazir-pal, he would have to repose on his laurels. Shalmaneser was too deeply imbued with the desire for conquest to choose a peaceful policy: he decided at once to assume the offensive against Damascus, being probably influenced by the news of Ahab’s successes, and deeming that if the King of Israel had gained the ascendency unaided, Assur, fully confident of its own superiority, need have no fear as to the result of a conflict. The forces, however, at the disposal of Benhadad II. (Adadidri) were sufficient to cause the Assyrians some uneasiness. The King of Damascus was not only lord of Coele-Syria and the Haurān, but he exercised a suzerainty more or less defined over Hamath, Israel, Ammon, the Arabian and Idumean tribes, Arvad and the principalities of Northern Phoenicia, Usanata, Shianu, and Irkanata;* in all, twelve peoples or twelve kings owned his sway, and their forces, if united to his, would provide at need an army of nearly 100,000 men: a few years might see these various elements merged in a united empire, capable of withstanding the onset of any foreign foe.**

         * Irkanata, the Egyptian Arqanatu, perhaps the Irqata of the
         Tel-el-A marna tablets, is the Arka of Phoenicia. The other
         countries enumerated are likewise situated in the same
         locality. Shianu (for a long time read as Shizanu), the Sin
         of the Bible (Gen. x. 17), is mentioned by Tiglath-pileser
         III. under the name Sianu. Ushanat is called Uznu by
         Tiglath-pileser, and Delitzsch thought it represented the
         modern Kalaat-el-Hosu. With Arvad it forms the ancient Zahi
         of the Egyptians, which was then subject to Damascus.

         ** The suzerainty of Ben-hadad over these twelve peoples is
         proved by the way in which they are enumerated in the
         Assyrian documents: his name always stands at the head of
         the list. The manner in which the Assyrian scribes introduce
         the names of these kings, mentioning sometimes one,
         sometimes two among them, without subtracting them from the
         total number 12, has been severely criticised, and Schrader
         excused it by saying that 12 is here used as a round number
         somewhat vaguely.

Shalmaneser set out from Nineveh on the 14th day of the month Iyyār, 854 B.C., and chastised on his way the Aramaeans of the Balikh, whose sheikh Giammu had shown some inclination to assert his independence. He crossed the Euphrates at Tul-harsip, and held a species of durbar at Pitru for his Syrian subjects: Sangar of Carchemish, Kundashpi of Kummukh, Aramź of Agusi, Lalli of Melitene, Khaiani of Samalla, Garparuda who had succeeded Shapalulmź among the Patina, and a second Garparuda of Gurgum, rallied around him with their presents of welcome, and probably also with their troops. This ceremony concluded, he hastened to Khalmaa and reduced it to submission, then plunged into the hill-country between Khalmān and the Orontes, and swept over the whole territory of Hamath. A few easy victories at the outset enabled him to exact ransom from, or burn to the ground, the cities of Adinnu, Mashgā, Arganā, and Qarqar, but just beyond Qarqar he encountered the advance-guard of the Syrian army.*

         * The position of these towns is uncertain: the general plan
         of the campaign only proves that they must lie on the main
         route from Aleppo to Kalaat-Sejar, by Barā or by Maarźt-en-
         Nōmān and Kalaat-el-Mudiq. It is agreed that Qarqar must be
         sought not far from Hamath, whatever the exact site may be.
         An examination of the map shows us that Qarqar corresponds
         to the present Kalaat-el-Mudiq, the ancient Apamasa of
         Lebanon; the confederate army would command the ford which
         led to the plain of Hamath by Kalaat-Sejar.

         Drawn by Faucher-Gudin, from one of the bas-reliefs on the
         Black Obelisk.

Ben-hadad had called together, to give him a fitting reception, the whole of the forces at his disposal: 1200 chariots, 1200 horse, 20,000 foot-soldiers from Damascus alone; 700 chariots, 700 horse and 10,000 foot from Hamath; 2000 chariots and 10,000 foot belonging to Ahab, 500 soldiers from Kuī, 1000 mountaineers from the Taurus,* 10 chariots and 10,000 foot from Irk and 200 from Arvad, 200 from Usanata, 30 chariots and 10,000 foot from Shianu, 1000 camels from Gindibu the Arab, and 1000 Ammonites.

         * The people of the Muzri next enumerated have long been
         considered as Egyptians; the juxtaposition of their name
         with that of Kuī shows that it refers here to the Muzri of
         the Taurus.

The battle was long and bloody, and the issue uncertain; Shalmaneser drove back one wing of the confederate army to the Orontes, and forcing the other wing and the centre to retire from Qarqar to Kirzau, claimed the victory, though the losses on both sides were equally great. It would seem as if the battle were indecisive—the Assyrians, at any rate, gained nothing by it; they beat a retreat immediately after their pretended victory, and returned to their own land without prisoners and almost without booty. On the whole, this first conflict had not been unfavourable to Damascus: it had demonstrated the power of that state in the eyes of the most incredulous, and proved how easy resistance would be, if only the various princes of Syria would lay aside their differences and all unite under the command of a single chief. The effect of the battle in Northern Syria and among the recently annexed Aļamoan tribes was very great; they began to doubt the omnipotence of Assyria, and their loyalty was shaken. Sangar of Carchemish and the Khāti refused to pay their tribute, and the Emirs of Tul-Abnī and Mount Kashiari broke out into open revolt. Shalmaneser spent a whole year in suppressing the insurrection; complications, moreover, arose at Babylon which obliged him to concentrate his attention and energy on Chaldęan affairs. Nabu-baliddin had always maintained peaceful and friendly relations with Assyria, but he had been overthrown, or perhaps assassinated, and his son Marduk-nadin-shumu had succeeded him on the throne, to the dissatisfaction of a section of his subjects. Another son of Nabu-baliddin, Marduk-belusātź, claimed the sovereign power, and soon won over so much of the country that Marduk-nādin-shumu had fears for the safety of Babylon itself. He then probably remembered the pretensions to Kharduniash, which his Assyrian neighbours had for a long time maintained, and applied to Shalmaneser to support his tottering fortunes. The Assyrian monarch must have been disposed to lend a favourable ear to a request which allowed him to intervene as suzerain in the quarrels of the rival kingdom: he mobilised his forces, offered sacrifices in honour of Bammān at Zabān, and crossed the frontier in 853 B.C.*

The war dragged on during the next two years. The scene of hostilities was at the outset on the left bank of the Tigris, which for ten centuries had served as the battle-field for the warriors of both countries. Shalmaneser, who had invested Me-Turnat at the fords of the Lower Dīyalah, at length captured that fortress, and after having thus isolated the rebels of Babylonia proper, turned his steps towards G-ananatź.**

         * The town of Zabān is situated on the Lesser Zab, but it is
         impossible to fix the exact site.

         ** Mč-Turnat, Mź-Turni, “the water of the Turnat,” stood
         upon the Dīyalah, probably near the site of Bakuba, where
         the most frequented route crosses the river; perhaps we may
         identify it with the Artemita of classical authors. Gananatź
         must be sought higher up near the mountains, as the context
         points out; I am inclined to place it near the site of
         Khanekin, whose gardens are still celebrated, and the
         strategic importance of which is considerable.

Marduk-belusātź, “a vacillating king, incapable of directing his own affairs,” came out to meet him, but although repulsed and driven within the town, he defended his position with such spirit that Shalmaneser was at length obliged to draw off his troops after having cut down all the young compelled the fruit trees, disorganised the whole system of irrigation,—in short, after having effected all the damage he could. He returned in the following spring by the most direct route; Lakhiru fell into his hands,* but Marduk-belusātź, having no heart to contend with him for the possession of a district ravaged by the struggle of the preceding summer, fell back on the mountains of Yasubi and concentrated his forces round Armān.**

         * Lakhiru comes before Gananate on the direct road from
         Assyria, to the south of the Lower Zab, as we learn from the
         account of the campaign itself: wo shall not do wrong in
         placing this town either at Kifri, or in its neighbourhood
         on the present caravan route.

         ** Mount Yasubi is the mountainous district which separates
         Khanekin from Holwān.

Shalmaneser, having first wreaked his vengeance upon Gananatź, attacked his adversary in his self-chosen position; Annan fell after a desperate defence, and Marduk-belusātź either perished or disappeared in a last attempt at retaliation. Marduk-nadīn-shumu, although rid of his rival, was not yet master of the entire kingdom. The Aramęans of the Marshes, or, as they called themselves, the Kaldā, had refused him their allegiance, and were ravaging the regions of the Lower Euphrates by their repeated incursions. They constituted not so much a compact state, as a confederation of little states, alternately involved in petty internecine quarrels, or temporarily reconciled under the precarious authority of a sole monarch. Each separate state bore the name of the head of the family—real or mythical—from whom all its members prided themselves on being descended,—Bīt-Dakkuri, Bīt-Adini, Bīt-Amukkāni, Bīt-Shalani, Bīt-Shalli, and finally Bīt-Yakīn, which in the end asserted its predominance over all the rest.*

         * As far as we can judge, Bīt-Dakkuri and Bīt-Adini were the
         most northerly, the latter lying on both sides of the
         Euphrates, the former on the west of the Euphrates, to the
         south of the Bahr-i-Nejīf; Bīt-Yakīn was at the southern
         extremity near the mouths of the Euphrates, and on the
         western shore of the Persian Gulf.

In demanding Shalmaneser’s help, Marduk-nadīn-shumu had virtually thrown on him the responsibility of bringing these turbulent subjects to order, and the Assyrian monarch accepted the duties of his new position without demur. He marched to Babylon, entered the city and went direct to the temple of E-shaggīl: the people beheld him approach with reverence their deities Bel and Belīt, and visit all the sanctuaries of the local gods, to whom he made endless propitiatory libations and pure offerings. He had worshipped Ninip in Kuta; he was careful not to forget Nabo of Borsippa, while on the other hand he officiated in the temple of Ezida, and consulted its ancient oracle, offering upon its altars the flesh of splendid oxen and fat lambs. The inhabitants had their part in the festival as well as the gods; Shalmaneser summoned them to a public banquet, at which he distributed to them embroidered garments, and plied them with meats and wine; then, after renewing his homage to the gods of Babylon, he recommenced his campaign, and set out in the direction of the sea. Baqāni, the first of the Chaldęan cities which lay on his route, belonged to Bīt-Adini,* one of the tribes of Bīt-Dakkuri; it appeared disposed to resist him, and was therefore promptly dismantled and burnt—an example which did not fail to cool the warlike inclinations which had begun to manifest themselves in other parts of Bīt-Dakkuri.

         * The site of Baqāni is unknown; it should be sought for
         between Lamlum and Warka, and Bīt-Adini in Bīt-Dakkuri
         should be placed between the Shatt-et-Kaher and the Arabian
         desert, if the name of Enzudī, the other royal town,
         situated to the west of the Euphrates, is found, as is
         possible, under a popular etymology, in that of Kalaat ain-
         Saīd or Kalaat ain-es-Saīd in the modern maps.

He next crossed the Euphrates, and pillaged Enzudī, the fate of which caused the remainder of Bīt-Adini to lay down arms, and the submission of the latter brought about that of Bīt-Yakīn and Bīt-Amukkani. These were all rich provinces, and they bought off the conqueror liberally: gold, silver, tin, copper, iron, acacia-wood, ivory, elephants’ skins, were all showered upon the invader to secure his mercy. It must have been an intense satisfaction to the pride of the Assyrians to be able to boast that their king had deigned to offer sacrifices in the sacred cities of Accad, and that he had been borne by his war-horses to the shores of the Salt Sea; these facts, of little moment to us now, appeared to the people of those days of decisive importance. No king who was not actually master of the country would have been tolerated within the temple of the eponymous god, for the purpose of celebrating the rites which the sovereign alone was empowered to perform. Marduk-nadīn-shumu, in recognising Shalmaneser’s right to act thus, thereby acknowledged that he himself was not only the king’s ally, but his liegeman. This bond of supremacy doubtless did not weigh heavily upon him; as soon as his suzerain had evacuated the country, the two kingdoms remained much on the same footing as had been established by the treaties of the three previous generations. Alliances were made between private families belonging to both, peace existed between the two sovereigns, interchange of commerce and amenities took place between the two peoples, but with one point of difference which had not existed formerly: Assur protected Babel, and, by taking precedence of Marduk, he became the real head of the peoples of the Euphrates valley. Assured of the subordination, or at least of the friendly neutrality of Babylon, Shalma-neser had now a free hand to undertake a campaign in the remoter regions of Syria, without being constantly haunted by the fear that his rival might suddenly swoop down upon him in the rear by the valleys of the Badanu or the Zabs. He now ran no risks in withdrawing his troops from the south-eastern frontier, and in marshalling his forces on the slopes of the Armenian Alps or on the banks of the Orontes, leaving merely a slender contingent in the heart of Assyria proper to act as the necessary guardians of order in the capital.

Since the indecisive battle of Qarqar, the western frontier of the empire had receded as far as the Euphrates, and Shalmaneser had been obliged to forego the collection of the annual Syrian tribute. It would have been an excellent opportunity for the Khāti, while they enjoyed this accidental respite, to come to an understanding with Damascus, for the purpose of acting conjointly against a common enemy; but they let the right moment slip, and their isolation made submission inevitable. The effort to subdue them cost Shalmaneser dear, both in time and men; in the spring of each year he appeared at the fords of Tul-barsip and ravaged the environs of Carchemish, then marched upon the Orontes to accomplish the systematic devastation of some fresh district, or to inflict a defeat on such of his adversaries as dared to encounter him in the open field. In 850 B.C. the first blow was struck at the Khāti; Agusi* was the next to suffer, and its king, Aramź, lost Arniź, his royal city, with some hundred more townships and strongholds.**

         * Historians have up to the present admitted that this
         campaign of the year 850 took place in Armenia. The context
         of the account itself shows us that, in his tenth year,
         Shalmaneser advanced against the towns of Aramź, immediately
         after having pillaged the country of the Khāti, which
         inclines me to think that these towns were situated in
         Northern Syria. I have no doubt that the Aramź in question
         is not the Armenian king of that name, but Aramź the
         sovereign of Bit-Agusi, who is named several times in the
         Annals of Shalmaneser.

         ** The text of Bull No. 1 adds to the account of the war
         against Aramź, that of a war against the Damascene league,
         which merely repeats the account of Shalmaneser’s eleventh
         year. It is generally admitted that the war against Aramź
         falls under his tenth year, and the war against Ben-hadad
         during his eleventh year. The scribes must have had at their
         disposal two different versions of one document, in which
         these two wars were described without distinction of year.
         The compiler of the inscription of the Bulls would have
         considered them as forming two distinct accounts, which he
         has placed one after the other.

In 849 B.C. it was the turn of Damascus. The league of which Ben-hadad had proclaimed himself the suzerain was still in existence, but it had recently narrowly escaped dissolution, and a revolt had almost deprived it of the adherence of Israel and the house of Omri—after Hamath, the most active of all its members. The losses suffered at Qarqar had doubtless been severe enough to shake Ahab’s faith in the strength of his master and ally. Besides this, it would appear that the latter had not honourably fulfilled all the conditions of the treaty of peace he had signed three years previously; he still held the important fortress of Bamoth-gilead, and he delayed handing it over to Ahab in spite of his oath to restore it. Finding that he could not regain possession of it by fair means, Ahab resolved to take it by force. A great change in feeling and politics had taken place at Jerusalem. Jehoshaphat, who occupied the throne, was, like his father Asa, a devout worshipper of Jahveh, but his piety did not blind him to the secular needs of the moment. The experience of his predecessors had shown that the union of the twelve tribes under the rule of a scion of Judah was a thing of the past for ever; all attempts to restore it had ended in failure and bloodshed, and the house of David had again only lately been saved from ruin by the dearly bought intervention of Ben-hadad I. and his Syrians. Jehoshaphat from the outset clearly saw the necessity of avoiding these errors of the past; he accepted the situation and sought the friendship of Israel. An alliance between two princes so unequal in power could only result in a disguised suzerainty for one of them and a state of vassalage for the other; what Ben-hadad’s alliance was to Ahab, that of Ahab was to Jehoshaphat, and it served his purpose in spite of the opposition of the prophets.1 The strained relations between the two countries were relaxed, and the severed tribes on both sides of the frontier set about repairing their losses; while Hiel the Bethelite at length set about rebuilding Jericho on behalf of Samaria,* Jehoshaphat was collecting around him a large army, and strengthening himself on the west against the Philistines and on the south against the Bedawīn of the desert.** The marriage of his eldest son Jehoram*** with Athaliah subsequently bound the two courts together by still closer ties;**** mutual-visits were exchanged, and it was on the occasion of a stay made by Jehoshaphat at Jezreel that the expedition against Eamoth was finally resolved on.

         * The subordinate position of Jehoshaphat is clearly
         indicated by the reply which he makes to Ahab when the
         latter asks him to accompany him on this expedition: “I am
         as thou art, my people as thy people, my horses as thy
         horses” (1 Kings xxii. 4).

         ** 1 Kings xvi. 34, where the writer has preserved the
         remembrance of a double human sacrifice, destined, according
         to the common custom in the whole of the East, to create
         guardian spirits for the new building: “he laid the
         foundation thereof with the loss of Abiram his firstborn,
         and set up the gates thereof with the loss of his youngest
         son Segub; according to the word of the Lord.” [For the
         curse pronounced on whoever should rebuild Jericho, see
         Josh. vi. 26.—Tr.]

         *** [Following the distinction in spelling given in 2 Kings
         viii. 25, I have everywhere written Joram (of Israel) and
         Jehoram (of Judah), to avoid confusion.—Tr.]

         **** Athaliah is sometimes called the daughter of Ahab (2
         Kings viii. 18), and sometimes the daughter of Omri (2 Kings
         viii. 26; cf. 2 Ohron. xxii. 2), and several authors prefer
         the latter filiation, while the majority see in it a mistake
         of the Hebrew scribe. It is possible that both attributions
         may be correct, for we see by the Assyrian inscriptions that
         a sovereign is called the son of the founder of his line
         even when he was several generations removed from him: thus,
         Merodach-baladan, the adversary of Sargon of Assyria, calls
         himself son of Iakin, although the founder of the Bīt-Iakīn
         had been dead many centuries before his accession. The
         document used in 2 Kings viii. 26 may have employed the term
         daughter of Omri in the same manner merely to indicate that
         the Queen of Jerusalem belonged to the house of Omri.

It might well have appeared a more than foolhardy enterprise, and it was told in Israel that Micaiah, a prophet, the son of Imlah, had predicted its disastrous ending. “I saw,” exclaimed the prophet, “the Lord sitting on His throne, and all the host of heaven standing on His right hand and on His left. And the Lord said, Who shall entice Ahab that he may go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead? And one said on this manner, and another said on that manner. And there came forth a spirit, and stood before the Lord, and said, I will entice him. And the Lord said unto him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go forth, and will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And He said, Thou shalt entice him, and shalt prevail also: go forth, and do so. Now therefore, behold, the Lord hafch put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets; and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee.” *

         * 1 Kings xxii. 5-23, reproduced in 2 Chron. xviii. 4-22.

The two kings thereupon invested Ramoth, and Ben-hadad hastened to the defence of his fortress. Selecting thirty-two of his bravest charioteers, he commanded them to single out Ahab only for attack, and not fight with others until they had slain him. This injunction happened in some way to come to the king’s ears, and he therefore disguised himself as a common soldier, while Jehoshaphat retained his ordinary dress. Attracted by the richness of the latter’s armour, the Syrians fell upon him, but on his raising his war-cry they perceived their mistake, and turning from the King of Judah they renewed their quest of the Israelitish leader. While they were vainly seeking him, an archer drew a bow “at a venture,” and pierced him in the joints of his cuirass. “Wherefore he said to his charioteer, Turn thine hand, and carry me out of the host; for I am sore wounded.” Perceiving, however, that the battle was going against him, he revoked the order, and remained on the field the whole day, supported by his armour-bearers. He expired at sunset, and the news of his death having spread panic through the ranks, a cry arose, “Every man to his city, and every man to his country!” The king’s followers bore his body to Samaria,* and Israel again relapsed into the position of a vassal, probably under the same conditions as before the revolt.

         * 1 Kings xxii. 28-38 (cf. 2 Ohron. xviii. 28-34), with
         interpolations in verses 35 and 38. It is impossible to
         establish the chronology of this period with any certainty,
         so entirely do the Hebrew accounts of it differ from the
         Assyrian. The latter mention Ahab as alive at the time of
         the battle of Qarqar in 854 B.C. and Jehu on the throne in
         842 B.C. We must, therefore, place in the intervening twelve
         years, first, the end of Ahab’s reign; secondly, the two
         years of Ahaziah; thirdly, the twelve years of Joram;
         fourthly, the beginning of the reign of Jehu—in all,
         possibly fourteen years. The reign of Joram has been
         prolonged beyond reason by the Hebrew annalists, and it
         alone lends itself to be curtailed. Admitting that the siege
         of Samaria preceded the battle of Qarqar, we may surmise
         that the three years which elapsed, according to the
         tradition (1 Kings xxii. 1), between the triumph of Ahab and
         his death, fall into two unequal periods, two previous to
         Qarqar, and one after it, in such a manner that the revolt
         of Israel would have been the result of the defeat of the
         Damascenes; Ahab must have died in 835 B.C., as most modern
         historians agree. On the other hand, it is scarcely probable
         that Jehu ascended the throne at the very moment that
         Shalmaneser was defeating Hazael in 842 B.C.; we can only
         carry back his accession to the preceding year, possibly
         843. The duration of two years for the reign of Ahaziah can
         only be reduced by a few months, if indeed as much as that,
         as it allows of a full year, and part of a second year (cf.
         1 Kings xxii. 51, where it is said that Ahaziah ascended the
         throne in the 17th year of Jehoshaphat, and 2 Kings iii. 1,
         where it states that Joram of Israel succeeded Ahaziah in
         the 18th year of the same Jehoshaphat).; in placing these
         two years between 853 and 851, there will remain for the
         reign of Joram the period comprised between 851 and 843,
         namely, eight years, instead of the twelve attributed to him
         by biblical tradition.

Ahaziah survived his father two years, and was succeeded by his brother Joram.* When Shalmaneser, in 849 B.C., reappeared in the valley of the Orontes, Joram sent out against him his prescribed contingent, and the conquered Israelites once more fought for their conqueror.

         * The Hebrew documents merely make mention of Ahaziah’s
         accession, length of reign, and death (1 Kings xxii. 40, 51-
         53, and 2 Kings i. 2-17). The Assyrian texts do not mention
         his name, but they state that in 849 “the twelve kings”
          fought against Shalmaneser, and, as we have already seen,
         one of the twelve was King of Israel, here, therefore
         necessarily Ahaziah, whose successor was Joram.

The Assyrians had, as usual, maltreated the Khāti. After having pillaged the towns of Carchemish and Agusi, they advanced on the Amanos, held to ransom the territory of the Patina enclosed within the bend of the Orontes, and descending upon Hamath by way of the districts of Iaraku and Ashta-maku, they came into conflict with the army of the twelve kings, though on this occasion the contest was so bloody that they were forced to withdraw immediately after their success. They had to content themselves with sacking Apparazu, one of the citadels of Aramź, and with collecting the tribute of Garparuda of the Patina; which done, they skirted the Amanos and provided themselves with beams from its cedars. The two following years were spent in harrying the people of Paqarakhbuni, on the right bank of the Euphrates, in the dependencies of the ancient kingdom of Adini (848 B.C.), and in plundering the inhabitants of Ishtaratź in the country of Iaīti, near the sources of the Tigris (847 B.C.), till in 846 they returned to try their fortune again in Syria. They transported 120,000 men across the Euphrates, hoping perhaps, by the mere mass of such a force, to crush their enemy in a single battle; but Ben-hadad was supported by his vassals, and their combined army must have been as formidable numerically as that of the Assyrians. As usual, after the engagement, Shalmaneser claimed the victory, but he did not succeed in intimidating the allies or in wresting from them a single rood of territory.*

         * The care which the king takes to specify that “with
         120,000 men he crossed the Euphrates in flood-time” very
         probably shows that this number was for him in some respects
         an unusual one.

    From a photograph by Faucher-Gudin,
    retouched by Massias from the original
    in the Louvre. The fainter parts of the
    stele are the portions restored in the
    original.

Discouraged, doubtless, by so many fruitless attempts, he decided to suspend hostilities, at all events for the present. In 845 B.C. he visited Naīri, and caused an “image of his royal Majesty” to be carved at the source of the Tigris close to the very spot where the stream first rises. Pushing forward through the defiles of Tunibuni, he next invaded Urartu, and devastated it as far as the sources of the Euphrates; on reaching these he purified his arms in the virgin spring, and offered a sacrifice to the gods. On his return to the frontier, the chief of Dayaini “embraced his feet,” and presented him with some thoroughbred horses. In 844 B.C. he crossed the Lower Zab and plunged into the heart of Namri; this country had long been under Babylonian influence, and its princes bore Semitic names. Mardukmudammiq, who was then its ruler, betook himself to the mountains to preserve his life; but his treasures, idols, and troops were carried off to Assyria, and he was superseded on the throne by Ianzu, the son of Khambān, a noble of Cossęan origin. As might be expected after such severe exertions, Shalmaneser apparently felt that he deserved a time of repose, for his chroniclers merely note the date of 843 B.C. as that of an inspection, terminating in a felling of cedars in the Amanos. As a fact, there was nothing stirring on the frontier. Chaldęa itself looked upon him as a benefactor, almost as a suzerain, and by its position between Elam and Assyria, protected the latter from any quarrel with Susa. The nations on the east continued to pay their tribute without coercion, and Namri, which alone entertained pretensions to independence, had just received a severe lesson. Urartu had not acknowledged the supremacy of Assur, but it had suffered in the last invasion, and Aramź had shown no further sign of hostility. The tribes of the Upper Tigris—Kummukh and Adini—accepted their position as subjects, and any trouble arising in that quarter was treated as merely an ebullition of local dissatisfaction, and was promptly crushed. The Khāti were exhausted by the systematic destruction of their towns and their harvests. Lastly, of the principalities of the Amanos, Gurgum, Samalla, and the Patina, if some had occasionally taken part in the struggles for independence, the others had always remained faithful in the performance of their duties as vassals. Damascus alone held out, and the valour with which she had endured all the attacks made on her showed no signs of abatement; unless any internal disturbance arose to diminish her strength, she was likely to be able to resist the growing power of Assyria for a long time to come. It was at the very time when her supremacy appeared to be thus firmly established that a revolution broke out, the effects of which soon undid the work of the preceding two or three generations. Ben-hadad, disembarrassed of Shalmaneser, desired to profit by the respite thus gained to make a final reckoning with the Israelites. It would appear that their fortune had been on the wane ever since the heroic death of Ahab. Immediately after the disaster at Eamoth, the Moabites had risen against Ahaziah,* and their king, Mesha, son of Kamoshgad, had seized the territory north of the Arnon which belonged to the tribe of Gad; he had either killed or carried away the Jewish population in order to colonise the district with Moabites, and he had then fortified most of the towns, beginning with Dhibon, his capital. Owing to the shortness of his reign, Ahaziah had been unable to take measures to hinder him; but Joram, as soon as he was firmly seated on the throne, made every effort to regain possession of his province, and claimed the help of his ally or vassal Jehoshaphat.**

         * 2 Kings iii. 5. The text does not name Ahaziah, and it
         might be concluded that the revolt took place under Joram;
         the expression employed by the Hebrew writer, however,
         “when Ahab was dead... the King of Moab rebelled against the
         King of Israel,” does not permit of it being placed
         otherwise than at the opening of Ahaziah’s reign.

         ** 2 Kings iii. 6, 7, where Jehoshaphat replies to Joram in
         the same terms which he had used to Ahab. The chronological
         difficulties induced Ed. Meyer to replace the name of
         Jehoshaphat in this passage by that of his son Jehoram. As
         Stade has remarked, the presence of two kings both bearing
         the name of Jehoram in the same campaign against Moab would
         have been one of those facts which strike the popular
         imagination, and would not have been forgotten; if the
         Hebrew author has connected the Moabite war with the name of
         Jehoshaphat, it is because his sources of information
         furnished him with that king’s name.

The latter had done his best to repair the losses caused by the war with Syria. Being Lord of Edom, he had been tempted to follow the example of Solomon, and the deputy who commanded in his name had constructed a vessel * at Ezion-geber “to go to Ophir for gold;” but the vessel was wrecked before quitting the port, and the disaster was regarded by the king as a punishment from Jahveh, for when Ahaziah suggested that the enterprise should be renewed at their joint expense, he refused the offer.** But the sudden insurrection of Moab threatened him as much as it did Joram, and he gladly acceded to the latter’s appeal for help.

         * [Both in the Hebrew and the Septuagint the ships are in
         the plural number in 1 Kings xxii. 48, 49.—Tr.]

         ** 1 Kings xxii. 48, 49, where the Hebrew writer calls the
         vessel constructed by Jehoshaphat a “ship of Tarshish;”
          that is, a vessel built to make long voyages. The author of
         the Chronicles thought that the Jewish expedition to Ezion-
         geber on the Red Sea was destined to go to Tarshish in
         Spain. He has, moreover, transformed the vessel into a
         fleet, and has associated Ahaziah in the enterprise,
         contrary to the testimony of the Book of Kings; finally, he
         has introduced into the account a prophet named Eliezer, who
         represents the disaster as a chastisement for the alliance
         with Ahaziah (2 Ghron. xx. 35-37).

Apparently the simplest way of approaching the enemy would have been from the north, choosing Gilead as a base of operations; but the line of fortresses constructed by Mesha at this vulnerable point of his frontier was so formidable, that the allies resolved to attack from the south after passing the lower extremity of the Dead Sea. They marched for seven days in an arid desert, digging wells as they proceeded for the necessary supply of water. Mesha awaited them with his hastily assembled troops on the confines of the cultivated land; the allies routed him and blockaded him within his city of Kir-hareseth.* Closely beset, and despairing of any help from man, he had recourse to the last resource which religion provided for his salvation; taking his firstborn son, he offered him to Chemosh, and burnt him on the city wall in sight of the besiegers. The Israelites knew what obligations this sacrifice entailed upon the Moabite god, and the succour which he would be constrained to give to his devotees in consequence. They therefore raised the siege and disbanded in all directions.** Mesha, delivered at the very moment that his cause seemed hopeless, dedicated a stele in the temple of Dhibōn, on which he recorded his victories and related what measures he had taken to protect his people.***

         * Kir-Hareseth or Kir-Moab is the present Kcrak, the Krak of
         mediaeval times.

         ** The account of the campaign (2 Kings iii. 8-27) belongs
         to the prophetic cycle of Elisha, and seems to give merely a
         popular version of the event. A king of Edom is mentioned
         (9-10, 12-13), while elsewhere, under Jehoshaphat, it is
         stated “there was no king in Edom” (1 Kings xxii. 47); the
         geography also of the route taken by the expedition is
         somewhat confused. Finally, the account of the siege of Kir-
         hareseth is mutilated, and the compiler has abridged the
         episode of the human sacrifice, as being too conducive to
         the honour of Chemosh and to the dishonour of Jahveh. The
         main facts of the account are correct, but the details are
         not clear, and do not all bear the stamp of veracity.

         *** This is the famous Moabite Stone or stele of Dhibōn,
         discovered by Clermont-Ganneau in 1868, and now preserved in
         the Louvre.

He still feared a repetition of the invasion, but this misfortune was spared him; Jehoshaphat was gathered to his fathers,* and his Edomite subjects revolted on receiving the news of his death. Jeho—his son and successor, at once took up arms to bring them to a sense of their duty; but they surrounded his camp, and it was with difficulty that he cut his way through their ranks and escaped during the night.

         * The date of the death of Jehoshaphat may be fixed as 849
         or 848 B.C. The biblical documents give us for the period of
         the history of Judah following on the death of Ahab: First,
         eight years of Jehoshaphat, from the 17th year of his reign
         (1 Kings xxii. 51) to his 25th (and last) year (1 Kings
         xxii. 42); secondly, eight years of Jehoram, son of
         Jehoshaphat (2 Kings viii. 17); thirdly, one year of
         Ahaziah, son of Jehoram (2 Kings viii. 26)—in all 17 years,
         which must be reduced and condensed into the period between
         853 B.C., the probable date of the battle of Ramoth, and
         843, the equally probable date of the accession of Jehu. The
         reigns of the two Ahaziahs are too short to be further
         abridged; we must therefore place the campaign against Moab
         at the earliest in 850, during the months which followed the
         accession of Joram of Israel, and lengthen Johoshaphat’s
         reign from 850 to 849. There will then be room between 849
         and 844 for five years (instead of eight) for the reign of
         Jehoram of Judah.

The defection of the old Canaanite city of Libnah followed quickly on this reverse,* and Jehoram was powerless to avenge himself on it, the Philistines and the Bedāwin having threatened the western part of his territory and raided the country.** In the midst of these calamities Judah had no leisure to take further measures against Mesha, and Israel itself had suffered too severe a blow to attempt retaliation. The advanced age of Ben-hadad, and the unsatisfactory result of the campaigns against Shalmaneser, had furnished Joram with an occasion for a rupture with Damascus. War dragged on for some time apparently, till the tide of fortune turned against Joram, and, like his father Ahab in similar circumstances, he shut himself within Samaria, where the false alarm of an Egyptian or Hittite invasion produced a panic in the Syrian camp, and restored the fortunes of the Israelitish king.***

         * 2 Kings viii. 20-22; cf. 2 Ghron. xxi. 8-10.

         ** This war is mentioned only in 2 Ghron. xxi. 16, 17, where
         it is represented as a chastisement from Jahveh; the
         Philistines and “the Arabs which are beside the Ethiopians”
          (Kush) seem to have taken Jerusalem, pillaged the palace,
         and carried away the wives and children of the king into
         captivity, “so that there was never a son left him, save
         Jehoahaz (Ahaziah), the youngest of his sons.”

         *** Kuenen has proposed to take the whole account of the
         reign of Joram, son of Ahab, and transfer it to that of
         Jehoahaz, son of Jehu, and this theory has been approved by
         several recent critics and historians. On the other hand,
         some have desired to connect it with the account of the
         siege of Samaria in Ahab’s reign. I fail to see any
         reasonable argument which can be brought against the
         authenticity of the main fact, whatever opinion may be held
         with regard to the details of the biblical narrative.

Ben-hadad did not long survive the reverse he had experienced; he returned sick and at the point of death to Damascus, where he was assassinated by Hazael, one of his captains. Hebrew tradition points to the influence of the prophets in all these events. The aged Elijah had disappeared, so ran the story, caught up to heaven in a chariot of fire, but his mantle had fallen on Elisha, and his power still survived in his disciple. From far and near Elisha’s counsel was sought, alike by Gentiles as by the followers of the true God; whether the suppliant was the weeping Shunamite mourning for the loss of her only son, or Naaman the captain of the Damascene chariotry, he granted their petitions, and raised the child from its bed, and healed the soldier of his leprosy. During the siege of Samaria, he had several times frustrated the enemy’s designs, and had predicted to Joram not only the fact but the hour of deliverance, and the circumstances which would accompany it. Ben-hadad had sent Hazael to the prophet to ask him if he should recover, and Elisha had wept on seeing the envoy—“Because I know the evil that thou wilt do unto the children of Israel; their strongholds wilt thou set on fire, and their young men wilt thou slay with the sword, and wilt dash in pieces their little ones, and rip up their women with child. And Hazael said, But what is thy servant which is but a dog, that he should do this great thing? And Elisha answered, The Lord hath showed me that thou shalt be king over Syria.” On returning to Damascus Hazael gave the results of his mission in a reassuring manner to Ben-hadad, but “on the morrow... he took the coverlet and dipped it in water, and spread it on his face, so that he died.”

The deed which deprived it of its king^ seriously affected Damascus itself. It was to Ben-hadad that it owed most of its prosperity; he it was who had humiliated Hamath and the princes of the coast of Arvad, and the nomads of the Arabian desert. He had witnessed the rise of the most energetic of all the Israelite dynasties, and he had curbed its ambition; Omri had been forced to pay him tribute; Ahab, Ahaziah, and Joram had continued it; and Ben-hadad’s suzerainty, recognised more or less by their vassals, had extended through Moab and Judah as far as the Bed Sea. Not only had he skilfully built up this fabric of vassal states which made him lord of two-thirds of Syria, but he had been able to preserve it unshaken for a quarter of a century, in spite of rebellions in several of his fiefs and reiterated attacks from Assyria; Shalmaneser, indeed, had made an attack on his line, but without breaking through it, and had at length left him master of the field. This superiority, however, which no reverse could shake, lay in himself and in himself alone; no sooner had he passed away than it suddenly ceased, and Hazael found himself restricted from the very outset to the territory of Damascus proper.* Hamath, Arvad, and the northern peoples deserted the league, to return to it no more; Joram of Israel called on his nephew Ahaziah, who had just succeeded to Jehoram of Judah, and both together marched to besiege Bamoth.

         * From this point onward, the Assyrian texts which mentioned
         the twelve kings of the Khati, Irkhulini of Hamath and
         Adadidri (Ben-hadad) of Damascus, now only name Khazailu of
         the country of Damascus.

The Israelites were not successful in their methods of carrying on sieges; Joram, wounded in a skirmish, retired to his palace at Jezreel, where Ahaziah joined him a few days later, on the pretext of inquiring after his welfare. The prophets of both kingdoms and their followers had never forgiven the family of Ahab their half-foreign extraction, nor their eclecticism in the matter of religion. They had numerous partisans in both armies, and a conspiracy was set on foot against the absent sovereigns; Elisha, judging the occasion to be a propitious one, despatched one of his disciples to the camp with secret instructions. The generals were all present at a banquet, when the messenger arrived; he took one of them, Jehu, the son of Nimshi, on one side, anointed him, and then escaped. Jehu returned, and seated himself amongst his fellow-officers, who, unsuspicious of what had happened, questioned him as to the errand. “Is all well? Wherefore came this mad fellow to thee? And he said unto them, Ye know the man and what his talk was. And they said, It is false; tell us now. And he said, Thus and thus spake he to me, saying, Thus saith the Lord, I have anointed thee king over Israel. Then they hasted, and took every man his garment and put it under him on the top of the stairs, and blew the trumpet, saying, Jehu is king.” He at once marched on Jezreel, and the two kings, surprised at this movement, went out to meet him with scarcely any escort. The two parties had hardly met when Joram asked, “Is it peace, Jehu?” to which Jehu replied, “What peace, so long as the whoredoms of thy mother Jezebel and her witchcrafts are so many?” Whereupon Joram turned rein, crying to his nephew, “There is treachery, O Ahaziah.” But an arrow pierced him through the heart, and he fell forward in his chariot. Ahaziah, wounded near Ibleam, managed, however, to take refuge in Megiddo, where he died, his servants bringing the body back to Jerusalem.*

         * According to the very curtailed account in 2 Chron. xxii.
         9, Ahaziah appears to have hidden himself in Samaria, where
         he was discovered and taken to Jehu, who had him killed.
         This account may perhaps have belonged to the different
         version of which a fragment has been preserved in 2 Kings x.
         12-17.

When Jezebel heard the news, she guessed the fate which awaited her. She painted her eyes and tired her head, and posted herself in one of the upper windows of the palace. As Jehu entered the gates she reproached him with the words, “Is it peace, thou Zimri—thy master’s murderer? And he lifted up his face to the window and said, Who is on my side—who? Two or three eunuchs rose up behind the queen, and he called to them, Throw her down. So they threw her down, and some of her blood was sprinkled on the wall and on the horses; and he trode her under foot. And when he was come in he did eat and drink; and he said, See now to this cursed woman and bury her; for she is a king’s daughter.” But nothing was found of her except her skull, hands, and feet, which they buried as best they could. Seventy princes, the entire family of Ahab, were slain, and their heads piled up on either side of the gate. The priests and worshippers of Baal remained to be dealt with. Jehu summoned them to Samaria on the pretext of a sacrifice, and massacred them before the altars of their god. According to a doubtful tradition, the brothers and relatives of Ahaziah, ignorant of what had happened, came to salute Joram, and perished in the confusion of the slaughter, and the line of David narrowly escaped extinction with the house of Omri.*

         * 2 Kings x. 12-14. Stade has shown that this account is in
         direct contradiction with its immediate context, and that it
         belonged to a version of the events differing in detail from
         the one which has come down to us. According to the latter,
         Jehu must at once have met Jehonadab the son of Rechab, and
         have entered Samaria in his company (vers. 15-17); this
         would have been a poor way of inspiring the priests of Baal
         with the confidence necessary for drawing them into the
         trap. According to 2 Chron. xxii. 8, the massacre of the
         princes of Judah preceded the murder of Ahaziah.

Athaliah assumed the regency, broke the tie of vassalage which bound Judah to Israel, and by a singular irony of fate, Jerusalem offered an asylum to the last of the children of Ahab. The treachery of Jehu, in addition to his inexpiable cruelty, terrified the faithful, even while it served their ends. Dynastic crimes were common in those days, but the tragedy of Jezreel eclipsed in horror all others that had preceded it; it was at length felt that such avenging of Jahveh was in His eyes too ruthless, and a century later the Prophet Hosea saw in the misery of his people the divine chastisement of the house of Jehu for the blood shed at his accession.

The report of these events, reaching Calah, awoke the ambition of Shalmaneser. Would Damascus, mistrusting its usurper, deprived of its northern allies, and ill-treated by the Hebrews, prove itself as invulnerable as in the past? At all events, in 842 B.C., Shalmaneser once more crossed the Euphrates, marched along the Orontes, probably receiving the homage of Hamath and Arvad by the way. Restricted solely to the resources of Damascus, Hazael did not venture to advance into Coele-Syria as Ben-hadad had always done; he barricaded the defiles of Anti-Lebanon, and, entrenched on Mount Shenir with the flower of his troops, prepared to await the attack. It proved the most bloody battle that the Assyrians had up to that period ever fought. Hazael lost 16,000 foot-soldiers, 470 horsemen, 1121 chariots, and yet succeeded in falling back on Damascus in good order. Shalmaneser, finding it impossible to force the city, devastated the surrounding country, burnt numberless villages and farms, and felled all the fruit trees in the Haurān up to the margin of the desert. This district had never, since the foundation of the kingdom by Bezon a century before, suffered at the hands of an enemy’s army, and its population, enriched as much by peaceful labour as by the spoil of its successful wars, offered a prize of incalculable value. On his return march Shalmaneser raided the Bekaa, entered Phoenicia, and carved a triumphal stele on one of the rocks of Baalirasi.*

         * The site of Baalirasi is left undecided by Assyriologists.
         The events which follow enable us to affirm with tolerable
         certainty that the point on the coast where Shalmaneser
         received the tributes of Tyre and Sidon is none other than
         the mouth of the Nahr-el-Kelb: the name Baalirasi, “the
         master of the head,” would then be applicable to the rocky
         point which rises to the south of the river, and on which
         Egyptian kings had already sculptured their stelę.

The Kings of Tyre and Sidon hastened to offer him numerous gifts, and Jehu, who owed to his presence temporary immunity from a Syrian invasion, sent his envoys to greet him, accompanied by offerings of gold and silver in bars, vessels of gold of various forms, situlę, salvers, cups, drinking-vessels, tin, sceptres, and wands of precious woods. Shalmaneser’s pride was flattered by this homage, and he carved on one of his monuments the representation of this first official connection of Assyria with Israel.

         Drawn by Faucher-Gudin, from one of the scenes represented
         on the Black Obelisk.

The chief of the embassage is shown prostrating himself and kissing the dust before the king, while the rest advance in single file, some with vessels in their hands, some carrying sceptres, or with metal bowls supported on their heads. The prestige of the house of Omri was still a living influence, or else the Ninevite scribes were imperfectly informed of the internal changes which had taken place in Israel, for the inscription accompanying this bas-relief calls Jehu the son of Omri, and grafts the regicide upon the genealogical tree of his victims. Shalmaneser’s victory had been so dearly bought, that the following year the Assyrians merely attempted an expedition for tree-felling in the Amanos (841 B.C.). Their next move was to push forward into Kuī, in the direction of the Pyramos and Saros (840 B.C.). In the summer of 839 they once more ventured southwards, but this time Hazael changed his tactics: pitched battles and massed movements, in which the fate of a campaign was decided by one cast of the dice, were now avoided, and ambuscades, guerilla warfare, and long and tedious sieges became the order of the day. By the time that four towns had been taken, Shalmaneser’s patience was worn out: he drew off his troops and fell back on Phoenicia, laying Tyre, Sidon, and Byblos under tribute before returning into Mesopotamia. Hazael had shown himself possessed of no less energy than Ben-hadad; and Damascus, isolated, had proved as formidable a foe as Damascus surrounded by its vassals; Shalmaneser therefore preferred to leave matters as they were, and accept the situation. Indeed the results obtained were of sufficient importance to warrant his feeling some satisfaction. He had ruthlessly dispelled the dream of Syrian hegemony which had buoyed up Ben-hadad, he had forced Damascus to withdraw the suzerainty it had exercised in the south, and he had conquered Northern Syria and the lower basin of the Orontes. Before running any further risks, he judged it prudent to strengthen his recently acquired authority over these latter countries, and to accustom the inhabitants to their new position as subjects of Nineveh.

He showed considerable wisdom by choosing the tribes of the Taurus and of the Oappadocian marches as the first objects of attack. In regions so difficult of access, war could only be carried on with considerable hardship and severe loss. The country was seamed by torrents and densely covered with undergrowth, while the towns and villages, which clung to the steep sides of the valleys, had no need of walls to become effective fortresses, for the houses rose abruptly one above another, and formed so many redoubts which the enemy would be forced to attack and take one by one. Few pitched battles could be fought in a district of this description; the Assyrians wore themselves out in incessant skirmishes and endless petty sieges, and were barely compensated by the meagre spoil which such warfare yielded.

         Drawn by Boudier, from a photograph by Alfred Boissier.

In 838 B.C. Shalmaneser swept over the country of Tabal and reduced twenty-four of its princes to a state of subjection; proceeding thence, he visited the mountains of Turat,* celebrated from this period downwards for their silver mines and quarries of valuable marbles.

         * The position of the mountains of Turat is indicated by the
         nature of their products: “We know of a silver mine at
         Marash and an iron mine not worked, and two fine quarries,
         one of pink and the other of black marble.” Turat,
         therefore, must be the Marash mountain, the Aghir-Uagh and
         its spurs; hence the two sorts of stone mentioned in the
         Assyrian text would be, the one the pink, the other the
         black marble.

In 837 he seized the stronghold of Uźtash in Melitene, and laid Tabal under a fresh contribution; this constituted a sort of advance post for-Assyria in the sight of those warlike and continually fluctuating races situated between the sources of the Halys and the desert border of Asia Minor.* Secure on this side, he was about to bring matters to a close in Cilicia, when the defection of Ianzu recalled him to the opposite extremity of the empire. He penetrated into Namri by the defiles of Khashmur,** made a hasty march through Sik-hisatakh, Bīt-Tamul, Bīt-Shakki, and Bīt-Shedi, surprised the rebels and drove them into the forests; he then bore down on Parsua*** and plundered twenty-seven petty kings consecutively.

         * A fragment of an anonymous list, discovered by Delitzsch,
         puts the expedition against the Tabal in 837 B.C. instead of
         in 838, and consequently makes the entire series of ensuing
         expeditions one year later, up to the revolt of Assur-dain-
         pal. This is evidently a mistake of the scribe who compiled
         this edition of the Canon, and the chronology of a
         contemporary monument, such as the Black Obelisk, ought to
         obtain until further light can be thrown on the subject.

         ** For the site of Khashmur or Khashmar, cf. supra, p. 35,
         note 3. The other localities cannot as yet be identified
         with any modern site; we may conjecture that they were
         scattered about the basin of the upper Dīyalah.

         *** Parsua, or with the native termination Parsuash, has
         been identified first with Persia and then with Parthia, and
         Rost still persists in its identification, if not with the
         Parthia of classical geographers, at least with the Parthian
         people. Schrader has shown that it ought to be sought
         between Namri on the south and the Mannai on the north; in
         one of the valleys of the Gordysean mountains, and his
         demonstration has been accepted with a few modifications of
         detail by most scholars. I believe it to be possible to
         determine its position with still further precision. Parsua
         on one side lay on the border of Namri, which comprises the
         districts to the east of the Dīyalah in the direction of
         Zohab, and was contiguous to the Medes on the other side,
         and also to the Mannai, who occupied the southern regions of
         Lake Urumiah; it also lies close to Bīt-Khamban, the
         principal of the Cossęan tribes, as it would appear. I can
         find only one position on the map which would answer to all
         these requirements: this is in the main the basin of the
         Gavź-rud and its small affluents, the Ardelān and the
         sources of the Kizil-Uzźn, and I shall there place Parsua
         until further information is forthcoming on the subject.

Skirting Misi, Amadai, Araziash,* and Kharkhar, and most of the districts lying on the middle heights of the table-land of Iran, he at length came up with Ianzu, whom he seized and brought back prisoner to Assyria, together with his family and his idols.

         * Amadai is a form of Madai, with a prothetical a, like
         Agusi or Azala, by the side of Guzi and Zala. The
         inscription of Shalmaneser III. thus gives us the first
         mention of the classical Medes. Araziash, placed too far to
         the east in Sagartenź by Fr. Lenormant, has been located
         further westwards by Schrader, near the upper course of the
         Kerkhā; but the documents of all periods show us that on one
         side it adjoined Kharkhar, that is the basin of the Gamas-
         āb, on the other side Media, that is the country of Hamadan.
         It must, therefore, be placed between the two, in the
         northern part of the ancient Cambadenź in the present
         Tchamabadān. Kharkhar in this case would be in the southern
         part of Cambadene, on the main road which leads from the
         gates of the Zagros to Hamadan; an examination of the
         general features of the country leads me to believe that the
         town of Kharkhar should occupy the site of Kirmānshahān, or
         rather of the ancient city which preceded that town.

It was at this juncture, perhaps, that he received from the people of Muzri the gift of an elephant and some large monkeys, representations of which he has left us on one of his bas-reliefs. Elephants were becoming rare, and it was not now possible to kill them by the hundred, as formerly, in Syria: this particular animal, therefore, excited the wonder of the Ninevites, and the possession of it flattered the vanity of the conqueror. This was, however, an interlude of short duration, and the turbulent tribes of the Taurus recalled him to the west as soon as spring set in.

He laid waste Kuī in 836 B.C., destroyed Timur, its capital, and on his return march revenged himself on Aramź of Agusi, whose spirit was still unbroken by his former misfortunes.

         Drawn by Faucher-Gudin, from one of the bas-reliefs of the
         Black Obelisk.

Tanakun and Tarsus fell into his hands 835 B.C.; Shalmaneser replaced Kati, the King of Kuī, by his brother Kirri, and made of his dominions a kind of buffer state between his own territory and that of Pamphylia and Lycaonia. He had now occupied the throne for a quarter of a century, not a year of which had elapsed without seeing the monarch gird on his armour and lead his soldiers in person towards one or other points of the horizon. He was at length weary of such perpetual warfare, and advancing age perchance prevented him from leading his troops with that dash and vigour which are necessary to success; however this might be, on his return from Cilicia he laid aside his armour once for all, and devoted himself to peaceful occupations.

But he did not on that account renounce all attempts at conquest. Conducting his campaigns by proxy delegated the command of his army to his Tartan Dayān-assur, and the northern tribes were the first on whom this general gave proof of his prowess. Urartu had passed into the hands of another sovereign since its defeat in 845 B.C., and a second Sharduris* had taken the place of the Aramź who had ruled at the beginning of Shalma-neser’s reign.

         * The name is written Siduri or Seduri in the text of the
         Obelisk, probably in accordance with some popular
         pronunciation, in which the r was but slightly rolled and
         finally disappeared. The identity of Seduri and Sharduris,
         has been adopted by recent historians. Belck and Lehmann
         have shown that this Seduri was not Sharduris, son of
         Lutipris, but a Sharduris II., probably the son of Aramź.

It would appear that the accession of this prince, who was probably young and active, was the signal for a disturbance among the people of the Upper Tigris and the Masios—a race always impatient of the yoke, and ready to make common cause with any fresh enemy of Assyria. An insurrection broke out in Bīt-Zamani and the neighbouring districts. Dayān-assur quelled it offhand; then, quitting the basin of the Tigris by the défiles of Armash, he crossed the Arzania, and entered Urartu. Sharduris came out to meet him, and was defeated, if we may give credence to the official record of the campaign. Even if the account be an authentic one, the victory was of no advantage to the Assyrians, for they were obliged to retreat before they had subjugated the enemy, and an insurrection among the Patina prevented them from returning to the attack in the following year. With obligations to their foreign master on one hand and to their own subjects on the other, the princes of the Syrian states had no easy life. If they failed to fulfil their duties as vassals, then an Assyrian invasion would pour in to their country, and sooner or later their ruin would be assured; they would have before them the prospect of death by impaling or under the knife of the flayer, or, if they escaped this, captivity and exile in a far-off land. Prudence therefore dictated a scrupulous fidelity to their suzerain. On the other hand, if they resigned themselves to their dependent condition, the people of their towns would chafe at the payment of tribute, or some ambitious relative would take advantage of the popular discontent to hatch a plot and foment a revolution, and the prince thus threatened would escape from an Assyrian reprisal only to lose his throne or fall by the blow of an assassin. In circumstances such as these the people of the Patina murdered their king, Lubarna II., and proclaimed in his room a certain Sum, who had no right to the crown, but who doubtless undertook to liberate them from the foreigner. Dayān-assur defeated the rebels and blockaded the remains of their army in Kinalua. They defended themselves at first energetically, but on the death of Surri from some illness, their courage failed them and they offered to deliver over the sons of their chief if their own lives might be spared. Dayān-assur had the poor wretches impaled, laid the inhabitants under a heavy contribution, and appointed a certain Sāsi, son of Uzza, to be their king. The remainder of Syria gave no further trouble—a fortunate circumstance, for the countries on the Armenian border revolted in 832 B.C., and the whole year was occupied in establishing order among the herdsmen of Kirkhi. In 831 B.C., Dayān-assiir pushed forward into Khubushkia, and traversed it from end to end without encountering any resistance. He next attacked the Mannai. Their prince, Ualki, quailed before his onslaught; he deserted his royal city Zirtu,* and took refuge in the mountains. Dayān-assur pursued him thither in vain, but he was able to collect considerable booty, and turning in a south-easterly direction, he fought his way along the base of the Gordysean mountains till he reached Parsua, which he laid under tribute. In 830 B.C. it was the turn of Muzazir, which hitherto had escaped invasion, to receive a visit from the Tartan. Zapparia, the capital, and fifty-six other towns were given over to the flames. From thence, Dayān-assur passed into Urartu proper; after having plundered it, he fell back on the southern provinces, collecting by the way the tribute of Guzān, of the Mannai, of Andiu,** and Parsua; he then pushed on into the heart of Namri, and having razed to the ground two hundred and fifty of its towns, returned with his troops to Assyria by the defiles of Shimishi and through Khalman.

         * The town is elsewhere called Izirtu, and appears to have
         been designated in the inscriptions of Van by the name of
         Sisiri-Khadiris.

         ** Andia or Andiu is contiguous to Naīri, to Zikirtu and to
         Karalla, which latter borders on Manna; it bordered on the
         country of Misa or Misi, into which it is merged under the
         name of Misianda in the time of Sargon. Delattre places
         Andiu in the country of the classical Matiense, between the
         Mationian mountains and Lake Urumiah. The position of Misu
         on the confines of Araziash and Media, somewhere in the
         neighbourhood of Talvantu-Dagh, obliges us to place Andiu
         lower down to the south-east, near the district of Kurdasir.

This was perhaps the last foreign campaign of Shalmaneser III.‘s reign; it is at all events the last of which we possess any history. The record of his exploits ends, as it had begun more than thirty years previously, with a victory in Namri.

The aged king had, indeed, well earned the right to end his allotted days in peace. Devoted to Calah, like his predecessor, he had there accumulated the spoils of his campaigns, and had made it the wealthiest city of his empire. He continued to occupy the palace of Assur-nazir-pal, which he had enlarged. Wherever he turned within its walls, his eyes fell upon some trophy of his wars or panegyric of his virtues, whether recorded on mural tiles covered with inscriptions and bas-reliefs, or celebrated by statues, altars, and triumphal stelę. The most curious among all these is a square-based block terminating in three receding stages, one above the other, like the stump of an Egyptian obelisk surmounted by a stepped pyramid. Five rows of bas-reliefs on it represent scenes most flattering to Assyrian pride;—the reception of tribute from Gilzān, Muzri, the Patina, the Israelitish Jehu, and Marduk-abal-uzur, King of the land of Sukhi. The latter knew his suzerain’s love of the chase, and he provided him with animals for his preserves, including lions, and rare species of deer.

         Drawn by Faucher-Gudin, from one of the bas-reliefs of the
         Black Obelisk.

The inscription on the monument briefly relates the events which had occurred between the first and the thirty-first years of Shalmaneser’s reign;—the defeat of Damascus, of Babylon and Urartu, the conquest of Northern Syria, of Cilicia, and of the countries bordering on the Zagros. When the king left Calah for some country residence in its-neighbourhood, similar records and carvings would meet his eye. At Imgur-Bel, one of the gates of the palace was covered with plates of bronze, on which the skilful artist had embossed and engraved with the chisel episodes from the campaigns on the Euphrates and the Tigris, the crossing of mountains and rivers, the assault and burning of cities, the long lines of captives, the mźlée with the enemy and the pursuit of the chariots. All the cities of Assyria, Nineveh,* Arbela, Assur, even to the more distant towns of Harrān** and Tushkhān,***—vied with each other in exhibiting proofs of his zeal for their gods and his affection for their inhabitants; but his predilection for Calah filled them with jealousy, and Assur particularly could ill brook the growing aversion with which the Assyrian kings regarded her. It was of no avail that she continued to be the administrative and religious capital of the empire, the storehouse of the spoil and annual tribute of other nations, and was continually embellishing herself with fresh monuments: a spirit of discontent was daily increasing, and merely awaited some favourable occasion to break out into open revolt. Shalmaneser enjoyed the dignity of limmu for the second time after thirty years, and had celebrated this jubilee of his inauguration by a solemn festival in honour of Assur and Eammān.****

         * Nineveh is mentioned as the starting-place of nearly all
         the first campaigns in the inscription on the Monolith;
         also in the Balawāt inscription, on the other hand, towards
         the end of the reign, Calah is given as the residence of the
         king on the Black Obelisk

         ** Mention of the buildings of Shalmaneser III. at Harrān
         occurs in an inscription of Nabonidus.

         *** The Monolith discovered at Kurkh is in itself a proof
         that Shalmaneser executed works in this town, the Tushkhān
         of the inscriptions.

         **** Any connection established between this thirty-year
         jubilee and the thirty years’ festival of Egypt rests on
         facts which can be so little relied on, that it must be
         accepted with considerable reserve.

It is possible that he may have thought this a favourable moment for presenting to the people the son whom he had chosen from among his children to succeed him. At any rate, Assur-dain-pal, fearing that one of his brothers might be preferred before him, “proclaimed himself king,” and nearly the whole of Assyria gathered around his standard. Assur and twenty-six more of the most important cities revolted in his favour—Nineveh, Imgur-bel, Sibaniba, Dur-balat, Arbela, Zabān in the Chaldęan marches, Arrapkha in the valley of the Upper Zab, and most of the colonies, both of ancient and recent foundation—Amidi on the Tigris, Khindanu near the mouths of the Kha-bur and Tul-Abni on the southern slopes of the Masios. The aged king remained in possession only of Calah and its immediate environs—Nisibis, Harrān, Tushkhān, and the most recently subdued provinces on the banks of the Euphrates and the Orontes. It is probable, however, that the army remained faithful to him, and the support which these well-tried troops afforded him enabled the king to act with promptitude. The weight of years did not permit him to command in person; he therefore entrusted the conduct of operations to his son Samsi-rammān, but he did not live to see the end of the struggle. It embittered his last days, and was not terminated till 822 B.C., at which date Shalmaneser had been dead two years. This prolonged crisis had shaken the kingdom to its foundations; the Syrians, the Medes, the Babylonians, and the peoples of the Armenian and Aramęan marches were rent from it, and though Samsi-rammān IV. waged continuous warfare during the twelve years that he governed, he could only partially succeed in regaining the territory which had been thus lost.*

         * All that we know of the reign of Samsi-rammān IV. comes
         from an inscription in archaic characters containing the
         account of four campaigns, without giving the years of each
         reign or the limmu, and historians have classified them in
         different ways.

His first three campaigns were-directed against the north-eastern and eastern provinces. He began by attempting to collect the tribute from Naīri, the payment of which had been suspended since the outbreak of the revolution, and he re-established the dominion of Assyria from the district of Paddir to the township of Kar-Shulmānasharid, which his father had founded at the fords of the Euphrates opposite to Carchemish (821 B.C.). In the following campaign he did not personally take part, but the Rabshakeh Mutarriz-assur pillaged the shores of Lake Urumiah, and then made his way towards Urartu, where he destroyed three hundred towns (820). The third expedition was directed against Misi and Gizilbunda beyond the Upper Zab and Mount Zilar.* The inhabitants of Misi entrenched themselves on a wooded ridge commanded by three peaks, but were defeated in spite of the advantages which their position secured for them;** the people of Gizilbunda were not more fortunate than their neighbours, and six thousand of them perished at the assault of Urash, their capital.***

         * Mount Zilar is beyond the Upper Zab, on one of the roads
         which lead to the basin of Lake Urumiah, probably in
         Khubushkia. There are two of these roads—that which passes
         over the neck of Kelishin, and the other which runs through
         the gorges of Alan; “with the exception of these two points,
         the mountain chain is absolutely impassable.” According to
         the general direction of the campaign, it appears to me
         probable that the king crossed by the passes of Alan; Mount
         Zilār would therefore be the group of chains which cover the
         district of Pīshder, and across which the Lesser Zab passes
         before descending to the plain.

         ** The country of Misi adjoined Gizilbunda, Media, Araziāsh,
         and Andiu. All these circumstances incline us to place it in
         the south-eastern part of Kurdistan of Sihmeh, in the upper
         valley of Kisil-Uzźn. The ridge, overlooked by three peaks,
         on which the inhabitants took refuge, cannot be looked for
         on the west, whore there are few important heights: I should
         rather identify it with the part of the Gordysean mountains
         which bounds the basin of the Kisil-Uzźn on the west, and
         which contains three peaks of 12,000 feet—the Tchehel-
         tchechma, the Derbend, and the Nau-Kān.

         *** The name of the country has been read Giratbunda,
         Ginunbunda, Girubbunda; a variant, to which no objections
         can be made, has furnished Gizilbunda. It was contiguous on
         one side to the Medes, and on the other to the Mannai, which
         obliges us to place it in Kurdistan of Gerrus, on the Kizil-
         Uzōn. It may be asked if the word Kizil which occurs several
         times in the topographical nomenclature of these regions is
         not a relic of the name in question, and if Gizil-bunda is
         not a compound of the same class as Kizil-uzźn, Kizil-
         gatchi, Kizihalān, Kizil-lōk, whether it be that part of the
         population spoke a language analogous to the dialects now in
         use in these districts, or that the ancient word has been
         preserved by later conquerors and assimilated to some well-
         known word in their own language.

Mutarriz-assur at once turned upon the Medes, vanquished them, and drove them at the point of the sword into their remote valleys, returning to the district of Araziash, which he laid waste. A score of chiefs with barbarous names, alarmed by this example, hastened to prostrate themselves at his feet, and submitted to the tribute which he imposed on them. Assyria thus regained in these regions the ascendency which the victories of Shalmaneser III. in their time had won for her.

Babylon, which had endured the suzerainty of its rival for a quarter of a century, seems to have taken advantage of the events occurring in Assyria to throw off the yoke, by espousing the cause of Assur-dain-pal. Samsi-rammān, therefore, as soon as he was free to turn his attention from Media (818), directed his forces against Babylonia. Metur-nāt, as usual, was the first city attacked; it capitulated at once, and its inhabitants were exiled to Assyria. Kami to the south of the Turnat, and Dibina on Mount Yalrnan, suffered the same fate, but Gananātź held out for a time; its garrison, however, although reinforced by troops from the surrounding country, was utterly routed before its walls, and the survivors, who fled for refuge to the citadel in the centre of the town, were soon dislodged. The Babylonians, who had apparently been taken by surprise at the first attack, at length made preparations to resist the invaders. The Prince of Dur-papsukal, who owned allegiance to Marduk-balatsu-ikbi, King of Babylon, had disposed his troops so as to guard the fords of the Tigris, in order to prevent the enemy from reaching his capital. But Samsi-rammān dispersed this advanced force, killing thirteen thousand, besides taking three thousand prisoners, and finally reduced Dur-papsukal to ashes.

    Drawn by Faucher-Gudin,
    from the sketch by Pinches.

The respite thus obtained gave Marduk-balatsu-ikbi sufficient time to collect the main body of his troops: the army was recruited from Kaldā and Ela-mites, soldiers from Namri, and Aramaean contingents, and the united force awaited the enemy behind the ruins of Dur-papsukal, along the banks of the Dabān canal. Five thousand footmen, two hundred horsemen, one hundred chariots, besides the king’s tent and all his stores, fell into the hands of the Assyrians. The victory was complete; Babylon, Kuta, and Borsippa capitulated one after the other, and the invaders penetrated as far as the land of the Kaldā, and actually reached the Persian Gulf. Samsi-rammān offered sacrifices to the gods, as his father had done before him, and concluded a treaty with Marduk-balatsu-ikbi, the terms of which included rectification of boundaries, payment of a subsidy, and the other clauses usual in such circumstances; the peace was probably ratified by a matrimonial alliance, concluded between the Babylonian princess Sammuramat and Bammān-nirāri, son of the conqueror. In this manner the hegemony of Assyria over Karduniash was established even more firmly than before the insurrection; but all available resources had been utilised in the effort necessary to secure it. Samsi-rammān had no leisure to reconquer Syria or Asia Minor, and the Euphrates remained the western frontier of his kingdom, as it had been in the early days of Shalmaneser III. The peace with Babylon, moreover, did not last long; Bau-akhiddīn, who had succeeded Marduk-balatsu-ikbi, refused to observe the terms of the treaty, and hostilities again broke out on the Turnat and the Tigris, as they had done six years previously. This war was prolonged from 813 to 812 B.C., and was still proceeding when Samsi-rammān died. His son Bammān-nirāri III. quickly brought it to a successful issue. He carried Bau-akhiddīn captive to Assyria, with his family and the nobles of his court, and placed on the vacant throne one of his own partisans, while he celebrated festivals in honour of his own supremacy at Babylon, Kuta, and Borsippa. Karduniash made no attempt to rebel against Assyria during the next half-century. Bammān-nirāri proved himself an energetic and capable sovereign, and the thirty years of his reign were by no means inglorious. We learn from the eponym lists what he accomplished during that time, and against which countries he waged war; but we have not yet recovered any inscription to enable us to fill in this outline, and put together a detailed account of his reign. His first expeditions were directed against Media (810), Gozān (809), and the Mannai (808-807); he then crossed the Euphrates, and in four successive years conducted as many vigorous campaigns against Arpad (806), Kkazaiu (808), the town of Baali (804), and the cities of the Phoenician sea-board (803). The plague interfering with his advance in the latter direction, he again turned his attention eastward and attacked Khubushkia in 802, 792, and 784; Media in 801-800, 794-793, and 790-787; Lushia in 799; Namri in 798; Diri in 796-795 and 785; Itua in 791, 783-782; Kishki in 785. This bare enumeration conjures up a vision of an enterprising and victorious monarch of the type of Assur-nazir-pal or Shalmaneser III., one who perhaps succeeded even where his redoubtable ancestors had failed. The panoramic survey of his empire, as unfolded to us in one of his inscriptions, includes the mountain ranges of Illipi as far as Mount Sihina, Kharkhar, Araziash, Misu, Media, the whole of Gizilbunda, Man, Parsua, Allabria, Abdadana, the extensive territory of Istaīri, far-off Andiu, and, westwards beyond the Euphrates, the Khāti, the entire country of the Amorites, Tyre, Sidon, Israel, Edom, and the Philistines. Never before had the Assyrian empire extended so far east in the direction of the centre of the Iranian tableland, nor so far to the south-west towards the frontiers of Egypt.*

         * Allabria or Allabur is on the borders of Parsua and of
         Karalla, which allows us to locate it in the basins of the
         Kerkhorāh and the Saruk, tributaries of the Jagatu, which
         flow into Lake Urumiah. Abdadana, which borders on
         Allabria, and was, according to Rammān-nirāri, at the
         extreme end of Naīri, was a little further to the east or
         north-east; if I am not mistaken, it corresponds pretty
         nearly to Uriād, on the banks of the Kizil-Uzźn.

In two only of these regions, namely, Syria and Armenia, do native documents add any information to the meagre summary contained in the Annals, and give us glimpses of contemporary rulers. The retreat of Shalmaneser, after his partial success in 839, had practically left the ancient allies of Ben-hadad II. at the mercy of Hazael, the new King of Damascus, but he did not apparently attempt to assert his supremacy over the whole of Coele-Syria, and before long several of its cities acquired considerable importance, first Mansuate, and then Hadrach,* both of which, casting Hamath into the shade, succeeded in holding their own against Hazael and his successors. He renewed hostilities, however, against the Hebrews, and did not relax his efforts till he had thoroughly brought them into subjection. Jehu suffered loss on all his frontiers, “from Jordan eastward, all the land of Gilead, the Gadites, the Keubenites, and the Manassites, from Aroer, which is by the valley of Arnon, even Gilead and Bashan,” ** Israel became thus once more entirely dependent on Damascus, but the sister kingdom of Judah still escaped its yoke through the energy of her rulers.

         * Mansuati successfully resisted Rammān-nirāri in 797 B.C.,
         but he probably caused its ruin, for after this only
         expeditions against Hadrach are mentioned. Mansuati was in
         the basin of the Orontes, and the manner in which the
         Assyrian texts mention it in connection with Zimyra seems to
         show that it commanded the opening in the Lebanon range
         between Cole-Syria and Phoenicia. The site of Khatarika, the
         Hadrach of Zech. ix. 1, is not yet precisely determined; but
         it must, as well as Mansuati, have been in the neighbourhood
         of Hamath, perhaps between Hamath and Damascus. It appears
         for the first time in 772.

         ** 2 Kings x. 32, 33. Even if verse 33 is a later addition,
         it gives a correct idea of the situation, except as regards
         Bashan, which had been lost to Israel for some time already.

Athaliah reigned seven years, not ingloriously; but she belonged to the house of Ahab, and the adherents of the prophets, whose party had planned Jehu’s revolution, could no longer witness with equanimity one of the accursed race thus prospering and ostentatiously practising the rites of Baal-worship within sight of the great temple of Jahveh. On seizing the throne, Athaliah had sought out and put to death all the members of the house of David who had any claim to the succession; but Jeho-sheba, half-sister of Ahaziah, had with difficulty succeeded in rescuing Joash, one of the king’s sons. Her husband was the high priest Jehoiada, and he secreted his nephew for six years in the precincts of the temple; at the end of that time, he won over the captains of the royal guard, bribed a section of the troops, and caused them to swear fealty to the child as their legitimate sovereign. Athaliah, hastening to discover the cause of the uproar, was assassinated. Mattan, chief priest of Baal, shared her fate; and Jehoiada at once restored to Jahveh the preeminence which the gods of the alien had for a time usurped (837). At first his influence over his pupil was supreme, but before long the memory of his services faded away, and the king sought only how to rid himself of a tutelage which had grown irksome. The temple had suffered during the late wars, and repairs were much needed. Joash ordained that for the future all moneys put into the sacred treasury—which of right belonged to the king—should be placed unreservedly at the disposal of the priests on condition that they should apply them to the maintenance of the services and fabric of the temple: the priests accepted the gift, but failed in the faithful observance of the conditions, so that in 814 B.C. the king was obliged to take stringent measures to compel them to repair the breaches in the sanctuary walls:* he therefore withdrew the privilege which they had abused, and henceforth undertook the administration of the Temple Fund in person. The beginning of the new order of things was not very successful. Jehu had died in 815, after a disastrous reign, and both he and his son Jehoahaz had been obliged to acknowledge the supremacy of Hazael: not only was he in the position of an inferior vassal, but, in order to preclude any idea of a revolt, he was forbidden to maintain a greater army than the small force necessary for purposes of defence, namely, ten thousand foot-soldiers, fifty horsemen, and ten chariots.**

         * 2 Kings xii. 4-16; cf. 2 Chron. xxiv. 1-14. The beginning
         of the narrative is lost, and the whole has probably been
         modified to make it agree with 2 Kings xxii. 3-7.

         ** 2 Kings xiii. 1-7. It may be noticed that the number of
         foot-soldiers given in the Bible is identical with that
         which the Assyrian texts mention as Ahab’s contingent at the
         battle of Qarqar, viz. 10,000; the number of the chariots is
         very different in the two cases. Kuenen and other critics
         would like to assign to the reign of Jehoahaz the siege of
         Samaria by the Syrians, which the actual text of the Book of
         the Kings attributes to the reign of Joram.

The power of Israel had so declined that Hazael was allowed to march through its territory unhindered on his way to wage war in the country of the Philistines; which he did, doubtless, in order to get possession of the main route of Egyptian commerce. The Syrians destroyed Gath,* reduced Pentapolis to subjection, enforced tribute from Edom, and then marched against Jerusalem. Joash took from the treasury of Jahveh the reserve funds which his ancestors, Jehoshaphat, Joram, and Ahaziah, had accumulated, and sent them to the invader,** together with all the gold which was found in the king’s house.

         * The text of 2 Kings xii. 17 merely says that Hazael took
         Gath. Gath is not named by Amos among the cities of the
         Philistines (Amos. i. 6-8), but it is one of the towns cited
         by that prophet as examples to Israel of the wrath of Jahveh
         (vi. 2). It is probable, therefore, that it was already
         destroyed in his time.

         ** 2 Kings xii. 17, 18; cf. 2 Chron. xxiv. 22-24, where the
         expedition of Hazael is represented as a punishment for the
         murder of Mechariah, son of Jehoiada.

    Drawn by Faucher-Gudin,
    from a photograph by
    J. de Morgan.

From this time forward Judah became, like Israel, Edom, the Philistines and Ammonites, a mere vassal of Hazael; with the possible exception of Moab, all the peoples of Southern Syria were now subject to Damascus, and formed a league as strong as that which had successfully resisted the power of Shalmaneser. Rammān-nirāri, therefore, did not venture to attack Syria during the lifetime of Hazael; but a change of sovereign is always a critical moment in the history of an Eastern empire, and he took advantage of the confusion caused by the death of the aged king to attack his successor Mari (803 B.C.). Mari essayed the tactics which his father had found so successful; he avoided a pitched battle, and shut himself up in Damascus. But he was soon closely blockaded, and forced to submit to terms; Rammān-nirāri demanded as the price of withdrawal, 23,000 talents of silver, 20 talents of gold, 3000 of copper, 5000 of iron, besides embroidered and dyed stuffs, an ivory couch, and a litter inlaid with ivory,—in all a considerable part of the treasures amassed at the expense of the Hebrews and their neighbours. It is doubtful whether Rammān-nirāri pushed further south, and penetrated in person as far as the deserts of Arabia Petrsę—a suggestion which the mention of the Philistines and Edomites among the list of his tributary states might induce us to accept. Probably it was not the case, and he really went no further than Damascus. But the submission of that city included, in theory at least, the submission of all states subject to her sway, and these dependencies may have sent some presents to testify their desire to conciliate his favour; their names appear in the inscriptions in order to swell the number of direct or indirect vassals of the empire, since they were subject to a state which had been effectually conquered.

Rammān-nirāri did not meet with such good fortune in the North; not only did he fail to obtain the brilliant successes which elsewhere attended his arms, but he ended by sustaining considerable reverses. The Ninevite historians reckoned the two expeditions of 808 and 807 B.C. against the Mannai as victories, doubtless because the king returned with a train of prisoners and loaded with spoil; but the Vannic inscriptions reveal that Urartu, which had been rising into prominence during the reign of Shalmaneser, had now grown still more powerful, and had begun to reconquer those provinces on the Tigris and Euphrates of which the Assyrians thought themselves the undoubted lords. Sharduris II. had been succeeded, about 828, by his son Ishpuinis, who had perhaps measured his strength against Samsi-ranimān IV. Ishpuinis appears to have conquered and reduced to the condition of a province the neighbouring principality of Biainas, which up to that time had been governed by a semi-independent dynasty; at all events, he transferred thence his seat of govern-and made Dhuspas his favourite residence. Towards the end of his reign he associated with him on the throne his son Menuas, and made him commander-in-chief of the army. Menuas proved a bold and successful general, and in a few years had doubled the extent of his dominions. He first delivered from the Assyrian yoke, and plundered on his father’s account, the tribes on the borders of Lake Urumiah, Muzazir, Gilzān, and Kirruri; then, crossing the Gordygean mountains, he burnt the towns in the valley of the Upper Zab, which bore the uncouth names of Teraīs, Ardis, Khanalis, Bikuras, Khatqanas, Inuas, and Nibur, laid waste the more fertile part of Khubushkia, and carved triumphal stelas in the Assyrian and Vannic scripts upon the rocks in the pass of Rowandiz.

It was probably to recover this territory that Rammān-nirāri waged war three times in Khubushkia, in 802, 792, and 785, in a district which had formerly been ruled by a prefect from Nineveh, but had now fallen into the hands of the enemy.*

         * It is probable that the stele of Kelishin, belonging to
         the joint reign of Ishpuinis and Menuas, was intended to
         commemorate the events which led Rammān-nirāri to undertake
         his first expedition; the conquest by Menuas will fall then
         in 804 or 803 B.C. The inscription of Meher-Kapussi contains
         the names of the divinities belonging to several conquered
         towns, and may have been engraved on the return from this
         war.

Everywhere along the frontier, from the Lower Zab to the Euphrates, Menuas overpowered and drove back the Assyrian outposts. He took from them Aldus and Erinuis on the southern shores of Lake Van, compelled Dayaīni to abandon its allegiance, and forced its king, Udhupursis, to surrender his treasure and his chariots; then gradually descending the valley of the Arzania, he crushed Seseti, Kulmź, and Ekarzu. In one year he pillaged the Mannai in the east, and attacked the Khāti in the west, seizing their fortresses of Surisilis, Tarkhigamas, and Sarduras; in the province of Alzu he left 2113 soldiers dead on the field after one engagement; Gupas yielded to his sway, followed by the towns of Khuzanas and Puteria, whereupon he even crossed the Euphrates and levied tribute from Melitene. But the struggle against Assyria absorbed only a portion of his energy; we do not know what he accomplished in the east, in the plains sloping towards the Caspian Sea, but several monuments, discovered near Armavir and Erzerum, testify that he pushed his arms a considerable distance towards the north and north-west.* He obliged Etius to acknowledge his supremacy, sending a colony to its capital, Lununis, whose name he changed to Menua-lietzilinis.**

         * The inscription of Erzerum, discovered by F. de Saulcy and
         published by him, shows that Menuas was in possession of the
         district in which this town is situated, and that he rebuilt
         a palace there.

         ** Inscriptions of Yazli-tash and Zolakert. It follows from
         these texts that the country of Etius is the district of
         Armavir, and Lununis is the ancient name of this city. The
         now name by which Menuas replaced the name Lununis signifies
         the abode of the people of Menuas; like many names arising
         from special circumstances, it naturally passed away with
         the rule of the people who had imposed it.

Towards the end of his reign he partly subjugated the Mannai, planting colonies throughout their territory to strengthen his hold on the country. By these campaigns he had formed a kingdom, which, stretching from the south side of the Araxes to the upper reaches of the Zab and the Tigris, was quite equal to Assyria in size, and probably surpassed it in density of population, for it contained no barren steppes such as stretched across Mesopotamia, affording support merely to a few wretched Bedāwin. As their dominions increased, the sovereigns of Biainas began to consider themselves on an equality with the kings of Nineveh, and endeavoured still more to imitate them in the luxury and display of their domestic life, as well as in the energy of their actions and the continuity of their victories. They engraved everywhere on the rocks triumphal inscriptions, destined to show to posterity their own exploits and the splendour of their gods. Having made this concession to their vanity, they took effective measures to assure possession of their conquests. They selected in the various provinces sites difficult of access, commanding some defile in the’ mountains, or ford over a river, or at the junction of two roads, or the approach to a plain; on such spots they would build a fortress or a town, or, finding a citadel already existing, they would repair it and remodel its fortifications so as to render it impregnable. At Kalajik, Ashrut-Darga, and the older Mukhrapert may still be seen the ruins of ramparts built by Ishpuims. Menuas finished the buildings his father had begun, erected others in all the districts where he sojourned, in time of peace or war, at Shushanz, Sirka,* Anzaff, Arzwapert, Geuzak, Zolakert, Tashtepź, and in the country of the Mannai, and it is possible that the fortified village of Melasgerd still bears his name.**

         * The name of the ancient place corresponding to the modern
         village of Sirka was probably Artsunis or Artsuyunis,
         according to the Vannic inscriptions.

         ** A more correct form than Melas-gerd is Manas-gert, the
         city of Manas, where Manas would represent Menuas: one of
         the inscriptions of Aghtamar speaks of a certain
         Menuakhinas, city of Menuas, which may be a primitive
         version of the same name.

His wars furnished him with the men and materials necessary for the rapid completion of these works, while the statues, valuable articles of furniture, and costly fabrics, vessels of silver, gold, and copper carried off from Assyrian or Asiatic cities, provided him with surroundings as luxurious as those enjoyed by the kings of Nineveh. His favourite residence was amid the valleys and hills of the south-western shore of Lake Van, the sea of the rising sun. His father, Ishpuinis, had already done much to embellish the site of Dhuspas, or Khaldinas as it was called, from the god Khaldis; he had surrounded it with strong walls, and within them had laid the foundations of a magnificent palace. Menuas carried on the work, brought water to the cisterns by subterranean aqueducts, planted gardens, and turned the whole place into an impregnable fortress, where a small but faithful garrison could defy a large army for several years. Dhuspas, thus completed, formed the capital and defence of the kingdom during the succeeding century.

Menuas was gathered to his fathers shortly before the death of Eammān-nirāri, perhaps in 784 B.C.*

         * This date seems to agree with the text of the Annals of
         Argistis, as far as we are at present acquainted with them;
         Müller has shown, in fact, that they contain the account of
         fourteen campaigns, probably the first fourteen of the reign
         of Argistis, and he has recognised, in accordance with the
         observations of Stanislas Guyard, the formula which
         separates the campaigns one from another. There are two
         campaigns against the peoples of the Upper Euphrates
         mentioned before the campaigns against Assyria, and as these
         latter follow continuously after 781, it is probable that
         the former must be placed in 783-782, which would give 783
         or 784 for the year of his accession.

He was engaged up to the last in a quarrel with the princes who occupied the mountainous country to the north of the Araxes, and his son Argistis spent the first few years of his reign in completing his conquests in this region.* He crushed with ease an attempted revolt in Dayaīni, and then invaded Etius, systematically devastating it, its king, Uduris, being powerless to prevent his ravages. All the principal towns succumbed one after another before the vigour of his assault, and, from the numbers killed and taken prisoners, we may surmise the importance of his victories in these barbarous districts, to which belonged the names of Seriazis, Silius, Zabakhas, Zirimutaras, Babanis, and Urmias,** though we cannot definitely locate the places indicated.

         * The Annals of Argistis are inscribed on the face of the
         rock which crowns the citadel of Van. The inscription
         contains (as stated in note above) the history of the first
         fourteen yearly campaigns of Argistis.

         ** The site of these places is still undetermined. Seriazis
         and Silius (or Tarius) lay to the north-east of Dayaīni, and
         Urmias, Urmź, recalls the modern name of Lake Urumiah, but
         was probably situated on the left bank of the Araxes.

On a single occasion, the assault on Ureyus, for instance, Argistis took prisoners 19,255 children, 10,140 men fit to bear arms, 23,280 women, and the survivors of a garrison which numbered 12,675 soldiers at the opening of the siege, besides 1104 horses, 35,016 cattle, and more than 10,000 sheep. Two expeditions into the heart of the country, conducted between 784 and 782 B.C., had greatly advanced the work of conquest, when the accession of a new sovereign in Assyria made Argistis decide to risk a change of front and to concentrate the main part of his forces on the southern boundary of his empire. Rammān-nirāri, after his last contest in Khubushkia in 784, had fought two consecutive campaigns against the Aramęan tribes of Itua, near the frontiers of Babylon, and he was still in conflict with them when he died in 782 B.C. His son, Shalmaneser IV., may have wished to signalise the commencement of his reign by delivering from the power of Urartu the provinces which the kings of that country had wrested from his ancestors; or, perhaps, Argistis thought that a change of ruler offered him an excellent opportunity for renewing the struggle at the point where Menuas had left it, and for conquering yet more of the territory which still remained to his rival. Whatever the cause, the Assyrian annals show us the two adversaries ranged against each other, in a struggle which lasted from 781 to 778 B.C. Argistis had certainly the upper hand, and though his advance was not rapid, it was never completely checked. The first engagement took place at Nirbu, near the sources of the Supnat and the Tigris: Nirbu capitulated, and the enemy pitilessly ravaged the Hittite states, which were subject to Assyria, penetrating as far as the heart of Melitene (781). The next year the armies encountered each other nearer to Nineveh, in the basin of the Bitlis-tchaī, at Khakhias; and, in 779, Argistis expressly thanks his gods, the Khaldises, for having graciously bestowed upon him as a gift the armies and cities of Assur. The scene of the war had shifted, and the contest was now carried on in the countries bordering on Lake Urumiah, Bustus and Parsua. The natives gained nothing by the change of invader, and were as hardly used by the King of Urartu as they had been by Shalmaneser III. or by Samsirammān: as was invariably the case, their towns were given over to the flames, their fields ravaged, their cattle and their families carried into captivity. Their resistance, however, was so determined that a second campaign was required to complete the conquest: and this time the Assyrians suffered a serious defeat at Surisidas (778), and a year at least was needed for their recovery from the disaster. During this respite, Argistis hastened to complete the pacification of Bustus, Parsua, and the small portion of Man which had not been reduced to subjection by Menuas. When the Assyrians returned to the conflict, he defeated them again (776), and while they withdrew to the Amanus, where a rebellion had broken out (775), he reduced one by one the small states which clustered round the eastern and southern shores of Lake Urumiah. He was conducting a campaign in Namri, when Shalmaneser IV. made a last effort to check his advance; but he was again victorious (774), and from henceforth these troubled regions, in which Nineveh had so persistently endeavoured for more than a century to establish her own supremacy, became part of the empire of Urartu. Argistis’s hold of them proved, however, to be a precarious and uncertain one, and before long the same difficulties assailed him which had restricted the power of his rivals.

         Drawn by Boudier, from a photograph by M. Ximones.

He was forced to return again and again to these districts, destroying fortresses and pursuing the inhabitants over plain and mountain: in 773 we find him in Urmes, the territory of Bikhuras, and Bam, in the very heart of Namri; in 772, in Dhuaras, and Gurqus, among the Mannai, and at the city of Uikhis, in Bustus. Meanwhile, to the north of the Araxes, several chiefs had taken advantage of his being thus engaged in warfare in distant regions, to break the very feeble bond which held them vassals to Urartu. Btius was the fountain-head and main support of the rebellion; the rugged mountain range in its rear provided its chiefs with secure retreats among its woods and lakes and valleys, through which flowed rapid torrents. Argistis inflicted a final defeat on the Mannai in 771, and then turned his forces against Etius. He took by storm the citadel of Ardinis which defended the entrance to the country, ravaged Ishqigulus,* and seized Amegu, the capital of Uidharus: our knowledge of his wars comes to an end in the following year with an expedition into the land of Tarius.

         * Sayce shows that Ishqigulus was the district of
         Alexandropolis, to the east of Kars; its capital, Irdanius,
         is very probably either the existing walled village of
         Kalinsha or the neighbouring ruin of Ajuk-kaleh, on the
         Arpa-tohāī.

The monuments do not tell us what he accomplished on the borders of Asia Minor; he certainly won some considerable advantages there, and the influence which Assyria had exercised over states scattered to the north of the Taurus, such as Melitene, and possibly Tabal and Kummukh, which had formed the original nucleus of the Hittite empire, must have now passed into his hands. The form of Argistis looms before us as that of a great conqueror, worthy to bear comparison with the most indefatigable and triumphant of the Pharaohs of Egypt or the lords of Chaldęa. The inscriptions which are constantly being discovered within the limits of his kingdom prove that, following the example of all Oriental sovereigns, he delighted as much in building as in battle: perhaps we shall some day recover a sufficient number of records to enable us to restore to their rightful place in history this great king, and the people whose power he developed more than any other sovereign.

Assyria had thus lost all her possessions in the northern and eastern parts of her empire; turning to the west, how much still remained faithful to her? After the expedition of 775 B.C. to the land of Cedars, two consecutive campaigns are mentioned against Damascus (773) and Hadrach (772); it was during this latter expedition, or immediately after it, that Shalmaneser IV. died. Northern Syria seems to have been disturbed by revolutions which seriously altered the balance of power within her borders. The ancient states, whose growth had been arrested by the deadly blows inflicted on them in the ninth century by Assur-nazir-pal and Shalmaneser III., had become reduced to the condition of second-rate powers, and their dominions had been split up. The Patina was divided into four small states—the Patina proper, Unki, Iaudi, and Samalla, the latter falling under the rule of an Aramaean family;* perhaps the accession of Qaral, the founder of this dynasty, had been accompanied by convulsions, which might explain the presence of Shalmaneser IV. in the Amanos in 775.

         * The inscriptions of Tiglath-Pileser III. mention Unku,
         Iaudi, Samalla, and the Patin, in the districts where the
         texts of Assur-nazir-pal and Shalmaneser III., only know of
         the Patina.

All these principalities, whether of ancient or recent standing, ranged themselves under one of two kingdoms—either Hadrach or Arpad, whose names henceforth during the following half-century appear in the front rank whenever a coalition is formed against Assyria. Carchemish, whose independence was still respected by the fortresses erected in its neighbourhood, could make no move without exposing itself to an immediate catastrophe: Arpad, occupying a prominent position a little in front of the Afrīn, on the main route leading to the Orontes, had assumed the rōle which Carchemish was no longer in a position to fill. Agusi became the principal centre of resistance; all battles were fought under the walls of its fortresses, and its fall involved the submission of all the country between the Euphrates and the sea, as in former times had been the case with Kinalua and Khazazu.*

         * That Arpad was in Agusi is proved, among other places, by
         the inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser III., which show us from
         743 to 741 the king at war with Matīlu of Agusi and his
         suzerain Sharduris III. of Urartu.

Similar to the ascendency of Arpad over the plateau of Aleppo was that of Hadrach in the valley of the Orontes. This city had taken the position formerly occupied by Hamath, which was now possibly one of its dependencies; it owed no allegiance to Damascus, and rallied around it all the tribes of Coele-Syria, whose assistance Hadadezer, but a short while before, had claimed in his war with the foreigner. Neither Arpad, Hadrach, nor Damascus ever neglected to send the customary presents to any sovereign who had the temerity to cross the Euphrates and advance into their neighbourhood, but the necessity for this act of homage became more and more infrequent. During his reign of eighteen years Assurdān III., son and successor of Shalmaneser IV., appeared only three times beneath their walls—at Hadrach in 766 and 755, at Arpad in 750, a few months only before his death. Assyria was gradually becoming involved in difficulties, and the means necessary to the preservation of its empire were less available than formerly. Assurdān had frankly renounced all idea of attacking Urartu, but he had at least endeavoured to defend himself against his enemies on the southern and eastern frontiers; he had led his armies against Gananātź (771,767), against Itua (769), and against the Medes (766), before risking an attack on Hadrach (765), but more than this he had not attempted. On two occasions in eight years (768, 764) he had preferred to abstain from offensive action, and had remained inactive in his own country. Assyria found herself in one of those crises of exhaustion which periodically laid her low after each outbreak of ambitious enterprise; she might well be compared to a man worn out by fatigue and loss of blood, who becomes breathless and needs repose as soon as he attempts the least exertion. Before long, too, the scourges of disease and civil strife combined with exhaustion in hastening her ruin. The plague had broken out in the very year of the last expedition against Hadrach (765), perhaps under the walls of that city. An eclipse of the sun occurred in 763, in the month of Sivān, and this harbinger of woe was the signal for an outbreak of revolt in the city of Assur.*

         * The ideas which Orientals held on the subject of comets
         renders the connection between the two events very likely,
         if not certain.

From Assur the movement spread to Arrapkha, and wrought havoc there from 761 to 760; it then passed on to Gozān, where it was not finally extinguished till 758. The last remains of Assyrian authority in Syria vanished during this period: Assurdān, after two years’ respite, endeavoured to re-establish it, and attacked successively Hadrach (755) and Arpad (754). This was his last exploit. His son Assur-nirāri III. spent his short reign of eight years in helpless inaction; he lost Syria, he carried on hostilities in Namri from 749 to 748—whether against the Aramaeans or Urartians is uncertain—then relapsed into inactivity, and a popular sedition drove him finally from Calah in 746. He died some months later, without having repressed the revolt; none of his sons succeeded him, and the dynasty, having fallen into disrepute through the misfortunes of its last kings, thus came to an end; for, on the 12th of Iyyār, 742 B.C., a usurper, perhaps, the leader of the revolt at Calah, proclaimed himself king under the name of Tiglath-pileser.* The second Assyrian empire had lasted rather less than a century and a half, from Tukulti-ninip II. to Assur-nirāri III.**

         * Many historians have thought that Tiglath-pileser III. was
         of Babylonian origin; most of them, however, rightly
         considers that he was an Assyrian. The identity of Tiglath-
         pileser III. with Pulu, the Biblical Pul (2 Kings xv. 19)
         has been conclusively proved by the discovery of the
         Babylonian Chronicle, where the Babylonian reigns of
         Tiglath-pileser III. and his son Shalmaneser V. are inserted
         where the dynastic lists give Pulu and Ululai, the Poros and
         Eluloos of Ptolemy.

         ** Here is the concluding portion of the dynasty of the
         kings of Assyria, from Irba-rammān to Assur-nirāri III.:—

In the manner in which it had accomplished its work, it resembled the Egyptian empire of eight hundred years before. The Egyptians, setting forth from the Nile valley, had overrun Syria and had at first brought it under their suzerainty, though without actually subduing it. They had invaded Amurru and Zahi, Naharaim and Mitanni, where they had pillaged, burnt, and massacred at will for years, without obtaining from these countries, which were too remote to fall naturally within their sphere of influence, more than a temporary and apparent submission; the regions in the neighbourhood of the isthmus alone had been regularly administered by the officers of Pharaoh, and when the country between Mount Seir and Lebanon seemed on the point of being organised into a real empire the invasion of the Peoples of the Sea had overthrown and brought to nought the work of three centuries. The Assyrians, under the leadership of ambitious kings, had in their turn carried their arms over the countries of the Euphrates and the Mediterranean, but, like those of the Egyptians before them, their expeditions resembled rather the destructive raids of a horde in search of booty than the gradual and orderly advance of a civilised people aiming at establishing a permanent empire. Their campaigns in Cole-Syria and Palestine had enriched their own cities and spread the terror of their name throughout the Eastern world, but their supremacy had only taken firm root in the plains bordering on Mesopotamia, and just when they were preparing to extend their rule, a power had sprung up beside them, over which they had been unable to triumph: they had been obliged to withdraw behind the Euphrates, and they might reasonably have asked themselves whether, by weakening the peoples of Syria at the price of the best blood of their own nation, they had not merely laboured for the benefit of a rival power, and facilitated the rise of Urartu. Egypt, after her victory over the Peoples of the Sea, had seemed likely, for the moment, to make a fresh start on a career of conquest under the energetic influence of Ramses III., but her forces proved unequal to the task, and as soon as the master’s hand ceased to urge her on, she shrank back, without a struggle, within her ancient limits, and ere long nothing remained to her of the Asiatic empire carved out by the warlike Pharaohs of the Theban dynasties. If Tiglath-pileser could show the same courage and capacity as Ramses III., he might well be equally successful, and raise his nation again to power; but time alone could prove whether Nineveh, on his death, would be able to maintain a continuous effort, or whether her new display of energy would prove merely ephemeral, and her empire be doomed to sink into irremediable weakness under the successors of her deliverer, as Egypt had done under the later Ramessides.

## TIGLATH-PILESER III.
AND THE ORGANISATION OF THE ASSYRIAN EMPIRE FROM 745 to 722 B.C.

FAILURE OF URARTU AND RE-CONQUEST Of SYRIA—EGYPT AGAIN UNITED UNDER ETHIOPIAN AUSPICES—PIŌNKHI—THE DOWNFALL OF DAMASCUS, OF BABYLON, AND OF ISRAEL.

Assyria and its neighbours at the accession of Tiglath-pileser III.: progress of the Aramęans in the basin of the Middle Tigris—Urartu and its expansion into the north of Syria—Damascus and Israel—Vengeance of Israel on Damascus—Jeroboam II.—Civilisation of the Hebrew kingdoms, their commerce, industries, private life, and political organisation—Dawn of Hebrew literature: the two historians of Israel—The priesthood and the prophets—The prophecy of Amos at Bethel; denunciation of Israel by Hosea.

Early campaigns of Tiglath-pileser III. in Karduniash and in Media—He determines to attach Urartu in Syria: defeat of Sharduris, campaign around Arpad, and capture of that city—Homage paid by the Syrian princes, by Menahem and Rezin II—Second campaign against the Medes—Invasion of Urartu and end of its supremacy—Alliance of Pekah and Rezin against Ahaz: the war in Judęa and siege of Jerusalem.

Egypt under the kings of the XXIIth dynasty—The Theban principality, its priests, pallacides, and revolts; the XXIIIrd Tanite dynasty—Tafnakhti and the rise of the Saite family—The Egyptian kingdom, of Ethiopia: theocratic nature of its dynasty, annexation of the Thebaid by the kingdom of Napata—Piōnkhi-Mīamun; his generals in Middle Egypt; submission of Khmunu, of Memphis, and of Tafnalchti—Effect produced in Asia by the Ethiopian conquest.

The prophet Isaiah, his rise under Aliaz—Intervention of Tiglath-pileser III. in Hebrew affairs; the campaign of 733 B.C. against Israel—Capture of Rezin, and the downfall of Damascus—Nabunazīr; the Kaldd and the close of the Babylonian dynasty; usurpation of Ukīnzīr—Campaign against Ukīnzīr; capture of Shapīa and of Babylon—Tiglath-pileser ascends the throne in the last-named city under the name of Fulu (729 B.C.)—Death of Tiglath-pileser III. (727 B.C.)

Reorganisation of the Assyrian empire; provinces and feudatory states—Karduniash, Syria—Wholesale deportation of conquered races—Provincial administrators, their military and financial arrangements—Buildings erected by Tiglath-pileser at Calah—The Bit-Khilāni—Foundation of feudal lordships—Belharrdn-beluzur—Shalmaneser V. and Egypt: rebellion of Hoshea, the siege of Samaria, and the prophecies of Isaiah—Sargon—Destruction of the kingdom of Israel.

## CHAPTER II—TIGLATH-PILESER III.
AND THE ORGANISATION OF THE ASSYRIAN EMPIRE
FROM 745 TO 722 B.C.

Failure of Urartu and re-conquest of Syria—Egypt again united under Ethiopian auspices—Piōnkhi—The downfall of Damascus, of Babylon, and of Israel.

         * Drawn by Boudier, from Layard. The vignette, also by
         Boudier, represents a bronze statuette of Queen Karomama,
         now in the Louvre.

Events proved that, in this period, at any rate, the decadence of Assyria was not due to any exhaustion of the race or impoverishment of the country, but was mainly owing to the incapacity of its kings and the lack of energy displayed by their generals. If Menuas and Argistis had again and again triumphed over the Assyrians during half a century, it was not because their bands of raw recruits were superior to the tried veterans of Rammān-nirāri in either discipline or courage. The Assyrian troops had lost none of their former valour, and their muster-roll showed no trace of diminution, but their leaders had lost the power of handling their men after the vigorous fashion of their predecessors, and showed less foresight and tenacity in conducting their campaigns. Although decimated and driven from fortress to fortress, and from province to province, hampered by the rebellions it was called upon to suppress, and distracted by civil discord, the Assyrian army still remained a strong and efficient force, ever ready to make its full power felt the moment it realised that it was being led by a sovereign capable of employing its good qualities to advantage. Tiglath-pileser had, doubtless, held a military command before ascending the throne, and had succeeded in winning the confidence of his men: as soon as he had assumed the leadership they regained their former prestige, and restored to their country that supremacy which its last three rulers had failed to maintain.*

         * The official documents dealing with the history of
         Tiglath-pileser III. have been seriously mutilated, and
         there is on several points some difference of opinion among
         historians as to the proper order in which the fragments
         ought to be placed, and, consequently, as to the true
         sequence of the various campaigns. The principal documents
         are as follows: (1) The Annals in the Central Hall of the
         palace of Shalmaneser III. at Nimroud, partly defaced by
         Esarhaddon, and carried off to serve as materials for the
         south-western palace, whence they were rescued by Layard,
         and brought in fragments to the British Museum. (2) The
         Tablets, K. 3571 and D. T. 3, in the British Museum. (3)
         The Slabs of Nimrud, discovered by Layard and G. Smith.

The empire still included the original patrimony of Assur and its ancient colonies on the Upper Tigris, the districts of Mesopotamia won from the Aramęans at various epochs, the cities of Khabur, Khindanu, Laqī, and Tebabnī, and that portion of Bīt-Adini which lay to the left of the Euphrates. It thus formed a compact mass capable of successfully resisting the fiercest attacks; but the buffer provinces which Assur-nazir-pal and Shalmaneser III. had grouped round their own immediate domains on the borders of Namri, of Naīri, of Melitene, and of Syria had either resumed their independence, or else had thrown in their lot with the states against which they had been intended to watch. The Aramaean tribes never let slip an opportunity of encroaching on the southern frontier. So far, the migratory instinct which had brought them from the Arabian desert to the swamps of the Persian Gulf had met with no check. Those who first reached its shores became the founders of that nation of the Kaldā which had, perhaps, already furnished Babylon with one of its dynasties; others had soon after followed in their footsteps, and passing beyond the Kaldā settlement, had gradually made their way along the canals which connect the Euphrates with the Tigris till they had penetrated to the lowlands of the Uknu. Towards the middle of the eighth century B.C. they wedged themselves in between Elam and Karduniash, forming so many buffer states of varying size and influence. They extended from north to south along both banks of the Tigris, their different tribes being known as the Gambulu, the Puqudu, the Litau, the Damunu, the Ruuā, the Khindaru, the Labdudu, the Harīlu, and the Rubuu;* the Itua, who formed the vanguard, reached the valleys of the Turnat during the reign of Kammān-nirāri III. They were defeated in 791 B.C., but obstinately renewed hostilities in 783, 782, 777, and 769; favoured by circumstances, they ended by forcing the cordon of Assyrian outposts, and by the time of Assur-nirāri had secured a footing on the Lower Zab. Close by, to the east of them, lay Namri and Media, both at that time in a state of absolute anarchy. The invasions of Menuas and of Argistis had entirely laid waste the country, and Sharduris III., the king who succeeded Argistis, had done nothing towards permanently incorporating them with Urartu.** Sharduris, while still heir-apparent to the throne, had been appointed by his father governor of the recently annexed territory belonging to Etius and the Mannai:*** he made Lununis his headquarters, and set himself to subdue the barbarians who had settled between the Kur and the Araxes. When he succeeded to the throne, about 760 B.C., the enjoyment of supreme power in no way lessened his activity. On the contrary, he at once fixed upon the sort of wide isthmus which separates the Araxes from Lake Urumiah, as the goal of his incursions, and overran the territory of the Babilu; there he carried by storm three royal castles, twenty-three cities, and sixty villages; he then fell back upon Etius, passing through Dakis, Edias, and Urmes on his way, and brought back with him 12,735 children, 46,600 women, 12,000 men capable of bearing arms, 23,335 oxen, 58,100 sheep, and 2,500 horses; these figures give some idea of the importance of his victories and the wealth of the conquered territory.

         * The list of Aramęan tribes, and the positions occupied by
         them towards the middle of the eighth century, have been
         given us by Tiglath-pileser III. himself.

         ** Tiglath-pileser did not encounter any Urartian forces in
         these regions, as would almost certainly have been the case
         had these countries remained subject to Urartu from the
         invasions of Menuas and Argistis onwards.

         *** Argistis tells us in the Annals that he had made his
         son satrap over the provinces won from the Mannai and Etius:
         though his name is not mentioned, Sayce believes this son
         must have been Sharduris.

So far as we can learn, he does not seem to have attacked Khubushkia,* nor to have entered into open rivalry with Assyria; even under the rule of Assur-nirāri III. Assyria showed a bold enough front to deter any enemy from disturbing her except when forced to do so. Sharduris merely strove to recover those portions of his inheritance to which Assyria attached but little value, and his inscriptions tell us of more than one campaign waged by him with this object against the mountaineers of Melitene, about the year 758. He captured most of their citadels, one after another: Dhumeskis, Zapsas, fourteen royal castles, and a hundred towns, including Milid itself, where King Khitaruadas held his court.**

         * It is evident from the account of the campaigns that
         Tiglath-pileser occupied Khubushkia from the very
         commencement of his reign; we must therefore assume that the
         invasions of Argistis had produced only transient effects.

         ** These campaigns must have preceded the descent into
         Syria, and I believe this latter to have been anterior to
         the expedition of Assur-nirāri against Arpad in 754 B.C.
         Assur-nirāri probably tried to reconquer the tribes who had
         just become subject to Sharduris. The descent of this latter
         into Syria probably took place about 756 or 755 B.C., and
         his wars against Melitene about 758 to 757 B.C.

At this point two courses lay open before him. He could either continue his march westwards, and, penetrating into Asia Minor, fall upon the wealthy and industrious races who led a prosperous existence between the Halys and the Sangarios, such as the Tabal, the Chalybes, and the Phrygians, or he could turn southwards.

         Drawn by Boudier, from a photograph by Alfred Boissier.

Deterred, apparently, by the dreary and monotonous aspect of the Asianic steppes, he chose the latter course; he crossed Mount Taurus, descended into Northern Syria about 756, and forced the Khāti to swear allegiance to him. Their inveterate hatred of the Assyrians led the Bīt-Agusi to accept without much reluctance the supremacy of the only power which had shown itself capable of withstanding their triumphant progress. Arpad became for several years an unfailing support to Urartu and the basis on which its rule in Syria rested. Assur-nirāri had, as we know, at first sought to recover it, but his attempt to do so in 754 B.C. was unsuccessful, and merely served to demonstrate his own weakness: ten years later, Carchemish, Grurgum, Kummukh, Samalla, Unki, Kuī—in a word, all the Aramęans and the Khāti between the Euphrates and the sea had followed in the steps of the Agusi, and had acknowledged the supremacy of Sharduris.*

         * The minimum extent of the dominions of Sharduris in
         Syria may be deduced from the list of the allies assigned to
         him by Tiglath-pileser in 743 in the Annals.

This prince must now haye been sorely tempted to adopt, on his own account, the policy of the Ninevite monarchs, and push on in the direction of Hamath, Damascus, and the Phoenician seaboard, towards those countries of Israel and Judah which were nearly coterminous with far-off Egypt. The rapidity of the victories which he had just succeeded in winning at the foot of Mount Taurus and Mount Amanus must have seemed a happy omen of what awaited his enterprise in the valleys of the Orontes and the Jordan. Although the races of southern and central Syria had suffered less than those of the north from the ambition of the Ninevite kings, they had, none the less, been sorely tried during the previous century; and it might be questioned whether they had derived courage from the humiliation of Assyria, or still remained in so feeble a state as to present an easy prey to the first invader.

The defeat inflicted on Mari by Rammān-nirāri in 803 had done but little harm to the prestige of Damascus. The influence exercised by this state from the sources of the Litany to the brook of Egypt * was based on so solid a foundation that no temporary reverse had power to weaken it.

         * [Not the Nile, but the Wady el Arish, the frontier between
         Southern Syria and Egypt. Cf. Josh. xv. 47; 2 Kings xxiv. 7,
         called “river” of Egypt in the A.V.—Tr.]

Had the Assyrian monarch thrown himself more seriously into the enterprise, and reappeared before the ramparts of the capital in the following year, refusing to leave it till he had annihilated its armies and rased its walls to the ground, then, no doubt, Israel, Judah, the Philistines, Edom, and Ammon, seeing it fully occupied in its own defence, might have forgotten the ruthless severity of Hazael, and have plucked up sufficient courage to struggle against the Damascene yoke; as it was, Bammān-nirāri did not return, and the princes who had, perhaps, for the moment, regarded him as a possible deliverer, did not venture on any concerted action. Joash, King of Judah, and Jehoahaz, King of Israel, continued to pay tribute till both their deaths, within a year of each other, Jehoahaz in 797 B.C., and Joash in 796, the first in his bed, the second by the hand of an assassin.*

         * Kings xii. 20, 21, xiii. 9; cf. 2 Citron, xxiv. 22-26,
         where the death of Joash is mentioned as one of the
         consequences of the Syrian invasion, and as a punishment for
         his crime in killing the sons of Jehoiada.

Their children, Jehoash in Israel, Amaziah in Judah, were, at first, like their parents, merely the instruments of Damascus; but before long, the conditions being favourable, they shook off their apathy and initiated a more vigorous policy, each in his own kingdom. Mari had been succeeded by a certain Ben-hadad, also a son of Hazael,* and possibly this change of kings was accompanied by one of those revolutions which had done so much to weaken Damascus: Jehoash rebelled and defeated Ben-hadad near Aphek and in three subsequent engagements, but he failed to make his nation completely independent, and the territory beyond Jordan still remained in the hands of the Syrians.** We are told that before embarking on this venture he went to consult the aged Elisha, then on his deathbed. He wept to see him in this extremity, and bending over him, cried out, “My father, my father, the chariots of Israel and the horsemen thereof!” The prophet bade him take bow and arrows and shoot from the window toward the East. The king did so, and Elisha said, “The Lord’s arrow of victory *** over Syria; for thou shalt smite the Syrians in Aphek till thou have consumed them.”

         * 2 Kings xiii. 24, 25. Winckler is of opinion that Mari and
         Ben-hadad, son of Hazael, were one and the same person.

         ** 2 Kings xiii. 25, The term “saviour” in 2 Kings xiii. 5
         is generally taken as referring to Joash: Winckler, however,
         prefers to apply it to the King of Assyria. The biblical
         text does not expressly state that Joash failed to win back
         the districts of Gilead from the Syrians, but affirms that
         he took from them the cities which Hazael “had taken out of
         the hand of Jehoahaz, his father.” Ramah of Gilead and the
         cities previously annexed by Jehoahaz must, therefore, have
         remained in the hands of Ben-hadad.

         *** [Heb. “salvation;” A.V. “deliverance.”—Tr.]

Then he went on: “Take the arrows,” and the king took them; then he said, “Smite upon the ground,” and the king smote thrice and stayed. And the man of God was wroth with him, and said, “Thou shouldest have smitten five or six times; then hadst thou smitten Syria till thou hadst consumed it, whereas now thou shalt smite Syria but thrice.” * Amaziah, on his side, had routed the Edomites in the Valley of Salt, one of David’s former battle-fields, and had captured their capital, Sela.** Elated by his success, he believed himself strong enough to break the tie of vassalage which bound him to Israel, and sent a challenge to Jehoash in Samaria. The latter, surprised at his audacity, replied in a parable, “The thistle that was in Lebanon sent to the cedar that was in Lebanon, saying, Give thy daughter to my son to wife.” But “there passed by a wild beast that was in Lebanon and trode down the thistle. Thou hast indeed smitten Edom, and thine heart hath lifted thee up: glory thereof and abide at home; for why shouldest thou meddle to thy hurt that thou shouldest fall, even thou, and Judah with thee?” They met near Beth-shemesh, on the border of the Philistine lowlands. Amaziah was worsted in the engagement, and fell into the power of his rival. Jehoash entered Jerusalem and dismantled its walls for a space of four hundred cubits, “from the gate of Ephraim unto the corner gate;” he pillaged the Temple, as though it had been the abode, not of Jahveh, but of some pagan deity, insisted on receiving hostages before he would release his prisoner, and returned to Samaria, where he soon after died (781 B.C.).***

         * 2 Kings xiii. 14-19.

         ** 2 Kings xiv. 7; cf. 2 Gliron. xxv. 11, 12. Sela was
         rebuilt, and received the name of Joktheel from its Hebrew
         masters. The subjection of the country was complete, for,
         later on, the Hebrew chronicler tells of the conquest of
         Elath by King Azariah, son of Amaziah (2 Kings xiv. 22).

         *** 2 Kings xiv. 8-16. cf. 2 Ghron. xxv. 17-24.

Jeroboam II. completed that rehabilitation of Israel, of which his father had but sketched the outline; he maintained his suzerainty, first over Amaziah, and when the latter was assassinated at Lachish (764),* over his son, the young Azariah.** After the defeat of Ben-hadad near Aphek, Damascus declined still further in power, and Hadrach, suddenly emerging from obscurity, completely barred the valley of the Orontes against it. An expedition under Shalmaneser IV. in 773 seems to have precipitated it to a lower depth than it had ever reached before: Jeroboam was able to wrest from it, almost without a struggle, the cities which it had usurped in the days of Jehu, and Gilead was at last set free from a yoke which had oppressed it for more than a century. Tradition goes so far as to affirm that Israel reconquered the Bekaa, Hamath, and Damascus, those northern territories once possessed by David, and it is quite possible that its rivals, menaced from afar by Assyria and hard pressed at their own doors by Hadrach, may have resorted to one of those propitiatory overtures which eastern monarchs are only too ready to recognise as acts of submission. The lesser southern states, such as Ammon, the Bedāwin tribes of Hauran, and, at the opposite extremity of the kingdom, the Philistines,*** who had bowed themselves before Hazael in the days of his prosperity, now transferred their homage to Israel.

         * 2 Kings xiv. 19, 20; cf. 2 Ghron. xxv. 27, 28.

         ** The Hebrew texts make no mention of this subjection of
         Judah to Jeroboam II.; that it actually took place must,
         however, be admitted, at any rate in so far as the first
         half of the reign of Azariah is concerned, as a necessary
         outcome of the events of the preceding reigns.

         *** The conquests of Jeroboam II. are indicated very briefly
         in 2 Kings xiv. 25-28: cf. Amos vi. 14, where the
         expressions employed by the prophet imply that at the time
         at which he wrote the whole of the ancient kingdom of David,
         Judah included, was in the possession of Israel.

    Drawn by Faucher-Gudin,
    from sketches by Warren.

Moab alone offered any serious resistance. It had preserved its independence ever since the reign of Mesha, having escaped from being drawn into the wars which had laid waste the rest of Syria. It was now suddenly forced to pay the penalty of its long prosperity. Jeroboam made a furious onslaught upon its cities—Ar of Moab, Kir of Moab, Dibon, Medeba, Heshbon, Elealeh—and destroyed them all in succession. The Moabite forces carried a part of the population with them in their flight, and all escaped together across the deserts which enclose the southern basin of the Dead Sea. On the frontier of Edom they begged for sanctuary, but the King of Judah, to whom the Edomite valleys belonged, did not dare to shelter the vanquished enemies of his suzerain, and one of his prophets, forgetting his hatred of Israel in delight at being able to gratify his grudge against Moab, greeted them in their distress with a hymn of joy—“I will water thee with my tears, O Heshbon Elealeh: for upon thy summer fruits and upon thy harvest the battle shout is fallen. And gladness is taken away and joy out of the fruitful fields; and in the vineyards there shall be no singing, neither joyful noise; no treader shall tread out wine in the presses; I have made the vintage shout to cease. Wherefore my bowels sound like an harp for Moab, and my inward parts for Kir-Heres. And it shall come to pass, when Moab presenteth himself, when he wearieth himself upon the high place, and shall come to his sanctuary to pray, he shall not prevail!”*

         * Isa. xv. 1-9; xvi. 1-12. This prophecy, which had been
         pronounced against Moab “in the old days,” and which is
         appropriated by Isaiah (xvi. 13, 14), has been attributed to
         Jonah, son of Amittaī, of Gath-Hepher, who actually lived in
         the time of Jeroboam II. (2 Kings xiv. 25). It is now
         generally recognised as the production of an anonymous
         Judsean prophet, and the earliest authentic fragment of
         prophetic literature which has come down to us.

This revival, like the former greatness of David and Solomon, was due not so much to any inherent energy on the part of Israel, as to the weakness of the nations on its frontiers. Egypt was not in the habit of intervening in the quarrels of Asia, and Assyria was suffering from a temporary eclipse. Damascus had suddenly collapsed, and Hadrach or Mansuati, the cities which sought to take its place, found themselves fully employed in repelling the intermittent attacks of the Assyrian; the Hebrews, for a quarter of a century, therefore, had the stage to themselves, there being no other actors to dispute their possession of it. During the three hundred years of their existence as a monarchy they had adopted nearly all the laws and customs of the races over whom they held sway, and by whom they were completely surrounded. The bulk of the people devoted themselves to the pasturing and rearing of cattle, and, during the better part of the year, preferred to live in tents, unless war rendered such a practice impossible.* They had few industries save those of the potter** and the smith,*** and their trade was almost entirely in the hands of foreigners.

         * Cf. the passage in 2 Kings xiii. 5, “And the children of
         Israel dwelt in their tents as beforetime.” Although the
         word ōhel had by that time acquired the more general
         meaning of habitation, the context here seems to require
         us to translate it by its original meaning tent.

         ** Pottery is mentioned in 2 Sam. xvii. 28; numerous
         fragments dating from the monarchical period have been found
         at Jerusalem and Lachish.

         *** The story of Tubal-Cain (Gen. iv. 22) shows the
         antiquity of the ironworker’s art among the Israelites; the
         smith is practically the only artisan to be found amongst
         nomadic tribes.

We find, however, Hebrew merchants in Egypt,* at Tyre, and in Coele-Syria, and they were so numerous at Damascus that they requested that a special bazaar might be allotted to them, similar to that occupied by the merchants of Damascus in Samaria from time immemorial.**

         * The accurate ideas on the subject of Egypt possessed by
         the earliest compilers of the traditions contained in
         Genesis and Exodus, prove that Hebrew merchants must have
         been in constant communication with that country about the
         time with which we are now concerned.

         ** 1 Kings xx. 34; cf. what has been said on this point in
         vol. vi. pp. 432, 441.

The Hebrew monarchs had done their best to encourage this growing desire for trade. It was only the complicated state of Syrian politics that prevented them from following the example of Solomon, and opening communications by sea with the far-famed countries of Ophir, either in competition with the Phoenicians or under their guidance. Indeed, as we have seen, Jehoshaphat, encouraged by his alliance with the house of Omri, tried to establish a seagoing fleet, but found that peasants could not be turned into sailors at a day’s notice, and the vessel built by him at Eziongeber was wrecked before it left the harbour.

         Drawn by Faucher-Gudin, from one of the bas-reliefs of the
         Black Obelisk.

In appearance, the Hebrew towns closely resembled the ancient Canaanite cities. Egyptian influences still predominated in their architecture, as may be seen from what is still left of the walls of Lachish, and they were fortified in such a way as to be able to defy the military engines of besiegers. This applies not only to capitals, like Jerusalem, Tirzah, and Samaria, but even to those towns which commanded a road or mountain pass, the ford of a river, or the entrance to some fertile plain; there were scores of these on the frontiers of the two kingdoms, and in those portions of their territory which lay exposed to the attacks of Damascus, Moab, Edom, or the Philistines.* The daily life of the inhabitants was; to all intents, the same as at Arpad, Sidon, or Gaza; and the dress, dwellings, and customs of the upper and middle classes cannot have differed in any marked degree from those of the corresponding grades of society in Syria.

         * 2 Chron. xi. 6-10, where we find a list of the towns
         fortified by Rehoboam: Bethlehem, Etam, Beth-zur, Soco,
         Adullam, Gath, Mareshah, Ziph, Adoraim, Lachish, Azekah,
         Zorah, Ajalon, Hebron.

         Drawn by Boudier, from Layard. These figures are taken from
         a bas-relief which represents Sennacherib receiving the
         submission of Judah before Lachish.

The men wore over their tunic a fringed kaftan, with short sleeves, open in front, a low-crowned hat, and sandals or shoes of pliant leather; * they curled their beards and hair, painted their eyes and cheeks, and wore many jewels; while their wives adopted all the latest refinements in vogue in the harems of Damascus, Tyre, or Nineveh.** Descendants of ancient families paid for all this luxury out of the revenues of the wide domains they had inherited; others kept it up by less honourable means, by usury, corruption, and by the exercise of a ruthless violence towards neighbours who were unable to defend themselves.

         * The kaftan met with in these parts seems to correspond to
         the meīl (R.V. “ephod “) of the biblical texts (1 Sam. ii.
         19; xviii. 4, etc.).

         ** Isa. iii. 16-24 describes in detail the whole equipment
         of jewels, paint, and garments required by the fashionable
         women of Jerusalem during the last thirty years of the
         eighth century B.C.

Illustration: 191.jpg WOMEN AND CHILDREN OF JUDĘA

         Drawn by Boudier, from Layard.

The king himself set them an evil example, and did not hesitate to assassinate one of his subjects in order that he might seize a vineyard which he coveted;* it was not to be wondered at, therefore, that the nobles of Ephraim “sold the righteous for silver, and the needy for a pair of shoes;” ** that they demanded gifts of wheat, and “turned the needy from their right” when they sat as a jury “at the gate.” *** From top to bottom of the social ladder the stronger and wealthier oppressed those who were weaker or poorer than themselves, leaving them with no hope of redress except at the hands of the king.****

         * Cf. the well-known episode of Naboth and Ahab in 1 Kings
         xxi.

         ** Amos ii. 6.

         *** Amos v. 11, 12.

         **** 2 Kings vi. 26-30; viii. 3-8, where, in both instances,
         it is a woman who appeals to the king. Cf. for the period of
         David and Solomon, 2 Sam. xiv. 1-20, and 1 Kings iii. 16-27.

Unfortunately, the king, when he did not himself set the example of oppression, seldom possessed the resources necessary to make his decisions effective. True, he was chief of the most influential family in either Judah or Israel, a chief by divine appointment, consecrated by the priests and prophets of Jahveh, a priest of the Lord,* and he was master in his own city of Jerusalem or Samaria, but his authority did not extend far beyond the walls.

         * Cf. the anointing of Saul (1 Sam. ix. 16; x. 1; and xiv.
         1), of David (1 Sam. xvi. 1-3, 12, 13), of Solomon (1 Kings
         i. 34, 39, 45), of Jehu (2 Kings ix. 1-10), and compare it
         with the unction received by the priests on their admission
         to the priesthood (Exod. xxix. 7; xxx. 22, 23; cf. Lev.
         viii. 12, 30; x. 7).

It was not the old tribal organisation that embarrassed him, for the secondary tribes had almost entirely given up their claims to political independence. The division of the country into provinces, a consequence of the establishment of financial districts by Solomon, had broken them up, and they gradually gave way before the two houses of Ephraim and Judah; but the great landed proprietors, especially those who held royal fiefs, enjoyed almost unlimited power within their own domains. They were, indeed, called on to render military service, to furnish forced labour, and to pay certain trifling dues into the royal treasury;* but, otherwise, they were absolute masters in their own domains, and the sovereign was obliged to employ force if he wished to extort any tax or act of homage which they were unwilling to render. For this purpose he had a standing army distributed in strong detachments along the frontier, but the flower of his forces was concentrated round the royal residence to serve as a body-guard. It included whole companies of foreign mercenaries, like those Cretan and Carian warriors who, since the time of David, had kept guard round the Kings of Judah;** these, in time of war,*** were reinforced by militia, drawn entirely from among the landed proprietors, and the whole force, when commanded by an energetic leader, formed a host capable of meeting on equal terms the armies of Damascus, Edom, or Moab, or even the veterans of Egypt and Assyria.

         * 1 Kings xv. 22 (cf. 2 Ohron. xvi. 6), where “King Asa made
         a proclamation unto all Judah; none was exempted,” the
         object in this case being the destruction of Ramah, the
         building of which had been begun by Baasha.

         ** The Carians or Cretans are again referred to in the
         history of Athaliah (2 Kings xi. 4).

         *** Taking the tribute paid by Menahem to Pul (2 Kings xv.
         19, 20) as a basis, it has been estimated that the owners of
         landed estate in Israel, who were in that capacity liable to
         render military service, numbered 60,000 in the time of that
         king; all others were exempt from military service.

The reigning prince was hereditary commander-in-chief, but the sharzaba, or captain of the troops, often took his place, as in the time of David, and thereby became the most important person in the kingdom. More than one of these officers had already turned against their sovereign the forces which he had entrusted, to them, and these revolts, when crowned with success, had, on various occasions, in Israel at any rate, led to a change of dynasty: Omri had been shar zaba when he mutinied against Zimri, the assassin of Elah, and Jehu occupied the same position when Elisha deputed him to destroy the house of Omri.

The political constitutions of Judah and Israel were, on the whole, very similar to those of the numerous states which shared the territory of Syria between them, and their domestic history gives us a fairly exact idea of the revolutions which agitated Damascus, Hamath, Carchemish, Arpad, and the principalities of Amanos and Lebanon about the same period. It would seem, however, that none of these other nations possessed a literary or religious life of any great intensity. They had their archives, it is true, in which were accumulated documents relating to their past history, their rituals of theology and religious worship, their collections of hymns and national songs; but none of these have survived, and the very few inscriptions that have come down to us merely show that they had nearly all of them adopted the alphabet invented by the Phoenicians. The Israelites, initiated by them into the art of writing, lost no time in setting down, in their turn, all they could recall of the destinies of their race from the creation of the world down to the time in which they lived. From the beginning of the monarchical epoch onwards, their scribes collected together in the Book of the Wars of the Lord, the Book of Jashar, and in other works the titles of which have not survived, lyrics of different dates, in which nameless poets had sung the victories and glorious deeds of their national heroes, such as the Song of the Well, the Hymn of Moses, the triumphal Ode of Deborah, and the blessing of Jacob.* They were able to draw upon traditions which preserved the memory of what had taken place in the time of the Judges;** and when that patriarchal form of government was succeeded by a monarchy, they had narratives of the ark of the Lord and its wanderings, of Samuel, Saul, David, and Solomon,*** not to mention the official records which, since then, had been continuously produced and accumulated by the court historians.****

         * The books of Jashar and of the Wars of the Lord appear
         to date from the IXth century B.C.; as the latter is quoted
         in the Elohist narrative, it cannot have been compiled later
         than the beginning of the VIIIth century B.C. The passage in
         Numb. xxi. lib, 15, is the only one expressly attributed by
         the testimony of the ancients to the Book of the Wars of
         the Lord, but modern writers add to this the Song of the
         Well (Numb. xxi. 17b, 18), and the Song of Victory over
         Moab (Numb. xxi. 27&-30). The Song of the Bow (2 Sam. i.
         19-27) admittedly formed part of the Book of Jashar.
         Joshua’s Song of Victory over the Amorites (Josh. x. 13),
         and very probably the couplet recited by Solomon at the
         dedication of the Temple (1 Kings viii, 12, 13, placed by
         the LXX. after verse 53), also formed part of it, as also
         the Song of Deborah and the Blessing of Jacob (Gen. xlix.
         1-27).

         ** Wellhausen was the first to admit the existence of a Book
         of Judges prior to the epoch of Deuteronomy, and his opinion
         has been adopted by Kuenen and Driver. This book was
         probably drawn upon by the two historians of the IXth and
         VIIIth centuries B.C. of whom we are about to speak; some of
         the narratives, such as the story of Abimelech, and possibly
         that of Ehud, may have been taken from a document written at
         the end of the Xth or the beginning of the IXth centuries
         B.C.

         *** The revolutions which occurred in the family of David (2
         Sam. ix.-xx.) bear so evident a stamp of authenticity that
         they have been attributed to a contemporary writer, perhaps
         Ahimaaz, son of Zadok (2 Sam. xv. 27), who took part in the
         events in question. But apart from this, the existence is
         generally admitted of two or three books which were drawn up
         shortly after the separation of the tribes, containing a
         kind of epic of the history of the first two kings; the one
         dealing with Saul, for instance, was probably written in the
         time of Jeroboam.

         **** The two lists in which the names of the principal
         personages at the court of David are handed down to us,
         mention a certain Jehoshaphat, son of Ahilud, who was
         mazhir, or recorder; he retained his post under Solomon (1
         Kings iv. 3).

It may be that more than one writer had already endeavoured to evolve from these materials an Epie of Jahveh and His faithful people, but in the second half of the IXth century B.C., perhaps in the time of Jehoshaphat, a member of the tribe of Judah undertook to put forth a fresh edition.*

         * The approximate date of the composition and source of this
         first Jehovist is still an open question., Reuss and
         Kuenen, not to mention others, believe the Jehovist writer
         to have been a native of the northern kingdom; I have
         adopted the opposite view, which is supported by most modern
         critics.

He related how God, after creating the universe out of chaos, had chosen His own people, and had led them, after trials innumerable, to the conquest of the Promised Land. He showed, as he went on, the origin of the tribes identified with the children of Israel, and the covenants made by Jahveh with Moses in the Arabian desert; while accepting the stories connected with the ancient sanctuaries of the north and east at Shechem, Bethel, Peniel, Mahanaim, and Succoth, it was at Hebron in Judah that he placed the principal residence of Abraham and his descendants. His style, while simple and direct, is at the same time singularly graceful and vivacious; the incidents he gives are carefully selected, apt and characteristic, while his narrative passes from scene to scene without trace of flagging, unburdened by useless details, and his dialogue, always natural and easy, rises without effort from the level of familiar conversation to heights of impassioned eloquence. His aim was not merely to compile the history of his people: he desired at the same time to edify them, by showing how sin first came into the world through disobedience to the commandments of the Most High, and how man, prosperous so long as he kept to the laws of the covenant, fell into difficulties as soon as he transgressed or failed to respect them. His concept of Jahveh is in the highest degree a concrete one: he regards Him as a Being superior to other beings, but made like unto them and moved by the same passions. He shows anger and is appeased, displays sorrow and repents Him of the evil.* When the descendants of Noah build a tower and a city, He draws nigh to examine what they have done, and having taken account of their work, confounds their language and thus prevents them from proceeding farther.** He desires, later on, to confer a favour on His servant Abraham: He appears to him in human form, and eats and drinks with him.*** Sodom and Gomorrah had committed abominable iniquities, the cry against them was great and their sin very grievous: but before punishing them, He tells Abraham that He will “go down and see whether they have done according to the cry of it which is come unto Me; and if not, I will know.” ****

         * Exod. iv. 14 and xxxii. 10, anger of Jahveh against Moses
         and against Israel; Gen. vi. 6, 7, where He repents and is
         sorry for having created man; and Exod. xxxii. 14, where He
         repents Him of the evil He had intended to do unto Israel.

         ** Gen. xi. 5-8.

         *** Gen. xviii.

         **** Gen. xviii. and xix.

Elsewhere He wrestles a whole night long with Jacob;* or falls upon Moses, seeking to kill him, until appeased by Zipporah, who casts the blood-stained foreskin of her child at her husband’s feet.** This book, though it breathes the spirit of the prophets and was perhaps written in one of their schools, did not, however, include all the current narratives, and omitted many traditions that were passing from lip to lip; moreover, the excessive materialism of its treatment no longer harmonised with that more idealised concept of the Deity which had already begun to prevail. Consequently, within less than a century of its appearance, more than one version containing changes and interpolations in the narrative came to be circulated,*** till a scribe of Ephraim, who flourished in the time of Jeroboam II., took up the subject and dealt with it in a different fashion.****

         * Gen. xxxii. 24, 25.

         ** Exod. iv. 24-26.

         *** Schrader and Wellhausen have drawn attention to
         contradictions in the primitive history of humanity as
         presented by the Jehovist which forbid us to accept it as
         the work of a single writer. Nor can these inconsistencies
         be due to the influence of the Elohist, since the latter did
         not deal with this period in his book. Budde has maintained
         that the primitive work contained no account of the Deluge,
         and traced the descent of all the nations, Israel included,
         back to Cain, and he declares he can detect in the earlier
         chapters of Genesis traces of a first Jehovist, whom he
         calls J1. A second Jehovist, J2, who flourished between 800
         and 700 B.C., is supposed to have added to the contribution
         of the first, certain details borrowed from the Babylonian
         tradition, such as the Deluge, the story of Noah, of Nimrod,
         etc. Finally, a third Jehovist is said to have thrown the
         versions of his two predecessors into one, taking J2 as the
         basis of his work.

         **** The date and origin of the Elohist have given rise to
         no less controversy than those of the Jehovist: the view
         most generally adopted is that he was a native of the
         northern kingdom, and flourished about 750 B.C.

Putting on one side the primitive accounts of the origin of the human race which his predecessors had taken pleasure in elaborating, he confined his attention solely to events since the birth of Abraham;* his origin is betrayed by the preference he displays for details calculated to flatter the self-esteem of the northern tribes. To his eyes, Joseph is the noblest of all the sons of Jacob, before whom all the rest must bow their heads, as to a king; next to Joseph comes Reuben, to whom—rather than to Judah**—he gives the place as firstborn. He groups his characters round Bethel and Shechem, the sanctuaries of Israel; even Abraham is represented as residing, not at Hebron in Judea, but at Beersheba, a spot held in deep veneration by pilgrims belonging to the ten tribes.*** It is in his concept of the Supreme Being, however, that he differs most widely from his predecessors. God is, according to him, widely removed from ordinary humanity. He no longer reveals Himself at all times and in all places, but works rather by night, and appears to men in their dreams, or, when circumstances require His active interference, is content to send His angels rather than come in His own person.****

* Budde seems to have proved conclusively that the Elohist did not write any part of the primitive history of mankind.

** Gen. xxxvii. 21, 22, 29, 30; xlii. 22, 27; whereas in Gen. xliii. 3, 8-10, where the narrative is from the pen of the Jehovist, it is Judah that plays the principal part: it is possible that, in Gen. xxxvii. 21, Reuben has been substituted in the existing text for Judah.

*** Gen. xxi. 31, 33; xxii. 19; the importance of Beersheba as a holy place resorted to by pilgrims from the northern kingdom is shown in 1 Kings xix. 3, and Amos v. 5; viii. 14.

**** Gen. xx. 3-8; xxviii. 11-15; xxxi 24; Numb. xxii. 8-12, 20.

Indeed, such cases of active interference are of rare occurrence, and He prefers to accomplish His purpose through human agents, who act unconsciously, or even in direct contravention of their own clearly, expressed intentions.* Moreover it was only by degrees that He revealed His true nature and title; the patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph, had called Him Elohim, or “the gods,” and it was not until the coming of Moses that He disclosed His real name of Jahveh to His worshippers.**

         * Gen. 1. 20, end of the story of Joseph: “And as for you,
         ye meant evil against me; but God meant it for good, to
         bring it to pass as it is this day, to save much people
         alive.”

         ** Exod. iii. 13, 14; verse 15 is an interpolation of much
         later date.

         After Painting by Gerome

In a word, this new historian shows us in every line that the theological instinct has superseded popular enthusiasm, and his work loses unmistakably in literary interest by the change. We feel that he is wanting in feeling and inspiration; his characters no longer palpitate with life; his narrative drags, its interest decreases, and his language is often deficient in force and colour. But while writers, trained in the schools of the prophets, thus sought to bring home to the people the benefits which their God had showered on them, the people themselves showed signs of disaffection towards Him, or were, at any rate, inclined to associate with Him other gods borrowed from neighbouring states, and to overlay the worship they rendered Him with ceremonies and ideas inconsistent with its original purity. The permanent division of the nation into two independent kingdoms had had its effect on their religion as well as on their political life, and had separated the worshippers into two hostile camps. The inhabitants of Judah still continued to build altars on their high places, as they had done in the time before David; there, the devout prostrated themselves before the sacred stones and before the Asherah, or went in unto the kedeshōth in honour of Astarte, and in Jahveh’s own temple at Jerusalem they had set up the image of a brazen serpent to which they paid homage.* The feeling, however, that the patron deity of the chosen people could have but one recognised habitation—the temple built for Him by Solomon—and that the priests of this temple were alone qualified to officiate there in an effective manner, came to prevail more and more strongly in Judaea. The king, indeed, continued to offer sacrifices and prayer there,** but the common people could no longer intercede with their God except through the agency of the priests.

         * Cf. what we are told of idolatrous practices in Judah
         under Rehoboam and Abraham (1 Kings xiv. 22-24; xv. 3), and
         of the tolerance of high places by Asa and Jehoshaphat (1
         Kings xv. 14; xxii. 44); even at the period now under
         consideration neither Amaziah (2 Kings xiv. 4) nor Azariah
         (2 Kings xv. 4) showed any disposition to prohibit them. The
         brazen serpent was still in existence in the time of
         Hezekiah, at the close of the VIIIth century B.C. (2 Kings
         xviii. 4).

         ** 2 Kings xvi. 10-16, where Ahaz is described as offering
         sacrifice and giving instructions to the high priest Urijah
         as to the reconstruction and service of the altar; cf. 2
         Chron. xxvi. 16-21, where similar conduct on the part of
         Uzziah is recorded, and where the leprosy by which he was
         attacked is, in accordance with the belief of later times,
         represented as a punishment of the sacrilege committed by
         him in attempting to perform the sacrifice in person.

The latter, in their turn, tended to develop into a close corporation of families consecrated for generations past to the priestly office; they came in time to form a tribe by themselves, which took rank among the other tribes of Israel, and claimed Levi, one of the twelve sons of Jacob, as its ancestor. Their head, chosen from among the descendants of Zadok, who had been the first high priest in the reign of Solomon, was by virtue of his office one of the chief ministers of the crown, and we know what an important part was played by Jehoiadah in the revolution which led to the deposition of Athaliah; the high priest was, however, no less subordinate to the supreme power than his fellow-ministers, and the sanctity of his office did not avail to protect him from ill-treatment or death if he incurred the displeasure of his sovereign.* He had control over a treasury continually enriched by the offerings of the faithful, and did not always turn his trust to the best uses; in times of extreme distress the king used to borrow from him as a last resource, in order to bring about the withdrawal of an invader, or purchase the help of a powerful ally.** The capital of Israel was of too recent foundation to allow of its chapel royal becoming the official centre of national worship; the temple and priesthood of Samaria never succeeded in effacing the prestige enjoyed by the ancient oracles, though in the reign of both the first and second Jeroboam, Dan, Bethel, Gilgal, and Mizpah had each its band of chosen worshippers.***

         * In order to form an idea of the relative positions
         occupied by the king and the high priest, we must read what
         is told of Jehoiadah and Joash (2 Kings xii. 6-16), or
         Urijah and Ahaz (2 Kings xvi. 10-16); the story runs that
         Zechariah was put to death by Joash (2 Chron. xxiv. 22).

         ** Asa did so in order to secure Ben-hadad’s help against
         Baasha (1 Kings xv. 18, 19; cf. 2 Chron. xvi. 2, 3): as to
         the revenues by which the treasury of the temple was
         supported and the special dues appropriated to it, cf. 2
         Kings xii. 4, 5, 7-16, and xxii. 4-7, 9.

         *** In the time of Jeroboam II., Bethel, Gilgal, and Dan are
         mentioned by Amos (iv. 4; v. 5, 6; viii. 14), by Hosea (iv.
         15; ix. 15; xii. 12). Mizpah is mentioned by Hosea (v. 1),
         and so is Tabor. The altar of Jahveh on Mount Carmel was
         restored by Elijah (1 Kings xviii. 30).

At these centres adoration was rendered to the animal presentment of Jahveh,* and even prophets like Elijah and Elisha did not condemn this as heretical; they had enough to do in hunting down the followers of Baal without entering into open conflict with the worshippers of the golden calf. The priesthood of the northern kingdom was not confined to members of the family of Levi, but was recruited from all the tribes; it levied a tithe on the harvest, reserved to itself the pick of the offerings and victims, and jealously forbade a plurality of sanctuaries,** The Book of the Covenant*** has handed down to us the regulations in force at one of these temples, perhaps that of Bethel, one of the wealthiest of them all.

         * The golden calves at Dan and Bethel are referred to by
         Amos (viii. 14) and Hosea (x. 5), where Bethel is called
         Beth-aven; as to the golden calf at Samaria, cf. Amos viii.
         14 and Hos. viii. 5, 6.

         ** Amos iv. 4, 5; v. 21-23.

         *** This is the title given in Exod. xxiv. 7 to a writing
         in which Moses is said to have entered the covenant made
         between Jahveh and Israel; it is preserved, with certain
         interpolations and alterations, in Exod. xx. 23?—xxiii. 33.
         It was inserted in its entirety in the Elohist narrative,
         there taking the place at present occupied by Deuteronomy in
         the Pentateuch, viz. that of the covenant made between
         Jahveh and Israel prior to the crossing of the Jordan
         (Kuenen, H. C. Onderzoek, i. § 13, No. 32). Reuss tries to
         make out that it was the code promulgated on the occasion of
         Jehoshaphat’s legal reforms, which is only referred to in 2
         Chron. xvii. 7-9; cf. xix. 5. A more probable theory is that
         it was the “custom” of one of the great sanctuaries of the
         northern kingdom reduced to writing at the end of the Xth or
         during the IXth century B.C.

         Drawn by Faucher-Gudin, from a restoration by Naville.

The directions in regard to ritual are extremely simple, and the moral code is based throughout on the inexorable lex talionis, “Life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.” * This brief code must have been almost universally applicable to every conjuncture of civil and religious life in Judah no less than in Israel. On one point only do we find a disagreement, and that is in connection with the one and only Holy of Holies to the possession of which the southern kingdom had begun to lay claim: in a passage full of significance Jahveh declares, “An altar of earth thou shalt make unto Me, and shalt sacrifice thereon thy burnt offerings and thy peace offerings, thy sheep and thine oxen: in every place where I record My name I will come unto thee and I will bless thee. And if thou make Me an altar of stone, thou shalt not build it of hewn stones: for if thou lift up thy tool upon it, thou hast polluted it. Neither shalt thou go up by steps unto Mine altar, that thy nakedness be not discovered thereon.” **

         * Exod. xxi. 23-25.

         ** Exod. xx. 24-26.

The patriarchs and early ancestors of the race had performed their sacrifices in the open air, on rude and low altars, differing widely from lofty and elaborately ornamented erections like those at Jerusalem, which seem to have borne a resemblance to the altars of the Egyptians: the author of the Book of the Covenant advises the faithful to follow the example of those great men rather than that of the Lévites of Judah. Nevertheless this multiplicity of high places was not without its dangers; it led the common people to confuse Jahveh with the idols of Canaan, and encouraged the spread of foreign superstitions. The misfortunes which had come thick and fast upon the Israelites ever since the division of the kingdom had made them only too ready to seek elsewhere that support and consolation which they could no longer find at home. The gods of Damascus and Assur who had caused the downfall of Gath, of Calneh, and of Hamath,* those of Tyre and Sidon who lavished upon the Phoenicians the wealth of the seas, or even the deities of Ammon, Moab, or Edom, might well appear more desirable than a Being Who, in spite of His former promises, seemed powerless to protect His own people. A number of the Israelites transferred their allegiance to these powerful deities, prostrated themselves before the celestial host, flocked round the resting-places of Kevan, the star of El, and carried the tabernacles of the King of heaven;** nor was Judah slow to follow their example. The prophets, however, did not view their persistent ill-fortune in the same light as the common people; far from accepting it as a proof of the power of other divinities, they recognised in it a mark of Jahveh’s superiority.

         * Amos vi. 2; with regard to the destruction of Gath by
         Hazael.

         ** Amos v. 26, 27

In their eyes Jahveh was the one God, compared with Whom the pagan deities were no gods at all, and could not even be said to exist. He might, had He so willed it, have bestowed His protection on any one of the numerous races whom He had planted on the earth: but as a special favour, which He was under no obligation to confer, He had chosen Israel to be His own people, and had promised them that they should occupy Canaan so long as they kept free from sin. But Israel had sinned, Israel had followed after idols; its misfortunes were, therefore, but the just penalty of its unfaithfulness. Thus conceived, Jahveh ceased to be merely the god of a nation—He became the God of the whole world; and it is in the guise of a universal Deity that some, at any rate, of the prophets begin to represent Him from the time of Jeroboam II. onwards.

This change of view in regard to the Being of Jahveh coincided with a no less marked alteration in the character of His prophets. At first they had taken an active part in public affairs; they had thrown themselves into the political movements of the time, and had often directed their course,* by persuasion when persuasion sufficed, by violence when violence was the only means that was left to them of enforcing the decrees of the Most High. Not long before this, we find Elisha secretly conspiring against the successors of Ahab, and taking a decisive part in the revolution which set the house of Jehu on the throne in place of that of Omri; but during the half-century which had elapsed since his death, the revival in the fortunes of Israel and its growing prosperity under the rule of an energetic king had furnished the prophets with but few pretexts for interfering in the conduct of state affairs.

         * Cf. the part taken by Nathan in the conspiracy which
         raised Solomon to the throne (1 Kings i. 8, et seq.), and
         previous to this in the story of David’s amour with
         Bathsheba (2 Sam. xii. 1-25). Similarly, we find prophets
         such as Ahijah in the reign of Jeroboam I. (1 Kings xi. 29-
         39; cf. xiv. 1-18; xv. 29, 30), and Shemaīah in the reign of
         Rehoboam (1 Kings xii. 22-24), Jehu son of Hananiah under
         Baasha (1 Kings xvi. 1-4, 7, 12, 13), Micaiah son of Imla,
         and Zedekiah under Ahab (1 Kings xxii. 5-28), not to speak
         of those mentioned in the Chronicles, e.g. Azariah son of
         Oded (2 Ghron. xv. 1-8), and Hanani under Asa (2 Ghron. xvi.
         7-10), Jahaziel (2 Ghron. xx. 14-19), and Eliezer, son of
         Dodavahu (2 Ghron. xx. 37), in the time of Johoshaphat. No
         trace of any writings composed by these prophets is found
         until a very late date; but in Chronicles, in addition to a
         letter from Elijah to Jehoram of Juda (2 Ghron. xxi. 12-15),
         we find a reference to the commentary of the prophet Iddo in
         the time of Abijah (2 Ghron. xiii. 22), and to the “History
         of Jehu the son of Hanani, which is inserted in the book of
         the kings of Israel” (2 Chron. xx. 34), in the time of
         Jehoshaphat.

They no longer occupied themselves in resisting the king, but addressed themselves to the people, pointed out the heinousness of their sins, and threatened them with the wrath of Jahveh if they persisted in their unfaithfulness: they came to be spiritual advisers rather than political partisans, and orators rather than men of action like their predecessors. Their discourses were carefully prepared beforehand, and were written down either by themselves or by some of their disciples for the benefit of posterity, in the hope that future generations would understand the dangers or witness the catastrophes which their contemporaries might not live to see. About 760 B.C., Amos of Tekōa,* a native of Judaea, suddenly made his appearance at Bethel, in the midst of the festivals which pilgrims had flocked to celebrate in the ancient temple erected to Jahveh in one of His animal forms.

         * The title of the Book of Amos fixes the date as being “in
         the days of Uzziah king of Judah, and in the days of
         Jeroboam the son of Joash king of Israel” (i. 1), and the
         state of affairs described by him corresponds pretty closely
         with what we know of this period. Most critics fix the date
         somewhere between 760 and 750 B.C., but nearer 760 than 750.

His opening words filled the listening crowd with wonder: “The high places of Isaac shall be desolate,” he proclaimed, “and the sanctuaries of Israel shall be laid waste; and I will rise against the house of Jeroboam with the sword.” *

         * Amos vii. 9.

Yet Jeroboam had by this time gained all his victories, and never before had the King of Samaria appeared to be more firmly seated on the throne: what, then, did this intruder mean by introducing himself as a messenger of wrath in the name of Jahveh, at the very moment when Jahveh was furnishing His worshippers with abundant signs of His favour? Amaziah, the priest of Bethel, interrupted him as he went on to declare that “Jeroboam should die by the sword, and Israel should surely be led away captive out of his land.” The king, informed of what was going on, ordered Amos into exile, and Amaziah undertook to communicate this sentence to him: “O thou seer, go, flee thee away into the land of Judah, and there eat bread, and prophesy there: but prophesy not again any more at Bethel: for it is the king’s sanctuary, and it is a royal house.” And Amos replied, “I was no prophet, neither was I a prophet’s son; but I was a herdman, and a dresser of sycomore trees: and the Lord took me from following the flock, and the Lord said unto me, Go, prophesy unto My people Israel. Now therefore hear thou the word of the Lord: Thou sayest, Prophesy not against Israel, and drop not thy word against the house of Isaac: therefore thus saith the Lord: Thy wife shall be an harlot in the city, and thy sons and thy daughters shall fall by the sword, and thy land shall be divided by line; and thou thyself shalt die in a land that is unclean, and Israel shall surely be led away captive out of his land.” *

         * Amos vii. 9-17.

This prophecy, first expanded, and then written down with a purity of diction and loftiness of thought which prove Amos to have been a master of literary art,* was widely circulated, and gradually gained authority as portents indicative of the divine wrath began to accumulate, such as an earthquake which occurred two years after the incident at Bethel,* an eclipse of the sun, drought, famine, and pestilence.*** It foretold, in the first place, the downfall of all the surrounding countries—Damascus, Gaza, Tyre, Edom, Ammon, Moab, and Judah; then, denouncing Israel itself, condemned it to the same penalties for the same iniquities. In vain did the latter plead its privileges as the chosen people of Jahveh, and seek to atone for its guilt by endless sacrifices. “I hate, I despise your feasts,” declared Jahveh, “and I will take no delight in your solemn assemblies. Yea, though ye offer Me your burnt offerings and meat offerings, I will not accept them: neither will I regard the peace offerings of your fat beasts. Take thou away from Me the noise of thy songs; for I will not hear the melody of thy viols. But let judgment roll down as waters, and righteousness as a mighty stream.” ****

         * S. Jerome describes Amos as “rusticus” and “imperitus
         sermone,” but modern writers are generally agreed that in
         putting forward this view he was influenced by the statement
         as to the peasant origin of the prophet.

         ** Amos i. 1; reference is made to it by the unknown prophet
         whose words are preserved in Zech. xiv. 5.

         *** The famine is mentioned in Amos iv. 6, the drought in
         Amos iv. 7, 8, the pestilence in Amos iv. 10.

         **** Amos v. 21-24.

The unfaithfulness of Israel, the corruption of its cities, the pride of its nobles, had sealed its doom; even at that moment the avenger was at hand on its north-eastern border, the Assyrian appointed to carry out sentence upon it.* Then follow visions, each one of which tends to deepen the effect of the seer’s words—a cloud of locusts,** a devouring fire,*** a plumb-line in the hands of the Lord,**** a basket laden with summer fruits—till at last the whole people of Israel take refuge in their temple, vainly hoping that there they may escape from the vengeance of the Eternal. “There shall not one of them flee away, and there shall not one of them escape. Though they dig into hell, thence shall Mine hand take them; and though they climb up to heaven, thence will I bring them down. And though they hide themselves in the top of Oarmel, I will search and take them out thence; and though they be hid from My sight in the bottom of the sea, thence will I command the serpent, and he shall bite them. And though they go into captivity before their enemies, thence will I command the sword, and it shall slay them; and I will set Mine eyes upon them for evil and not for good.”

         * Most commentators admit that the nation raised up by
         Jahveh to oppress Israel “from the entering in of Hamath
         unto the brook of the Arabah” (Amos vi. 14) was no other
         than Assyria. At the very period in which Amos flourished,
         Assurdān made two campaigns against Hadrach, in 765 and 755,
         which brought his armies right up to the Israelite frontier
         (Schrader, Keilinschrift. Bibliothec, vol. i. pp. 210-
         213).

         ** Amos vii. 1-3.

         *** Amos vii. 4-6.

         **** Amos vii. 7-9. It is here that the speech delivered by
         the prophet at Bethel is supposed to occur (vii. 9); the
         narrative of what afterwards happened follows immediately
         (Amos vii. 10-17).

         ^ Amos viii. 1-3.; Amos ix. 1-4.

For the first time in history a prophet foretold disaster and banishment for a whole people: love of country was already giving place in the heart of Amos to his conviction of the universal jurisdiction of God, and this conviction led him to regard as possible and probable a state of things in which Israel should have no part. Nevertheless, its decadence was to be merely temporary; Jahveh, though prepared to chastise the posterity of Jacob severely, could not bring Himself to destroy it utterly. The kingdom of David was soon to flourish anew: “Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that the plowman shall overtake the reaper, and the treader of grapes him that soweth seed; and the mountains shall drop sweet wine, and all the hills shall melt. And I will bring again the captivity of My people Israel, and they shall build the waste cities, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and drink the wine thereof; they shall also make gardens, and eat the fruit of them. And I will plant them upon their land, and they shall no more be plucked up out of their land which I have given them, saith the Lord thy God.” *

The voice of Amos was not the only one raised in warning. From the midst of Ephraim, another seer, this time a priest, Hosea, son of Beeri,** was never weary of reproaching the tribes with their ingratitude, and persisted in his foretelling of the desolation to come.

         * Amos ix. 13-15.

         ** Hoshea (or Hosea) was regarded by the rabbis as the
         oldest of the lesser prophets, and his writings were placed
         at the head of their collected works. The title of his book
         (Hos. i. 1), where he begins by stating that he preached
         “in the days of Jeroboam, the son of Joash (Jehoash), King of
         Israel,” is a later interpolation; the additional mention of
         Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah, is due
         to an attempted analogy with the title of Isaiah. Hosea was
         familiar with the prophecies of Amos, and his own
         predictions show that the events merely foreseen by his
         predecessor were now in course of fulfilment in his day. The
         first three chapters probably date from the end of the reign
         of Jeroboam, about 750 B.C.; the others were compiled under
         his successors, and before 734-733 B.C., since Gilead is
         there mentioned as still forming part of Israel (Hos. vi. 8;
         xii. 12), though it was in that year laid waste and
         conquered by Tiglath-pileser III. Duhm has suggested that
         Hosea must have been a priest from the tone of his writings,
         and this hypothesis is generally accepted by theologians.

The halo of grandeur and renown with which Jeroboam had surrounded the kingdom could not hide its wretched and paltry character from the prophet’s eyes; “for yet a little while, and I will avenge the blood of Jezreel upon the house of Jehu, and will cause the kingdom of the house of Israel to cease. And it shall come to pass at that day that I will break the bow of Israel in the valley of Jezreel.” * Like his predecessor, he, too, inveighed against the perversity and unfaithfulness of his people. The abandoned wickedness of Gomer, his wife, had brought him to despair. In the bitterness of his heart, he demands of Jahveh why He should have seen fit to visit such humiliation on His servant, and persuades himself that the faithlessness of which he is a victim is but a feeble type of that which Jahveh had suffered at the hands of His people. Israel had gone a-whoring after strange gods, and the day of retribution for its crimes was not far distant: “The children of Israel shall abide many days without king and without prince, and without sacrifice and without pillar, and without ephod or teraphim; afterward shall the children of Israel return, and seek the Lord their God, and David their king; and shall come with fear unto the Lord and to His goodness in the latter days.” **

         * Hos. i. 4, 5.

         **Hos. i.-iii. Is the story of Hosea and his wife an
         allegory, or does it rest on a basis of actual fact? Most
         critics now seem to incline to the view that the prophet has
         here set down an authentic episode from his own career, and
         uses it to point the moral of his work.

Whether the decadence of the Hebrews was or was not due to the purely moral and religious causes indicated by the prophets, it was only too real, and even the least observant among their contemporaries must have suspected that the two kingdoms were quite unfitted, as to their numbers, their military organisation, and monetary reserves, to resist successfully any determined attack that might be made upon them by surrounding nations. An armed force entering Syria by way of the Euphrates could hardly fail to overcome any opposition that might be offered to it, if not at the first onset, at any rate after a very brief struggle; none of the minor states to be met upon its way, such as Damascus or Israel, much less those of Hamath or Hadrach, were any longer capable of barring its progress, as Ben-hadad and Hazael had arrested that of the Assyrians in the time of Shalmaneser III. The efforts then made by the Syrian kings to secure their independence had exhausted their resources and worn out the spirit of their peoples; civil war had prevented them from making good their losses during the breathing-space afforded by the decadence of Assyria, and now that Nature herself had afflicted them with the crowning misfortunes of famine and pestilence, they were reduced to a mere shadow of what they had been during the previous century. If, therefore, Sharduris, after making himself master of the countries of the Taurus and Amanos, had turned his steps towards the valley of the Orontes, he might have secured possession of it without much difficulty, and after that there would have been nothing to prevent his soldiers from pressing on, if need be, to the walls of Samaria or even of Jerusalem itself. Indeed, he seems to have at last made up his mind to embark on this venture, when the revival of Assyrian power put a stop to his ambitious schemes. Tiglath-pileser, hard pressed on every side by daring and restless foes, began by attacking those who were at once the most troublesome and most vulnerable—the Aramęan tribes on the banks of the Tigris. To give these incorrigible banditti, who boldly planted their outposts not a score of leagues from his capital, a free hand on his rear, and brave the fortune of war in Armenia or Syria, without first teaching them a lesson in respect, would have been simply to court serious disaster; an Aramęan raid occurring at a time when he was engaged elsewhere with the bulk of his army, might have made it necessary to break off a successful campaign and fall back in haste to the relief of Nineveh or Calah (Kalakh), just as he was on the eve of gaining some decisive advantage. Moreover, the suzerainty of Assyria over Karduniash entailed on him the duty of safeguarding Babylon from that other horde of Aramęans which harassed it on the east, while the Kaldā were already threatening its southern frontier. It is not quite clear whether Nabunazīr who then occupied the throne implored his help:* at any rate, he took the field as soon as he felt that his own crown was secure, overthrew the Aramęans at the first encounter, and drove them back from the banks of the Lower Zab to those of the Uknu: all the countries which they had seized to the east of the Tigris at once fell again into the hands of the Assyrians.

         * Nabunazīr is the Nabonassar who afterwards gave his name
         to the era employed by Ptolemy.

This first point gained, Tiglath-pileser crossed the river, and made a demonstration in force before the Babylonian fortresses. He visited, one after another, Sippar, Nipur, Babylon, Borsippa, Kuta, Kīshu, Dilbat, and Uruk, “cities without peer,” and offered in all of them sacrifices to the gods,—to Bel, to Zirbanīt, to Nebo, to Tashmīt, and to Nirgal. Karduniash bowed down before him, but he abstained from giving any provocation to the Kaldā, and satisfied with having convinced Nabunazīr that Assyria had lost none of her former vigour, he made his way back to his hereditary kingdom.*

         * Most historians believe that Tiglath-pileser entered
         Karduniash as an enemy: that he captured several towns, and
         allowed the others to ransom themselves on payment of
         tribute. The way in which the texts known to us refer to
         this expedition seems to me, however, to prove that he set
         out as an ally and protector of Nabonazir, and that his
         visit to the Babylonian sanctuaries was of a purely pacific
         nature.

The lightly-won success of this expedition produced the looked-for result. Tiglath-pileser had set out a king de facto; but now that the gods of the ancient sanctuaries had declared themselves satisfied with his homage, and had granted him that religious consecration which had before been lacking, he returned a king de jure as well (745 B.C.). His next campaign completed what the first had begun. The subjugation of the plain would have been of little advantage if the highlands had been left in the power of tribes as yet unconquered, and allowed to pour down with impunity bands of rapacious freebooters on the newly liberated provinces: security between the Zab and the Uknu could only be attained by the pacification of Namri, and it was, therefore, to Namri that the sea of war was transferred in 744 B.C. All the Cossęan and Babylonian races intermingled in the valleys on the frontier were put to ransom one after another.

These included the Bīt-Sangibuti, the Bīt-Khambān, the Barrua, the Bit-Zualzash, the Bīt-Matti, the Umliash, the Parsua, the Bīt-Zatti, the Bīt-Zabdādani, the Bīt-Ishtar, the city of Zakruti, the Nina, the Bustus, the Arakuttu, by which the conqueror gradually made his way into the heart of Media, reaching districts into which none of his predecessors had ever penetrated. Those least remote he annexed to his own empire, converting them into a province under the rule of an Assyrian governor; he then returned to Calah with a convoy of 60,500 prisoners, and countless herds of oxen, sheep, mules, and dromedaries. Whilst he was thus employed, Assur-daināni, one of his generals to whom he had entrusted the pick of his army, pressed on still further to the north-east, across the almost waterless deserts of Media. The mountainous district on the shores of the Caspian had for centuries enjoyed a reputation for wealth and fertility among the races settled on the banks of the Euphrates and Tigris. It was from thence that they obtained their lapis-lazuli, and the hills from which it was extracted were popularly supposed to consist almost entirely of one compact mass of this precious mineral. Their highest peak, now known as the Demavend, was then called Bikni,* a name which had come to be applied to the whole district.

         * The country of Bikni is probably Rhagian Media and Mount
         Bikni, the modern Demavend.

To the Assyrians it stood as the utmost boundary mark of the known world, beyond which their imagination pictured little more than a confused mist of almost fabulous regions and peoples. Assur-daināni caught a distant glimpse of the snow-capped pyramid of Demavend, but approached no nearer than its lower slopes, whence he retraced his steps after having levied tribute from their inhabitants. The fame of this exploit spread far and wide in a marvellously short space of time, and chiefs who till then had vacillated in their decision now crowded the path of the victor, eager to pay him homage on his return: even the King of Illipi thought it wise to avoid the risk of invasion, and hastened of his own accord to meet the conqueror. Here, again, Tiglath-pileser had merely to show himself in order to re-establish the supremacy of Assyria: the races of the plain, for many years familiar with defeat, made no pretence of serious resistance, but bowed their necks beneath a fresh yoke almost without protest.

         Drawn by Boudier, from a photograph by M. de Morgan.

Having thus secured his rear from attack for some years at any rate, Tiglath-pileser no longer hesitated to try conclusions with Urartu. The struggle in which he now deliberately engaged could not fail to be a decisive one; for Urartu, buoyed up and borne on the wave of some fifty years of prosperity, had almost succeeded in reaching first rank among the Asiatic powers: one more victory over Nineveh, and it would become—for how long none might say—undisputed mistress of the whole of Asia. Assyria, on the other hand, had reached a. point where its whole future hung upon a single issue of defeat or victory. The prestige with which the brilliant campaigns of Assur-nazir-pal and Shalmaneser III. had invested its name, if somewhat diminished, had still survived its recent reverses, and the terror inspired by its arms was so great even among races who had witnessed them from a distance, that the image of Assyria rose involuntarily before the eyes of the Hebrew prophets as that of the avenger destined to punish Israel for its excesses.*

         * Cf. Amos vi. 4.

No doubt, during the last few reigns its prosperity had waned and its authority over distant provinces had gradually become relaxed; but now the old dynasty, worn out by its own activity, had given place to a new one, and with this change of rulers the tide of ill-fortune was, perhaps, at last about to turn. At such a juncture, a successful campaign meant full compensation for all past disasters and the attainment of a firmer position than had ever yet been held; whereas another reverse, following on those from which the empire had already suffered, would render their effect tenfold more deadly, and, by letting loose the hatred of those whom fear alone still held in check, complete its overthrow. It was essential, therefore, before entering on the struggle, to weigh well every chance of victory, and to take every precaution by which adverse contingencies might be, as far as possible, eliminated. The army, encouraged by its success in the two preceding campaigns, was in excellent fighting order, and ready to march in any direction without a moment’s hesitation, confident in its ability to defeat the forces of Urartu as it had defeated those of the Medes and Aramęans; but the precise point of attack needed careful consideration. Tiglath-pileser must have been sorely tempted to take the shortest route, challenge the enemy at his most vulnerable point on the shores of Lake Van, and by a well-aimed thrust deal him a blow from which he would never, or only by slow degrees, recover. But this vital region of Urartu, as we have already pointed out, presented the greatest difficulties of access. The rampart of mountain and forest by which it was protected on the Assyrian side could only be traversed by means of a few byways, along which bands of guerrillas could slip down easily enough to the banks of the Tigris, but which were quite impassable to any army in full marching order, hampered by its horses, chariots, and baggage-train: compelled to thread its way, with columns unduly extended, through the woods and passes of an unknown country, which daily use had long made familiar to its adversaries, it would have run the risk of being cut to pieces man by man a dozen times before it could hope to range its disciplined masses on the field of battle. Former Assyrian invasions had, as a general rule, taken an oblique course towards some of the spurs of this formidable chain, and had endeavoured to neutralise its defences by outflanking them, either by proceeding westwards along the basins of the Supnat and the Arzania, or eastwards through the countries bordering on Lake Urumiah; but even this method presented too many difficulties and too little certainty of success to warrant Tiglath-pileser in staking the reviving fortunes of his empire on its adoption. He rightly argued that Sharduris would be most easily vulnerable in those provinces whose allegiance to him was of recent date, and he resolved to seek out his foe in the heart of Northern Syria.

         Drawn by Boudier, from a photograph by M. Binder. Taken at
         Julamerk, near the junction of the mountain tracks leading
         from the Zab valley to the south-eastern corner of the basin
         of Lake Van.

There, if anywhere, every chance was in his favour and against the Armenian. The scene of operations, while it had long been familiar to his own generals and soldiers, was, on the other hand, entirely new ground to those of the enemy; the latter, though unsurpassed in mountain warfare, lost much of their superiority on the plains, and could not, with all their courage, make up for their lack of experience. Moreover, it must not be forgotten that a victory on the banks of the Afrīn or the Orontes would have more important results than a success gained in the neighbourhood of the lakes or of Urartu. Not only would it free the Assyrians from the only one of their enemies whom they had any cause to fear, but it would also bring back the Hittite kings to their allegiance, and restore the Assyrian supremacy over the wealthiest regions of Western Asia: they would thus disable Urartu and reconquer Syria at one and the same time. Tiglath-pileser, therefore, crossed the Euphrates in the spring of 743 B.C., neither Matīlu of Agusi, Kushtashpi of Kummukh, nor their allies daring to interfere with his progress. He thus advanced as far as Arpad, and, in the first moment of surprise, the town threw open its gates before him.*

         * Different writers have given different versions of this
         campaign. Some think that Arpad resisted, and that Tiglath-
         pileser was laying siege to it, when the arrival of
         Sharduris compelled him to retire; others prefer to believe
         that Arpad was still in the hands of the Assyrians, and that
         Tiglath-pileser used it as his base of operations. The
         formula ina Arpadda in the Eponym Canon proves that Tiglath-
         pileser was certainly in Arpad: since Arpad belonged to the
         Bit-Agusi, and they were the allies or vassals of Sharduris,
         we must assume, as I have done here, that in the absence of
         the Urartians they did not dare to resist the Assyrians, and
         opened their gates to them.

There, while he was making ready to claim the homage of the surrounding countries, he learnt that Sharduris was hastening up to the rescue. He at once struck his camp and marched out to meet his rival, coming up with him in the centre of Kummukh, not far from the Euphrates, between Kishtān and Khalpi. Sharduris was at the head of his Syrian contingents, including the forces of Agusi, Melitene, Kummukh, and Gurgum—a formidable army, probably superior in point of numbers to that of the Assyrians. The struggle lasted a whole day, and in the course of it the two kings, catching sight of one another on the field of battle, engaged in personal combat: at last, towards evening, the chariots and cavalry of Urartu gave way and the rout began. The victors made their way into the camp at the heels of their flying enemies. Sharduris abandoned his chariot, and could find nothing but a mare to aid him in his flight; he threw himself upon her back, careless of the ridicule at that time attached to the use of such a mount in Eastern countries,* fled at a gallop all through the night, hard pressed by a large body of cavalry, crossed the hills of Sibak, and with much difficulty reached the bridge over the Euphrates.

         * So, too, later on, in the time of Sargon, Rusas, when
         defeated, gets on the back of a mare and rides off.

His pursuers drew rein on the river-bank, and Sharduris re-entered his kingdom in safety. He had lost nearly 73,000 men, killed or taken prisoners, in addition to his chariots, and nearly the whole train of horses, asses, servants, and artisans attached to his army; he left his tent still standing, and those who were first to enter it laid hands on his furniture and effects, his royal ornaments, his bed and portable throne, with its cushions and bearing-poles, none of which had he found time to take with him. Tiglath-pileser burnt them all on the spot as a thank-offering, to the gods who had so signally favoured him; the bed alone he retained, in order that he might dedicate it as a trophy to the goddess Ishtar of Nineveh.

He had covered himself with glory, and might well be proud of his achievement, yet the victory was in no way a decisive one. The damage inflicted on the allies, considerable though it was, had cost him dear: the forces left to him were not sufficient to enable him to finish the campaign, and extort oaths of allegiance from the Syrian princes before they had recovered from the first shock of defeat. He returned to Nineveh, and spent the whole winter in reorganising his troops; while his enemies, on the other hand, made preparations to repel the attack energetically. Sharduris could not yet venture outside his mountain strongholds, but the hope of being reinforced by him, as soon as he had got together another army, encouraged the Syrian kings to remain faithful to him in spite of his reverses.*

         * The part played by Sharduris in the events of the years
         which followed, passing mention of which was made by
         Winckler (Gesch. Bab. und Ass,, pp. 224, 225), have been
         fully dealt with by Belck and Lehmann (Chaldische
         Forschungen, in Veriiand. der Berliner anthropol.
         Gesellschaft, 1895, pp. 325-336).

    A reproduction by Faucher-Gudin
    of the first plan published
    by Luschan.

Matīlu of Agusi, unable to carry the day against the Assyrians in the open field, distributed his men among his towns, and resisted all attacks with extraordinary persistence, confident that Sharduris would at length come to help him, and with this hope he held out for three years in his town of Arpad. This protracted resistance need no longer astonish us, now that we know, from observations made on the spot, the marvellous skill displayed in the fortification of these Asiatic towns. The ruins of Arpad have yet to be explored, but those of Samalla have been excavated, and show us the methods adopted for the defence of a royal residence about the middle of the century with which we are now concerned. The practice of building citadels on a square or rectangular plan, which prevailed so largely under the Egyptian rule, had gradually gone out of fashion as the knowledge of engineering advanced, and the use of mines and military engines had been more fully developed among the nations of Western Asia. It was found that the heavily fortified angles of the enclosing wall merely presented so many weak points, easy to attack but difficult to defend, no matter how carefully they might be protected by an accumulation of obstacles. In the case of fortresses built on a plain, where the plan was not modified by the nature of the site, the enclosing wall was generally round or oval in shape, and free from useless angles which might detract from its strength. The walls were surmounted by battlements, and flanked at short intervals by round or square towers, the tops of which rose but little, if indeed at all, above the level of the curtain. In front of this main wall was a second lower one, also furnished with towers and battlements, which followed the outline of the first all the way round at an interval of some yards, thus acting as a sort of continuous screen to it. The gates were little less than miniature citadels built into each line of ramparts; the gate of the outer wall was often surrounded by lower outworks, two square bastions and walls enclosing an outer quadrangle which had to be crossed before the real gate was reached.

When a breach had been made in this double enclosure, though the town itself might be taken, the labours of the attacking force were not yet over. In the very centre of the place, on a sort of artificial mound or knoll, stood the royal castle, and resistance on the part of its garrison would make it necessary for the enemy to undertake a second siege no less deadly and protracted than the first. The keep of Zinjirli had only a single gate approached by a narrow causeway.

         Reproduction by Faucher-Gudin of the sketch published by
         Luschan.

Within, it was divided by walls into five compartments, each of which was independent of the rest, and had to be attacked separately. Ma-tīlu knew he could hope for no mercy at the hands of the Assyrians; he therefore struggled on to the last, and when at length obliged to surrender, in the year 740 B.C., he paid for his obstinacy by the loss of his throne, and perhaps also of his life.*

         * Our knowledge of these events is imperfect, our only
         information being derived from the very scanty details given
         in the Eponym Canon; up to the present we can do no more
         than trace the general course of events.

         Drawn by Faucher-Gudin, from the plan published in Luschan.

The inaction of Sharduris clearly showed that he was no longer in a position to protect his allies, and that the backbone of his kingdom was broken; the kings who had put faith in his help now gave him up, and ambassadors flocked in from all parts, even from those which were not as yet directly threatened. Kushtashpi of Kummukh, Tark-hulara of Gturgum, Pisiris of Carchemish, Uriaīk of Kuī, came to Arpad in person to throw themselves at the conqueror’s feet, bringing with them offerings of gold and silver, of lead and iron, of ivory, carved and in the tusk, of purple, and of dyed or embroidered stuffs, and were confirmed in the possession of their respective territories; Hiram II. of Tyre, moreover, and Eezin of Damascus sent their greetings to him.*

         * Annals of Tiglath-pileser III., where the statement at
         the close indicates that Tiglath-pileser received the
         tributary kings of Syria “in Arpad,” after he had captured
         that city.

The Patina, who in days gone by had threatened the fortunes of Assur-nazir-pal, once again endeavoured to pose as the rivals of Assyria, and Tutammū, sovereign of Unki, the most daring of the minor states into which the Patina had been split up, declined to take part in the demonstrations made by his neighbours. Tiglath-pileser marched on Kinalua, sacked it, built a fortress there, and left a governor and garrison behind him: Agusi and Unki henceforth sank down to the level of mere provinces, administered by royal officers in the king’s name, and permanently occupied by Assyrian troops.

Northern Syria was thus again incorporated with the empire, but Urartu, although deprived of the resources with which Syria had supplied it, continued to give cause for apprehension; in 739 B.C., however, a large proportion of the districts of Naīri, to which it still clung, was wrested from it, and a fortress was built at Ulluba, with a view to providing a stable base of operations at this point on the northern frontier. A rebellion, instigated, it may be, by his own agents, recalled Tiglath-pileser to the Amanus in the year 738. The petty kings who shared with Assyria the possession of the mountains and plains of the Afrīn could not succeed in living at peace with one another, and every now and then their disputes broke out into open warfare. Samalla was at that time subject to a family of which the first members known to history, Qaral and Panammu, shared Yaudi equally between them. Barzur, son of Panammu I., had reigned there since about 765 B.C., and there can be little doubt that he must have passed through the same vicissitudes as his neighbours; faithful to Urartu as long as Sharduris kept the upper hand, and to Assyria as soon as Tiglath-pileser had humiliated Urartu, he had been killed in a skirmish by some rival. His son, Panammu IL, came to the throne merely as a nominee of his suzerain, and seems to have always rendered him faithful service; unfortunately, Yaudi was no longer subject to the house of Panammu, but obeyed the rule of a certain Azriyahu, who chafed at the presence of an alien power.*

         * Azriyahu of Yaudi was identified with Azariah of Judah by
         G. Smith, and this identification was for a long time
         accepted without question by most Assyriologists. After a
         violent controversy it has finally been shown that the
         Yaudi of Tiglath-pileser III.‘a inscriptions ought to be
         identified with the Yadi or Yaudi of the Zinjirli
         inscriptions, and consequently that Azriyahu was not king of
         Judah, but a king of Northern Syria. This view appears to me
         to harmonise so well with what remains of the texts, and
         with our knowledge of the events, that I have had no
         hesitation in adopting it.

Azriyahu took advantage of the events which kept Tiglath-pileser fully occupied in the east, to form a coalition in favour of himself among the states on the banks of the Orontes, including some seventeen provinces, dependencies of Hamath, and certain turbulent cities of Northern Phoenicia, such as Byblos, Arka, Zimyra, Usnū, Siannu, Coele-Syria, and even Hadrach itself. It is not quite clear whether Damascus and the Hebrews took part in this movement. Jeroboam had died in 740, after a prosperous reign of forty-one years, and on his death Israel seems to have fallen under a cloud; six months later, his son Zechariah was assassinated at Ibleam by Shallum, son of Jabesh, and the prophecy of Amos, in which he declared that the house of Jeroboam should fall beneath the sword of Jahveh,* was fulfilled. Shallum himself reigned only one month: two other competitors had presented themselves immediately after his crime;** the ablest of these, Menahem, son of Gadi, had come from Tirzah to Samaria, and, after suppressing his rivals, laid hands on the crown.*** He must have made himself master of the kingdom little by little, the success of his usurpation being entirely due to the ruthless energy invariably and everywhere displayed by him; as, for instance, when Tappuakh (Tiphsah) refused to open its gates at his summons, he broke into the town and slaughtered its inhabitants.****

         * Amos vii. 9.

         ** The nameless prophet, whose prediction is handed down to
         us in Zech. ix.—xi., speaks of three shepherds cut off by
         Javeh in one month (xi. 8); two of these were Zechariah and
         Shallum; the third is not mentioned in the Book of Kings.

         *** 2 Kings xiv. 23-29; xv. 8-15.

         **** 2 Kings xv. 16. The Massoretic text gives the name of
         the town as Tipsah, but the Septuagint has Taphōt, which led
         Thenius to suggest Tappuakh as an emendation of Tipsah:
         Stade prefers the emendation Tirzah.

All the defects of organisation, all the sources of weakness, which for the last half-century had been obscured by the glories of Jeroboam II., now came to the surface, and defied all human efforts to avert their consequences. “Then,” as Hosea complains, “is the iniquity of Ephraim discovered, and the wickedness of Samaria; for they commit falsehood: and the thief entereth in, and the troop of robbers spoileth without. And they consider not in their hearts that I (Jahveh) remember all their wickedness: now have their own doings beset them about; they are before My face. They make the king glad with their wickedness and the princes with their lies. They are all adulterers; they are as an oven heated by the baker.... They... devour their judges; all their kings are fallen; there is none among them that calleth unto Me.” * In Judah, Azariah (Uzziah) had at first shown some signs of ability; he had completed the conquest of Idumsea, Edom, and had fortified Elath,** but he suddenly found himself stricken with leprosy, and was obliged to hand over the reins of government of Jotham.***

         * Sos. vii. 1-4, 7.

         ** 2 Kings xiv. 22; in 2 Ghron. xxvi. 6-15 he is credited
         with the reorganisation of the army and of the Judsean
         fortress, in addition to campaigns against the Philistines
         and Arabs.

         *** 2 Kings xv. 5; cf. 2 Ghron. xxvi. 19-21. Azariah is also
         abbreviated into Uzziah. Tappuakh was a town situated on the
         borders of Ephraim and Manasseh (Josh. xvi. 8; xvii. 7, 8).

His long life had been passed uneventfully, and without any disturbance, under the protection of Jeroboam; but the very same defects which had led to the ruin of Israel were at work also in Judah, and Menahem, in spite of his enfeebled condition, had nothing to fear in this direction.

         Drawn by Faucher-Gudin, from a sketch published by Layard.

The danger which menaced him came rather from the east and the north, where Damascus, aroused from its state of lethargy by Rezōn [Rezin] II., had again begun to strive after the hegemony of Syria.*

         * The name of this king, written Rezin in the Bible (2 Kings
         xv. 37; xvi. 5, 6, 9), is given as Razunu in the Assyrian
         texts; he was therefore Ilezōn II. A passage in the Annals
         seems to indicate that Rezin’s father was prince of a city
         dependent on Damascus, not king of Damascus itself;
         unfortunately the text is too much mutilated to warrant us
         in forming any definite conclusion on this point.

All these princes, when they found that the ambition of Tiglath-pileser threatened to interfere with their own intrigues, were naturally tempted to combine against him, and were willing to postpone to a more convenient season the settlement of their own domestic quarrrels. But Tiglath-pileser did not give them time for this; he routed Azriyahu, and laid waste Kullani,* the chief centre of revolt, ravaged the valley of the Orontes, and carried off the inhabitants of several towns, replacing them with prisoners taken the year before during his campaign in Naīri.

         * Kullani is the Calno or Calneh mentioned by Isaiah (x. 9)
         and Amos (vi. 2), which lay somewhere between Arpad and
         Hamath; the precise spot is not yet known.

After this feat the whole of Syria surrendered. Rezin and Menahem were among the first to tender their homage, and the latter paid a thousand talents of silver for the firman which definitely confirmed his tenure of the throne; the princes of Tyre, Byblos, Hamath, Carchemish, Milid, Tabal, and several others followed their example—even a certain Zabibi, queen of an Arab tribe, feeling compelled to send her gifts to the conqueror.

A sudden rising among the Aramęan tribes on the borders of Elam obliged Tiglath-pileser to depart before he had time to take full advantage of his opportunity. The governors of Lullumi and Naīri promptly suppressed the outbreak, and, collecting the most prominent of the rebels together, sent them to the king in order that he might distribute them throughout the cities of Syria: a colony of 600 prisoners from the town of Amlati was established in the territory of Damaunu, 5400 from Dur were sent to the fortresses of Unki, Kunalia, Khuzarra, Taī, Tarmanazi, Kulmadara, Khatatirra, and Sagillu, while another 10,000 or so were scattered along the Phoenician seaboard and among the adjacent mountains. The revolt had meanwhile spread to the nations of Media, where it was, perhaps, fomented by the agents of Urartu; and for the second time within seven years (737 B.C.) Tiglath-pileser trampled underfoot the countries over which he had ridden in triumph at the beginning of his career—the Bīt-Kapsi, the Bīt-Sangibuti, the Bīt-Tazzakki, the Bīt-Zulazash, the Bīt-Matti, and Umliash. The people of Upash, among the Bīt-Kapsi, entrenched themselves on the slopes of Mount Abirus; but he carried their entrenchments by storm. Ushuru of Taddiruta and Burdadda of Nirutakta were seized with alarm, and hid themselves in their mountain gorges; but he climbed up in pursuit of them, drove them out of their hiding-places, seized their possessions, and made them prisoners. Similar treatment was meted out to all those who proved refractory; some he despoiled, others he led captive, and “bursting upon the remainder like the downpour of Bammān,” permitted none of them to escape. He raised trophies all along his line of march: in Bau, a dependency of Bīt-Ishtar, he set up a pointed javelin dedicated to Ninip, on which he had engraved a panegyric of the virtues of his master Assur; near Shilkhazi, a town founded, in bygone days, by the Babylonians, he erected a statue of himself, and a pillar consecrated to Marduk in Til-ashshur. In the following year he again attacked Urartu and occupied the mountain province of Nāl, which formed one of its outlying defences (736). The year after he entered on the final struggle with Sharduris, and led the flower of his forces right under the walls of Dhuspas,* the enemy’s capital.

         * The name is written Turuspas in the inscriptions of
         Tiglath-pileser III.

Dhuspas really consisted of two towns joined together. One of these, extending over the plain by the banks of the Alaīs and in the direction of the lake, was surrounded by fertile gardens and villas, in which the inhabitants spent the summer at their ease. It was protected by an isolated mass of white and red nummulitic chalk, the steep sides of which are seamed with fissures and tunnelled with holes and caverns from top to bottom.

         Drawn by Boudier, from a photograph by M. Binder.

The plateau in which it terminates, and which rises to a height of 300 feet at its loftiest point, is divided into three main terraces, each completely isolated from the other two, and forming, should occasion arise, an independent fortress, Ishpuinis, Menuas, Argistis, and Sharduris II. had laboured from generation to generation to make this stronghold impregnable, and they had succeeded in the attempt.

         Drawn by Boudier, from a photograph by M. Binder.

There can be little or no doubt, however, that this is merely a variant of the name usually written as Tuspas, Tuspana, Dhuspana, the Thospia of classical times; properly speaking, it was the capital of Biainas. The only access to it was from the western side, by a narrow bridle-path, which almost overhung the precipice as it gradually mounted to the summit. This path had been partially levelled, and flanked with walls and towers which commanded the approach throughout its whole length; on the platforms at the summit a citadel had been constructed, together with a palace, temples, and storehouses, in which was accumulated a sufficient supply of arms and provisions to enable the garrison to tire out the patience of any ordinary foe; treason or an unusually prolonged siege could only get the better of such a position. Tiglath-pileser invested the citadel and ravaged its outskirts without pity, hoping, no doubt, that he would thus provoke the enemy into capitulating. Day after day, Sharduris, perched in his lofty eyrie, saw his leafy gardens laid bare under the hatchet, and his villages and the palaces of his nobles light up the country round as far as the eye could reach: he did not flinch, however, and when all had been laid waste, the Assyrians set up a statue of their king before the principal gate of the fortress, broke up their camp, and leisurely retired. They put the country to fire and sword, destroyed its cities, led away every man and beast they could find into captivity, and then returned to Nineveh laden with plunder. Urartu was still undaunted, and Sharduris remained king as before; but he was utterly spent, and his power had sustained a blow from which it never recovered. He had played against Assur with the empire of the whole Asiatic world as the stake, and the dice had gone against him: compelled to renounce his great ambitions from henceforth, he sought merely to preserve his independence. Since then, Armenia has more than once challenged fortune, but always with the same result; it fared no better under Tigranes in the Roman epoch, than under Sharduris in the time of the Assyrians; it has been within an ace of attaining the goal of its ambitions, then at the last moment its strength has failed, and it has been forced to retire worsted from the struggle. Its position prevented it from exercising very wide influence; hidden away in a corner of Asia at the meeting-point of three or four great mountain ranges, near the source of four rivers, all flowing in different directions, it has lacked that physical homogeneity without which no people, however gifted, can hope to attain supremacy; nature has doomed it to remain, like Syria, split up into compartments of unequal size and strength, which give shelter to half a score of independent principalities, each one of them perpetually jealous of the rest. From time to time it is invested with a semblance of unity, but for the most part it drags on an uneventful existence, dismembered into as many fragments as there happen to be powerful states around it, its only chance of complete reunion lying in the possibility of one or other of these attaining sufficient predominance to seize the share of the others and absorb it.

The subjection of Urartu freed Assyria from the only rival which could at this moment have disputed its supremacy on the banks of the Euphrates and the Tigris. The other nations on its northern and eastern frontiers as yet possessed no stability; they might, in the course of a passing outburst, cut an army to pieces or annex part of a province, but they lacked strength to follow up their advantage, and even their most successful raids were sure, in the long run, to lead to terrible reprisals, in which their gains were two or three times outweighed by their losses in men and treasure. For nearly a hundred years Nineveh found its hands free, and its rulers were able to concentrate all their energy on two main points of the frontier—to the south-west on Syria and Egypt, to the south-east on Chaldęa and Elam. Chaldęa gave little trouble, but the condition of Syria presented elements of danger. The loyalty of its princes was more apparent than real; they had bowed their necks after the fall of Unki, but afterwards, as the years rolled on without any seeming increase in the power of Assyria, they again took courage and began once more to quarrel among themselves. Menahem had died, soon after he had paid his tribute (737 B.c.); his son Pekahiah had been assassinated less than two years later (736)* and his murderer, Pekah, son of Remaliah, was none too firmly seated on the throne. Anarchy was triumphant throughout Israel; so much so that Judah seized the opportunity for throwing off the yoke it had borne for well-nigh a hundred years. Pekah, conscious of his inability to suppress the rebellion, called in Rezin to help him. The latter was already on the way when Jotham was laid with his fathers (736 B.C.), and it was Ahaz, the son of Jotham, who had to bear the brant of the assault. He was barely twenty years old, a volatile, presumptuous, and daring youth, who was not much dismayed by his position.** Jotham had repaired the fortifications of Jerusalem, which had been left in a lamentable state ever since the damage done to them in the reign of Amaziah;*** his successor now set to work to provide the city with the supply of water indispensable for its defence,**** and, after repairing the ancient aqueducts, conceived the idea of constructing a fresh one in the spur of Mount Sion, which extends southwards.

         * 2 Kings xv. 22-26. The chronology of the events which took
         place between the death of Menahem and the fall of Samaria,
         as presented by the biblical documents in the state in which
         they have been transmitted to us, is radically inaccurate:
         following the example of most recent historians, I have
         adhered exclusively to the data furnished by the Assyrian
         texts, merely indicating in the notes the reasons which have
         led me to adopt certain dates in preference to others.

         ** 2 Kings xv. 38, xvi. 1, 2. Ahaz is called Iaukhazi, i.e.
         Jehoahaz, in the Assyrian texts, and this would seem to have
         been the original form of the name.

         *** The restoration of the walls of Jerusalem by Jotham is
         only mentioned in 2 Chron. xxvii. 3.

         **** We may deduce this from the words of Isaiah (vii. 3),
         where he represents Ahaz “at the end of the conduit of the
         upper pool, in the highway of the fuller’s field.” Ahaz had
         gone there to inspect the works intended for the defence of
         the aqueduct.

As time pressed, the work was begun simultaneously at each end; the workmen had made a wide detour underground, probably in order to avoid the caves in which the kings of Judah had been laid to rest ever since the time of David,* and they were beginning to despair of ever uniting the two sections of the tunnel, when they suddenly heard one another through the wall of rock which divided them. A few blows with the pick-axe opened a passage between them, and an inscription on the wall adjoining the entrance on the east side, the earliest Hebrew inscription we possess, set forth the vicissitudes of the work for the benefit of future generations. It was scarcely completed when Kezin, who had joined forces with Pekah at Samaria, came up and laid regular siege to Jerusalem.**

         * This is the highly ingenious hypothesis put forward and
         defended with much learning by Clermont-Ganneau, in order to
         account for the large curve described by the tunnel.

         ** 2 Kings xvi. 5; cf. 2 Chron. xxviii. 5-8. It was on this
         occasion that Isaiah delivered the prophecies which, after
         subsequent revision, furnished the bulk of chaps, vi. 1—x. 4.

The allies did not propose to content themselves with exacting tribute from the young king; they meant to dethrone him, and to set up in his room a son of Tabeel, whom they had brought with them; they were nevertheless obliged to retire without effecting a breach in his defences and leave the final assault till the following campaign. Rezin, however, had done as much injury as he could to Judah; he had laid waste both mountain and plain, had taken Elath by storm and restored it to the Edomites,* and had given a free hand to the Philistines (735).**

         * 2 Kings xvi. 6, where the Massoretic text states that the
         Syrians retained the town, while the Septuagint maintain
         that he restored it to the Edomites.

         ** Chron. xxviii. 18, where a list is given of the towns
         wrested from Judah by the Philistines. The delight felt by
         the Philistines at the sight of Judah’s abasement seems to
         be referred to in the short prophecy of Isaiah (xiv. 29-32),
         wrongly ascribed to the year of Ahaz’s death.

    Drawn by Faucher-
    Gudin, from
    Lanzone’s statuette.

         A direct reproduction from a plaster cast now in Paris. The
         inscription discovered by Schick, in 1880, has since been
         mutilated, and only the fragments are preserved in the
         museum at Constantinople. Some writers think it was composed
         in the time of Hezekiah; for my own part, I agree with Stade
         in assigning it to the period of Ahaz.

The whole position seemed so hopeless, that a section of the people began to propose surrendering to the mercy of the Syrians.*

         * This seems to be an obvious inference from the words of
         Isaiah (viii. 6): “Forasmuch as this people hath refused the
         waters of Shiloah that go softly, and lose courage because
         of Rezin and Bemaliali’s son.” [The R.V. reads  “rejoice
         in” Rezin, etc.—Tr.]

Ahaz looked around him in search of some one on whom he might call for help. All his immediate neighbours were hostile; but behind them, in the background, were two great powers who might be inclined to listen to his appeal—Egypt and Assyria. Ever since the expedition of Sheshonq into Asia, Egypt seemed to have lost all interest in foreign politics. Osorkon had not inherited the warlike propensities of his father, and his son, Takelōti I., and his grandson, Osorkon II., followed his example.*

         * The chronology of this period is still very uncertain, and
         the stelae of the Serapseum, which enable us to fix the
         order of the various reigns, yield no information as to
         their length. Sheshonq I. did not reign much longer than
         twenty-one years, which is his latest known date, and we may
         take the reign of twenty-one years attributed to him by
         Manetho as being substantially correct. The latest dates we
         possess are as follows: Osorkon I., twelfth year, and
         Takelōti I., sixth year or seventh year. Lastly, we have a
         twenty-ninth year in the case of Osorkon II., with a
         reference in the case of the twenty-eighth year to the fifth
         year of a Takelōti whose first cartouche is missing, and who
         perhaps died before his father and co-regent. In Manetho,
         Osorkon I. is credited with a reign of fifteen years, and
         his three next successors with a total of twenty-five years
         between them, which is manifestly incorrect, since the
         monuments give twenty-nine years, or twenty-three at the
         very least, if we take into account the double date in the
         case of the first two of these kings. The wisest course
         seems to be to allow forty-five years to Osorkon and his two
         successors: if Sheshonq, as I believe, died in 924, the
         fifty years allotted to the next three Pharaohs would bring
         us down to 880, and it is in this year that I am, for the
         present, inclined to place the death of Osorkon II.

These monarchs regarded themselves as traditionary suzerains of the country of Kharu, i.e. of Israel, Judah, Ammon, and Moab, and their authority may perhaps have been recognised by the Philistines in the main, but they seldom stirred from their own territory, and contented themselves with protecting their frontiers against the customary depredations of the Libyan and Asiatic nomads.*

         * Repressive measures of this kind are evidently referred to
         in passages similar to those in which Osorkon II. boasts of
         having “overthrown beneath his feet the Upper and Lower
         Lotanu,” and speaks of the exploits of the sons of Queen
         Kalamāīt against certain tribes whose name, though
         mutilated, seems to have been Libyan in character.

         Drawn by Boudier, from a photograph by Naville.

Under their rule, Egypt enjoyed fifty years of profound peace, which was spent in works of public utility, especially in the Delta, where, thanks to their efforts, Bubastis came to be one of the most splendid among the cities of secondary importance.*

         * All our knowledge of the history of the temple of Bubastis
         dates from Naville’s excavations.

Its temple, which had been rebuilt by Ramses II. and decorated by the Rames-sides, was in a sorry plight when the XXIInd dynasty came into power. Sheshonq I. did little or nothing to it, but Osorkon I. entirely remodelled it, and Osorkon II. added several new halls, including, amongst others, one in which he celebrated, in the twenty-second year of his reign, the festival of his deification. A record of some of the ceremonies observed has come down to us in the mural paintings. There we see the king, in a chapel, consecrating a statue of himself in accordance with the ritual in use since the time of Amenōthes III., and offering the figure devout and earnest worship; all the divinities of Egypt have assembled to witness the enthronement of this new member of their confraternity, and take part in the sacrifices accompanying his consecration. This gathering of the gods is balanced by a human festival, attended by Nubians and Kushites, as well as by the courtiers and populace. The proceedings terminated, apparently, with certain funeral rites, the object being to make the identification of Osorkon with Osiris complete.

The Egyptian deities served in a double capacity, as gods of the dead as well as of the living, and no exception could be made in favour of the deified Osorkon; while yet living he became an Osiris, and his double was supposed to animate those prophetic statues in which he appeared as a mummy no less than those which represented him as still alive.

         Drawn by Faucher-Gudin, from a restoration by Naville.

Another temple of small size, also dedicated to Bastīfc or Pasht, which had been built in the time of Ramses II., was enlarged by Osorkon I., and richly endowed with workshops, lands, cattle, slaves, and precious metals: Tumu-Khopri of Heliopolis, to mention but one of the deities worshipped there, received offerings of gold in value by weight.£120,000, and silver ingots worth £12,000.*

         * This is the small temple afterwards described by Herodotus
         as being dedicated to Hermes.

A country which could afford to indulge in extravagances of this nature must have been in a flourishing condition, and everything goes to prove that Egypt prospered under the rule of the early Bubastite kings.

The very same causes, however, which had ruined the Ramessides and the Tanites were now openly compassing the downfall of the Bubastite dynasty. The military feudalism from which it had sprung, suppressed for a time by Sheshonq I., developed almost unchecked under his successors. They had thought to break it up and turn it to their own advantage, by transferring the more important religious functions and the principal fiefs to their own sons or nephews. They governed Memphis through the high priests of Phtah; a prince of the blood represented them at Khmunu,* another at Khninsu** (Heracleopolis), and others in various cities of the Delta, each of them being at the head of several thousand Mashauasha, or Libyan soldiers on whose fidelity they could entirely rely.

         * E.g. Namrōti, under Piōnkhi-Mīamun, whose rights were such
         that he adopted the protocol of the Pharaohs.

         ** Stole 1959 of the Serapęum contains the names of five
         successive princes of this city, the first of whom was
         Namrōti, son of Osorkon II., and high priest of Thebes; a
         member of the same family, named Pefzāābastīt, had taken
         cartouches under Osorkon III. of the XXIIIrd dynasty.

Thebes alone had managed to exclude these representatives of the ruling dynasty, and its princes, guided in this particular by the popular prejudice, persistently refused to admit into their bodyguard any but the long-tried Māzaīu. Moreover, Thebes lost no opportunity of proving itself to be still the most turbulent of the baronies. Its territory had suffered no diminution since the time of Hrihor, and half of Upper Egypt, from Elephantine to Siut, acknowledged its sway.1

         * It is evident that this was so from the first steps taken
         by Piōnkhi-Miamun’s generals: they meet the army and fleet
         of Tafnakhti and the princes of the north right under the
         walls of Hormopolis, but say nothing of any feudal princes
         of the south. Their silence is explained if we assume that
         Thebes, being a dependency of Ethiopia, retained at that
         date, i.e. in the time of the XXIInd dynasty, the same or
         nearly the same boundaries which it had won for itself under
         the XXIst.

    Drawn by Faucher-Gudin,
    from the original now i
    n the Louvre.

Through all the changes of dynasty its political constitution had remained unaltered; Amon still ruled there supreme as ever, and nothing was done until he had been formally consulted in accordance with ancient usage. Anputi, in spite of his being a son of Sheshonq, was compelled to adopt the title of high priest in order to rule in peace, and had married some daughter or niece of the last of the Painotmu. After his death, good care was taken to prevent the pontificate from passing to one of his children, as this would have re-established a Theban dynasty which might have soon proved hostile to that of Bubastis. To avoid this, Osorkon I. made over the office and fief to his own son Sheshonq. The latter, after a time, thought he was sufficiently powerful to follow the example of Paīnotmu and adopt the royal cartouches; but, with all his ambition, he too failed to secure the succession to the male line of his descendants, for Osorkon II. appointed his own son Namrōti, already prince of Khninsu, to succeed him. The amalgamation of these two posts invested the person on whom they were conferred with almost regal power; Khninsu was, indeed, as we know, the natural rampart of Memphis and Lower Egypt against invasion from the south, and its possessor was in a position to control the fate of the empire almost as he pleased. Osorkon must have had weighty reasons for taking a step which placed him practically at the mercy of his son, and, indeed, events proved that but little reliance could be placed on the loyalty of the Thebans, and that energetic measures were imperative to keep them in the path of duty or lead them back to it. The decadence of the ancient capital had sadly increased since the downfall of the descendants of Hrihor.

The few public works which they had undertaken, and which Sheshonq I. encouraged to the best of his ability, had been suspended owing to want of money, and the craftsmen who had depended on them for support were suffering from poverty: the makers of small articles of a religious or funerary character, carvers of wood or stone, joiners, painters of mummy-cases, and workers in bronze, alone managed to eke out a bare livelihood, thanks to commissions still given to them by officials attached to the temples. Theban art, which in its best period had excelled in planning its works on a gigantic scale, now gladly devoted itself to the production of mere knick-knacks, in place of the colossal figures of earlier days.

         Drawn by Boudier, from a photograph in Naville. The
         illustration shows what now remains of the portions of the
         temple rebuilt in the time of Ramses II.

We have statuettes some twelve or fifteen inches high, crudely coloured, wooden stelę, shapeless ushābti redeemed from ugliness by a coating of superb blue enamel, and, above all, those miniature sphinxes representing queens or kings, which present with two human arms either a table of offerings or a salver decorated with cartouches. The starving populace, its interests and vanity alike mortified by the accession of a northern dynasty, refused to accept the decay of its fortunes with resignation, and this spirit of discontent was secretly fomented by the priests or by members of the numerous families which boasted of their descent from the Eamessides. Although hereditary claims to the throne and the pontificate had died out or lost their force in the male line, they were still persistently urged by the women: consecrated from their birth to the service of Amon, and originally reserved to sing his praises or share his nuptial couch, those of them who married transmitted to their children, and more especially to their daughters, the divine germ which qualified them for the throne. They and their followers never ceased to look for the day when the national deity should shake off his apathy, and, becoming the champion of their cause against the Bubastite or Tanite usurpers, restore their city to the rank and splendour from which it had fallen. Namrōti married one of these Theban princesses, and thus contrived to ward off the danger of revolt during his lifetime; but on his death or disappearance an insurrection broke out. Sheshonq II. had succeeded Osorkon II., and he, in his turn, was followed by Takelōti II. Takelōti chose Kala-māit, daughter of Namrōti, as his lawful wife, formally recognised her as queen, and set up numerous statues and votive monuments in her honour. But all in vain: this concession failed to conciliate the rebellious, and the whole Thebaid rose against him to a man. In the twelfth year of his reign he entrusted the task of putting down the revolt to his son Osorkon, at the same time conferring upon him the office of high priest. It took several years to repress the rising; defeated in the eleventh year, the rebels still held the field in the fifteenth year of the king, and it was not till some time after, between the fifteenth and twenty-second year of Takelōti II., that they finally laid down their arms.* At the end of this struggle the king’s power was quite exhausted, while that of the feudal magnates had proportionately increased. Before long, Egypt was split up into a number of petty states, some of them containing but a few towns, while others, following the example of Thebes, boldly annexed several adjacent nomes. A last remnant of respect for the traditional monarchy kept them from entirely repudiating the authority of Pharaoh. They still kept up an outward show of submission to his rule; they paid him military service when called upon, and appealed to him as umpire in their disputes, without, however, always accepting his rulings, and when they actually came to blows among themselves, were content to exercise their right of private warfare under his direction.** The royal domain gradually became narrowed down to the Memphite nome and the private appanages of the reigning house, and soon it no longer yielded the sums necessary for the due performance of costly religious ceremonies, such as the enthronement or burial of an Apis. The pomp and luxury usually displayed on such occasions grew less and less under the successors of Takelōti II., Sheshonq III., Pimi, and Sheshonq IV.***

         * The story of these events is told in several greatly
         mutilated inscriptions to be found at Karnak on the outer
         surface of the south wall of the Hall of Columns.

         ** It is evident that this was so, from a romance discovered
         by Krall.

         *** One need only go to the Louvre and compare the Apis
         stelae erected during this period with those engraved in the
         time of the XXVIth dynasty, in order to realise the low ebb
         to which the later kings of the XXIInd dynasty had fallen:
         the fact that the chapel and monuments were built under
         their direction shows that they were still masters of
         Memphis. We have no authentic date for Sheshonq II., and the
         twenty-ninth year is the latest known in the case of
         Takelōti II., but we know that Sheshonq III. reigned fifty-
         two years, and, after two years of Pimi, we find a reference
         to the thirty-seventh year of Sheshonq IV. If we allow a
         round century for these last kings we are not likely to be
         far out: this would place the close of the Bubastite dynasty
         somewhere about 780 B.C.

When the last of these passed away after an inglorious reign of at least thirty-seven years, the prestige of his race had so completely declined that the country would have no more of it; the sceptre passed into the hands of another dynasty, this time of Tanite origin.* It was probably a younger branch of the Bubastite family allied to the Ramessides and Theban Pallacides. Petu-bastis, the first of the line, secured recognition in Thebes,** and throughout the rest of Egypt as well, but his influence was little greater than that of his predecessors; as in the past, the real power was in the hands of the high priests.

         * The following list gives the names of the Pharaohs of the
         XXIIth dynasty in so far as they have been ascertained up
         to the present:—

    Drawn by Faucher-Gudin,
    from a small door now
    in the Louvre.

         ** This fact has recently been placed beyond doubt by
         inscriptions found on the quay at Karnak near the water-
         marks of the Nile.

One of them, Auīti by name, even went so far, in the fourteenth or fifteenth year, as to declare himself king, and had his cartouches inscribed on official documents side by side with those of the Tanite monarch.* His kingship died with him, just as that of Patnotmu had done in similar circumstances, and two years later we find his successor, Harsiisīt, a mere high priest without pretensions to royalty.

         * No. 26 of Legrain’s inscriptions tells us the height of
         the Nile in the sixteenth year of Petubastīt, which was also
         the second year of King Auīti. Seeing that Auīti’s name
         occurs in the place occupied by that of the high priest of
         Thebes in other inscriptions of the same king, I consider it
         probable that he was reigning in Thebes itself, and that he
         was a high priest who had become king in the same way as
         Paīnotmu under the XXIst dynasty.

Doubtless his was not an isolated case; all the grandees who happened to be nearly related either to the dethroned or to the reigning houses acted in like manner, and for the first time for many years Egypt acknowledged the simultaneous sway of more than one legitimate Pharaoh. Matters became still worse under Osorkon III.; although he, too, introduced a daughter of Anion into his harem, this alliance failed to give him any hold over Thebes, and even the Seven Nomes and the Delta were split up to such an extent that at one time they included something like a score of independent principalities, three of which, Hermopolis, Heracleopolis, and Tentramu, were administered by kings who boasted cartouches similar to those of Tanis and Bubastis.

About 740 B.C. there appeared in the midst of these turbulent and extortionate nobles a man who, by sheer force of energy and talent, easily outstripped all competitors. Tafnakhti was a chief of obscure origin, whose hereditary rights extended merely over the village of Nutirīt and the outskirts of Sebennytos. One or two victories gained over his nearest neighbours encouraged him to widen the sphere of his operations. He first of all laid hands on those nomes of the Delta which extended to the west of the principal arm of the Nile, the Saite, Athribite, Libyan, and Memphite nomes; these he administered through officers under his own immediate control; then, leaving untouched the eastern provinces, over which Osorkon III. exercised a make-shift, easygoing rule, he made his way up the river. Maitumu and the Fayum accepted him as their suzerain, but Khninsu and its king, Pefzāābastīt, faithful to their allegiance,* offered strenuous resistance.

         * Pefzāābastīt, King of Heracleopolis, seems to be identical
         with the Pharaoh Pefzābastīt of the Berlin sarcophagus.

He then crossed over to the right bank, and received the homage of Heliopolis and Phebtepahź; he put the inhabitants of Uabu to ransom, established a close blockade of Khninsu, and persuaded Namrōti, King of Khmunu, to take an oath of allegiance. At length, those petty kings and princes of the Said and the Delta who still remained unconquered called upon Ethiopia, the only power capable of holding its ground against him, for help. The “vile Kaushu” (Cush) probably rose to be an independent state about the time when Sheshonq and the Bubastite kings came into power.

         Reproduced by Faucher-Gudin, from a lithograph published in
         Cailliaud.

Peopled by Theban settlers, and governed by the civil and religious code of Thebes, the provinces which lay between the cataract of Hannek and the confluence of the two Mies soon became a second Thebaid, more barren and less wealthy than the first, but no less tied to the traditions of the past. Napata, its capital, lay in the plain at the foot of a sandstone cliff, which rose perpendicularly to a height of nearly two hundred feet, its summit, when viewed from the southwest, presenting an accidental resemblance to a human profile.* This was the Du-uabu, or Sacred Mount, in the heart of which the god was supposed to have his dwelling; the ruins of several temples can still be seen near the western extremity of the hill, the finest of them being dedicated to a local Amon-Rā.

         * The natives believe this profile to have been cut by human
         hands—an error which has been shared by more than one
         modern traveller.

         Reproduced by Faucher-Gudin, from a lithograph in Cailliaud.

This Amon was a replica of the Theban Amon on a smaller scale, and was associated with the same companions as his prototype, Maut, his consort, and Khonsu, his son. He owed his origin to the same religious concepts, and was the central figure of a similar myth, the only difference being that he was represented in composite shape, with a ram’s head; perhaps a survival from some earlier indigenous deity, such as Didun, for instance, who had been previously worshipped in those parts; his priests lived in accordance with the rules of the Theban hierarchy.

We can readily believe that when Hrihor extorted the title of “Royal Son of Kaushu” from the weaklings who occupied the throne at the close of the Ramesside dynasty, he took care to install one of the members of his family as high priest at Napata, and from henceforward had the whole country at his bidding. Subsequently, when Paīnotmu II. was succeeded by Auputi at Thebes, it seems that the Ethiopian priests refused to ratify his election. Whether they conferred the supreme power on one of their own number, or whether some son of Paīnotmu, flying from the Bubastite kings, arrived at the right moment to provide them with a master, is not quite clear.

         Reproduced by Faucher-Gudin, from the plan drawn up and
         published by Cailliaud.

    Drawn by Faucher-Gudin,
    from Lepsius.

The kings of Ethiopia, priests from the first, never lost their sacerdotal character. They continued to be men of God, and as such it was necessary that they should be chosen by the god himself. On the death of a sovereign, Amon at once became regent in the person of his prophet, and continued to act until the funeral rites were celebrated. As soon as these ceremonies were completed, the army and the people collected at the foot of the Sacred Mount; the delegates of the various orders of the state were led into the sanctuary, and then, in their presence, all the males of the royal family—“the king’s brothers,” as they were called—were paraded before the statue of the god; he on whom the god laid his hand as he passed was considered to be the chosen one of Amon, and consecrated king without delay.*

         * This is the ritual described in the Stele of the
         Enthronement. Perhaps it was already in use at Thebes under
         the XXIst and XXIInd dynasties, at the election of the high
         priest, whether he happened to be a king or not; at any
         rate, a story of the Ptolemaic period told by Synesius in
         The Egyptian seems to point to this conclusion.

As may be readily imagined, the new monarch thus appointed by divine dictation was completely under the control of the priests, and before long, if he failed to prove sufficiently tractable, they claimed the right to dispense with him altogether; they sent him an order to commit suicide, and he obeyed. The boundaries of this theocratic state varied at different epochs; originally it was confined to the region between the First Cataract and the mouth of the Blue Nile. The bulk of the population consisted of settlers of Egyptian extraction and Egyptianised natives; but isolated, as they were, from Egypt proper by the rupture of the political ties which had bound them to the metropolis, they ceased to receive fresh reinforcements from the northern part of the valley as they had formerly done, and daily became more closely identified with the races of various origin which roamed through the deserts of Libya or Arabia. This constant infiltration of free or slavish Bedāwin blood and the large number of black women found in the harems of the rich, and even in the huts of the common people, quickly impaired the purity of the race, even among the tipper classes of the nation, and the type came to resemble that of the negro tribes of Equatorial Africa.*

         * Taharqa furnishes us with a striking example of this
         degeneration of the Egyptian type. His face shows the
         characteristic features of the black race, both on the
         Egyptian statue as well as on the Assyrian stele of
         Sinjirli.

    Reproduced by Faucher-Gudin,
    from a lithograph published
    by Cailliaud.

The language fared no better in the face of this invasion, and the written character soon became as corrupt as the language; words foreign to the Egyptian vocabulary, incorrect expressions, and barbarous errors in syntax were multiplied without stint. The taste for art decayed, and technical ability began to deteriorate, the moral and intellectual standard declined, and the mass of the people showed signs of relapsing into barbarism: the leaders of the aristocracy and the scribes alone preserved almost intact their inheritance from an older civilisation. Egypt still attracted them: they looked upon it as their rightful possession, torn from them by alien usurpers in defiance of all sense of right, and they never ceased to hope that some day, when the god saw fit, they would win back their heritage. Were not their kings of the posterity of Sibu, the true representatives of the Ramessides and the solar race, compared with whom the northern Pharaohs, even those whose mothers ranked as “worshippers” of Amon, were but mere mushroom kings? Thebes admitted the validity of their claims: it looked to them for help, and the revolts by which it had been torn ever since the reign of Osorkon II. were, perhaps, instigated by the partisans of Ethiopia. In the time of Petubastis its high priests, Harsiisīt and Takelōti, were still connected with the Tanites; after that it placed itself under the immediate orders of Ethiopia, and the pontificate disappeared. The accession of a sovereign who was himself invested by hereditary right with the functions and title of high priest of Amon henceforth rendered the existence of such an office superfluous at Thebes: it would almost have meant an imperium in imperio. The administration of religious, and perhaps also of political, affairs was, therefore, handed over to the deputy prophet, and this change still further enhanced the importance of the “female worshippers of the god.” In the absence of the king, who had his capital at Napata, they remained the sole representatives of legitimate authority in the Thebaid: the chief among them soon came to be regarded as a veritable Lady of Thebes, and, subject to the god, mistress of the city and its territory.

It is not quite clear whether it was Piōnkhi Miamun or one of his immediate predecessors who took possession of the city. The nomes dependent on Amon followed the example of the capital, and the whole Theban territory as far as Siut had been occupied by Ethiopian troops, when in the twenty-first year of the king’s reign the princes of the Delta and Middle Egypt appealed to the court of Napata for help.

Even had they not begged it to do so, it would have been compelled before long to intervene, for Tafnakhti was already on his way to attack it; Piōnkki charged Luāmarsakni and Pu-arama, the generals he had already stationed in the Thebaid, to hold Tafnakhti in check, till he was able to get together the remainder of his army and descend the Nile to support them. Their instructions were to spare none of the rebellious towns, but to “capture their men and their beasts, and their ships on the river; to allow none of the fellaheen to go out into the fields, nor any labourer to his labour, but to attack Hermopolis and harass it daily.” They followed out these orders, though, it would seem, without result, until the reinforcements from Nubia came up: their movements then became more actively offensive, and falling on Tafnakhti’s ships, which were making for Thebes heavily laden with men and stores, they sunk several of them.

         Drawn by Boudier, from an engraving in Vivant Denon.

Anxious to profit by this first success, they made straight for Heracleopolis with a view to relieving it. Tafnakhti, accompanied by the two kings Namrōti and Auputi, was directing the siege in person; he had under his command, in addition to contingents from Busiris, Mendčs, Thoth, and Pharbaīthos, all the vassals of Osorkon III., the successor of Petubastis and titular Pharaoh of the whole country. The Ethiopian fleet engaged the Egyptian ships at the end of the island of Heracleopolis, near the mouth of the canal leading from the Nile to the Bahr-Yusuf.* Tafnakhti was defeated, and the remnants of his squadron took refuge in Pipuga under cover of his land forces.** At dawn, the next day, the Ethiopians disembarked and gave battle. The struggle was long and fierce, but indecisive. Luāmarsakni and Puarama claimed the victory, but were obliged to effect a retreat on the day following their so-called success, and when they dropped anchor in the harbour of Hermopolis, they found that Namrōti had made his way back to the city by land and forestalled them. Powerless to hold the field without support, he collected all the men and cattle he could lay hands on, and awaited the progress of events behind his ramparts. The Ethiopians invested the town, and wrote to inform Piōnkhi of what they had done—not, however, without some misgiving as to the reception which awaited their despatches. And sure enough, “His Majesty became enraged thereat, even as a panther: ‘If they have allowed a remnant of the warriors of the north to remain, if they have let one of them escape to tell of the fight, if they make him not to die in their slaughter, then by my life, by the love of Rā, by the praise of Amon for me, I will myself go down and overthrow that which Tafnakhti hath done,*** I will compel him to give up war for ever! Therefore, after celebrating the festivals of the New Year, when I shall have sacrificed to Amon of [Napata], my father, in his excellent festival wherein he appears in his procession of the New Year, when he shall have sent me in peace to look upon the [Theban] Amon in his festivals at Thebes, and when I shall have carried his image in procession to Luxor, in the festival celebrated in his honour among the festivals of Thebes, on the night of the feast appointed in the Thebaid, established by Rā at the creation, when I have led him in the procession and brought him unto his throne, on the day for introducing the god, even the second of Athyr, then will I make the enemy taste the savour of my claws.’”

         * The ancient geographers looked upon the nome of
         Heraoleopolis as a large island, its southern boundary
         being, probably, the canal of Harabshent: the end of the
         island, which the Egyptians called “the forepart of
         Khninsu,” was probably Harabshent and its environs.

         ** Pi-puga is probably El-Fokā, on the Nile, to the north of
         Harabshent.

         *** The king does not mention his adversary by name in the
         text; he is content to indicate him by a pronoun in the
         third person—“that which he hath done... then will I make
         him taste,” etc.

The generals did their very utmost to appease their master’s wrath before he appeared on the scene. They told off a force to keep watch over Hermopolis while they themselves marched against the nome of Uabu; they took Oxyrrhynchos by storm, with “the fury of a water-spout,” and informed the king of this achievement; but “his heart was not softened thereby.” They crossed over to the right bank; they crushed the people of the north under the walls of Tatehni,* they forced the walls of the town with the battering-ram, and killed many of the inhabitants, amongst others a son of Tafnakhti, whose body they sent to the king; but “his heart was not softened thereby.”

They then pushed on as far as Haļt Bonua** and sacked it, but still failed to regain favour. On the 9th of Thoth, Piōnkhi came down to Thebes, and after hasty attendance at the services to Amon, went to rejoin the vanguard of his army under the walls of Hermopolis.

         * The modern Tehneh, on the right bank of the Nile, a little
         below Minieh.

         ** Hāit-Bonu, or Hābonu, is the Hipponon of the Greco-Roman
         geographers.

         Drawn by Faucher-Gudin, from an impression of the stele in
         the Gizeh Museum.

“No sooner had his Majesty quitted the cabin of his ship, than the horses were harnessed and the charioteers in their places; the fear of his Majesty spread even to the Nomads of Asia, and all hearts trembled before him.” Piōnkhi drove back the enemy behind their walls, pitched his tent to the south-west of the city, threw up earth-works, and built terraces so as to place his bowmen and sling-ers on a level with the battlements of its towers. At the end of three days, Namrōti, finding himself hard pressed on every side, resolved to surrender. He sent envoys to Piōnkhi laden with rich presents, and despatched Queen Nsitentmahīt after them, to beg for mercy from the women who had accompanied the Ethiopian, his wives, concubines, daughters, or royal sisters. Their entreaties were graciously received, and Namrōti ventured to come in person, leading a horse with his right hand and shaking in his left a sistrum of gold and lapis-lazuli; he knelt down and presented with his salutations the long train of gifts which had gone before him. Piōnkhi visited the temple of Thoth, and there, amidst the acclamations of soldiers and priests, offered up the customary sacrifices.

         Drawn by Boudier, from an engraving in Vivant Denon. The
         portico was destroyed about 1820 by the engineers who
         constructed the sugar refinery at Rodah, and now only a few
         shapeless fragments of it remain.

He then made his way to the palace and inspected its courts, chambers, treasury, and storehouses, and reviewed the whole household, including even Namrōti’s own wives and daughters, though “he turned not his face towards any one of them.” He next went on to the stud-farms, and was indignant to find that the horses had suffered from hunger during the siege. Thoroughbreds were probably somewhat scarce at Napata, and he had, no doubt, reckoned on obtaining new blood and a complete relay of chargers from the Egyptian stables; his chances of doing so seemed likely to vanish if brood mares and stallions had everywhere been debilitated by the hardships of war. He reserved a part of the booty for himself, handed over the balance to the priests of Amon at Karnak, and also, before he left, received tribute from Heracleopolis. Pefzāābastīt brought him horses, the pick of his stables, slaves laden with gold and silver and precious stones; then burying his face in the dust, he offered worship to his liberator: “Hell had swallowed me up, I was plunged into darkness, and lo, now a light has been given me. Since I have found no man to love me in the day of adversity, or to stand by me in the day of battle, save only thee, O victorious king, who hast torn away the night from above me, I will be thy servant, I and all my house, and Khninsu shall pay tribute into thy treasury. For, as to thee, thou art Harmakhis, chief of the imperishable stars, thou art king, even as he is king, and even as he doth not destroy himself, neither shalt thou destroy thyself!”

The downfall of Khmunu led all who might still have shown resistance in Middle Egypt to lay down their arms also. The fortress of Pisakhmakhpirrī* dominated the gorges of Lahunīt, and thus commanded the entrance to the Fayum; but the son of Tafnakhti agreed to surrender it, provided he were allowed to march out with the honours of war.

         * This fortress, which bears a name compounded with that of
         Osorkon I., must have been rebuilt by that monarch on the
         site of an earlier fort; the new name remained in use under
         the XXIInd and XXIIIth dynasties, after which the old one
         reappears. It is Illahun, where Petrie discovered the
         remains of a flourishing town of the Bubastite epoch.

Shortly after, Maītumu threw open its gates, and its example was followed by Titauī; at Maītumu there was rioting among the Egyptians in the streets, one party wishing to hold out, the other to surrender, but in the end the latter had their way.* Piōnkhi discharged his priestly duties wherever he went, and received the local taxes, always being careful to reserve a tenth for the treasury of Amon-Rā; the fact that his army was kept under rigid control, and that he showed great clemency to the vanquished, helped largely to conciliate those who were not bound by close ties of interest to the cause of Tafnakhti. On reaching Memphis, Piōnkhi at once had recourse to the persuasive methods which had hitherto served him so well, and entered into negotiations with the garrison. “Shut not yourselves up in forts, and fight not against the Upper Country,** for Shu the god of creation, when I enter, he entereth, and when I go out, he goeth out, and none may repel my attacks. I will present offerings to Phtah and to the divinities of the White Wall, I will honour Sokari in his mysterious coffer, I will contemplate Eīsānbuf,*** then I will return from thence in peace. If ye will trust in me, Memphis shall be prosperous and healthy, even the children shall not cry therein. Behold the nomes of the South; not a soul has been massacred there, saving only the impious who blasphemed God, and these rebels have been executed.”

         * Maritumu, or Maītumu, is the modern Meīdum, associated in
         the inscription with the characteristic epithet, Pisokari-
         Nibu-Suazu, or “temple of Sokari, master of the
         transfiguration.” Titauī lay exactly on the frontier between
         Upper and Lower Egypt—hence its name, which signifies
         “commanding the two regions;” it was in the Memphite nome,
         and Brugsch identifies it with the Greek city of Acanthos,
         near Dahshur, but this position appears to me to be too
         close to Memphis and too far from the boundary of the nome;
         I should prefer to place Titauī at Kafr el-Ayat or
         thereabouts.

         ** I.e. against Piōnkhi, who was master of the Upper
         Country, that is, of Thebes and Ethiopia, and the forces
         from the whole of the valley to the south of Memphis who
         accompanied him.

         *** Lit., “He who is on the South of his Wall,” a name given
         to one of the quarters of Memphis, and afterwards applied to
         the god Phtah, who was worshipped in that quarter.

This eloquence, however, was of no avail. A detachment of archers, sailors, and engineers sent to make a reconnaissance of the harbour was taken by surprise and routed with loss, and on the following night Tafnakhti suddenly made his appearance on the spot. He had the 8000 men who were defending it paraded before him, and made them a speech, in which he pointed out the great natural strength of the position, the stoutness of the walls and the abundance of provisions; he then mounted his horse, and making his way a second time through the enemy’s outposts, headed straight for the Delta in order to levy reinforcements there. The next day, Piōnkhi went in person to examine the approaches of the city in which his ancestors had once been throned. There was a full Nile, and the river came right up to the walls. He sailed close in along the whole of the eastern front, and landed on the north, much vexed and discomfited at finding it so strongly fortified. Even the common soldiers were astonished, and began to discuss among themselves the difficulties of the undertaking with a certain feeling of discouragement. It would be necessary, they declared, to open a regular siege, “to make an inclined plane leading to the city, throw up- earthworks against its walls, bind ladders, set up masts and erect spars all around it.” Piōnkhi burst into a rage when these remarks were repeated to him: a siege in set form would have been a most serious enterprise, and would have allowed the allied princes time to get together fresh troops. He drove his ships full speed against the line of boats anchored in the harbour, and broke through it at the first onset; his sailors then scaled the bank and occupied the houses which overlooked it. Reinforcements concentrated on this point gradually penetrated into the heart of the city, and after two days’ fighting the garrison threw down their arms. The victor at once occupied the temples to save them from pillage: he then purified Memphis with water and natron, ascended in triumph to the temple of Phtah, and celebrated there those rites which the king alone was entitled to perform. The other fortresses in the neighbourhood surrendered without further hesitation. King Auputi of Tentramu,* prince Akaneshu,** and prince Petisis tendered the homage of their subjects in person, and the other sovereigns of the Delta merely waited for a demonstration in force on the part of the Ethiopians before following their example.

         * Probably the original of the statue discovered by Naville
         at Tel-el-Yahudīyeh. Tentramu and Taānu, the cities of
         Auputi, are perhaps identical with the biblical Elim (Exod.
         xvi. 1) and the Daneon Portus of Pliny on the Red Sea, but
         Naville prefers to identify Daneon with the Tonu of the
         Berlin Papyrus No. 1. I believe that we ought to look for
         the kingdom of Auputi in the neighbourhood of Menzaleh, near
         Tanis.

         ** Akaneshu ruled over Sebennytos and in the XVIIth nome.
         Naville discovered at Samannud the statue of one of his
         descendants, a king of the same name, perhaps his grandson,
         who was prince of Sebennytos in the time of Psammetichus I.

Piōnkhi crossed the Nile and marched in state to Heliopolis, there to receive the royal investiture.

He offered up prayers at the various holy places along the route, such as the sanctuary of Tumu at Khriāhu and the temple of the Ennead who dwelt in the cavern from which the Northern Nile was supposed to spring; he then crossed over Mount Ahu, bathed his face in the reputed source of the river, and at length penetrated into the dwelling-place of Rā. He ascended the steps leading to the great chapel in order that he might there “see Rā in Hāīt-Banbonu even himself. All unattended, he drew the bolt, threw open the doors, contemplated his father Rā in Hāīt-Banbonu, adjusted Ra’s boat Mādīt and the Saktit of Shu, then closed the doors again, affixed a seal of clay, and impressed it with the royal signet.” He had thus submitted his conduct for the approval of the god in whom all attributes of royalty were vested, and the god had legitimatised his claims to universal rule: he was henceforth the master, not merely de jure but de facto as well, and the kings who had hitherto declined to recognise him were now obliged to bow reverently before his authority.

Osorkon was the first to submit, and did so before the close of Piōnkhi’s stay at Heliopolis; when the latter pitched his camp near Kahani* in the Athribite nome, the nobles of the Eastern Delta, both small and great, came one after another with their followers; among them Patinifi of Pisapti, Paimau of Busiris, Pabīsa of Khriāhu and of Pihāpi,** besides a dozen others.

         * Kahani is, perhaps, the modern Kaha, some distance to the
         north of Qaliub.

         ** Pisapti stood on the present site of Shaft-el-ļļineh.
         Khriāhu, as we know, formed part of the Heliopolitan nome,
         and is, very possibly, to be identified with Babylon of
         Egypt, the Postāt of the Arabs; Pihāpi was a place not far
         from the supposed source of the Southern Nile.

He extended his favour to all alike, merely stipulating that they should give him the best of their horses, and undertake to keep careful watch over the prosperity of their stud farms. But Tafnakhti still held out, and seemed determined to defy him to the end; he had set fire to his palace and taken refuge in the islands on the river, and had provided a hiding-place for himself at Masudīt among the marshes on the coast in case of final defeat. A victory gained over him by the Ethiopian generals suddenly induced him to sue for peace. He offered to disband his men and pay tribute, provided he was guaranteed undisturbed possession of Sais and of the western districts of the Delta; he refused, however, to sue for pardon in person, and asked that an envoy should be sent to receive his oath of allegiance in the temple of Nit. Though deserted by his brother princes and allies, he still retained sufficient power to be a thorn in his conqueror’s side; his ultimate overthrow was certain, but it would have entailed many a bloody struggle, while a defeat might easily have shaken the fidelity of the other feudatory kings, and endangered the stability of the new dynasty. Piōnkhi, therefore, accepted the terms offered him without modification, and asked for no guarantee beyond the oath taken in the presence of the gods. News was brought him about this time that Cynopolis and Aphroditopolis had at last thrown open their gates, and accordingly he summoned his vassals for the last time to his camp near Athribis. With the exception of Tafnakhti, they all obeyed the call, including two minor kings of Upper and two of Lower Egypt, together with barons of lesser rank; but of these, Namrōti alone was admitted to the royal apartments, because he alone was circumcised and ate no fish; after this the camp was broken up, and the Ethiopians set out on their return journey southwards. Piōnkhi may well have been proud of the result of this campaign, both for himself and for his country. The empire of the Pharaohs, which had for the last hundred and fifty years been divided, was now re-established from the confluence of the Niles to the shores of the Mediterranean, but it was no longer Egypt that benefited by the change. It was now, after many years of slavery, the turn of Ethiopia to rule, and the seat of power was transferred from Thebes or Memphis to Napata. As a matter of fact, the fundamental constitution of the kingdom underwent no great modification; it had merely one king the more to rule over it—not a stranger, as we are often tempted to conclude, when we come to measure these old-world revolutions by our modern standards of patriotism, but a native of the south, who took the place of those natives of the north who had succeeded one another on the throne since the days of Smendes. In fact, this newly crowned son of Rā lived a very long way off; he had no troops of his own further north than Siut, and he had imposed his suzerainty on the rival claimants and reigning princes without thereby introducing any change in the constitution of the state. In tendering their submission to him, the heads of the different nomes had not the slightest intention of parting with their liberty; they still retained it, even though nominally dependent, and continued, as in the past, to abuse it without scruple. Namrōti was king at Khmunu, Pefzāābastīt at Khninsu, Auputi at Tentramu, and Osorkon III. at Bubastis; the prestige investing the Tanite race persisted so effectively that the annalists give to the last-named precedence over the usurpers of the Ethiopian dynasty; the Tanites continued to be the incarnate representatives of legitimate power, and when Osorkon III. died, in 732, it was his son Psamutis who was regarded as the Lord of Egypt. Tafnakhti had, in his defeat, gained formal recognition of his royalty. He was no longer a mere successful adventurer, a hero of the hour, whose victories were his only title-deeds, whose rights rested solely on the argument of main force. Piōnkhi, in granting him amnesty, had conferred official investiture on him and on his descendants. Henceforth his rule at Sais was every whit as legitimate as that of Osorkon at Bubastis, and he was not slow in furnishing material proof of this, for he granted himself cartouches, the uraeus, and all the other insignia of royalty. These changes must have been quickly noised abroad throughout Asia. Commercial intercourse between Syria and Egypt was maintained as actively as ever, and the merchant caravans and fleets exported with regularity the news of events as well as the natural products of the soil or of industry. The tidings of an Ethiopian conquest and of the re-establishment of an undivided empire in the valley of the Nile, coming as they did at the very moment when the first effects of the Assyrian revival began to be so keenly felt, could not fail to attract the attention and arouse the hopes of Syrian statesmen. The Philistines, who had never entirely released themselves from the ties which bound them to the Pharaohs of the Delta, felt no repugnance at asking for a renewal of their former protection.

         Drawn by Boudier, from Mallet’s photograph of the stele in
         the Museum at Athens.

As for the Phoenicians, the Hebrews, Edom, Moab, Ammon, and Damascus, they began to consider whether they had not here, in Africa, among the members of a race favourably disposed towards them by the memories of the past and by its ambition, hereditary allies against Nineveh. The fact that Egypt was torn by domestic dissensions and divided into a score of rival principalities in no way diminished their traditional admiration for its wealth or their confidence in its power; Assyria itself was merely an agglomeration of turbulent provinces, vassal cities, and minor kingdoms, artificially grouped round the ancient domain of Assur, and yet the convulsions by which it was periodically shaken had not prevented it from developing into the most formidable engine of war that had ever threatened the peace of Asia. The African hosts, whether led by ordinary generals or by a king of secondary rank, formed none the less a compact army well fitted by numbers and organisation to hold its own against any forces which Tiglath-pileser might put into the field; and even should the supreme Pharaoh be unwilling to throw the full weight of his authority into the balance, yet an alliance with one of the lesser kings, such as the lord of Sais or of Bubastis, would be of inestimable assistance to any one fortunate enough to secure it. It is true that, in so far as the ultimate issue was concerned, there was little to be gained by thus pitting the two great powers together and persuading one to fight against the other; the victor must, in the long run, remain master alike of those who had appealed for help and of those who had fought against him, and if Egypt emerged triumphant, there would be nothing for it but to accept her supremacy. In either event, there could be no question of independence; it was a choice between the hegemony of Egypt or that of Assyria.

From the moment that Tiglath-pileser had made his appearance on the northern horizon, the nations of Southern Syria had instinctively looked to Pharaoh for aid. There seems to have been an Egyptian faction in Samaria, even during the disorders which broke out after the death of Jeroboam II., and perhaps it was a hope of overcoming it easily which led Menahem of his own accord to invoke the still remote suzerainty of Nineveh, after the fall of Unki in 738;* later on, when Pekah had assassinated Pekahiah and entered into alliance with Eezin, he adopted the view of those who saw no hope of safety save from the banks of the Nile, his only reason for doing so being, apparently, because the kings of the fallen dynasty had received support from the valley of the Tigris. Hosea continually reproached his countrymen with this vacillating policy, and pointed out the folly of it: “Ephraim is like a silly dove without understanding; they call unto Egypt, they go unto Assyria; when they shall go I will spread My net upon them,” said the Eternal.**

         * The existence of an Egyptian faction at this period has
         been admitted by Kittel. Winckler has traced to the Arabian
         or Idumęan Muzri everything previously referred to Egypt.
         His arguments seem to me to be, in many cases, convincing,
         as I shall point out where necessary, but I think he carries
         his theory too far when he systematically excludes Egypt and
         puts Muzri in its place. Egypt, even in its decadent state,
         was a far more important power than the Arabian Muzri, and
         it seems unreasonable to credit it with such a limited share
         in the politics of the time. I cannot believe that any other
         power is intended in most of those passages in the Hebrew
         writings and Assyrian inscriptions in which the words
         Mizraīm and Muzri occur.

         ** Hos. vii. 11, 12.

They were to be given up to Assyria and dispersed, and while some were to go into Assur and eat unclean food, Ephraim was to return into Egypt; “for, lo, they are gone away from destruction, yet Egypt shall gather them up, Memphis shall bury them.” * Nevertheless, they persisted in negotiating with Egypt, and though there was as yet no formal alliance between Samaria and Sais or Tanis, their relations were so close that no enemy of Israel could look for protection from Psamuti or his vassals. Ahaz had, therefore, nothing to hope from this quarter, and was compelled by the force of circumstances to throw himself into the arms of Assyria, if he decided to call in outside aid at all. His prophets, like those of Pekah, strenuously forbade him to do so, and among them was one who was beginning to exert a marvellous influence over all classes of society—Isaiah, the son of Amoz. He had begun his career in the year that Uzziah died,** and had continued to prophesy without interruption during the brief reign of Jotham.***

         * Hos. ix. 3-6.

         ** Isa. vi. 1.

         *** The fragments which can be assigned to this period now
         occur as follows: chap. ii. 2-5 (verses 2-4 are also found
         in Micah iv. 1-3, and were, perhaps, borrowed from some
         third prophet), ii. 6-22, iii., iv., v. 1-24 (the Parable of
         the Vineyard), and lastly, chap, vi., in so far as the
         substance is concerned; it seems to have been put into its
         present form long after the events.

When Jahveh first appeared to him, in the smoke of the altar, seated on a throne and surrounded by seraphim, a sense of his own unworthiness filled him with fear, but an angel purified his lips with a live coal, and he heard the voice of the Lord saying, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?” and he replied, “Here am I; send me,” whereupon Jahveh gave him this message: “Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not. Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and turn again and be healed.” Then the prophet asked, “Lord, how long?” And Jahveh answered, “Until cities be waste without inhabitant and houses without man, and the land become utterly waste, and Jahveh have removed men far away, and the forsaken places be many in the midst of the land. And if there be yet a tenth in it, it shall be eaten up; as a terebinth, and as an oak, whose stock remaineth when they are felled, so the holy seed is the stock thereof.” *

         * An explanatory gloss, “the fierce anger of Rezin and Syria
         and of the son of Remaliah,” which formed no part of the
         original prophecy, is here inserted in the text.

Judah, though less powerful, was quite as corrupt as his brethren of Israel, and the divine wrath threatened him no less than them; it rested with himself, however, to appease it by repentance, and to enter again into divine favour after suffering his punishment; the Eternal would then gather together on Mount Sion those of His faithful people who had survived the crisis, and would assure them a long period of prosperity under His law. The prophet, convinced that men could in no wise alter the decrees of the Highest, save by repentance alone, was astonished that the heads of the state should strive to impede the progress of events that were happening under their very eyes, by the elaborately useless combinations of their worldly diplomacy. To his mind, the invasion of Pekah and Eezin was a direct manifestation of the divine anger, and it filled him with indignation that the king should hope to escape from it by begging for an alliance against them with one of the great powers: when Jahveh should decide that the punishment was sufficient for the crime, He would know how to shatter His instruments without any earthly help. Indeed, Isaiah had already told his master, some days before the allied kings appeared, while the latter was busy superintending the works intended to supply Jerusalem with water, to “Take heed, and be quiet; fear not, neither let thy heart be faint, because of these two tails of smoking firebrands.... Because Syria hath counselled evil against thee, Ephraim also, and the son of Bemaliah, saying, Let us go up against Judah, hem it in, carry it by storm, and set up the son of Tabeel as king: thus saith the Lord God, It shall not stand, neither shall it come to pass.” If, however, the course of the divine justice was to be disturbed by the intervention of a purely human agency, the city would doubtless be thereby saved, but the matter would not be allowed to rest there, and the people would suffer even more at the hands of their allies than they had formerly endured from their enemies. “Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel—God with us.... For before the child shall know to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land whose two kings thou abhorrest shall be forsaken,” and yet “Jahveh shall bring upon thee, and upon thy people, and upon thy father’s house, days that have not come, from the day that Ephraim departed from Judah.” * And then, employing one of those daring apologues, common enough in his time, the prophet took a large tablet and wrote upon it in large letters two symbolical names—Spoil-speedeth, Prey-hasteth—and set it up in a prominent place, and with the knowledge of credible witnesses went in unto the prophetess his wife. When the child was born in due course, Jahveh bade him call it Spoil-speedeth, Prey-hasteth, “for before he shall have knowledge to cry, My father and, My mother, the riches of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria shall be carried away before the King of Assyria.” But the Eternal added, “Forasmuch as this people hath refused the waters of Shiloah that go softly, and rejoice in Rezin and Remaliah’s son; now therefore, behold, the Lord bringeth up upon them the waters of the river [the Euphrates], strong and many:* and he shall come up over all his channels, and go over all his banks: and he shall sweep onward into Judah; he shall overflow and pass through; he shall reach even to the neck, and the stretching of his wings shall fill the breadth of thy land, O Immanuel [God-with-us]!”*** Finding that Egypt was in favour of his adversaries, Ahaz, in spite of the prophet’s warnings, turned to Assyria.****

         * Isa. vii. 10-17.

         ** A marginal gloss has here been inserted in the text,
         indicating that it was «the King of Assyria and all his
         glory » that the prophet referred to

         *** Isa. viii. 1-8.

         **** The following portions of Isaiah are accepted as
         belonging to the period of this Syrian war: in addition to
         chap, vii., chaps, viii.-ix 6. xi 1-9. xxii. 1-11; i. 4-9,
         18-32; to these Kuenen adds chap, xxiii. 1-8

At one time he had found himself so hard pressed that he invoked the aid of the Syrian gods, and made his eldest son pass through the fire in order to propitiate them:* he collected together all the silver and gold he could find in his own treasury or in that of the temple and sent it to Tiglath-pileser, with this message: “I am thy servant and thy son: come up and save me out of the hand of the King of Syria, and out of the hand of the King of Israel, which rise up against me.” **

         * 2 Kings xvi. 3 (cf. 2 Chron. xxviii. 3). There is nothing
         to indicate the date, but most historians place the event at
         the beginning of the Syrian war, a little before or during
         the siege.

         ** Kings xvi. 7, 8; cf. 2 Chron. xxviii. 16, 20, 21.

    Drawn by Faucher
    -Gudin, from Layard.

Tiglath-pileser came in haste, and Rezin and Pekah, at the mere tidings of his approach, desisted from their attack on Jerusalem, separated, and retired each to his own kingdom. The Assyrian king did not immediately follow them up. He took the road leading along the coast, after leaving the plains of the middle Orontes, and levied tribute from the Phoenician cities as he passed; he then began by attacking the western frontier of Israel, and sent a body of troops against the Philistines, who were ceaselessly harassing Judah. Hannon, King of Gaza, did not await the attack, but fled to Egypt for safety, and Ahaz breathed freely, perhaps for the first time since his accession. This, however, was only a beginning; the real struggle took place in the following year, and was hotly contested. In spite of the sorry pass to which its former defeats and present discords had brought it, Damascus still possessed immense wealth, and its army, when reinforced by the Arabian and Israelite contingents, was capable of holding its own for a long time against the battalions of Assyria, even if it could not hope to conquer them. Unfortunately for its chances, Eezin had failed to inherit the military capacity of his great predecessors, Ben-hadad and Hazael; he allowed Tiglath-pileser to crush the Hebrews without rendering them any effective assistance. Pekah fought his best, but he lost, one after another, the strongholds which guarded his northern frontier—Ijon, Abel-beth-maacah, Janoah, Kedesh, and Hazor; he saw the whole of Naphtali and Gilead laid waste, and their inhabitants carried off into Assyria without his being able to prevent it; he himself being obliged to evacuate Samaria and take refuge in the mountains almost unattended. Judah followed, with mingled exultation and disquietude, the vicissitudes of the tragic drama which was thus enacted before its eyes, and Isaiah foretold the speedy ruin of the two peoples who had but yesterday threatened to enslave it. He could already see the following picture in his mind’s eye: “Damascus is taken away from being a city, and it shall be a ruinous heap. The cities of Aroer are forsaken: they shall be for flocks, which shall lie down, and none shall make them afraid.” *

         * Both of these Aroźrs lay beyond Jordan—one in Reuben,
         afterwards Moab (Judg. xi. 26; Jer. xlviii. 19); the other
         in Amnion, afterwards Gad (Josh. xiii. 25; 2 Sam. xxiv. 5);
         here they stand for the countries beyond Jordan which
         Tiglath-pileser had just laid waste. The tradition preserved
         in 1 Citron, v. 26 stated that these inhabitants of Gad and
         Reuben were led into captivity by Pul, i.e. Tiglath-pileser.

“The fortress also shall cease from Ephraim, and the kingdom from Damascus, and the remnant of Syria: they shall be as the glory of the children of Israel, saith the Lord of hosts! And it shall come to pass in that day, that the glory of Jacob shall be made thin, and the fatness of his flesh shall wax lean. And it shall be as when the harvestman gathereth the standing corn, and his arm reapeth the ears; yea, it shall be as when one gleaneth ears in the valley of Ephraim. Yet there shall be left therein gleanings, as the shaking of an olive tree, two or three berries in the top of the uppermost bough, four or five in the outmost branches of a fruitful tree, saith Jahveh, the God of Israel!... In that day shall his strong cities be as the forsaken places in the wood, and on the mountain top, which were forsaken from before the children of Israel:* and it shall be as a desolation. For thou hast forgotten the God of thy salvation.” **

         * This is probably an allusion to the warlike exploits
         performed during Rezin and Pekah’s invasion of Judaea, a
         year or two previously.

         ** Isa. xvii. 1-6, 9, 10.

Samaria was doomed to helplessness for many a day to come, if not for ever, but it had taken a whole year to lay it low (733); Tiglath-pileser returned in 732, and devoted yet another year to the war against Damascus. Eezin had not been dismayed by the evil fortune of his friends, and had made good his losses by means of fresh alliances. He had persuaded first Mutton II. of Tyre, then Mitinti of Askalon, and with the latter a section of the Philistines, to throw in their lot with him; he had even won over Shamshieh, queen of the Arabs, and with her a number of the most warlike of the desert tribes; for himself, he had taken up a position on the further side of Anti-Lebanon, and kept strict watch from Mount Hermon on the roads leading from the valley of the Jordan to the plains of the Abana, in order to prevent the enemy from outflanking him and taking him in the rear. But all to no purpose; Tiglath-pileser bore directly down upon him, overwhelmed him in a pitched battle, obliged him to take refuge behind the walls of Damascus, and there besieged him.

         Drawn by Boudier, from a photograph brought back by Lortet.

The city was well fortified, amply supplied with provisions, and strongly garrisoned; the siege was, therefore, a long one, and the Assyrians filled up the time by laying waste the fertile country at the foot of Anti-Lebanon. At last Rezin yielded, gave himself up unconditionally, and was forthwith executed: eight thousand of his followers were carried off to Kīr, on the confines of Elam,* his kingdom was abolished, and a Ninevite governor was installed in his palace, by whom the former domain of Damascus and the territory lately wrested from Israel were henceforth to be administered.

         * 2 Kings xvi. 9. Kīr is generally located in Armenia,
         Media, or Babylonia; a passage in Isaiah (xxii. 6), however,
         seems to point to its having been somewhere in the direction
         of Elam, and associated with the Aramęans on the banks of
         the Tigris. The Assyrian monuments have not, as yet, yielded
         confirmation of the details given by the Book of the Kings
         in regard to the captivity of the inhabitants of Damascus. A
         fragmentary tablet, giving an account of the death of Rezin,
         was discovered by H. Raw-linson, but it was left in Assyria,
         and no one knows what has since become of it.

The coalition he had formed did not long survive its leader.* Mutton hastily came to an understanding with the conqueror; Mitinti, like Hannon, fled into Egypt, and his place was taken by Kukibtu, a partisan of Assyria. Hoshea, son of Elah, rebelled against Pekah, assassinated him, and purchased the right to reign over what was left of Israel for ten talents of gold.** Shamshieh alone held out.

         * The following is a list of the kings of Damascus from the
         time of David, as far as is known up to the present time:—

         ** 2 Kings xv. 30. The inscription published by H.
         Rawlinson, merely states that “they overthrew Pekah, their
         king, and I promoted Auzi [to the kingship] over them. I
         received [from him] X talents of gold and... talents of
         silver....”

She imagined herself to be safe among the sands of the desert, and it never occurred to her that the heavy masses of the Assyrian army would dream of venturing into these solitudes. Detachments of light cavalry were sent in pursuit of her, and at first met with some difficulties; they were, however, eventually successful; the Armenian and Cappadocian steeds of the Ninevite horsemen easily rode down the queen’s meharis.

Their success made a great impression on the Arab tribes, and induced the Mashaī, Timaī Sabasans, Khaiapęans, Badanęans, and Khattięans to bend the knee before Assyria. They all sent envoys bearing presents of gold and silver, camels, both male and female, and spices:* even the Muzri, whose territory lay to the south of the Dead Sea, followed their example, and a certain Idibiel was appointed as their chief.**

         * Delitzsch has identified the names of several of these
         races with names mentioned in the Bible, such as the Temah,
         Massah, Ephah, Sheba.

         ** The name Muzri, as Winckler has shown, here refers, not
         to Egypt, but to a canton near Edom, the Nabatsea of the
         Greco-Roman geographers.

While his lieutenants were settling outstanding issues in this fashion, Tiglath-pileser held open courts at Damascus, where he received the visits and homage of the Syrians. They came to assure themselves by the evidence of their own eyes of the downfall of the power which had for more than one hundred years checked the progress of Assyria. Those who, like Uassarmi of Tabal, showed any sign of disaffection were removed, the remainder were confirmed in their dignities, subject to payment of the usual tribute, and Mutton of Tyre was obliged to give one hundred talents of gold to ransom his city. Ahaz came to salute his preserver, and to obtain a nearer view of the soldiers to whom he owed continued possession of Jerusalem;* the kings of Ammon, Moab, Edom, and Askalon, the Philistines and the nomads of the Arabian desert, carried away by the general example, followed the lead of Judah, until there was not a single prince or lord of a city from the Euphrates to the river of Egypt who had not acknowledged himself the humble vassal of Nineveh.

         * 2 Kings xvi. 10-12. The Nimroud Inscrip. merely mentions
         his tribute among that of the Syrian kings.

With the downfall of rezin, Syria’s last hope of recovery had vanished; the few states which still enjoyed some show of independence were obliged, if they wished to retain it, to make a parade of unalterable devotion to their Ninevite master, or—if they found his suzerainty intolerable—had to risk everything by appealing to Egypt for help.

Much as they may have wished from the very first to do so, it was too early to make the attempt so soon after the conference at Damascus; Tiglath-pileser had, therefore, no cause to fear a rebellion among them, at any rate for some years to come, and it was just as well that this was so, for at the moment of his triumph on the shores of the Mediterranean his interests in Chaldęa were threatened by a serious danger. Nabonazīr, King of Karduniash, had never swerved from the fidelity which he had sworn to his mighty ally after the events of 745, but the tranquillity of his reign had been more than once disturbed by revolt. Borsippa itself had risen on one occasion, and endeavoured to establish itself as an independent city side by side with Babylon.

When Nabonazīr died, in 734, he was succeeded by his son Nabunādinzīri, but at the end of a couple of years the latter was assassinated during a popular outbreak, and Nabushumukīn, one of his sons, who had been implicated in the rising, usurped the crown (732). He wore it for two months and twelve days, and then abdicated in favour of a certain Ukīnzīr.*

         * The following is as complete a list as can at present be
         compiled of this Babylonian dynasty, the eighth of those
         registered in Pinches’ Canons (cf. Rost, Untersucli. zur
         altorient. Gesch., p. 27):—

It included twenty-two kings, and lasted for about three hundred and fifty years.

The latter was chief of the Bīt-Amukkāni, one of the most important among the Chaldęan communities;* the descendants of the Aramaean nomads were thus once more placed upon the throne, and their accession put an end to the relations which had existed for several centuries between Assyria and Karduniash.

         * The chronicle is silent with regard to the origin of
         Ukīnzīr, but Tiglath-pileser, who declines to give him the
         title of “King of Babylon,” says that he was mar Amuhlcāni
         = son of Amukkāni. Pinches’ Canon indicates that Ukīnzīr
         belonged to a dynasty the name of which may be read either
         Shashi or Shapi. The reading Shapi at once recalls the name
         of Shapīa, one of the chief cities of the Bīt Amukkāni; it
         would thus confirm the evidence of the Nimroud Inscription.

    Drawn by Faucher-Gudin,
    from the bas-relief reproduced
    by Layard.

These marauders, who had always shown themselves impatient of any settled authority, and had never proffered more than a doubtful submission to even the most triumphant invader, were not likely to accept the subordinate position which members of the presiding dynasty had been, for the most part, content to occupy. It was more probable that they would, from the very first, endeavour to throw off the suzerainty of Nineveh. Tiglath-pileser gave the new dynasty no time to settle itself firmly on the throne: the year after his return from Syria he got together an army and marched against it. He first cleared the right bank of the Tigris, where the Pukudu (Pekod) offered but a feeble resistance; he annexed their territory to the ancient province of Arrapkha, then crossed the river and attacked the Kaldi scattered among the plains and marshes of the Shatt el-Haī.

    Drawn by Faucher-
    Gudin, from a
    woodcut published
    by Tomkins

The Bīt-Shilāni were the first to succumb; their king Nabushabshi was impaled before one of the gates of his capital, Sarrabānu, the town itself was taken by storm, plundered and dismantled, and 55,000 of its inhabitants were led captive into Assyria. After the Bīt-Shilāni, came the turn of the Bīt-Shaali. Dur-Illataī, their capital, was razed to the ground, and its population, numbering 50,400 men and women, was deported. Their chief, Lakiru, who had shown great bravery in the struggle, escaped impalement, but was sent into captivity with his people, a Ninevite governor being appointed in his place. Ukīnzīr, who was, as we know, hereditary prince of the Bit-Amuk-kāni, came up in haste to defend his appanage, and threw himself into his fortress at Shapīa: Tiglath-pileser cut down the gardens and groves of palms which lent it beauty, burnt the surrounding farms and villages, and tried, without success, to make a breach in the walls; he still, however, maintained the siege, but when winter came on and the place still held out, he broke up his camp and retreated in good order, leaving the districts which he had laid waste occupied by an Assyrian force. Before his departure, he received homage and tribute from most of the Aramęan chiefs, including those of Balasu and the Bīt-Dakkuri, of Nadīnu, and even of the Bīt-Yakīn and Merodach-baladan, whose ancestors had never before “kissed the foot” of an Assyrian conqueror. In this campaign he had acquired nearly three-fourths of the whole Babylonian kingdom; but Babylon itself still refused to yield, and it was no easy task to compel it to do so. Tiglath-pileser spent the whole of the year 730 in preparing for another attack, and in 729 he again appeared in front of Shapīa, this time with greater success: Ukīnzīr fell into his hands, Babylon opened its gates, and he caused himself to be proclaimed King of Sumir and Akkad within its walls.* Many centuries had passed since the two empires had been united under the rule of a single master, or an Assyrian king had “taken the hands of Bel.” Tiglath-pileser accepted the condition attached to this solemn investiture, which obliged him to divide his time between Calah and Babylon, and to repeat at every festival of the New Year the mystic ceremony by which the god of the city confirmed him in his office.**

         * Contemporary documents do not furnish us with any
         information as to these events. The Eponym Canon tells us
         that “the king took the hands of Bel.” Pinches’
         Chronicle adds that “in the third year of Ukīnzīr,
         Tiglath-pileser marched against Akkad, laid waste the Bīt-
         Amukkāni, and took Ukīnzīr prisoner; Ukīnzīr had reigned
         three years in Babylon. Tiglath-pileser followed him upon
         the throne of Babylon.”

         ** The Eponym Canon proves that in 728 B.C., the year of
         his death, he once more took the hands of Bel.

His Babylonian subjects seem to have taken a liking to him, and perhaps in order to hide from themselves their dependent condition, they shortened his purely Assyrian name of Tukulti-abal-esharra into the familiar sobriquet of Puru or Pulu, under which appellation the native chroniclers later on inscribed him in the official list of kings: he did not long survive his triumph, but died in the month of Tebeth, 728 B.C., after having reigned eighteen years over Assyria, and less than two years over Babylon and Chaldęa.

The formulae employed by the scribes in recording historical events vary so little from one reign to another, that it is, in most cases, a difficult matter to make out, under the mask of uniformity by which they are all concealed, the true character and disposition of each successive sovereign. One thing, however, is certain—the monarch who now came upon the scene after half a century of reverses, and in a brief space restored to his armies the skill necessary to defeat such formidable foes as the Armenians or the Syrians of Damascus, must have been an able general and a born leader of men. Yet Nineveh had never suffered long from a lack of capable generals, and there would be little to distinguish Tiglath-pileser from any of his predecessors, if we could place nothing more than a few successful campaigns to his credit. His claim to a pre-eminent place among them rests on the fact that he combined the talents of the soldier with the higher qualities of the administrator, and organised his kingdom in a manner at once so simple and so effective, that most of the Oriental powers down to the time of the Grecian conquest were content to accept it as a model. As soon as the ambition of the Assyrian kings began to extend beyond the region confined between the Khabur and the Greater Zab, they found it necessary to parcel out their territory into provinces under the authority of prefects for the purpose of preserving order among the vanquished peoples, and at the same time of protecting them from the attacks of adjacent tribes; these representatives of the central power were supported by garrisons, and were thus enabled to put down such minor insurrections as broke out from time to time. Some of these provinces were already in existence in the reigns of Shalmaneser or Tiglath-pileser I.; after the reverses in the time of Assurirba, their number decreased, but it grew rapidly again as Assur-nazir-pal and Shalmaneser III. gradually extended the field of their operations and of their victories. From this epoch onwards, the monuments mention over a score of them, in spite of the fact that the list thus furnished is not a complete one; the provinces of which we know most are those whose rulers were successively appointed to act as limmi, each of them giving their name to a year of a reign. Assyria proper contained at least four, viz. Assur (called the country, as distinguished from all others), Calah, Nineveh, and Arbela. The basin of the Lesser Zab was divided into the provinces of Kakzi, Arrapkha, and Akhizukhīna;* that of the Upper Tigris into those of Amidi, Tushkhān, and Gōzan. Kirruri was bounded by Mazamua, and Mazamua by Arrapkha and Lake Urumiah. We hear of the three spheres of Nazibina (Nisibis), Tela, and Kazappa in Mesopotamia,** the two former on the southern watersheds of the Masios, on the highways leading into Syria; the latter to the south of the Euphrates, in the former kingdom of the Laqī.

         * Akhizukhīna is probably identical with Arzukhīna = “the
         City of Zukhma,” which is referred to as being situated in
         the basin of the Lesser Zab.

         ** Razappa is the biblical Rezeph (2 Kings xix. 12; Isa.
         xxxvii. 12) and the Resapha of Ptolemy, now Er-Rasafa, to
         the south of the Euphrates, on one of the routes leading to
         Palmyra.

Most of them included—in addition to the territory under the immediate control of the governor—a number of vassal states, kingdoms, cities, and tribes, which enjoyed a certain measure of independence, but were liable to pay tribute and render military service.

Each new country was annexed, as soon as conquered, to the nearest province, or, if necessary, was converted into a distinct province by itself; thus we find that Assur-nazir-pal, after laying hands on the upper valleys of the Radanu and the Turnat, rebuilt the ruined city of Atlīla, re-named it Dur-Assur, placed a commandant, cavalry, and eunuchs there, and established within it storehouses for the receipt of contributions from the neighbouring barbarians. He followed the same course on each occasion when the fortune of war brought him fresh subjects;* and his successors, Shalmaneser III., Samsi-rammān IV., and Rammān-nirāri did the same thing in Media, in Asia Minor, and in Northern Syria;** Tiglath-pileser III. had only to follow their example and extend the application of their system to the countries which he gradually forced to submit to his rule.***

         * We read of the appointment of a governor in Bīt-Khalupi,
         at Tush-khān, in Naīri, and in the country of the Patina.

         ** The territory of the Bit-Adini was converted into a
         province by Shalmaneser III.

         *** We find the formation of an Aramęan province, with Kar-
         Assur as its capital, mentioned in the Annals of Tiglatli-
         pileser III. Provinces were also established in Media, in
         Unki, in the basin of the Orontes, and in Lebanon, from
         nineteen districts formerly belonging to Hamath, six
         maritime provinces in Northern Phoenicia and in Coele-Syria,
         in Galilee, at Gaza.

    Drawn by Boudier, from the
    photograph published by Father
    Scheil.

In his case, however, certain elements came into play which forced him to modify several of their methods, and to have recourse to others which they had seldom or never employed. The majority of the countries hitherto incorporated had been near enough to the capital—whether it were Assur, Calah, or Nineveh—to permit of strict watch being kept for any sign of disaffection, and they could be promptly recalled to order if they attempted to throw off the yoke. These provinces were, moreover, of moderate area and sparsely populated: once drawn within the orbit of Assyria’s attraction, they were unable to escape from its influence by their own unaided efforts; on the contrary, they gradually lost their individuality, and ended by becoming merged in the body of the nation. The Aramaean tribes of the Khabur and the Balikh, the Cossęans of the Turnat, the marauding shepherds of the Gordyęan hills and the slopes of the Masios, gradually became assimilated to their conquerors after a more or less protracted resistance, till at length—in spite of differences of origin, creed, and speech—they became the best of Assyrians, every whit as devoted to the person of their king and as jealous of his honour as the aboriginal Assyrians themselves. A similar result could not be looked for in the case of the cities recently subdued. It was not to be expected that Babylon and Damascus—to name but two of the most important—would allow themselves to be influenced and to become reconciled to their lot by artifices which had been successful enough with the Medes and in the country of Tul-Abnī.

To take the case of Babylon first. It was no mere conglomeration of tribes, nor a state of minor importance, but an actual empire, nearly as large as that of Assyria itself, and almost as solidly welded together. It extended from the Turnat and the mountains of Blam to the Arabian desert and the Nār-Marratūtn, and even though the Cossęans, Elamites, Kaldā, Sumerians, Akkadians, and other remnants of ancient peoples who formed its somewhat motley population, had dwelt there for centuries in a state of chronic discord, they all agreed—in theory, at any rate—in recognising the common suzerainty of Babylon. Babylon was, moreover, by general acknowledgment, the ancient metropolis to which Assyria owed its whole civilisation; it was the holy city whose gods and whose laws had served as a prototype for the gods and laws of Assyria; from its temples and its archives the Assyrian scribes had drawn such knowledge as they had of the history of the ancient world, their religious doctrines and ceremonies, their methods of interpreting the omens and of forecasting the future—in short, their whole literature, both sacred and profane. The King of Nineveh might conquer Babylon, might even enter within its gates in the hour of triumph, and, when once he had it at his mercy, might throw down its walls, demolish its palaces, destroy its ziggurāt, burn its houses, exterminate or carry off its inhabitants, and blot out its name from the list of nations; but so long as he recoiled from the sacrilege involved in such irreparable destruction, he was not merely powerless to reduce it to the level of an ordinary leading provincial town, such as Tela or Tushkhān, but he could not even deprive it in any way of its rank as a capital, or hope to make it anything less than the second city of his empire. As long as it remained in existence, it necessarily took precedence of all others, thanks to its extensive area, the beauty and antiquity of its buildings, and the number of its inhabitants. The pride of its nobles and priests, subdued for a moment by defeat, would almost instantly have reasserted itself, had the victor sought to lower the dignity of their city; Babylon only consented to accept an alien master provided he bowed himself respectfully before its superiority, and was willing to forget that he was a stranger within its gates, and was ready to comply with its laws and masquerade as a Babylonian. Tiglath-pileser III. never dreamt, therefore, of treating the Babylonians as slaves, or of subordinating them to their Assyrian descendants, but left their liberties and territory alike unimpaired. He did not attempt to fuse into a single empire the two kingdoms which his ability had won for him; he kept them separate, and was content to be monarch of both on similar terms. He divided himself, as it were, into two persons, one of whom reigned in Calah, while the other reigned in Karduniash, and his Chaldęan subjects took care to invest this dual rōle —based on a fiction so soothing to their pride—with every appearance of reality; he received from them, together with all the titles of the Babylonian kings, that name of Pulu, which later on found its way into their chronicles, and which was so long a puzzle to historians, both ancient and modern. Experience amply proved that this was the only means by which it was possible to yoke temporarily together the two great powers of the Euphrates and the Tigris. Among the successors of Tiglath-pileser, the only sovereigns to rule over Babylon without considerable difficulty were those who followed the precedent set by him and were satisfied to divide their functions and reign as dual kings over a dual kingdom.*

         * This was so in the case of Tiglath-pileser III.‘s
         immediate successor, Shalmaneser V., of Esarhaddon, and of
         Assur-bani-pal; Shalmaneser was known at Babylon by the name
         of Ululai, Assur-bani-pal by that of Kanda-lanu.

This combination, while gratifying to the ambition of its rulers, was, perhaps, more a source of loss than of gain to Assyria itself. It is true that the power of Karduniash had decreased under the previous dynasty, but it had still been strong enough to hold back the Aramęans of the Persian Gulf on one side, and the Elamite hordes on the other. It lay like a broad barrier between these barbarians and the cities of the Middle Tigris; when an unusually vigorous attack compelled it to give way at some point, it appealed to Nineveh for help, and an Assyrian army, entering the country at the fords of the Zab, hastened to drive back the aggressors to the place from which they had set out. When, however, the kings of Assyria had become kings of Babylon as well, the situation was altered. Several branches of the Kaldā had hitherto held possession of the city, and still possessed representatives and allies among the other tribes, especially among the Bīt-Yakīn, who believed themselves entitled to reassert their supremacy within in. The Elamite princes, on their part, accustomed to descend at will into the plains that lay between the Tigris and the Euphrates, and to enrich themselves by frequent raids, could not make up their minds to change the habits of centuries, until they had at least crossed swords with the new despot, and put his mettle to the test. The Ninevite King of Babylon was thus in duty bound to protect his subjects against the same enemies that had ceaselessly harassed his native-born predecessors, and as the unaided resources of Karduniash no longer enabled him to do so effectively, he was, naturally, obliged to fall back on the forces at his disposal as King of Assyria. Henceforward it was no longer the Babylonian army that protected Nineveh, but rather that of Nineveh which had to protect Babylon, and to encounter, almost every year, foes whom in former days it had met only at rare intervals, and then merely when it chose to intervene in their affairs. Where the Assyrian sovereigns had gained a kingdom for themselves and their posterity, Assyria itself found little else but fresh battle-fields and formidable adversaries, in the effort to overcome whom its energies were all but exhausted. In Syria and on the shores of the Mediterranean, Tiglath-pileser had nations of less stubborn vitality to deal with, nor was he bound by the traditions of a common past to show equal respect to their prejudices. Arpad, Unki, the Bekāa, Damascus, and Gilead were all consecutively swallowed up by Assyria, but, the work of absorption once completed, difficulties were encountered which now had to be met for the first time. The subordinate to whom he entrusted the task of governing these districts* had one or two Assyrian regiments assigned him as his body-guard,** and these exercised the same ascendency over the natives as the Egyptian archers had done in days gone by: it was felt that they had the whole might of Assyria behind them, and the mere fact of their presence in the midst of the conquered country was, as a rule, sufficient to guarantee the safety of the Assyrian governor and ensure obedience to his commands.

         * The governor was called Shaknu = “he whom the king has
         established in his place,” and pekhu = “the pilot,” “the
         manager,” whence pikhatu = “a district,” and bel-pikhati
         = “the master of a district.” It seems that the shaknu was
         of higher rank than the bel-pikhati, and often had the
         latter under his command.

         ** Thus Assur-nazir-pal selected the horsemen and other
         soldiers who were to form the body-guard of the governor of
         Parzindu.

This body-guard was never a very numerous one, for the army would have melted away in the course of a campaign or two, had it been necessary, after each fresh conquest, to detach from it a sufficient force to guard against rebellion. It was strengthened, it is true, by auxiliaries enlisted on the spot, and the tributary chiefs included in the provincial district were expected to furnish a reasonable quota of men in case of need;* but the loyalty of all these people was, at the best, somewhat doubtful, and in the event of their proving untrustworthy at a critical moment, the little band of Assyrian horse and foot would be left to deal with the revolt unaided until such time as the king could come and relieve them.

         * In a despatch from Belibni to Assur-bani-pal we find
         Aramęans from the Persian Gulf submitting to the authority
         of an Assyrian officer, and fighting in Elam side by side
         with his troops. Again, under Assur-bani-pal, an army sent
         to repress a revolt on the part of Kedar and the Nabatseans
         included contingents from Ammon, Moab, and Edom, together
         with the Assyrian garrisons of the Haurān and Zobah.

The distance between the banks of the Jordan or Abana and those of the Tigris was a long one, and in nearly every instance it would have been a question of months before help could arrive. Meanwhile, Egypt was at hand, jealous of her rival, who was thus encroaching on territory which had till lately been regarded as her exclusive sphere of influence, and vaguely apprehensive of the fate which might be in store for her if some Assyrian army, spurred by the lust of conquest, were to cross the desert and bear down upon the eastern frontiers of the Delta. Distrustful of her own powers, and unwilling to assume a directly offensive attitude, she did all she could to foment continual disturbances among the Hebrews and Phoenicians, as well as in Philistia and Aram; she carried on secret intrigues with the independent princes, and held out tempting hopes of speedy intervention before the eyes of their peoples; her influence could readily be traced in every seditious movement. The handful of men assigned to the governors of the earlier provinces close to the capital would have been of little avail against perils of this kind. Though Tiglath-pileser added colony to colony in the distant regions annexed by him, he organised them on a different plan from that which had prevailed before his time. His predecessors had usually sent Assyrians to these colonies, and filled the villages vacated by them with families taken from the conquered region: a transfer of inhabitants was made, for instance, from Naīri or from Media into Assyria, and vice versā. By following this system, Tiglath-pileser would soon have scattered his whole people over the dependencies of his empire, and have found his hereditary states peopled by a motley and incoherent collection of aliens; he therefore left his Assyrians for the most part at home, and only effected exchanges between captives. In his earlier campaigns he brought back with him, on one occasion, 65,000 prisoners from the table-land of Iran, in order to distribute them over a province which he was organising on the banks of the Turnat and the Zab: he levied contributions of this kind without mercy from all the states that he conquered from year to year, and dispersed the captives thus obtained over the length and breadth of his empire; he transplanted the Aramęans of the Mesopotamian deserts, and the Kaldā to the slopes of Mount Amanus or the banks of the Orontes, the Patinians and Hamathęans to Ulluba, the inhabitants of Damascus to Kīr or to the borders of Elam,* and the Israelites to some place in Assyria.**

         * 2 Kings xvi. 9.

         ** 2 Kings xv. 29.

He allowed them to take with them their wives and their children, their herds, their chattels, their gods, and even their money. Drafted into the towns and country districts in batches sufficiently numerous to be self-supporting, but yet not large enough to allow of their at once re-establishing themselves as a distinct nation in their new home, they seem to have formed, even in the midst of the most turbulent provinces, settlements of colonists who lived unaffected by any native influence or resentment. The aborigines hated them because of their religion, their customs, their clothing, and their language; in their eyes they were mere interlopers, who occupied the property of relations or fellow-countrymen who had fallen in battle or had been spirited away to the other end of the world. And even when, after many years, the native owners of the soil had become familiarised with them, this mutual antipathy had struck such deep root in their minds that any understanding between the natives and the descendants of the immigrants was quite out of the question: what had been formerly a vast kingdom, occupied by a single homogeneous race, actuated by a common patriotic spirit, became for many a year a region capriciously subdivided and torn by the dissensions of a number of paltry antagonistic communities. The colonists, exposed to the same hatreds as the original Assyrian conquerors, soon forgot to look upon the latter as the oppressors of all, and, allowing their present grudge to efface the memory of past injuries, did not hesitate to make common cause with them. In time of peace, the governor did his best to protect them against molestation on the part of the natives, and in return for this they rallied round him whenever the latter threatened to get out of hand, and helped him to stifle the revolt or hold it in check until the arrival of reinforcements. Thanks to their help, the empire was consolidated and maintained without too many violent outbreaks in regions far removed from the capital and beyond the immediate reach of the sovereign.* We possess very few details with regard to the administration of these prefects.**

         * This was the history of the only one of those colonies
         whose fate is known to us—that founded at Samaria by Sargon
         and his successors.

         ** The texts contain a certain number of names of offices,
         the precise nature of which it is not easy to ascertain,
         e.g. the Khāzanu, the Labuttu, and others. One of them,
         apparently, should be read Shuparshak, and identical with
         one of the titles mentioned in Ezra (v. 6, vi. 6) as being
         in existence during the Persian epoch.

    Drawn by Boudier,
    from a photograph
    by Mansell.

The various functionaries, governors of towns, tax-collectors, heads of stations, and officers whose duty it was to patrol the roads and look after the safety of merchants, were, for the most part, selected from among natives who had thrown in their lot with Assyria, and probably few Assyrians were to be found outside the more turbulent cities and important fortresses. The kings and chiefs whose territory was attached to a given province, either took their instructions direct from Nineveh, or were sometimes placed under the control of a resident, or kipu, with some sort of escort at his back, who kept watch over their movements and reported them to the suzerain, and saw that the tribute was paid regularly, and that the military service provided for in the treaties was duly rendered. Governors and residents alike kept up a constant correspondence with the court, and such of their letters as have chanced to come down to us show what a minute account of even the most trifling occurrences was required of them by the central authorities. They were not only obliged to report any fluctuation in the temper or attitude of their subordinates, or any intrigues that were being entered into across the frontier; they had also to record the transfer of troops, the return of fugitives, the pursuit of deserters, any chance scuffle between soldiers and natives, as well as the punishment inflicted on the rebellious, the appearance of a portent in the heavens, or omens noticed by the augurs. There were plenty of envious or officious tongues among their followers to report to headquarters the slightest failure of duty, and to draw attention to their negligence. Moreover, it seems certain that the object of thus compelling them to refer to the king at every turn, was not merely in order to keep him informed of all that took place in his dependencies, but also to lay bare the daily life of his prefects before his eyes. The latter were entrusted with the command of seasoned troops; they had considerable sums of money passing through their hands, and were often obliged to take prompt decisions and enter into diplomatic or military transactions on their own responsibility; in short, most of them, at any rate, who were stationed at the furthest confines of the empire were really kings in all but title, insignia, and birth. There was always the danger lest some among them should be tempted to reassert, in their own interest, the independence of the countries under their rule, and seek to found a dynasty in their midst. The strict supervision maintained over these governors generally nipped any ambition of this kind in the bud; in some cases, however, it created the very danger it was intended to prevent. If a governor who had been recalled to Nineveh or Calah in order to explain his conduct failed to clear himself completely, he at once fell into disgrace; and disgrace in Assyria, as in other countries of the East, meant, nine times out of ten, confiscation of property, mutilation and lifelong imprisonment, or death in its most hideous form. He would, therefore, think twice before quitting his post, and if he had any reason to suppose himself suspected, or viewed with disfavour in high quarters, he would be in no hurry to obey a summons to the capital. A revolt was almost certain to be crushed without fail, and offered merely a very precarious chance of escape, but the governor was seldom likely to hesitate between almost certain condemnation and the vague possibility of a successful rising; in such a case, therefore, he staked everything on a single throw.

The system was a defective on, in that it exposed to strong temptation the very functionaries whose loyalty was most essential to the proper working of the administration, but its dangers were out weighed by such important advantages that we cannot but regard it as a very real improvement on the haphazard methods of the past. In the first place, it opened up a larger recruiting-ground for the army, and, in a measure, guaranteed it against that premature exhaustion which had already led more than once to an eclipse of the Assyrian power. It may be that the pick of these provincial troops were, preferably, told off for police duties, or for the defence of the districts in which they were levied, and that they seldom left it except to do battle in the adjacent territory;* but, even with these limitations they were none the less of inestimable value, since they relieved the main army of Assyria from garrison duties in a hundred scattered localities, and allowed the king to concentrate it almost in its entirety about his own person, and to direct it en masse upon those points where he wished to strike a decisive blow.

         * Thus, in the reign of Assur-bani-pal, we find the militia
         of the governor of Uruk marching to battle against the
         Gambulu.

On the other hand, the finances of the kingdom were put on a more stable and systematic basis. For nearly the whole of the two previous centuries, during which Assyria had resumed its victorious career, the treasury had been filled to some extent by taxes in kind or in money, and by various dues claimed from the hereditary kingdom and its few immediate dependencies, but mainly by booty and by tribute levied after each campaign from the peoples who had been conquered or had voluntarily submitted to Assyrian rule. The result was a budget which fluctuated greatly, since all forays were not equally lucrative, and the new dependencies proved so refractory at the idea of perpetual tribute, that frequent expeditions were necessary in order to persuade them to pay their dues. We do not know how Tiglath-pileser III. organised the finances of his provinces, but certain facts recorded here and there in the texts show that he must have drawn very considerable amounts from them. We notice that twenty or thirty years after his time, Carchemish was assessed at a hundred talents, Arpad and Kuī at thirty each, Megiddo and Manzuatu at fifteen, though the purposes to which these sums were applied is not specified.

         Drawn by Faucher-Gudin, from one of the bronze bas-reliefs
         on the gates of Balawat. The breed here represented seems to
         have been common in Urartu, as well as in Cappadocia and
         Northern Syria.

On the other hand, we know the precise object to which the contributions of several other cities were assigned; as, for instance, so much for the maintenance of the throne in the palace, or for the divans of the ladies of the harem; so much for linen garments, for dresses, and for veils; twenty talents from Nineveh for the armaments of the fleet, and ten from the same city for firewood. Certain provinces were expected to maintain the stud-farms, and their contributions of horses were specially valuable, now that cavalry played almost as important a part as infantry in military operations. The most highly prized animals came, perhaps, from Asia Minor; the nations of Mount Taurus, who had supplied chargers to Israel and Egypt five centuries earlier, now furnished war-horses to the squadrons of Nineveh. The breed was small, but robust, inured to fatigue and hard usage, and in every way similar to that raised in these countries at the present day. In war, horses formed a very considerable proportion of the booty taken; in time of peace, they were used as part of the payment of the yearly tribute, and a brisk trade in them was carried on with Mesopotamia.

         Drawn by Boudier, from a photograph by M. Alfred Boissier.

    Reproduced by Faucher-
    Gudin, from the
    restoration published
    by Luschan.

After the king had deducted from his receipts enough to provide amply for the wants of his family and court, the salaries of the various functionaries and officials, the pay and equipment of his army, the maintenance and construction of palaces and fortresses, he had still sufficient left over to form an enormous reserve fund on which he and his successors might draw in the event of their ordinary sources of income being depleted by a series of repeated reverses.

Tiglath-pileser thus impressed upon Assyria the character by which it was known during the most splendid century of its history, and the organisation which he devised for it was so admirably adapted to the Oriental genius that it survived the fall of Nineveh, and served as a model for every empire-maker down to the close of the Macedonian era and even beyond it.

The wealth of the country grew rapidly, owing to the influx of capital and of foreign population; in the intervals between their campaigns its rulers set to work to remove all traces of the ruins which had been allowed to accumulate during the last forty years. The king had built himself a splendid palace at Calah, close to the monuments of Assur-nazir-pal and Shalmaneser III., and its terraces and walls overhung the waters of the Tigris. The main entrance consisted of a Bīt-khilāni, one of those porticoes, flanked by towers and supported by columns or pillars, often found in Syrian towns, the fashion for which was now beginning to spread to Western Asia.*

         * The precise nature of the edifices referred to in the
         inscriptions under the name of Bīt-khilāni is still a matter
         of controversy. It has been identified with the pillared
         hall, or audience-chamber, such as we find in Sargon’s
         palace at Khorsabad, and with edifices or portions of
         edifices which varied according to the period, but which
         were ornamented with columns. It seems clear, however, that
         it was used of the whole series of chambers and buildings
         which formed the monumental gates of Assyrian palaces,
         something analogous to the Migdol of Ramses III. at
         Medinet-Habu, and more especially to the gates at Zinjirli.

Those discovered at Zinjirli afford fine examples of the arrangements adopted in buildings of this kind; the lower part of the walls was covered with bas-reliefs, figures of gods and men, soldiers mounted or on foot, victims and fantastic animal shapes; the columns, where there were any, rested on the back of a sphinx or on a pair of griffins of a type which shows a curious mixture of Egyptian and Semitic influences.

         Drawn by Boudier, from a sketch published by Luschan.

The wood-work of the Ninevite Bīt-khilāni was of cedar from Mount Amanus, the door-frames and fittings were of various rare woods, inlaid with ivory and metal. The entrance was guarded by the usual colossal figures, and the walls of the state reception-rooms were covered with slabs of alabaster; on these, in accordance with the usual custom,* were carved scenes from the royal wars, with explanatory inscriptions. The palace was subsequently dismantled, its pictures defaced and its inscriptions obliterated,** to mark the hatred felt by later generations towards the hero whom they were pleased to regard as a usurper; we can only partially succeed in deciphering his annals by the help of the fragmentary sentences which have escaped the fury of the destroyer.

         * The building of Tiglath-pileser’s palace is described in
         the Nimroud Inscription. It stood near the centre of the
         platform of Nimroud.

         ** The materials were utilised by Esarhaddon, but it does
         not necessarily follow that the palace was dismantled by
         that monarch; this was probably done by Sargon or by
         Sennacherib.

    Drawn by Faucher-Gudin, from a
    photograph published by Luschan.

The cities and fortresses which he raised throughout the length and breadth of Assyria proper and its more recently acquired provinces have similarly disappeared; we can only conjecture that the nobles of his court, fired by his example, must have built and richly endowed more than one city on their hereditary estates, or in the territories under their rule. Bel-harrān-beluzur, the marshal of the palace, who twice gave his name to years of the king’s reign, viz. in 741 and 727 B.C., possessed, it would seem, an important fief a little to the north of Assur, near the banks of the Tharthar, on the site of the present Tel-Abta. The district was badly cultivated, and little better than a wilderness; by express order of the celestial deities—Marduk, Nabu, Shamash, Sin, and the two Ishtars—he dug the foundations of a city which he called Dur-Bel-harrān-beluzur. The description he gives of it affords conclusive evidence of the power of the great nobles, and shows how nearly they approached, by their wealth and hereditary privileges, to the kingly rank. He erected, we are told, a ziggurāt on a raised terrace, in which he placed his gods in true royal fashion; he assigned slaves, landed property, and a yearly income to their priests, in order that worship might be paid to them in perpetuity; he granted sanctuary to all freemen who settled within the walls or in the environs, exemption from forced labour, and the right to tap a water-course and construct a canal. A decree of foundation was set up in the temple in memory of Bel-harrān-beluzur, precisely as if he were a crowned king. It is a stele of common grey stone with a circular top. The dedicator stands erect against the background of the carving, bare-foot and bare-headed, his face cleanshaven, dressed in a long robe embroidered in a chessboard pattern, and with a tunic pleated in horizontal rows; his right elbow is supported by the left hand, while the right is raised to a level with his eyes, his fist is clenched, and the thumb inserted between the first and second fingers in the customary gesture of adoration.

What the provost of the palace had done on his land, the other barons in all probability did on theirs; most of the departments which had fallen away and languished during the disturbances at the close of the previous dynasty, took a new lease of life under their protection. Private documents—which increase in number as the century draws to an end—contracts, official reports, and letters of scribes, all give us the impression of a wealthy and industrious country, stirred by the most intense activity, and in the enjoyment of unexampled prosperity. The excellent administration of Tiglath-pileser and his nobles had paved the way for this sudden improvement, and had helped to develop it, and when Shalmaneser V. succeeded his father on the throne it continued unchecked.* The new-comer made no changes in the system of government which had been so ably inaugurated. He still kept Assyria separate from Karduniash; his Babylonian subjects, faithful to ancient custom, soon devised a nickname for him, that of Ululai, as though seeking to persuade themselves that they had a king who belonged to them alone; and it is under this name that their annalists have inscribed him next to Pulu in the list of their dynasties.**

His reign was, on the whole, a calm and peaceful one; the Kaldā, the Medes, Urartu, and the races of Mount Taurus remained quiet, or, at any rate, such disorders as may have arisen among them were of too trifling a nature to be deemed worthy of notice in the records of the time. Syria alone was disturbed, and several of its independent states took advantage of the change of rulers to endeavour to shake off the authority of Assyria.

         * It was, for a long time, an open question with the earlier
         Assyriologists whether or not Shalmaneser and Sargon were
         different names for one and the same monarch. As for
         monuments, we possess only one attributed to Shalmaneser, a
         weight in the form of a lion, discovered by Layard at Nimroud,
         in the north-west palace. The length of his reign, and
         the scanty details we possess concerning it, have been
         learnt from the Eponym Canon and Pinches’ Babylonian
         Chronicle, and also from the Hebrew texts (2 Kings xvii. 3-
         6; xviii. 9-12).

         ** The identity of Ululai and Shalmaneser V., though still
         questioned by Oppert, has been proved by the comparison of
         Babylonian records, in some of which the names Pulu and
         Ululai occur in positions exactly corresponding with those
         occupied, in others, by Tiglath-pileser and Shalmaneser. The
         name Ululai was given to the king because he was born in the
         month of Ulul; in Pinches’ list we find a gloss, “Dynasty
         of Tinu,” which probably indicates the Assyrian town in
         which Tiglath-pileser III. and his son were born.

Egypt continued to give them secret encouragement in these tactics, though its own internal dissensions prevented it from offering any effective aid. The Tanite dynasty was in its death-throes. Psamuti, the last of its kings, exercised a dubious sovereignty over but a few of the nomes on the Arabian frontier.*

         * He is the Psammous mentioned by Manetho. The cartouches
         attributed to him by Lepsius really belong to the Psammuthis
         of the XXIXth dynasty. It is possible that one of the marks
         found at Karnak indicating the level of the Nile belong to
         the reign of this monarch.

His neighbours the Saites were gradually gaining the upper hand in the Delta and in the fiefs of middle Egypt, at first under Tafnakhti, and then, after his death, under his son Bukunirīnif, Bocchoris of the Greek historians. They held supremacy over several personages who, like themselves, claimed the title and rank of Pharaoh; amongst others, over a certain Rudamanu Mīamun, son of Osorkon: their power did not, however, extend beyond Siut, near the former frontier of the Theban kingdom. The withdrawal of Piōnkhi-Mīamun, and his subsequent death, had not disturbed the Ethiopian rule in the southern half of Egypt, though it somewhat altered its character. While an unknown Ethiopian king filled the place of the conquerer at Napata, another Ethiopian, named Kashta, made his way to the throne in Thebes.

ENLARGE TO FULL SIZE

    Drawn by Faucher-Gudin,
    after Prisse d’Avennes.

It is possible that he was a son of Piōnkhi, and may have been placed in supreme power by his father when the latter reinstated the city in its place as capital. With all their partiality for real or supposed descendants of the Ramesside dynasty, the Thebans were, before all things, proud of their former greatness, and eagerly hoped to regain it without delay. When, therefore, they accepted this Kushite king who, to their eyes, represented the only family possessed of a legitimate claim to the throne, it was mainly because they counted on him to restore them to their former place among the cities of Egypt. They must have been cruelly disappointed when he left them for the Sacred Mountain. His invasion, far from reviving their prosperity, merely served to ratify the suppression of that pontificate of Amon-Rā which was the last remaining evidence of their past splendour.

All hope of re-establishing it had now to be abandoned, since the sovereign who had come to them from Napata was himself by birth and hereditary privelege and hereditary sole priest of Anion: in his absence the actual head of the Theban religion could lay claim only to an inferior office, and indeed, even then, the only reason for accepting a second prophet was that he might direct the worship of the temple at Karnak. The force of circumstances compelled the Ethiopians to countenance in the Thebaid what their Tanite or Bubastite predecessors had been obliged to tolerate at Hermopolis, Heracleopolis, Sais, and in many another lesser city; they turned it into a feudatory kingdom, and gave it a ruler who, like Auīti, half a century earlier, had the right to use the cartouches. Once installed, Kashta employed the usual methods to secure his seat on the throne, one of the first being a marriage alliance. The disappearance of the high priests had naturally increased the importance of the princesses consecrated to the service of Amon. From henceforward they were the sole visible intermediaries between the god and his people, the privileged guardians of his body and his double, and competent to perpetuate the line of the solar kings. The Theban appanage constituted their dowry, and even if their sex prevented them from discharging all those civil, military, and religious duties required by their position, no one else had the right to do so on their behalf, unless he was expressly chosen by them for the purpose. When once married they deputed their husbands to act for them; so long as they remained either single or widows, some exalted personage, the prophet of Amon or Montu, the ruler of Thebes, or the administrator of the Said, managed their houses and fiefs for them with such show of authority that strangers were at times deceived, and took him for the reigning monarch of the country.*

         * Thus Harua, in the time of Amenertas, was prince and chief
         over the servants of the “Divine Worshipper.” Mantumihāit,
         in the time of Taharqa and of Tanuatamanu, was ruler of
         Thebes, and fourth prophet of Amon, and it is he who is
         described in the Assyrian monuments as King of Thebes.

The Pharaohs had, therefore, a stronger incentive than ever to secure exclusive possession of these women, and if they could not get all of them safely housed in their harems, they endeavoured, at any rate, to reserve for themselves the chief among them, who by purity of descent or seniority in age had attained the grade of Divine Worshipper. Kashta married a certain Shapenuapīt, daughter of Osorkon III. and a Theban pallacide;* it is uncertain whether he eventually became king over Ethiopia and the Sudan or not. So far, we have no proof that he did, but it seems quite possible when we remember that one of his children, Shabaku (Sabaco), subsequently occupied the throne of Napata in addition to that of Thebes. Kashta does not appear to have possessed sufficient energy to prevent the Delta and its nomes from repudiating the Ethiopian supremacy. The Saites, under Tafnakhti or Bocchoris, soon got the upper hand, and it was to them that the Syrian vassals of Nineveh looked for aid, when death removed the conqueror who had trampled them so ruthlessly underfoot. Ever since the fall of Arpad, Hadrach, and Damascus, Shabaraīn, a town situated somewhere in the valley of the Orontes or of the Upper Litany,** and hitherto but little known, had served as a rallying-point for the disaffected Aramaean tribes: on the accession of Shalmaneser V. it ventured to rebel, probably in 727 B.C., but was overthrown and destroyed, its inhabitants being led away captive.

         * It may be that, in accordance with a custom which obtained
         during the generations that followed, and which possibly
         originated about this period, this daughter of Osorkon III.
         was only the adoptive mother of Amenertas.

         ** Shabaraīn was originally confounded with Samaria by the
         early commentators on the Babylonian Chronicle. Halévy, very
         happily, referred it to the biblical Sepharvaīm, a place
         always mentioned in connection with Hamath and Arpad (2
         Kings xvii. 24, 31; xviii. 34; xix. 13: cf. Isa. xxxvi. 19;
         xxxvii. 13), and to the Sibraim of Ezekiel (xlvii. 16),
         called in the Septuagint Samarźim. Its identification with
         Samaria has, since then, been generally rejected, and its
         connection with Sibraim admitted. Sibraim (or Sepharvaīm, or
         Samarźīm) has been located at Shomerīyeh, to the east of the
         Bahr-Kades, and south of Hamath.

This achievement proved, beyond the possibility of doubt, that in spite of their change of rulers the vengeance of the Assyrians was as keen and sharp as ever. Not one of the Syrian towns dared to stir, and the Phonician seaports, though their loyalty had seemed, for a moment, doubtful, took care to avoid any action which might expose them to the terrors of a like severity.* The Israelites and Philistines, alone of the western peoples, could not resign themselves to a prudent policy; after a short period of hesitation they drew the sword from its scabbard, and in 725 war broke out.**

         * The siege of Tyre, which the historian Menander, in a
         passage quoted by Josephus, places in the reign of
         Shalmaneser, ought really to be referred to the reign of
         Sennacherib, or the fragment of Menander must be divided
         into three parts dealing with three different Assyrian
         campaigns against Tyre, under Tiglath-pileser, Sennacherib,
         and Esarhaddon respectively.

         ** The war cannot have begun earlier, for the Eponym
         Canon, in dealing with 726, has the words “in the country,”
          thus proving that no expedition took place in that year; in
         the case of the year 725, on the other hand, it refers to a
         campaign against some country whose name has disappeared.
         The passages in the Book of Kings (2 Kings xvii. 1-6, and
         xviii. 9-12) which deal with the close of the kingdom of
         Israel, have been interpreted in such a way as to give us
         two campaigns by Shalmaneser against Hoshea: (1) Hoshea
         having failed to pay the tribute imposed upon him by
         Tiglath-pileser, Shalmaneser made war upon him and compelled
         him to resume its payment (2 Kings xvii. 1-3); (2) Hoshea
         having intrigued with Egypt, and declined to pay tribute,
         Shalmaneser again took the field against him, made him
         prisoner, and besieged Samaria for three years (2 Kings
         xvii. 4-6; xviii. 9-12). The first expedition must, in this
         case, have taken place in 727, while the second must have
         lasted from 725-722. Most modern historians believe that the
         Hebrew writer has ascribed to Shalmaneser the subjection of
         Hoshea which was really the act of Tiglath-pileser, as well
         as the final war against Israel. According to Winckler, the
         two portions of the narrative must have been borrowed from
         two different versions of the final war, which the final
         editor inserted one after the other, heedless of the
         contradictions contained in them.

Hoshea, who had ascended the throne with the consent of Tiglath-pileser, was unable to keep them quiet. The whole of Galilee and Gilead was now an Assyrian province, subject to the governor of Damascus; Jerusalem, Moab, Ammon, and the Bedāwin had transferred their allegiance to Nineveh; and Israel, with merely the central tribes of Ephraim, Manasseh, and Benjamin left, was now barely equal in area and population to Judah. Their tribute weighed heavily on the Israelites; passing armies had laid waste their fields, and townsmen, merchants, and nobles alike, deprived of their customary resources, fretted with impatience under the burdens and humiliations imposed on them by their defeat; convinced of their helplessness, they again looked beyond their own borders for some nation or individual who should restore to them their lost prosperity. Amid the tottering fortunes of their neighbours, Egypt alone stood erect, and it was, therefore, to Egypt that they turned their eyes. Negotiations were opened, not with Pharaoh himself, but with Shabi, one of the petty kings on the eastern frontier of the Delta, whose position made him better qualified than any other to deal with Syrian affairs.*

         * This individual is called Sua, Seveh, and So in the Hebrew
         text (2 Kings xvii. 4), and the Septuagint gives the
         transliteration Sebek side by side with Sźgōs. He is found
         again under the forms Shibahi, Shabi, Shabé, in Sargon’s
         inscriptions.

Hannon of Gaza had by this time returned from exile, and it was, doubtless, owing to Shabi’s support that he had been able to drive out the Assyrian generals and recover his crown.* The Israelite aristocracy was led away by his example, but Shalmaneser hastened to the spot before the Egyptian bowmen had time to cross the isthmus. Hoshea begged for mercy, and was deported into Assyria and condemned to lifelong imprisonment.** Though deserted by her king, Samaria did not despair; she refused to open her gates, and, being strongly fortified, compelled the Assyrians to lay regular siege to the city. It would seem that at one moment, at the beginning of operations, when it was rumoured on all sides that Pharaoh would speedily intervene, Ahaz began to fear for his own personal safety, and seriously considered whether it would not be wiser to join forces with Israel or with Egypt.***

         * This seems to be the inference from Sargon’s inscription,
         in which he is referred to as relying on the army of Shabi,
         the tartan of Egypt.

         ** 2 Kings xvii. 4.

         *** The Second Book of Kings (xviii. 9,10; cf. xvii. 6)
         places the beginning of the siege of Samaria in the seventh
         year of Hoshea ( = fourth year of Hezekiah), and the capture
         of the town in the ninth year of Hoshea ( = sixth year of
         Hezekiah); further on it adds that Sennacherib’s campaign
         against Hezekiah took place in the fourteenth year of the
         latter’s reign (2 Kings xviii. 13; cf. Isa. xxxvi. 1). Now,
         Sennacherib’s campaign against Hezekiah took place (as will
         be shown later on, in vol. viii. Chapter I.) in 702 B.C.,
         and Samaria was captured in 722. The synchronisms in the
         Hebrew narrative are therefore fictitious, and rest on no
         real historical basis—at any rate, in so far as the king
         who occupied the throne of Judah at the time of the fall of
         Samaria is concerned; Ahaz was still alive at that date, and
         continued to reign till 716 or 715, or perhaps only till
         720.

         After Painting by Gerome

The rapid sequence of events, however, backed by the counsel of Isaiah, speedily recalled him to a more reasonable view of the situation. The prophet showed him Samaria spread out before him like one of those wreaths of flowers which the guests at a banquet bind round their brows, and which gradually fade as their wearers drink deeper and deeper. “Woe to the crown of pride of the drunkards of Ephraim, and to the fading flower of his glorious beauty, which is on the head of the fat valley of them that are overcome with wine. Behold, the Lord hath a mighty and strong one; as a tempest of hail, a destroying storm, as a tempest of mighty waters overflowing, shall be cast down to the earth with violence. The crown of the pride of the drunkards of Ephraim shall be trodden underfoot, and the fading flower of his glorious beauty, which is on the head of the fat valley, shall be as the first ripe fig before the summer; which when he that looketh upon it seeth, while it is yet in his hand he eateth it up.” While the cruel fate of the perverse city was being thus accomplished, Jahveh Sabaoth was to be a crown of glory to those of His children who remained faithful to Him; but Judah, far from submitting itself to His laws, betrayed Him even as Israel had done. Its prophets and priests were likewise distraught with drunkenness; they staggered under the effects of their potations, and turned to scorn the true prophet sent to proclaim to them the will of Jehovah. “Whom,” they stammered between their hiccups—“whom will He teach knowledge? and whom will He make to understand the message? them that are weaned from the milk and drawn from the breasts? For it is precept upon precept, precept upon precept, line upon line, line upon line, here a little and there a little!” And sure enough it was by the mouth of a stammering people, by the lips of the Assyrians, that Jahveh was to speak to them. In vain did the prophet implore them: “This is the rest, give ye rest to him that is weary;” they did not listen to him, and now Jahveh turns their own gibes against them: “Precept upon precept, precept upon precept, line upon line, line upon line, here a little and there a little,”—“that they may go and fall backward, and be broken and snared and taken.” There was to be no hope of safety for Jerusalem unless it gave up all dependence on human counsels, and trusted solely to God for protection.*

         * Isa. xxviii. Giesebrecht has given it as his opinion that
         only verses 1-6, 23-29 of the prophecy were delivered at
         this epoch: the remainder he believes to have been written
         during Sennacherib’s campaign against Judah, and suggests
         that the prophet added on his previous oracle to them, thus
         diverting it from its original application. Others, such as
         Stade and Wellhausen, regard the opening verses as embodying
         a mere rhetorical figure. Jerusalem, they say, appeared to
         the prophet as though changed into Samaria, and it is this
         transformed city which he calls “the crown of pride of the
         drunkards of Ephraim.”

Samaria was doomed; this was the general belief, and men went about repeating it after Isaiah, each in his own words; every one feared lest the disaster should spread to Judah also, and that Jahveh, having once determined to have done with the northern kingdom, would turn His wrath against that of the south as well. Micah the Morashtite, a prophet born among the ranks of the middle class, went up and down the land proclaiming misery to be the common lot of the two sister nations sprung from the loins of Jacob, as a punishment for their common errors and weaknesses. “The Lord cometh forth out of His place, and will come and tread upon the high places of the earth. And the mountains shall be molten under Him, and the valleys shall be cleft, as wax before the fire, as waters that are poured down a steep place. For the transgression of Jacob is all this, and for the sins of the house of Israel. What is the transgression of Jacob? is it not Samaria? and what are the high places of Judah? are they not Jerusalem?” The doom pronounced against Samaria was already being carried out, and soon the hapless city was to be no more than “an heap of the field, and as the plantings of a vineyard; and I will pour down the stones thereof into the valley,” saith the Lord, “and I will discover the foundations thereof. And all her graven images shall be beaten to pieces, and all her hires shall be burned with fire, and all her idols will I lay desolate; for of the hire of an harlot hath she gathered them, and into the hire of an harlot shall they return.” Yet, even while mourning over Samaria, the prophet cannot refrain from thinking of his own people, for the terrible blow which had fallen on Israel “is come even unto Judah; it reacheth unto the gate of my people, even to Jerusalem.” Doubtless the Assyrian generals kept a watchful eye upon Ahaz during the whole time of the siege, from 724 to 722, and when once the first heat of enthusiasm had cooled, the presence of so formidable an army within striking distance must have greatly helped the king to restrain the ill-advised tendencies of some of his subjects. Samaria still held out when Shalmaneser died at Babylon in the month of Tebeth, 722. Whether he had no son of fit age to succeed him, or whether a revolution, similar to that which had helped to place Tiglath-pileser on the throne, broke out as soon as he had drawn his last breath, is not quite clear. At any rate, Sargon, an officer who had served under him, was proclaimed king on the 22nd day of Tebeth, and his election was approved by the whole of Assyria. After some days of hesitation, Babylon declined to recognise him, and took the oath of allegiance to a Kaldu named Marduk-abalidinna, or Merodach-baladan. While these events were taking place in the heart of the empire, Samaria succumbed; perhaps to famine, but more probably to force. It was sacked and dismantled, and the bulk of its population, amounting to 27,280 souls, were carried away into Mesopotamia and distributed along the Balīkh, the Khabur, the banks of the river of Gozān, and among the towns of the Median frontier.*

         * Sargon does not mention where he deported the Israelites
         to, but we learn this from the Second Book of Kings (xvii.
         6; xviii. 11). There has been much controversy as to whether
         Samaria was taken by Shalmanoser, as the Hebrew chronicler
         seems to believe (2 Kings xvii. 3-6; xviii. 9, 10), or by
         Sargon, as the Assyrian scribes assure us. At first, several
         scholars suggested a solution of the difficulty by arguing
         that Shalmaneser and Sargon were one and the same person;
         afterwards the theory took shape that Samaria was really
         captured in the reign of Shalmaneser, but by Sargon, who was
         in command of the besieging army at the time, and who
         transferred this achievement, of which he was naturally
         proud, to the beginning of his own reign. The simplest
         course seems to be to accept for the present the testimony
         of contemporary documents, and place the fall of Samaria at
         the beginning of the reign of Sargon, being the time
         indicated by Sargon in his inscriptions.

Sargon made the whole territory into a province; an Assyrian governor was installed in the palace of the kings of Israel, and soon the altars of the strange gods smoked triumphantly by the side of the altars of Jahveh (722 B.C.).*

         * Kings xvii. 24-41, a passage to which I shall have
         occasion to refer farther on in the present volume. The
         following is a list of the kings of Israel, after the
         division of the tribes:—

         [In this table father and son are shown by a perpendicular
         line. The king’s name in italics signifies that he died a
         violent death.—Tr.]

Thus fell Samaria, and with Samaria the kingdom of Israel, and with Israel the last of the states which had aspired, with some prospect of success, to rule over Syria. They had risen one after another during the four centuries in which the absence of the stranger had left them masters of their own fate—the Hittites in the North, the Hebrews and the Philistines in the South, and the Aramęans and Damascus in the centre; each one of these races had enjoyed its years of glory and ambition in the course of which it had seemed to prevail over its rivals. Then those whose territory lay at the extremities began to feel the disadvantages of their isolated position, and after one or two victories gave up all hope of ever establishing a supremacy over the whole country. The Hittite sphere of influence never at any time extended much further southwards than the sources of the Orontes, while that of the Hebrews in their palmiest days cannot have gone beyond the vicinity of Hamath. And even progress thus far had cost both Hebrews and Hittites a struggle so exhausting that they could not long maintain it. No sooner did they relax their efforts, than those portions of Coele-Syria which they had annexed to their original territory, being too remote from the seat of power to feel its full attraction, gradually detached themselves and resumed their independence, their temporary suzerains being too much exhausted by the intensity of their own exertions to retain hold over them. Damascus, which lay almost in the centre, at an equal distance from the Euphrates and the “river of Egypt,” could have desired no better position for grouping the rest of Syria round her.

    Drawn by Faucher-Gudin,
    from a sketch by Flandin.

If any city had a chance of establishing a single kingdom, it was Damascus, and Damascus alone. But lulled to blissful slumbers in her shady gardens, she did not awake to political life and to the desire of conquest until after all the rest, and at the very moment when Nineveh was beginning to recover from her early reverses. Both Ben-hadads had had a free hand given them during the half-century which followed, and they had taken advantage of this respite to reduce Coele-Syria, the Lebanon, Arvadian Phoenicia, Hamath, and the Hebrews—in fact, two-thirds of the whole country—to subjection, and to organise that league of the twelve kings which reckoned Ahab of Israel among its leaders. This rudimentary kingdom had scarcely come into existence, and its members had not yet properly combined, when Shalmaneser III. arose and launched his bands of veterans against them; it however successfully withstood the shock, and its stubborn resistance at the beginning of the struggle shows us what it might have done, had its founders been allowed time in which to weld together the various elements at their disposal. As it was, it was doomed to succumb—not so much to the superiority of the enemy as to the insubordination of its vassals and its own internal discords. The league of the twelve kings did not survive Ben-hadad II.; Hazael and his successors wore themselves out in repelling the attacks of the Assyrians and in repressing the revolts of Israel; when Tiglath-pileser III. arrived on the scene, both princes and people, alike at Damascus and Samaria, were so spent that even their final alliance could not save them from defeat. Its lack of geographical unity and political combination had once more doomed Syria to the servitude of alien rule; the Assyrians, with methodical procedure, first conquered and then made vassals of all those states against which they might have hurled their battalions in vain, had not fortune kept them divided instead of uniting them in a compact mass under the sway of a single ruler. From Carchemish to Arpad, from Hamath to Damascus and Samaria, their irresistible advance had led the Assyrians on towards Egypt, the only other power which still rivalled their prestige in the eyes of the world; and now, at Gaza, on the frontier between Africa and Asia, as in days gone by on the banks of the Euphrates or the Balīkh, these two powers waited face to face, hand on hilt, each ready to stake the empire of the Asiatic world on a single throw of the dice.

## SARGON OF ASSYRIA (722-705 B.C.).

## SARGON AS A WARRIOR AND AS A BUILDER.

The origin of Sargon II.: the revolt of Babylon, Merodach-baladan and Elam—The kingdom of Elam from the time of the first Babylonian empire; the conquest’s of Shutruh-nalkunta I.; the princes of Malamīr—The first encounter of Assyria and Elam, the battle of Durilu (721 B.C.)—Revolt of Syria, Iaubīdi of Hamath and Hannon of Gaza—Bocchoris and the XXIVth Egyptian dynasty; the first encounter of Assyria with Egypt, the battle of Raphia (720 B.C.).

Urartu and the coalition of the peoples of the north-east and north-west—Defeat of Zikartu (719 B.C.), of the Tabal (718), of the Khāti (717), of the Mannai, of the Medes and Ellipi (716), and of the Modes (715)—Commencement of XXVth Ethiopian dynasty: Sabaco (716)— The fall of Urzana and Rusas (714) and the formation of an Assyrian province in Cappadocia (713-710)—The revolt and fall of Ashdod.

The defeat of Merodach-baladan and of Shutruk-nakhunta II.: Sargon conquers Babylon (710-709 B.C.)—Success of the Assyrians at Mushhi: homage of the Greeks of Cyprus (710)—The buildings of Sargon: Dur-sharrukīn—The gates and walls of Dur-sharrukīn; the city and its population—The royal palace, its courts, the ziggurāt, the harem—Revolt of Kummukh (709 B.C.) and of Ellipi (708 B.C.)—Inauguration of Dur-sharrukīn (706 B.C.)—Murder of Sargon (705 B.C.): his character.

## CHAPTER III—SARGON OF ASSYRIA (722-705 B.C.)

Sargon as a warrior and as a builder.

Whether Sargon was even remotely connected with the royal line, is a question which for the present must remain unanswered. He mentions in one of his inscriptions the three hundred princes who had preceded him in the government of Assyria, and three lines further on he refers to the kings his ancestors, but he never mentions his own father by name, and this omission seems to prove that he was not a direct descendant of Shalmaneser V., nor of Tiglath-pileser III. nor indeed of any of their immediate predecessors. It is, however, probable, if not certain, that he could claim some sort of kinship with them, though more or less remote. It was customary for the sovereigns of Nineveh to give their daughters in marriage to important officials or lords of their court, and owing to the constant contraction of such alliances through several centuries, there was hardly a noble family but had some royal blood in its veins; and that of Sargon was probably no exception to the rule. His genealogy was traced by the chroniclers, through several hundred generations of princes, to the semi-mythical heroes who had founded the city of Assur; but as Assur-nazir-pal and his descendants had claimed Bel-kapkapi and Sulili as the founders of their race, the Sargonids chose a different tradition, and drew their descent from Belbāni, son of Adasi. The cause and incidents of the revolution which raised Sargon to the throne are unknown, but we may surmise that the policy adopted with regard to Karduniash was a factor in the case. Tiglath-pileser had hardly entered Babylon before the fascination of the city, the charm of its associations, and the sacred character of the legends which hallowed it, seized upon his imagination; he returned to it twice in the space of two years to “take the hands of Bel,” and Shalmaneser V. much preferred it to Calah or Nineveh as a place of residence. The Assyrians doubtless soon became jealous of the favour shown by their princes to their ancient enemy, and their discontent must have doubtless conduced to their decision to raise a new monarch to the throne. The Babylonians, on the other hand, seem to have realised that the change in the dynasty presaged a disadvantageous alteration of government; for as soon as the news reached them a movement was set on foot and search made for a rival claimant to set up in opposition to Sargon.*

         * The succession of events, as indicated in Pinches’
         Babylonian Chronicle, seems indeed to imply that the
         Babylonians waited to ascertain the disposition of the new
         king before they decided what line to adopt. In fact,
         Shalmaneser died in the month Tebeth, and Sargon ascended
         the throne at Assur in the same month, and it was only in
         the month Nisān that Mero-dach-baladan was proclaimed king.
         The three months intervening between the accession of Sargon
         and that of Merodach-baladan evidently represent a period of
         indecision., when it was not yet known if the king would
         follow the policy of his predecessors with regard to
         Babylon, or adopt a different attitude towards her.

Of all the nations who had in turn occupied the plains of the Lower Euphrates and the marshes bordering on Arabia, the Kaldā alone had retained their full vitality. They were constantly recruited by immigrants from their kinsfolk of the desert, and the continual infiltration of these semi-barbarous elements kept the race from becoming enervated by contact with the indigenous population, and more than compensated for the losses in their ranks occasioned by war. The invasion of Tiglath-pileser and the consequent deportations of prisoners had decimated the tribes of Bīt-Shilāni, Bīt-Shaali, and Bīt-Amuhkāni, the principalities of the Kaldā which lay nearest to Babylonian territory, and which had borne the brunt of attack in the preceding period; but their weakness brought into notice a power better equipped for warfare, whose situation in their rear had as a rule hitherto preserved it from contact with the Assyrians, namely, Bīt-Yakīn. The continual deposit of alluvial soil at the mouths of the rivers had greatly altered the coastline from the earliest historic times downwards. The ancient estuary was partly filled up, especially on the western side, where the Euphrates enters the Persian Gulf: a narrow barrier of sand and silt extended between the marshes of Arabia and Susiana, at the spot where the streams of fresh water met the tidal waters of the sea, and all that was left of the ancient gulf was a vast lagoon, or, as the dwellers on the banks called it, a kind of brackish river, Nār marratum. Bīt-Yakīn occupied the southern and western portions of this district, from the mouth of the Tigris to the edge of the desert. The aspect of the country was constantly changing, and presented no distinctive features; it was a region difficult to attack and easy to defend; it consisted first of a spongy plain, saturated with water, with scattered artificial mounds on which stood the clustered huts of the villages; between this plain and the shore stretched a labyrinth of fens and peat-bogs, irregularly divided by canals and channels freshly formed each year in flood-time, meres strewn with floating islets, immense reed-beds where the neighbouring peasants took refuge from attack, and into which no one would venture to penetrate without hiring some friendly native as a guide. In this fenland dwelt the Kaldā in their low, small conical huts of reeds, somewhat resembling giant beehives, and in all respects similar to those which the Bedawin of Irak inhabit at the present day.

         Drawn by Faucher-Gudin, from a bas-relief reproduced in
         Layard.

Dur-Yakīn, their capital, was probably situated on the borders of the gulf, near the Euphrates, in such a position as to command the mouths of the river. Merodach-baladan, who was King of Bīt-Yakīn at the time of Sargon’s accession, had become subject to Assyria in 729 B.C., and had paid tribute to Tiglath-pileser, but he was nevertheless the most powerful chieftain who had borne rule over the Chaldęans since the death of Ukīnzīr.*

         * Dur-Yakīn was situated on the shores of the Persian gulf,
         as is proved by a passage in the Bull Inscription, where
         it is stated that Sargon threw into the sea the corpses of
         the soldiers killed during the siege; the neighbourhood of
         the Euphrates is implied in the text of the Inscription des
         Fastes, and the Annals, where the measures taken by
         Merodach-baladan to defend his capital are described. The
         name of Bīt-Yakīn, and probably also that of Dur-Yakin, have
         been preserved to us in the name of Aginis or Aginnź, the
         name of a city mentioned by Strabo, and by the historians of
         Alexander. Its site is uncertain, but can be located near
         the present town of Kornah.

It was this prince whom the Babylonians chose to succeed Shalmaneser V. He presented himself before the city, was received with acclamation, and prepared without delay to repulse any hostilities on the part of the Assyrians.

         Drawn by Faucher-Gudin, from a photograph in Peters.

He found a well-disposed ally in Elani. From very ancient times the masters of Susa had aspired to the possession of Mesopotamia or the suzerainty over it, and fortune had several times favoured their ambitious designs. On one occasion they had pressed forward their victorious arms as far as the Mediterranean, and from that time forward, though the theatre of their operations was more restricted, they had never renounced the right to interfere in Babylonian affairs, and indeed, not long previously, one of them had reigned for a period of seven years in Babylon in the interval between two dynasties. Our information with regard to the order of succession and the history of these energetic and warlike monarchs is as yet very scanty; their names even are for the most part lost, and only approximate dates can be assigned to those of whom we catch glimpses from time to time.* Khumban-numena, the earliest of whom we have any record, exercised a doubtful authority, from Anshān to Susa, somewhere about the fourteenth century B.C., and built a temple to the god Kirisha in his capital, Liyan.**

         * These names are in the majority of cases found written on
         stamped and baked bricks. They were first compared with the
         names contained in the Annals of Sargon and his successors,
         and assimilated to those of the princes who were
         contemporary with Sennacherib and Assur-bani-pal; then they
         were referred to the time of the great Elamite empire, and
         one of them was identified with that Kudur-Nakhunta who had
         pillaged Uruk 1635 years before Assur-bani-pal. Finally,
         they were brought down again to an intermediate period, more
         precisely, to the fourteenth or thirteenth century B.C. This
         last date appears to be justified, at least as the highest
         permissible, by the mention of Durkurigalzu, in a text of
         Undasgal.

         ** Jensen was the first to recognise that Liyan was a place-
         name, and the inscriptions of Shilkhak-Inshusinak add that
         Liyan was the capital of the kingdom; perhaps it was the
         name of a part of Susa. Khumban-numena has left us no
         monuments of his own, but he is mentioned on those of his
         son.

His son Undasgal carried on the works begun by his father, but that is all the information the inscriptions afford concerning him, and the mist of oblivion which for a moment lifted and allowed us to discern dimly the outlines of this sovereign, closes in again and hides everything from our view for the succeeding forty or fifty years.

         Drawn by Faucher-Gudin, from a photograph by Marcel
         Dieulafoy.

    Drawn by Boudier,
    from a photograph
    by M. de Morgan.

About the thirteenth century a gleam once more pierces the darkness, and a race of warlike and pious kings emerges into view—Khalludush-In-shushinak, his son Shutruk-nakhunta, the latter’s two sons, Kutur-nakhunta and Shilkhak-Inshu-shinak,* and then perhaps a certain Kutir-khuban.

         * The order of succession of these princes is proved by the
         genealogies with which their bricks are covered. Jensen has
         shown that we ought to read Khalludush-Inshushinak and
         Shilkhak-Inshushinak, instead of the shorter forms
         Khalludush and Shilkhak read previously.

The inscriptions on their bricks boast of their power, their piety, and their inexhaustible wealth. One after another they repaired and enlarged the temple built by Khumban-numena at Liyan, erected sanctuaries and palaces at Susa, fortified their royal citadel, and ruled over Habardīp and the Cossęans as well as over Anshān and Elam. They vigorously contested the possession of the countries on the right bank of the Tigris with the Babylonians, and Shutruk-nakhunta even succeeded in conquering Babylon itself. He deprived Zamāmā-shumiddin, the last but one of the Cossęan kings, of his sceptre and his life, placed his own son Kutur-nakhunta on the throne, and when the vanquished Babylonians set up Bel-nadinshumu as a rival sovereign, he laid waste Karduniash with fire and sword. After the death of Bel-nadinshumu, the Pashź princes continued to offer resistance, but at first without success. Shutruk-nakhunta had taken away from the temple of Esagilla the famous statue of Bel-Merodach, whose hands had to be taken by each newly elected king of Babylon, and had carried it off in his waggons to Elam, together with much spoil from the cities on the Euphrates.*

         * The name of the king is destroyed on the Babylonian
         document, but the mention of Kutur-nakhunta as his son
         obliges us, till further information comes to light, to
         recognise in him the Shutruk-nakhunta of the bricks of Susa,
         who also had a son Kutur-nakhunta. This would confirm the
         restoration of Shutruk-nakhunta as the name of a sovereign
         who boasts, in a mutilated inscription, that he had pushed
         his victories as far as the Tigris, and even up to the
         Euphrates.

Nebuchadrezzar I. brought the statue back to Babylon after many vicissitudes, and at the same time recovered most of his lost provinces, but he had to leave at Susa the bulk of the trophies which had been collected there in course of the successful wars. One of these represented the ancient hero Naram-sin standing, mace in hand, on the summit of a hill, while his soldiers forced their way up the slopes, driving before them the routed hosfcs of Susa. Shutruk-nakhunta left the figures and names untouched, but carved in one corner of the bas-relief a dedicatory inscription, transforming this ancient proof of Babylonian victories over Elam into a trophy of Blamite victories over Babylon.

His descendants would assuredly have brought Mesopotamia into lasting subjection, had not the feudal organisation of their empire tolerated the existence of contemporary local dynasties, the members of which often disputed the supreme authority with the rightful king. The dynasty which ruled Habardīp* seems to have had its seat of government at Tarrisha in the, valley of Malamīr.**

         * The prince represented on the bas-reliefs gives himself
         the title Apirra, the name of Apīr, Apirti, or Habardīp.

         ** Tarrisha is the name of a town, doubtless the capital of
         the fief of Malamīr; it is probably represented by the
         considerable ruins which Layard identified as the remains of
         the Sassanid city of Aidej.

Three hundred figures carved singly or in groups on the rocks of Kul-Firaun portray its princes and their ministers in every posture of adoration, but most of them have no accompanying inscription. One large bas relief, however, forms an exception, and from its legend we learn the name of Khanni, son of Takhkhi-khīkhutur.*

         * The name of Khanni has been explained by Sayce as the
         desirable, and that of his father, Takhkhi-khīkhutur, as
         help this thy servant.

         Drawn by Faucher-Gudin, from a photograph by Babin and Houssay.

This prince, even if possessed of no royal protocol, was none the less a powerful and wealthy personage. His figure dominates the picture, the central space of which it completely fills;* his expression is calm, but somewhat severe. His head is covered by a low cap, from which long locks escape and flow over his shoulders; the hair on his face is symmetrically curled above the level of his mouth, and terminates in a pointed beard. The figure is clothed from head to foot in a stiff robe and mantle adorned with tufted fringes, and borders of embroidered rosettes; a girdle at the waist completes the misleading resemblance to the gala-dress of a Nine vite, monarch. The hands are crossed on the breast in an attitude of contemplation, while the prince gazes thoughtfully at a sacrifice which is being offered on his behalf. At the bottom of the picture stands a small altar, behind which a priest in a short tunic seems to be accomplishing some cérémonial rite, while two men are cutting the throat of a ram. Higher up the heads of three rams lie beside their headless trunks, which are resting on the ground, feet in the air, while a servant brandishes a short sword with which he is about to decapitate the fourth beast. Above these, again, three musicians march in procession, one playing on a harp, another on a five-stringed lyre, and the third on a tambourine. An attendant holding a bow, and the minister Shutsururazi, stand quietly waiting till the sacrifice is accomplished. The long text which runs across several of the figures is doubtless a prayer, and contains the names of peoples and princes mingled with those of deities.

         * Perrot and Chipiez, misled by the analogy of the Hittite
         bas-relief at Ibriz, took the largest figure for the image
         of a god. The inscription engraved on the robe, U Khanni
         shak Takkhi-khikutur, “I am Khanni, son of Takhkhi-
         khīkhutur,” leaves no doubt that the figure represents the
         prince himself, and not a divinity.

The memory of these provincial chiefs would be revived, and more of their monuments discovered, if the mountains and inaccessible valleys of ancient Elam could be thoroughly explored: it is evident, from the small portion of their history which has been brought to light, that they must have been great sources of trouble to the dynasties which reigned in Susa, and that their revolts must often have jeopardised the safety of the empire, in spite of the assistance afforded by the Aramęans from the tenth or eleventh centuries onwards. All the semi-nomadic tribes which densely peopled the banks of the Tigris, and whose advance towards the north had been temporarily favoured by the weakness of Assyria—the Gambulu, the Pukudu, the Eutu, and the Itua—had a natural tendency to join forces with Elam for the purpose of raiding the wealthy cities of Chaldęa, and this alliance, or subjection, as it might be more properly termed, always insured them against any reprisals on the part of their victims. The unknown king who dwelt at Susa in 745 B.C. committed the error of allowing Tiglath-pileser to crush these allies. Khumban-igash, who succeeded this misguided monarch in 742 B.C., did not take up arms to defend Bit-Amuk-kāni and the other states of the Kaldā from 731 to 729, but experience must have taught him that he had made a mistake in remaining an unmoved spectator of their misfortunes; for when Merodach-baladan, in quest of allies, applied to him, he unhesitatingly promised him his support.*

         * The date of his accession is furnished by the passage in
         Pinches’ Babylonian Chronicle, where it is stated that he
         ascended the throne of Elam in the fifth year of Nabonazir.
         The Assyrian and Babylonian scribes assimilated the Susian
         b to the m, and also suppressed the initial aspirate of
         the Elamite name, writing generally Umman-igash for Khumban-
         igash.

Assyria and Elam had hitherto seldom encountered one another on the field of battle. A wide barrier of semi-barbarous states had for a long time held them apart, and they would have had to cross the territory of the Babylonians or the Cossęans before coming into contact with each other. Tiglath-pileser I., however, had come into conflict with the northern districts of Elam towards the end of the twelfth century B.C., and more recently the campaigns of Assur-nazir-pal, Shalmaneser III., and Rammān-nirāri had frequently brought these sovereigns into contact with tribes under the influence of Susa; but the wildness and poverty of the country, and the difficulties it offered to the manoeuvres of large armies, had always prevented the Assyrian generals from advancing far into its mountainous regions.* The annexation of Aramęan territory beyond the Tigris, and the conquest of Babylon by Tiglath-pileser III., at length broke through the barrier and brought the two powers face to face at a point where they could come into conflict without being impeded by almost insurmountable natural obstacles, namely, in the plains of the Umliash and the united basins of the Lower Ulai and the Uknu. Ten years’ experience had probably sufficed to convince Khumban-igash of the dangers to which the neighbourhood of the Assyrians exposed his subjects. The vigilant watch which the new-comers kept over their frontier rendered raiding less easy; and if one of the border chieftains were inclined to harry, as of old, an unlucky Babylonian or Cossęan village, he ran the risk of an encounter with a well-armed force, or of being plundered in turn by way of reprisal.

         * Sargon declares distinctly that Merodach-baladan had
         invoked the aid of Khumban-igash.

An irregular but abundant source of revenue was thus curtailed, without taking into consideration the wars to which such incidents must perforce lead sooner or later. Even unaided the Elamites considered themselves capable of repelling any attack; allied with the Babylonians or the Kaldā, they felt certain of victory in any circumstances. Sargon realised this fact almost as fully as did the Elamites themselves; as soon, therefore, as his spies had forewarned him that an invasion was imminent, he resolved to take the initiative and crush his enemies singly before they Succeeded in uniting their forces. Khumban-igash had advanced as far as the walls of Durīlu, a stronghold which commanded the Umliash, and he there awaited the advent of his allies before laying siege to the town: it was, however, the Assyrian army which came to meet him and offered him battle. The conflict was a sanguinary one, as became an engagement between such valiant foes, and both sides claimed the victory. The Assyrians maintained then-ground, forcing the Elamites to evacuate their positions, and tarried some weeks longer to chastise those of their Aramęan subjects who had made common cause with the enemy: they carried away the Tumuna, who had given up their sheikh into the hands of the emissaries of the Kaldā, and transported the whole tribe, without Merodach-baladan making any attempt to save his allies, although his army had not as yet struck a single blow.*

         * The history of this first campaign against Merodach-
         baladan, which is found in a mutilated condition in the
         Annals of Sargon, exists nowhere else in a complete form,
         but the facts are very concisely referred to in the Fastes
         and in the Cylinders. The general sequence of events is
         indicated by Pinches’ Babylonian Chronicle, but the author
         places them in 720 B.C., the second year of Merodach-
         baladan, contrary to the testimony of the Annals, and
         attributes the victory to the Elamites in the battle of
         Durīlu, in deference to Babylonian patriotism. The course of
         events after the battle of Durflu seems to prove clearly
         that the Assyrians remained masters of the field.

Having accomplished this act of vengeance, the Assyrians suspended operations and returned to Nineveh to repair their losses, probably intending to make a great effort to regain the whole of Babylonia in the ensuing year. Grave events which occurred elsewhere prevented them, however, from carrying this ambitious project into effect. The fame of their war against Elam had spread abroad in the Western provinces of the empire, and doubtless exaggerated accounts circulated with regard to the battle of Durīlu had roused the spirit of dissatisfaction in the west. Sargon had scarcely seated himself securely on a throne to which he was not the direct heir, when he was menaced by Elam and repudiated by Chaldęa, and it remained to be seen whether his resources would prove equal to maintaining the integrity of his empire, or whether the example set by Merodach-baladan would not speedily be imitated by all who groaned under the Assyrian yoke. Since the decline of Damascus and Arpad, Hamath had again taken a prominent place in Northern Syria: prompt submission had saved this city from destruction in the time of Tiglath-pileser III., and it had since prospered under the foreign rule; it was, therefore, on Hamath that all hopes of deliverance still cherished by rulers and people now centred. A low-born fellow, a smith named Iaubīdi, rose in rebellion against the prince of Hamath for being mean-spirited enough to pay tribute, proclaimed himself king, and in the space of a few months revived under his own leadership the coalition which Hadadezer and Rezon II. had formed in days gone by. Arpad and Bīt-Agusi, Zimyra and Northern Phoenicia, Damascus and its dependencies, all expelled their Assyrian garrisons, and Samaria, though still suffering from its overthrow, summoned up courage to rid itself of its governor. Meanwhile, Hannon of Gaza, recently reinstated in his city by Egyptian support, was carrying on negotiations with a view to persuading Egypt to interfere in the affairs of Syria. The last of the Tanite Pharaohs, Psamuti, was just dead, and Bocchoris, who had long been undisputed master of the Delta, had now ventured to assume the diadem openly (722 B.C.), a usurpation which the Ethiopians, fully engaged in the Thebaid and on the Upper Nile, seemed to regard with equanimity. As soon as the petty kings and feudal lords had recognised his suzerainty, Bocchoris «listened favourably to the entreaties of Hannon, and promised to send an army to Gaza under the command of his general Shabź. Sargon, threatened with the loss of the entire western half of his empire, desisted for a time from his designs on Babylon, Khumban-igash was wise enough to refrain from provoking an enemy who left him in peace, and Merodach-baladan did not dare to enter the lists without the support of his confederate: the victory of Durīlu, though it had not succeeded in gaining a province for Nineveh, had at least secured the south-eastern frontier from attack, at all events for so long as it should please Sargon to remain at a distance.

    Drawn by Faucher-Gudin,
    from a sketch by Flandin.

The league formed by Hamath had not much power of cohesion. Iaubīdi had assembled his forces and the contingents of his allies at the town of Qarqar as Hadadezer had done before: he was completely defeated, taken prisoner, and flayed alive. His kingdom was annexed to the Assyrian empire, Qarqar was burnt to the ground, the fortifications of Hamath were demolished, and the city obliged to furnish a force of two hundred charioteers and six hundred horsemen, probably recruited from among the families of the upper classes, to serve as hostages as well as auxiliaries. Arpad, Zimyra, Damascus, Samaria, all succumbed without serious opposition, and the citizens who had been most seriously compromised in the revolt paid for their disaffection with their lives. This success confirmed the neighbouring states of Tyre, Sidon, Judah, Ammon, and Moab in their allegiance, which had shown signs of wavering since the commencement of hostilities; but Gaza remained unsubdued, and caused the more uneasiness because it was perceived that behind her was arrayed all the majesty of the Pharaoh. The Egyptians, slow to bestir themselves, had not yet crossed the Isthmus when the Assyrians appeared beneath the walls of Gaza: Hannon, worsted in a preliminary skirmish, retreated on Raphia, where Shabź, the Egyptian general, had at length arrived, and the decisive battle took place before this town. It was the first time that the archers and charioteers of the Nile valley had measured forces with the pikemen and cavalry of that of the Tigris; the engagement was hotly contested, but the generals and soldiers of Bocchoris, fighting according to antiquated methods of warfare, gave way before the onset of the Assyrian ranks, who were better equipped and better led. Shabź fled “like a shepherd whose sheep had been stolen,” Hannon was taken prisoner and loaded with chains, and Raphia fell into the hands of the conqueror; the inhabitants who survived the sack of their city were driven into captivity to the number of 9033 men, with their flocks and household goods. The manifest superiority of Assyria was evident from the first encounter, but the contest had been so fierce and the result so doubtful that Sargon did not consider it prudent to press his advantage. He judged rightly that these troops, whom he had not dispersed without considerable effort, constituted merely an advanced guard. 4 Egypt was not like the petty kingdoms of Syria or Asia Minor, which had but one army apiece, and could not risk more than one pitched battle. Though Shabź’s force was routed, others would not fail to take its place and contend as fiercely for the possession of the country, and even if the Assyrians should succeed in dislodging them and curbing the power of Bocchoris, the fall of Sais or Memphis, far from putting an end to the war, would only raise fresh complications. Above Memphis stretched the valley of the Nile, bristling with fortresses, Khininsu, Oxyrhynchus, Hermopolis, Siut, Thinis, and Thebes, the famous city of Amon, enthroned on the banks of the river, whose very name still evoked in the minds of the Asiatics a vivid remembrance of all its triumphal glories.*

         * Thebes was at that time known among the Semites by its
         popular name of the city of Amon—which the Hebrew writers
         transcribed as Nō-Amon (Nahum iii. 8) or Nō alone (Jer.
         xlvi. 25; Ezek. xxx. 14, 15, 16), and the Assyrians by Ni.

Thebes itself formed merely one stage in the journey towards Syene, Ethiopia, Napata, and the unknown regions of Africa which popular imagination filled with barbarous races or savage monsters, and however far an alien army might penetrate in a southerly direction, it would still meet with the language, customs, and divinities of Egypt—an Egypt whose boundary seemed to recede as the invader advanced, and which was ever ready to oppose the enemy with fresh forces whenever its troops had suffered from his attacks. Sargon, having reached Kaphia, halted on the very threshold of the unexplored realm whose portals stood ajar ready to admit him: the same vague disquietude which had checked the conquering career of the Pharaohs on the borders of Asia now stayed his advance, and bade him turn back as he was on the point of entering Africa. He had repulsed the threatened invasion, and as a result of his victory the princes and towns which had invoked the aid of the foreigner lay at his mercy; he proceeded, therefore, to reorganise the provinces of Philistia and Israel, and received the homage of Judah and her dependencies. Ahaz, while all the neighbouring states were in revolt, had not wavered in his allegiance; the pacific counsels of Isaiah had once more prevailed over the influence of the party which looked for safety in an alliance with Egypt.*

         * Sargon probably alludes to homage received at this time,
         when he styles himself “the subduer of far-off Judah.” It
         is not certain that Ahaz was still King of Judah; it was for
         a long time admitted that Hezekiah was already king when
         these events took place, in accordance with 2 Kings xviii.
         9, 10, where it is stated that Samaria was destroyed in the
         sixth year of Hezekiah. I consider, in agreement with
         several historians, that the date of Sennacherib’s invasion
         of Judah must have remained more firmly fixed in the minds
         of the Jewish historians than that of the taking of Samaria,
         and as 2 Kings xviii. 13 places this invasion in the
         fourteenth year of Hezekiah, which corresponds, as we shall
         see, to the third year of Sennacherib, or 702 B.C., it seems
         better to place the accession of Hezekiah about 715, and
         prolong the reign of Ahaz till after the campaign of Sargon
         against Hannon of Gaza.

The whole country from the Orontes to the mountains of Seir and the river of Egypt was again reduced to obedience, and set itself by peaceful labours to repair the misfortunes which had befallen it during the previous quarter of a century. Sargon returned to his capital, but fate did not yet allow him to renew his projects against Babylon. Barely did an insurrection break out in any part of the country on the accession of a new king at Nineveh without awaking echoes in the distant provinces of the empire. The report of a revolt in Chaldęa roused a slumbering dissatisfaction among the Syrians, and finally led them into open rebellion: the episodes of the Syrian campaign, narrated in Armenia or on the slopes of the Taurus with the thousand embellishments suggested by the rancour of the narrators, excited the minds of the inhabitants and soon rendered an outbreak inevitable. The danger would have been serious if the suppressed hatred of all had found vent at the same moment, and if insurrections in five or six different parts of his empire had to be faced by the sovereign simultaneously; but as a rule these local wars broke out without any concentrated plan, and in localities too remote from each other to permit of any possible co-operation between the assailants; each chief, before attempting to assert his independence, seemed to wait until the Assyrians had had ample time to crush the rebel who first took the field, having done which they could turn the whole of their forces against the latest foe. Thus Iaubīdi did not risk a campaign till the fall of Elam and Karduniash had been already decided on the field of Durilu; in the same way, the nations of the North and East refrained from entering the lists till they had allowed Sargon time to destroy the league of Hamath and repel the attack of Bharaoh.

They were secretly incited to rebellion by a power which played nearly the same part with regard to them that Egypt had played in Southern Syria. Urartu had received a serious rebuff in 735 B.C., and the burning of Dhuspas had put an end to its ascendency, but the victory had been effected at the cost of so much bloodshed that Tiglath-pileser was not inclined to risk losing the advantage already gained by pushing it too far: he withdrew, therefore, without concluding a treaty, and did not return, being convinced that no further hostilities would be attempted till the vanquished enemy had recovered from his defeat. He was justified in his anticipations, for Sharduris died about 730, without having again taken up arms, and his son Busas I. had left Shalmaneser V. unmolested:* but the accession of Sargon and the revolts which harassed him had awakened in Busas the warlike instincts of his race, and the moment appeared advantageous for abandoning his policy of inactivity.

         * The name of this king is usually written Ursa in the
         Assyrian inscriptions, but the Annals of Sargon give in
         each case the form Rusa, in accordance with which Sayce had
         already identified the Assyrian form Ursa or Rusa with the
         form Rusas found on some Urartian monuments. Belck and
         Lehmann have discovered several monuments of this Rusas I.,
         son of Sharduris.

The remembrance of the successful exploits of Menuas and Argistis still lived in the minds of his people, and more than one of his generals had entered upon their military careers at a time when, from Arpad and Carchemish to the country of the Medes, quite a third of the territory now annexed to Assyria had been subject to the king of Urartu; Eusas, therefore, doubtless placed before himself the possibility of reconquering the lost provinces, and even winning, by a stroke of fortune, more than had been by a stroke of fortune wrested from his father. He began by intriguing with such princes as were weary of the Assyrian rule, among the Mannai, in Zikartu,* among the Tabal, and even among the Khāti.

         * Zikruti, Zikirtu, Zikartu, may probably be identified with
         the Sagartians of Herodotus.

    Drawn by Faucher-Gudin,
    from the facsimile by Flandin.

Iranzu, who was at that time reigning over the Mannai, refused to listen to the suggestions of his neighbour, but two of his towns, Shuandakhul and Durdukka, deserted him in 719 B.C., and ranged themselves under Mitātti, chief of the Zikartu, while about the same time the strongholds of Sukkia, Bala, and Abitikna, which were on the borders of Urartu, broke the ties which had long bound them to Assyria, and concluded a treaty of alliance with Rusas. Sargon was not deceived as to the meaning of these events, and at once realised that this movement was not one of those local agitations which broke out at intervals in one or other of his provinces. His officers and spies must have kept him informed of the machinations of Eusas and of the revolutions which the migrations of the last thirty years had provoked among the peoples of the Iranian table-land. A new race had arisen in their rear, that of the Cimmerians and Scythians, which, issuing in irresistible waves from the gorges of the Caucasus, threatened to overwhelm the whole ancient world of the East. The stream, after a moment’s vacillation, took a westerly direction, and flooded Asia Minor from one end to the other. Some tribes, however, which had detached themselves from the main movement sought an outlet towards the south-east, on to the rich plains of the Araxes and the country around Lake Urumiah. The native races, pressed in the rear by these barbarians, and hemmed in on either side and in front by Urartu and Assyria, were forced into closer proximity, and, conscious of their individual weakness, had begun to form themselves into three distinct groups, varying considerably in compactness,—the Medes in the south, Misianda in the north, with Zikartu between them. Zikartu was at that time the best organised of these nascent states, and its king, Mitātti, was not deficient either in military talent or political sagacity. The people over whom he ruled were, moreover, impregnated with the civilisation of Mesopotamia, and by constantly meeting the Assyrians in battle they had adopted the general principles of their equipment, organisation, and military tactics. The vigour of his soldiers and the warlike ardour which inspired them rendered his armies formidable even to leaders as experienced, and warriors as hardened, as the officers and soldiers of Nineveh. Mitātti had strongly garrisoned the two rebel cities, and trusted that if the Assyrians were unable to recapture them without delay, other towns would not be long in following their example; Iranzu would, no doubt, be expelled, his place would be taken by a hostile chief, and the Mannai, joining hands with Urartu on the right and Zikartu on the left, would, with these two states, form a compact coalition, whose combined forces would menace the northern frontier of the empire from the Zagros to the Taurus.

Sargon, putting all the available Assyrian forces into the field, hurled them against the rebels, and this display of power had the desired effect upon the neighbouring kingdoms: Busas and Mitātti did not dare to interfere, the two cities were taken by assault, burnt and razed to the ground, and the inhabitants of the surrounding districts of Sukkia, Bala, and Abitikna were driven into exile among the Khāti. The next year, however, the war thus checked on the Iranian table-land broke out in the north-west, in the mountains of Cilicia. A Tabal chief, Kiakku of Shinukhta, refused to pay his tribute (718). Sargon seized him and destroyed his city; his family and adherents, 7500 persons in all, were carried away captives to Assyria, and his principality was given to a rival chief, Mattī of Atuna, on a promise from the latter of an increased amount of tribute.*

         * The name of Atuna is a variant of the name Tuna, which is
         found in the inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser III., and Tuna
         recalls the name of the old city of Tyana, or that of Tynna
         or Tunna, near Tyana, in the Taurus. Shinukhta, not far from
         Atuna, must be the capital of a district situated on the
         Karmalas or the Saros, on the borders of Cilicia or
         Cataonia.

In 717 B.C. more serious dangers openly declared themselves. The Khāti had not forgotten that they had once been the allies of Urartu, and that their king, Pisiris, together with Matīlu of Agusi, had fought for Sharduris against Tiglath-pileser III. Pisiris conspired with Mita, chief of the Mushki, and proclaimed his independence; but vengeance swiftly and surely overtook him. He succumbed before his accomplice had time to come to his assistance, and was sent to join Kiakku and his adherents in prison, while the districts which he had ruled were incorporated into Assyrian territory, and Carchemish became the seat of an Assyrian prefect who ranked among the limmi from whom successive years took their names. The fall of Pisiris made no impression on his contemporaries. They had witnessed the collapse of so many great powers—Elam, Urartu, Egypt—that the misfortunes of so insignificant a personage awakened but little interest; and yet with him foundered one of the most glorious wrecks of the ancient world. For more than a century the Khāti had been the dominant power in North-western Asia, and had successfully withstood the power of Thebes; crushed by the Peoples of the Sea, hemmed in and encroached upon by the rising wave of Aramęan invasion, they had yet disputed their territory step by step with the Assyrian generals, and the area over which they spread can be traced by the monuments and inscriptions scattered over Cilicia, Lycaonia, Cappadocia, and Northern Syria as far as the basins of the Orontes and the Litāny. So lasting had proved their influence on all around them, and so fresh was the memory of their greatness, that it would have seemed but natural that their vitality should survive this last blow, and that they should enjoy a prosperous future which should vie with their past. But events proved that their national life was dead, and that no recuperative power remained: as soon as Sargon had overthrown their last prince, their tribes became merged in the general body of Aramęans, and their very name ere long vanished from the pages of history.

Up to this time Eusas had not directly interfered in these quarrels between the suzerain and his vassals: he may have incited the latter to revolt, but he had avoided compromising himself, and was waiting till the Mannai had decided to make common cause with him before showing his hand openly. Ever since the skirmish of the year 719, Mitātti had actively striven to tempt the Mannai from their allegiance, but his intrigues had hitherto proved of no avail against the staunch fidelity first of Irānzu and then of Azā, who had succeeded the latter about 718. At the beginning of the year 716 Mitātti was more successful; the Mannai, seduced at length by his promises and those of Eusas, assembled on Mount Uaush, murdered their king, and leaving his corpse unburied, hastened to place themselves under the command of Bagadatti, regent of Umildīsh. Sargon hurried to the spot, seized Bagadatti, and had him flayed alive on Mount Uaush, which had just witnessed the murder of Azā, and exposed the mass of bleeding flesh before the gaze of the people to demonstrate the fate reserved for his enemies. But though he had acted speedily he was too late, and the fate of their chief, far from discouraging his subjects, confirmed them in their rebellion. They had placed upon the throne Ullusunu, the brother of Azā, and this prince had immediately concluded an alliance with Eusas, Mitātti, and the people of Andia; his example was soon followed by other Eastern chiefs, Assurlī of Karallu and Itti of Allabria, whereupon, as the spirit of revolt spread from one to another, most of the districts lately laid under tribute by Tiglath-pileser took up arms—Niksama, Bītsagbati, Bītkhirmāmi, Kilam-bāfci, Armangu, and even the parts around Kharkhar, and Ellipi, with its reigning sovereign Dalta. The general insurrection dreaded by Sargon, and which Eusas had for five years been fomenting, had, despite all the efforts of the Assyrian government, at last broken out, and the whole frontier was ablaze from the borders of Elam to those of the Mushku. Sargon turned his attention to where danger was most urgent; he made a descent on the territory of the Mannai, and laid it waste “as a swarm of locusts might have done;” he burnt their capital, Izirtu, demolished the fortifications of Zibia and Armaīd, and took Ullusunu captive, but, instead of condemning him to death, he restored to him his liberty and his crown on condition of his paying a regular tribute. This act of clemency, in contrast with the pitiless severity shown at the beginning of the insurrection, instantly produced the good effects he expected: the Mannai laid down their arms and swore allegiance to the conqueror, and their defection broke up the coalition. Sargon did not give the revolted provinces time to recover from the dismay into which his first victories had thrown them, but marched rapidly to the south, and crushed them severally; commencing with Andia, where he took 4200 prisoners with their cattle, he next attacked Zikartu, whose king, Mitātti, took refuge in the mountains and thus escaped death at the hands of the executioner. Assurlī of Karalla had a similar fate to Bagadatti, and was flayed alive. Itti of Allabria, with half of his subjects, was carried away to Hamath. The towns of Niksama and Shurgadia were annexed to the province of Parsuash. The town of Kishīsim was reduced to ashes, and its king, Belsharuzur, together with the treasures of his palace, was carried away to Nineveh. Kharkhar succumbed after a short siege, received a new population, and was henceforward known as Kar-Sharrukīn; Dalta was restored to favour, and retained his dominion intact. Never had so great a danger been so ably or so courageously averted. It was not without good reason that, after his victory over the Mannai, Sargon, instead of attacking Busas, the most obstinate of his foes, turned against the Medes. Bllipi, Parsuash, and Kharkhar, comprising half the countries which had joined in the insurrection, were on the borders of Elam or had frequent relations with that state, and it is impossible to conjecture what turn affairs might have taken had Elam been induced to join their league, and had the Elamite armies, in conjunction with those of Merodach-baladan, unexpectedly fallen upon the Assyrian rear by the valleys of the Tigris or the Turnāt.

         Drawn by Faucher-Gudin, from the facsimile by Plandin. The
         figures resembling stags’ horns, which crown three of the
         upper towers, are tongues of flame, as was indicated by the
         red colouring which still remained on them when the bas-
         relief was discovered.

Had the Elamites, however, entertained a desire to mingle in the fray, the promptness with which Sargon had re-established order must have given them cause to reflect and induced them to maintain their neutrality. The year which had opened so inauspiciously thus ended in victory, though the situation was still fraught with danger. The agitation which had originated in the east and northeast in 716 reached the north-west in 715, and spread as far as the borders of Southern Syria. Rusas had employed the winter in secret negotiations with the Mannai, and had won over one of their principal chiefs, a certain Dayaukku, whose name seems to be identical with that which the Greeks transliterated as Deiokes.*

         * The identity of the name Dayaukku with that of Deiokes is
         admitted by all historians.

As soon as spring had returned he entered the territory of Ullusunu, and occupied twenty-two strongholds, which were probably betrayed into his hands by Dayaukku. While this was taking place Mita of Mushki invaded Cilicia, and the Arab tribes of the Idumsean desert—the Thamudites, the Ibadites, the Marsimanu, and Khayapā—were emboldened to carry their marauding expeditions into Assyrian territory. The Assyrian monarch was thus called on to conduct three distinct wars simultaneously in three different directions; he was, moreover, surrounded by wavering subjects whom terror alone held to their allegiance, and whom the slightest imprudence or the least reverse might turn into open foes.

    Drawn by Faucher-Gudin, from the
    facsimile by Flandin. The tongues
    of flame which issue from the towers
    still bore traces of red and yellow
    colouring when the bas-relief was
    discovered.

Sargon resolutely faced the enemy at all three points of attack. As in the previous year, he reserved for himself the position where danger was most threatening, directing the operations against the Mannai. He captured one by one the twenty-two strongholds of Ullusunu which Rusas had seized, and laying hands on Dayaukku, sent him and his family into exile to Hamath. This display of energy determined Ianzu of Naīri to receive the Assyrian monarch courteously within the royal residence of Khubushkia and to supply him with horses, cattle, sheep, and goats in token of homage. Proceeding from thence in an oblique direction, Sargon reached Andia and took prisoner its king Tilusīnas. Having by this exploit reduced the province of Mannai to order, he restored the twenty-two towns to Ullusunu, and halting some days in Izirtu, erected there a statue of himself, according to his custom, as a visible witness of Assyrian supremacy, having done which, he retraced his steps to the south-east. The province of Kharkhar, which had been reduced to subjection only a few months previously, was already in open revolt, and the district of Kar-Sharrukīn alone remained faithful to its governor: Sargon had to reconquer it completely, town by town, imposing on the four citadels of Kishislu, Kindāu, Bīt-Bagaiā, and Zaria the new names of Kar-Nabu, Kar-Sin, Kar-Rammānu, and Kar-Ishtar, besides increasing the fortifications of Kar-Sharrukīn. The Medes once more acknowledged his suzerainty, and twenty-two of their chiefs came to tender the oath of allegiance at his feet; two or three districts which remained insubordinate were given up to pillage as far as Bīt-Khambān, and the inhabitants of Kimirra were sent into captivity. The eastern campaign was thus brought to a most successful issue, fortune, meanwhile, having also favoured the Assyrian arms in the other menaced quarters. Mita, after pushing forward at one point as far as the Mediterranean, had been driven back into the mountains by the prefect of Kuī, and the Bedāwin of the south had sustained a serious reverse.

These latter were mere barbarians, ignorant of the arts of reading and writing, and hitherto unconquered by any foreign power: their survivors were removed to Samaria, where captives from Hamath had already been established, and where they were soon joined by further exiles from Babylon.

This episode had greater effect than its importance warranted; or perhaps the majority of the neighbouring states made it a convenient pretext for congratulating Sargon on his victories over more serious enemies. He received gifts from Shamshiź, the Arabian queen who had formerly fought against Tiglath-pileser, from Itamar the Saboan, and the sheikhs of the desert, from the kings of the Mediterranean sea-board, and from the Pharaoh himself. Bocchoris had died after a troublous reign of seven years.*

         * The two dynasties of Tanis and Sais may be for the present
         reconstituted as follows:—

His real character is unknown, but as he left a deep impression on the memories of his people, it is natural to conclude that he displayed, at times, both ability and energy. Many legends in which the miraculous element prevailed were soon in circulation concerning him. He was, according to these accounts, weak in body and insignificant in appearance, but made up for these defects by mental ability and sound judgment. He was credited with having been simple in his mode of life, and was renowned as one of the six great legislators produced by Egypt. A law concerning debt and the legal rates of interest, was attributed to him; he was also famed for the uprightness of his judgments, which were regarded as due to divine inspiration. Isis had bestowed on him a serpent, which, coiling itself round his head when he sat on the judgment-seat, covered him with its shadow, and admonished him not to forget for a moment the inflexible principles of equity and truth.

Neither Tafnakhti nor any of the local sovereigns mentioned on the stele of Piōnkhi wore comprised in the official computation; there is, therefore, no reason to add them to this list.

A collection of the decisions he was reputed to have delivered in famous cases existed in the Gręco-Roman period, and one of them is quoted at length: he had very ingeniously condemned a courtesan to touch the shadow of a purse as payment for the shadowy favours she had bestowed in a dream on her lover.

         Drawn by Faucher-Gudin.

An Alexandrian poet, Pancrates, versified the accounts of this juridical collection,* and the artists of the Imperial epoch drew from it motives for mural decoration; they portrayed the king pronouncing judgment between two mothers who disputed possession of an infant, between two beggars laying claim to the same cloak, and between three men asserting each of them his right to a wallet full of food.**

         * Pancrates lived in the time of Hadrian, and Athenęus, who
         has preserved his memory for us, quotes the first book of
         his Bocchoreidion.

         ** Considerable remains of this decorative cycle have been
         discovered at Pompeii and at Rome, in a series of frescoes,
         in which Lumbroso and E. Lowy recognise the features of the
         legends of Bocchoris; the dispute between the two mothers
         recalls the famous judgment of Solomon (1 Kings iii. 16-28).

A less favourable tradition represents the king as an avaricious and irreligious sovereign: he is said one day to have conceived the sacrilegious desire to bring about a conflict between an ordinary bull and the Mnevis adored at Heliopolis. The gods, doubtless angered by his crimes, are recorded to have called into being a lamb with eight feet, which, suddenly breaking into articulate speech, predicted that Upper and Lower Egypt would be disgraced by the rule of a stranger.*

         * This legend, preserved by Manetho and Ulian is also known
         from the fragments of a demotic papyrus at Vienna, which
         contains the prophecy of the lamb.

    Drawn by Faucher-Gudin,
    from Lepsius.

The monuments of his reign which have come down to us tell us nothing of his deeds; we can only conjecture that after the defeat sustained by his generals at Raphia, the discords which had ruined the preceding dynasties again broke out with renewed violence. Indeed, if he succeeded in preserving his crown for several years longer, he owed the fact more to the feebleness of the Ethiopians than to his own vigour: no sooner did an enterprising prince appear at Barkal and demand that he should render an account of his usurpation, than his power came to an end. Kashto having died about 716,* his son Shabaku, the Sabaco of the Greeks, inherited the throne, and his daughter Amenertas the priesthood and principality of Thebes, in right of her mother Shapenuapīt.

         * The date of the accession of Sabaco is here fixed at 716-
         715, because I follow the version of the lists of Manetho,
         which gives twelve years as the reign of that prince; an
         inscription from Hammamāt mentions his twelfth year.

Sabaco was an able and energetic prince, who could by no means tolerate the presence of a rival Pharaoh in the provinces which Piōnkhi had conquered. He declared war, and, being doubtless supported in his undertaking by all the petty kings and great feudal nobles whose jealousy was aroused by the unlooked-for prosperity of the Saite monarch, he defeated Bocchoris and took him prisoner. Tafnakhti had formerly recognised the Ethiopian supremacy, and Bocchoris, when he succeeded to his father’s dominions, had himself probably sought investiture at the hands of the King of Napata. Sabaco treated him as a rebel, and either burnt or flayed him alive (715).*

         * According to Manetho, he was burnt alive; the tradition
         which mentions that he was flayed alive is found in John of
         Antioch.

The struggle was hardly over, when the news of Sargon’s victories reached Egypt. It was natural that the new king, not yet securely seated on his throne, should desire to conciliate the friendship of a neighbour who was so successful in war, and that he should seize the first available pretext to congratulate him. The Assyrian on his part received these advances with satisfaction and pride: he perceived in them a guarantee that Egyptian intrigues with Tyre and Jerusalem would cease, and that he could henceforth devote himself to his projects against Busas without being distracted by the fear of an Ethiopian attack and the subversion of Syria in his rear.

    Drawn by Faucher-Gudin,
    from the drawing by Botta.

Sargon took advantage of these circumstances to strike a final blow at Urartu. He began in the spring of 714 by collecting among the Mannai the tribute due from Ullusuna, Daltā, and the Median chiefs; then pushing forward into the country of the Zikartu, he destroyed three forts and twenty-four villages, and burnt their capital, Parda. Mitatti escaped servitude, but it was at the price of his power: a proscribed fugitive, deserted by his followers, he took refuge in the woods, and never submitted to his conqueror; but he troubled him no further, and disappeared from the pages of history. Having achieved this result, Sargon turned towards the north-west, and coming at length into close conflict with Eusas, did not leave his enemy till he had crushed him. He drove him into the gorges of Uaush, slaughtered a large number of his troops, and swept away the whole of his body-guard—a body of cavalry of two hundred men, all of whom were connected by blood with the reigning family. Eusas quitted his chariot, and, like his father Sharduris on the night of the disaster at Kishtān, leaped upon a mare, and fled, overwhelmed with shame, into the mountains. His towns, terror-stricken, opened their gates at the first summons to the victor; Sargon burnt those which he knew he could not retain, granted the district of Uaush to his vassal Ullusunu as a recompense for his loyalty, and then marched up to rest awhile in Naīri, where he revictualled his troops at the expense of Ianzu of Khubushkia. He had, no doubt, hoped that Urzana of Muzazīr, the last of the friends of Eusas to hold out against Assyria, would make good use of the respite thus, to all appearances unintentionally, afforded him, and would come to terms; but as the appeal to his clemency was delayed, Sargon suddenly determined to assume the aggressive. Muzazīr, entrenched within its mountain ranges, was accessible only by one or two dangerous passes; Urzana had barricaded these, and believed himself in a position to defy every effort of the Assyrians. Sargon, equally convinced of the futility of a front attack, had recourse to a surprise.

    Drawn by Faucher-Gudin,
    from an impression of
    the original seal which
    is preserved at the Hague.

Taking with him his chariots and one thousand picked horsemen, he left the beaten track, and crossing the four or five mountain chains—the Shiak, the Ardinshi, the Ulayau, and the Alluria—which lay between him and Muzazīr, he unexpectedly bore down upon the city. Urzana escaped after a desperate resistance, but the place was taken by assault and sacked, the palace destroyed, the temple overthrown, and the statues of the gods Khaldīa and Bagbartu dragged from their sanctuary. The entire royal family were sent into slavery, and with them 20,170 of the inhabitants who had survived the siege, besides 690 mules, 920 oxen, 100,225 sheep, and incalculable spoils in gold, silver, bronze, iron, and precious stones and stuffs, the furniture of Urzana, and even his seal, being deposited in the treasury at Nineveh.

The disaster at Muzazīr was the final blow to Urartu; it is impossible to say what took place where Eusas himself was, and whether the feudatories refused him any further allegiance, but in a short time he found himself almost forsaken, without friends, troops, or a place of refuge, and reduced to choose between death or the degradation of appealing to the mercy of the conqueror. He stabbed himself rather than yield; and Sargon, only too thankful to be rid of such a dangerous adversary, stopped the pursuit. Argistis II. succeeded to what was left of his father’s kingdom,* and, being anxious above all things to obtain peace for his subjects, suspended hostilities, without however disarming his troops.

         * No text states positively that Argistis II. immediately
         succeeded his father; but he is found mentioned as King of
         Urartu from 708 onwards, and hence it has been concluded,
         not without some reason, that such was the fact. The Vannic
         inscriptions have not as yet given us this sovereign’s name.

    Drawn by Faucher-Gudin, from the
    facsimile by Flandin. It seems that
    this town was called Amkaru, and its name
    appears, as far as I know, in none of
    the accounts which we possess of the
    campaigns. The town was apparently situated
    in Karalla or in Median territory.

As was the case under Tiglath-pileser III., Urartu neither submitted to Assyria, nor was there any kind of treaty between the belligerents to prescribe the conditions of this temporary truce. Both sides maintained their positions on their respective territories: Sargon kept the frontier towns acquired by him in previous years, and which he had annexed to the border provinces, retaining also his suzerainty over Muzazīr, the Mannai, and the Median states implicated in the struggle; Argistis, on his side, strengthened himself in the regions around the sources of the Euphrates and Lake Van—in Biaīnas, in Etius, and in the plains of the Araxes. The material injuries which he had received, however considerable they may appear, were not irreparable, and, as a fact, the country quickly recovered from them, but the people’s confidence in their prince and his chiefs was destroyed. The defeat of Sharduris, following as it did on a period of advantageous victories, may have seemed to Argistis one of those unimportant occurrences which constantly take place in the career of the strongest nations; the disaster of Rusas proved to him that, in attempting to wipe out his first repulse, he had only made matters worse, and the conviction was borne in upon his princes that they were not in a position to contest the possession of Western Asia with the Assyrians. They therefore renounced, more from instinct than as the result of deliberation, the project of enlarging their borders to the south, and if they subsequently reappeared on the Mesopotamian plains, it was in search of booty, and not to acquire territory. Any attempt to stop their incursions, or to disturb them in their mountain fastnesses, found them prepared to hold their own with the same obstinacy as of old, and they were quite able to safeguard their independence against an intruder. Besides this, the Cimmerians and the Scythians were already pressing on their frontier, and were constantly harassing them.

This fresh danger absorbed their entire attention, and from this time forward they ceased to play a part in general history; the century which had seen the rise and growth of their power was also a witness of their downfall under the attacks of Assyria. During the last months of 714, the tribes which had formerly constituted the kingdom of Karalla mutinied against the tyranny of their governor, and invited Ami-tashshi, the brother of their ancient lord Assurlī, to rule over them. Sargon attacked them in the spring of 713, dispersed their troops, held them to ransom, and after having once more exacted homage from Bīt-Dayaukku,* Ellipi, and Allabria.

         * The Dayaukku who gave his name to this province was at
         first confounded with the personage who was entangled in the
         affairs of Ullusunu, and was then banished by Sargon to
         Hamath. A good number of historians now admit that they were
         different persons. Bīt-Dayaukku is evidently the district of
         Ecbatana.

He made a raid extending as far as the confines of the Iranian desert, the barren steppes of Eastern Arabia,* and the district of Nagira belonging to the “powerful” Manda.*

         * The Eastern Arabs mentioned here were nomadic, and
         inhabited the confines of the Great Desert to the south-east
         of Media, or the steppes of Northern Iran. They are those
         mentioned in a passage of Appian, together with Parthians,
         Bactrians, and Tapyręans, as having submitted to Seleucus.

         ** The “powerful” Manda, encamped in the mountain and
         desert, and who were named after the Eastern Arabs, must be
         the peoples situated between the Caspian and the steppes of
         the Iranian plateau, and a branch of the Scythians who are
         soon to appear in Asiatic history.

While he was thus preparing the way for peace in his Median domains, one of his generals crossed the Euphrates to chastise the Tabal for their ill deeds. The latter had figured, about the year 740 B.C., among the peoples who had bowed before the supremacy of Urartu, and their chief, Uassarmi, had been the ally or vassal of Sharduris. Contemptuously spared at the taking of Arpad, he had not been able to resign himself to the Assyrian yoke, and had, in an ill-timed moment, thrown it off in 731; he had, however, been overcome and forced to surrender, and Tiglath-pileser had put in his place a man of obscure birth, named Khulli, whose fidelity had remained unshaken throughout the reign of Shalmaneser V. and the first years of Sargon. Khulli’s son, Ambaridis, the husband of a Ninevite princess, who had brought him as dowry a considerable part of Cilicia, had been unable to resist the flattering offers of Kusas; he had broken the ties which attached him to the new Assyrian dynasty, but had been left unmolested so long as Urartu and Muzazir remained unshaken, since his position at the western extremity of the empire prevented him from influencing in the smallest degree the issue of the struggle, and it was well known that when the fall of Kusas took place Ambaridis would be speedily brought to account. He was, in fact, seized, banished to the banks of the Tigris, and his hereditary fief of Bīt-Burutash annexed to Cilicia, under the rule of an Assyrian. The following year was signalised by a similar execution at which Sargon himself deigned to preside in person. Tarkhunazi, the King of Miliddu, not only had taken advantage of the troubles consequent on the Armenian war to rebel against his master, but had attacked Gunzinānu, who held, and had ruthlessly pillaged, the neighbouring district of Kammanu.* Sargon overcame him in the open field, took from him his city of Miliddu, and stormed the town of Tulgarimmź in which he had taken refuge.**

         * Kammanu is probably not the Kammanźnc of the Greek
         geographers, which is too far north relatively to Melitźnč,
         but is probably Comana of Cappadocia and its district.

         ** Tulgarimmź has been connected with the Togarmah of the
         Bible (Gen. x. 3) by Halévy and Delitzsch, and their views
         on this subject have been adopted by most historians.

Here again the native kingdom disappeared, and was replaced by an Assyrian administration. Kammanu, wedged in between Urartu and Mushki, separated these two countries, sometimes rivals to each other, but always enemies to Nineveh. Its maintenance as an independent kingdom prevented them from combining their efforts, and obtaining that unity of action which alone could ensure for them, if not a definite triumph, at least preservation from complete extinction and an opportunity of maintaining their liberty; the importance of the position, however, rendered it particularly perilous to hold, and the Assyrians succeeded in so doing only by strongly fortifying it. Walls were built round ten cities, five on the Urartian frontier, three on that of Mushki, and two on the north, and the country which they protected was made into a new province, that of Tulgarimmź, the district of Miliddu being confided to the care of Mutallu, Prince of Kummukh (710). An incident which took place in the following year furnished a pretext for completing the organisation and military defence of this western border province. Gurgum had been for thirty years or more in the possession of Tarkhulara; this prince, after having served Sharduris, had transferred his homage to Tiglath-pileser, and he had thenceforward professed an unwavering loyalty to the Assyrian sovereigns. This accommodating personage was assassinated by his son Mutallu; and Sargon, fearing a revolt, hastened, at the head of a detachment of picked troops, to avenge him. The murderer threw down his arms almost without having struck a blow, and Gurgum was thenceforward placed under the direct rule of Nineveh. The affair had not been brought to a close before an outbreak took place in Southern Syria, which might have entailed very serious consequences had it not been promptly dealt with. Egypt, united from end to end under the sceptre of Sabaco, jealously kept watch over the political complications in Asia, and though perhaps she was not sure enough of her own strength to interfere openly before the death of Eusas, she had renewed negotiations with the petty kingdoms of the Hebrews and Philistines. Ashdod had for some time past showed signs of discontent, and it had been found necessary to replace their king, Azuri, who had refused to pay tribute, by his brother Akhimiti; shortly after this, however, the people had risen in rebellion: they had massacred Akhimiti, whom they accused of being a mere thrall of Assyria, and had placed on the throne Yamani, a soldier of fortune, probably an adventurer of Hellenic extraction.* The other Philistine cities had immediately taken up arms; Edom and Moab were influenced by the general movement, and Isaiah was striving to avert any imprudent step on the part of Judah. Sargon despatched the Tartan,** and the rapidity with which that officer carried out the campaign prevented the movement from spreading beyond Philistia. He devastated Ashdod, and its vassal, Gath, carried off their gods and their inhabitants, and peopled the cities afresh with prisoners from Asia Minor, Urartu, and Media. Yamani attempted to escape into Egypt, but the chief of Milukhkha intercepted him on his way, and handed him over in chains to the conqueror.***

         * This prince’s name, usually written Yamani, is also
         written Yatnani in the Annals, and this variation, which
         is found again in the name of the island of Cyprus and the
         Cypriotes, gives us grounds for believing that the Assyrian
         scribe took the race-name of the prince for a proper name:
         the new king of Ashdod would have been a Yamani, a Greek of
         Cyprus.

         ** The Assyrian narratives, as usual, give the honour of
         conducting the campaign to the king. Isaiah (xx. 1)
         distinctly says that Sargon sent the Tartan to quell the
         revolt of Ashdod.

         *** The Annals state that Yamani was made prisoner and
         taken to Assyria. The Fastes, more accurate on this point,
         state that he escaped to Muzri, and that he was given up by
         the King of Milukhkha. The Muzri mentioned in this passage
         very probably here means Egypt.

The latter took care not to call either Moab, Edom, or Judah to account for the part they had taken in the movement, perhaps because they were not mentioned in his instructions, or because he preferred not to furnish them, by an untimely interference, with a pretext for calling in the help of Egypt. The year was doubtless too far advanced to allow him to dream of marching against Pharaoh, and moreover that would have been one of those important steps which the king alone had the right to take. There was, however, no doubt that the encounter between the two empires was imminent, and Isaiah ventured to predict the precise date of its occurrence. He walked stripped and barefoot through the streets of Jerusalem—a strange procedure which he explained by the words which Jahveh had put into his lips: “Like as My servant Isaiah hath walked naked and barefoot three years for a sign and a wonder upon Egypt and upon Kush (Ethiopia); so shall the King of Assyria lead away the captives of Egypt and the exiles of Kush, young and old, naked and barefoot, and with buttocks uncovered, to the shame of Egypt. And they shall be dismayed and ashamed, because of Kush their expectation, and of Egypt their glory. And the inhabitants of this coastland shall say in that day, Behold, such is our expectation, whither we fled for help to be delivered from the King of Assyria: and we, how shall we escape?” *

         * Isa. xx.

The fulfilment of this prophecy did not take place as quickly as the prophet perhaps desired. Egypt appeared too strong to be openly attacked by a mere section of the battalions at the disposal of Assyria, and besides, it may have been deemed imprudent to involve the army to any serious extent on so distant a field as Africa, when Babylon was ready and waiting to fall upon the very heart of Assyria at the first news of a real or supposed reverse. Circumstances seemed, moreover, to favour a war against Merodach-baladan. This sovereign, who had been received with acclamation by the Babylonians, had already lost the popularity he had enjoyed at his accession. The fickle character of the people, which made them nearly always welcome a fresh master with enthusiasm, soon led them from love and obedience to hatred, and finally to revolt. Merodach-baladan trusted to the Kaldā to help him to maintain his position, and their rude barbarity, even if it protected him against the fickleness of his more civilised subjects, increased the discontent at Kutha, Sippar, and Borsippa. He removed the statues of the gods from these towns, imprisoned the most turbulent citizens, confiscated their goods, and distributed them among his own followers; the other cities took no part in the movement, but Sargon must have expected to find in them, if not effective support, at least sympathies which would facilitate his work of conquest. It is true that Elam, whose friendship for the Aramęan was still undiminished, remained to be reckoned with, but Elam had lost much of its prestige in the last few years. The aged Khumban-igash had died in 717,* and his successor, Shutruk-nakhunta, had not apparently inherited all the energy of his father,** and it is possible that troubles had arisen among the vassals of his own kingdom which prevented him from interfering on behalf of his ally. Sargon took account of all these circumstances in arranging his plan of campaign. He divided his army into two forces, one of which, under his own command, was to be directed against Merodach-baladan, while the other was to attack the insurgent Aramęans on the left bank of the Tigris, and was to be manoeuvred so as to drive Shutruk-nakhunta back on the marshes of the Uknu.*** The eastern force was the first to be set in movement, and it pushed forward into the territory of the Gambulu. These latter had concentrated themselves round Dur-Atkharas, one of their citadels;**** they had increased the height of the walls, and filled the ditches with water brought from the Shurappu by means of a canal, and having received a reinforcement of 600 horsemen and 4000 foot soldiers, they had drawn them up in front of the ramparts.

         * The date of the death of Khumban-igash is indirectly given
         in the passage of the Babylonian Chronicle of Pinches,
         where it is said that in the first year of Ashshur-nādin-
         shumu, King of Babylon, Ishtar-khundu (= Shutruk-nakhunta)
         was dethroned by his brother, Khallushu, after having
         reigned over Elam eighteen years: these events actually took
         place, as we shall see below, about the year 699 before our
         era.

         ** Shutruk-nakhunta is the Susian form of the name; the
         Assyrian texts distort it into Shutur-nankhundi, and the
         Babylonian Chronicle of Pinches, into Ishtar-khundu, owing
         to a faint resemblance in the sound of the name of the
         goddess Ishtar with the form Shutur, Sthur, itself derived
         from Shutruk, with which the name began.

         *** The earlier historians of Assyria, misled in the first
         place by the form in which the scribes have handed down the
         account in the Annals and the Fastes, assumed the
         existence of a single army, led by Sargon himself, and which
         would have marched on all the above-mentioned places of the
         country, one by one. Tiele was the first to recognise that
         Sargon must have left part of his forces to the command of
         one of his lieutenants, and Winckler, enlarging on this
         idea, showed that there were then two armies, engaged at
         different seats of war, but manoeuvring as far as possible
         by mutual arrangement.

         **** The site of Dur-Atkharas is unknown. Billerbeck places
         it hypotheti-cally on the stream of Mendeli, and his
         conjecture is in itself very plausible. I should incline,
         however, to place it more to the south, on account of the
         passage in which it is said that the Kaldā, to complete the
         defences of the town, brought a canal from the Shurappu and
         fortified its banks. The Shurappu, according to Delitzsch,
         would be the Shatt Umm-el-Jemāl; according to Delattrc, the
         Kerkha; the account of the campaign under consideration
         would lead me to recognise in it a watercourse like the Tib,
         which runs into the Tigris near Amara, in which case the
         ruins of Kherīb would perhaps correspond with the site of
         Dur-Atkharas.

A single morning sufficed to disperse them, and the Assyrians, entering the city with the fugitives, took possession of it on the same day. They made 16,490 prisoners, and seized horses, mules, asses, camels, and both sheep and oxen in large numbers. Eight of the chiefs of the neighbourhood, who ruled over the flat country between the Shurappu and the Uknu, begged for mercy as soon as they learned the result of the engagement. The name of Dur-Atkharas was changed to that of Dur-Nebo, the territory of the Gambulu was converted into a province, and its organisation having been completed, the army continued its march, sweeping before it the Euā, the Khindaru, the Puqudu, in short, all the tribes occupying the district of Yatbur. The chiefs of these provinces sought refuge in the morasses of the lower Kerkha, but finding themselves surrounded and short of provisions, they were forced by famine to yield to the enemy, and came to terms with the Assyrians, who imposed a tribute on them and included them within the new province of Gambulu. The goal of this expedition was thus attained, and Blam separated from Karduniash, but the issue of the war remained undecided as long as Shutruk-nakhunta held the cities at the edge of the plain, from which he could emerge at will into the heart of the Assyrian position. The conqueror therefore turned in that direction, rapidly took from him the citadels of Shamuna and Babduri, then those of Lakhirimmu and Pillutu, and pitched his camp on the bank of the Naditi, from whence he despatched marauding bands to pillage the country. Dismay spread throughout the district of Rashi; the inhabitants, abandoning their cities—Tīl-Khumba, Durmishamash, Bubī, and Khamanu—migrated as far as Bīt-Imbi; Shutruk-nakhunta, overcome with fear, took refuge, so it was said, in the distant mountains to preserve his life.*

         * None of these places can be identified with certainty. So
         far as I can follow the account of this campaign on the map,
         it seems that the attacks upon Shutruk-nakhunta took place
         on the plain and in the mountains between the Ab-ī-Gengir
         and the Tib, so that the river Naditi would be the Aftāh or
         one of its tributaries. If this were so, Lakhirimmu and
         Pillutu would be situated somewhere near the Jughaī ben Ruan
         and the Tope Ghulamen of de Morgan’s map of Elam, Shamuna
         near Zirzir-tźpī, Babdurī near Hosseini-yeh. But I wish it
         to be understood that I do not consider these comparisons as
         more than simple conjectures. Bīt-Imbi was certainly out of
         the reach of the Assyrians, since it was used as a place of
         refuge by the inhabitants of Rashī; at the same time it must
         have been close to Rashī, since the people of this country
         fled thither. The site of Ghilān which de Morgan has adopted
         on his map seems to me to be too far north to comply with
         these conditions, and that of Tapa, approved by Billerboek,
         too southerly. If, as I believe, Rashī corresponds to the
         regions of Pushti-kuh which lie on both sides of the upper
         waters of the Mendeli stream, we ought to look for Bīt-Imbi
         somewhere near the Desht-ī-Ghoaur and the Zenjan, near a
         point where communication with the banks of the Ab-ī-Kirind
         would be easy.

Sargon, meanwhile, had crossed the Euphrates with the other force, and had marched straight upon Bīt-Dakkuri; having there noticed that the fortress of Dur-Ladīnu was in ruins, he rebuilt it, and, firmly installed within the heart of the country, he patiently waited until the eastern force had accomplished its mission. Like his adversary, Merodach-baladan, he had no desire to be drawn into an engagement until he knew what chance there was of the latter being reinforced by the King of Elam. At the opening of hostilities Merodach-baladan claimed the help of the Elamite king, and lavished on him magnificent presents—a couch, a throne, a portable chair, a cup for the royal offerings, and his own pectoral chain; these all reached their destination in good condition, and were graciously accepted. But before long the Elamite prince, threatened in his own domain, forgot everything except his own personal safety, and declared himself unable to render Merodach-baladan any assistance. The latter, on receiving this news, threw himself with his face in the dust, rent his clothes, and broke out into loud weeping; after which, conscious that his strength would not permit of his meeting the enemy in the open field, he withdrew his men from the other side of the Tigris, escaped secretly by night, and retired with his troops to the fortress of Ikbībel. The inhabitants of Babylon and Borsippa did not allow themselves to be disconcerted; they brought the arks of Bel, Zarpanīt, Nebo, and Tashmīt out of their sanctuaries, and came forth with chanting and musical instruments to salute Sargon at Dūr-Ladīnu. He entered the city in their company, and after he had celebrated the customary sacrifices, the people enthroned him in Merodach-baladan’s palace. Tribute was offered to him, but he refused to accept any part of it for his personal use, and applied it to a work of public utility—the repairing of the ancient canal of Borsippa, which had become nearly filled up. This done, he detached a body of troops to occupy Sippara, and returned to Assyria, there to take up his winter quarters.

    Drawn by Faucher-
    Gudin, from the
    plaster cast in
    the Louvre.

Once again, therefore, the ancient metropolis of the Euphrates was ruled by an Assyrian, who united in one protocol the titles of the sovereigns of Assur and Kar-duniash. Babylon possessed for the kings of Nineveh the same kind of attraction as at a later date drew the German Cęsars to Rome. Scarcely had the Assyrian monarchs been crowned within their own domains, than they turned their eyes towards Babylon, and their ambition knew no rest till the day came for them to present themselves in pomp within the temple of its god and implore his solemn consecration. When at length they had received it, they scrupulously secured its renewal on every occasion which the law prescribed, and their chroniclers recorded among the important events of the year, the ceremony in which they “took the hand of Bel.” Sargon therefore returned, in the month Nisan of the year 709, to preside over the procession of the god, and he devoutly accomplished the rites which constituted him the legitimate successor of the semi-fabulous heroes of the old empire, foremost among whom was his namesake Shargāni of Agadź. He offered sacrifices to Bel, Nebo, and to the divinities of Sumir and Akkad, and he did not return to the camp until he had fulfilled all the duties incumbent on his new dignity. He was involved that year in two important wars at opposite points of his empire. One was at the north-western extremity, against the Mushki and their king Mita, who, after having supported Eusas, was now intriguing with Argistis; the other in the south-east, against the Kaldā, and probably also against Elam. He entrusted the conduct of the former to the governor of Kuī, but reserved to himself the final reckoning with Merodach-baladan. The Babylonian king had made good use of the respite given him during the winter months. Too prudent to meet his enemy in the open plain, he had transformed his hereditary principality into a formidable citadel. During the preceding campaign he had devastated the whole of the country lying between the marshes and the territory occupied by the Assyrians, and had withdrawn the inhabitants. Most of the towns—Ikbībel, Uru, Uruk, Kishik, and Nimid-laguda—were also deserted, and no garrisons were left in them. He had added to the fortifications of Dur-Yakīa, and enlarged the moat till it was two hundred cubits wide and eighteen deep, so as to reach the level of infiltration; he then turned into it the waters of the Euphrates, so that the town appeared to be floating on a lake, without either bridges or quays by means of which the besiegers might have brought their machines within range and their troops been able to approach for an assault. Merodach-baladan had been careful not to shut himself within the town, but had taken up a position in the marshes, and there awaited the arrival of the Assyrians. Sargon, having left Babylon in the month of Iyyār, encountered him within sight of Dur-Yakīn. The Aramęan infantry were crushed by repeated charges from the Mnevito chariotry and cavalry, who pursued the fugitives to the outer side of the moat, and seized the camp with all its baggage and the royal train, including the king’s tent, a canopy of solid silver which protected the throne, his sceptre, weapons, and stores of all kinds. The peasants, to the number of 90,580, crowded within the lines, also fell into their hands, together with their flocks and herds—2500 horses, 610 mules, and 854 camels, as well as sheep, oxen, and asses; the remainder of the fugitives rushed within the outworks for refuge “like a pack of wild boars,” and finally were driven into the interior of the place, or scattered among the beds of reeds along the coast. Sargon cut down the groves of palm trees which adorned the suburbs, and piled up their trunks in the moat, thus quickly forming a causeway right up to the walls. Merodach-baladan had been wounded in the arm during the engagement, but, nevertheless, fought stubbornly in defence of his city; when he saw that its fall was inevitable, he fled to the other side of the gulf, and took refuge among the mud flats of the Lower Ulaī. Sargon set fire to Dur-Yakīn, levelled its towers and walls with the ground, and demolished its houses, temples, and palaces. It had been a sort of penal settlement, to which the Kaldā rulers used to consign those of their subjects belonging to the old aboriginal race, who had rendered themselves obnoxious by their wealth or independence of character; the number of these prisoners was considerable, Babylon, Borsippa, Nipur, and Sippar, not to speak of Uni, Uruk, Eridu, Larsam, and Kishīk, having all of them furnished their share. Sargon released them all, and restored their gods to the temples; he expelled the nomads from the estates which, contrary to all justice, had been distributed among them in preceding years, and reinstated the former owners. Karduniash, which had been oppressed for twelve long years by a semi-barbarian despot, now breathed again, and hailed Sargon as its deliverer, while he on his part was actively engaged in organising his conquest. The voluntary submission of Upiri, King of Dilmun, who lived isolated in the open sea, “as though in a bird’s nest,” secured to Sargon possession of the watercourses which flowed beyond the Chaldęan lake into the Persian Gulf: no sooner had he obtained it than he quitted the neighbourhood of Dur-Yakīn, crossed the Tigris, and reinforced the garrisons which lined his Elamite frontier on this side. He had just finished building a strongly fortified citadel on the site of Sagbat,* when ambassadors arrived from Mita.

         * This Sagbat, which must not be confused with the district
         of Bīt-Sagbati mentioned in the reign of Tiglath-pileser
         III., seems to correspond with a post to the south of
         Durīlu, perhaps the ruins of Baksayeh, on the Tchengula.

The governor of Kuī had at length triumphed over the obstinacy of the Mushki, and after driving them from village to village, had compelled them to sue for terms: the tidings of the victories over the Kaldā had doubtless hastened their decision, but they were still so powerful that it was thought wiser not to impose too rigorous conditions upon them. Mita agreed to pay tribute, and surrendered one or two districts, which were turned into an Aramęan settlement: the inhabitants were transferred to Bīt-Yakīn, where they had to make the best they could of lands that had been devastated by war. At this juncture the Greeks of Cyprus flattered the pride of the Assyrians in a most unexpected way: after the manner of their race they scoured the seas, and their fleets persistently devastated the coasts of Syria and Cilicia.

Seven of their kings were so far alarmed by the report of Sargon’s achievements as to dread punishment for their misdeeds. They therefore sent him presents, and, for the moment, abandoned their piratical expeditions in Phoenician waters. The homage of these inveterate robbers raised Sargon in his own eyes and in those of his subjects. Some years later, about 708 B.C., he presented them with a stele of black marble, on which he had engraved his own portrait, together with a long inscription setting forth his most glorious exploits. They set it up at Kition (Citium), where it has been preserved amongst the ruins, a priceless witness to the greatness of Assyria.

While war thus raged around him, Sargon still found time for works of a peaceful character. He set himself to remodel and complete the system of irrigation in the Assyrian plain; he repaired the dykes, and cleaned out and made good the beds of the canals which had been neglected during the troublous times of the last generation. He erected buildings at Calah* and at Nineveh, but in these cities everything seemed to recall too vividly the memory of the sovereigns who had gone before him: he wished for a capital which should belong to himself alone, where he would not be reminded of a past in which he had no part. After meditating day and night, his choice fell upon the village of Maganubba, a little to the north-east of Nineveh, in a wide plain which extends from the banks of the Khuzur to the hills of Muzri, and by a single decree he expropriated all its inhabitants. He then built on the land which he had purchased from them a city of unrivalled magnificence, which he called by his own name, Dur-Sharrukīn.**

         * At Calah, he lived in an old palace of Assur-nazir-pal
         restored and adapted for his use, as shown by the
         inscription published by Layard.

         ** In most of the texts the village of Maganubba is not
         named; it is mentioned in the Cylinder Inscription, and
         this document is the only one which furnishes details of the
         expropriation, etc. The modern name of the place is
         Khorsabad, the city of Khosroes, but the name of its
         founder was still associated with its ruins, in the time of
         Yakut, who mentions him under the name of Sarghun. It was
         first explored in 1843 by Botta, then by Place and Oppert.
         The antiquities collected there by Botta and Place
         constitute the bulk of the Assyrian Museum in the Louvre;
         unfortunately, a part of the objects collected by Place went
         to the bottom of the Tigris with the lighter which was
         carrying them.

The ground plan of it is of rectangular shape, the sides being about 1900 yards long by 1800 yards wide, each corner exactly facing one of the four points of the compass. Its walls rest on a limestone sub-structure some three feet six inches high, and rise fifty-seven feet above the ground; they are strengthened, every thirty yards or so, by battlemented towers which project thirteen feet from the face of the wall and stand sixteen feet higher than the ramparts.*

         * Place reckoned the height of the wall at 75 feet, a
         measurement adopted by Perrot and Chipiez; Dieulafoy has
         shown that the height of the wall must be reduced to 47
         feet, and that of the towers about 65 feet.

         Reduction by Faucher-Gudin, from the plan published in
         Place.

Access was gained to the interior by eight gates, two on each side of the square, each of them marked by two towers separated from one another by the width of the bay. Every gate had its patron, chosen from among the gods of the city; there was the gate of Shamash, the gate of Rammān, those of Bel and Beltis, of Ami, of Tshtar, of Eā, and of the Lady of the Gods. Each of them was protected externally by a migdol, or small castle, built in the Syrian style, and flanked at each corner by a low tower thirteen yards in width; five allowed of the passage of beasts as well as men. It was through these that the peasants came in every morning, driving their cattle before them, or jolting along in waggons laden with fruit and vegetables. After passing the outposts, they crossed a paved courtyard, then made their way between the two towers through a vaulted passage over fifty yards long, intersected at almost equal intervals by two transverse galleries. The other three gates had a special arrangement of their own; a flight of twelve steps built out in front of the courtyard rendered them inaccessible to animals or vehicles. At the entrance to the passage towered two colossal bulls with human heads, standing like sentinels—their faces and foreparts turned outward, their hind-quarters ranged along the inner walls—as though gazing before them into space in company with two winged genii. The arch supported by their mitred heads was ornamented by a course of enamelled bricks, on which other genii, facing one another in pairs, offered pine-cones across a circular ornament of many colours. These were the mystic guardians of the city, who shielded it not only from the attacks of men, but also from invasions of evil spirits and pernicious diseases. The rays of the sun made the forecourt warm in winter, while it was always cool under the archway in summer; the gates served as resorts for pleasure or business, where old men and idlers congregated to discuss their affairs and settle the destinies of the State, merchants bargained and disposed of their goods, and the judge and notables of the neighbouring quarter held their courts.

         Drawn by Faucher-Gudin, from a drawing published in Place.

It was here that the king generally exposed to view the chieftains and kings whom he had taken captive; here they lay, chained like dogs in cages, dependent on the pity of their guards or of passers-by for such miserable fare as might be flung to them, and, the first feeling of curiosity once passed, no longer provoking even the jeers of the crowd, until a day came when their victor took it into his head to remove them from their ignominious position, and either restored them to their thrones or sent them to the executioner.* The town itself, being built from plans drawn up by one mind, must have presented few of the irregularities of outline characteristic of ancient cities.

         * To mention but a single instance, it was in this way that
         Assur-bani-pal treated the Arab kings captured by him.

The streets leading from the gates were of uniform breadth throughout, from one side of the enclosure to the other. They were paved, had no sideways or footpaths, and crossed one another at right angles. The houses on either side of them seem, for the most part, to have consisted of a single story. They were built of bricks, either baked or unbaked, the outer surfaces of which were covered with white or tinted rough-casting. The high and narrow doors were nearly always hidden away in a corner of the front; the bare monotony of the walls was only relieved here and there at long intervals by tiny windows, but often instead of a flat roof the building was surmounted by a conical dome or by semi-cupolas, the concave sides of which were turned inwards. The inhabitants varied greatly in race and language: Sargon had filled his city with prisoners collected from all the four quarters of his empire, from Elam, Chaldęa, and Media, from Urartu and Tabal, Syria and Palestine, and in order to keep these incongruous elements in check he added a number of Assyrians, of the mercantile, official, or priestly classes. He could overlook the whole city from the palace which he had built on both sides the north-eastern wall of the town, half within and half without the ramparts. Like all palaces built on the Euphratean model, this royal castle stood on an artificial eminence of bricks formed of two rectangles joined together in the shape of the letter T. The only entrance to it was on the city side, foot-passengers being admitted by a double flight of steps built out in front of the ramparts, horsemen and chariots by means of an inclined plane which rose in a gentle gradient along the right flank of the masonry work, and terminated on its eastern front. Two main gates corresponded to these two means of approach; the one on the north-east led straight to the royal apartments, the other faced the city and opened on to the double staircase. It was readily distinguishable from a distance by its two flagstaffs bearing the royal standard, and its two towers, at the base of which were winged bulls and colossal figures of Gilgames crushing the lion.

         Drawn by Boudier, from the restoration by Thomas in Place.

Two bulls of still more monstrous size stood sentry on either side of the gate, the arch was outlined by a course of enamelled bricks, while higher up, immediately beneath the battlements, was an enamelled mosaic showing the king in all his glory. This triumphal arch was reserved for his special use, the common people being admitted by two side doors of smaller size less richly decorated.

         Drawn by Faucher-Gudin, from the restoration by Thomas, in
         Place.

Saragon resided at Caleh, where he had taken up his quarters in the former palace of Assur-nazir-pal, while his new city was still in the hands of the builders. Every moment that he could spare from his military and administrative labours was devoted to hastening on the progress of the work, and whenever he gained a victory or pillaged a district, he invariably set aside a considerable part of the booty in order to meet the outlay which the building involved. Thus we find that on returning from his tenth campaign he brought with him an immense convoy laden with timber, stone, and precious metals which he had collected in the neighbourhood of Mount Taurus or among the mountains of Assyria, including coloured marbles, lapis-lazuli, rock crystal, pine, cedar, and cypress-wood, gold, silver, and bronze, all of which was destined for Dur-Sharrukīn; the quantity of silver included among these materials was so great that its value fell to a level with that of copper.

         Drawn by Faucher-Gudin, from the plan by Thomas, in Place.

The interior of the building, as in the case of the old Chaldęan palaces, was separated into two well-marked divisions. The larger of these was used by the king in his public capacity, and to this the nobles and soldiers, and even the common people, were admitted under certain conditions and on certain days prescribed by custom. The outer court was lined on three sides by warehouses and depots, in which were stored the provisions, commodities, and implements required for the host of courtiers and slaves who depended on the sovereign for support. Each room had, as may still be seen, its own special purpose. There were cellars for wine and oil, with their rows of large oblong jars; then there were store-rooms for implements of iron, which Place found full of rusty helmets, swords, pieces of armour, maces, and ploughshares; a little further on were rooms for the storage of copper weapons, enamelled bricks, and precious metals, and the king’s private treasury, in which were hidden away the spoils of the vanquished or the regular taxes paid by his subjects; some fine bronze lions of marvellous workmanship and lifelike expression were found still shut up here.

         Drawn by Faucher-Gudin, from the original in the Louvre.

The kitchens adjoined the pantries, and the stables for horses and camels communicated direct with the coach-houses in which the state chariots were kept, while the privies were discreetly hidden in a secluded corner. On the other side, among the buildings occupying the southern angle of the courtyard, the menials of the palace lived huddled together, each family quartered in small, dark rooms. The royal apartments, properly so called, stood at the back of these domestic offices, facing the south-east, near the spot where the inclined plane debouched on to the city ramparts. The monumental entrance to these apartments was guarded, in accordance with religious custom, by a company of winged bulls; behind this gate was a lawn, then a second gate, a corridor and a grand quadrangle in the very centre of the palace.

         Drawn by Faucher-Gudin, from a drawing by Flandin, in Botta.

The king occupied a suite of some twenty rooms of a rather simple character; here he slept, ate, worked, and transacted the greater part of his daily business, guarded by his eunuchs and attended by his ministers and secretaries. The remaining rooms were apartments of state, all of the same pattern, in which the crowd of courtiers and employés assembled while waiting for a private audience or to intercept the king as he passed. A subdued light made its way from above through narrow windows let into the massive arches. The walls were lined to a height of over nine feet from the floor with endless bas-reliefs, in greyish alabaster, picked out in bright colours, and illustrating the principal occupations in which the sovereign spent his days, such as the audiences to ambassadors, hunting in the woods, sieges and battles. A few brief inscriptions interspersed above pictures of cities and persons indicated the names of the vanquished chiefs or the scenes of the various events portrayed; detailed descriptions were engraved on the back of the slabs facing the brick wall against which they rested. This was a precautionary measure, the necessity for which had been but too plainly proved by past experience. Every one—the king himself included—well knew that some day or other Dur-Sharrukīn would be forsaken just as the palaces of previous dynasties had been, and it was hoped that inscriptions concealed in this manner would run a better chance of escaping the violence of man or the ravages of time; preserved in them, the memory of Sargon would rise triumphant from the ruins. The gods reigned supreme over the north-east angle of the platform, and a large irregular block of buildings was given up to their priests; their cells contained nothing of any particular interest, merely white walls and black plinths, adorned here and there with frescoes embellished by arabesques, and pictures of animals and symbolical genii. The ziggurāt rose to a height of some 141 feet above the esplanade. It had seven storeys dedicated to the gods of the seven planets, each storey being painted in the special colour of its god—the first white, the second black, the third purple, the fourth blue, the fifth a vermilion red; the sixth was coated with silver, and the seventh gilded. There was no chamber in the centre of the tower, but a small gilded chapel probably stood at its base, which was used for the worship of Assuf or of Ishtar. The harem, or Bīt-riduti, was at the southern corner of the enclosure, almost in the shadow of the ziggurāt. Sargon had probably three queens when he founded his city, for the harem is divided into three separate apartments, of which the two larger look out on the same quadrangle.

         Drawn by Faucher-Gudin, from the restoration by Thomas, in Place.

Two courses of enamelled bricks ran along the base of the faēade, while statues were placed at intervals against the wall, and the bay of the gateway was framed by two bronze palm trees gilt: the palm being the emblem of fruitfulness and grace, no more fitting decoration could have been chosen for this part of the building. The arrangement was the same in all three divisions: an ante-chamber of greater width than length; an apartment, one half of which was open to the sky, while the other was covered by a half-dome, and a flight of twelve steps, leading to an alcove in which stood a high wooden couch. The queens and princesses spent their lives in this prison-like bīt-riduti: their time was taken up with dress, embroidery, needlework, dancing and singing, the monotony of this routine being relieved by endless quarrels, feuds, and intrigues. The male children remained in the harem until the age of puberty, when they left it in order to continue their education as princes and soldiers under the guidance of their father.*

         * An inscription of Assur-bani-pal, gives a summary
         description of the life led in the harem by heirs to the
         throne, and describes generally the kind of education
         received by them from their earliest childhood.

         Drawn by Faucher-Gudin, from the restoration by Thomas, in
         Place.

This group of buildings was completed by a park, in which cedars of Lebanon, pines, cypresses, gazelles, stags, wild asses and cattle, and even lions, were acclimatised, in addition to a heterogeneous collection of other trees and animals. Here, the king gave himself up to the pleasures of the chase, and sometimes invited one or other of his wives to come thither and banquet or drink with him.

After Mita’s surrender, Sargon had hoped to be allowed to finish building his city in peace; but an ill-advised movement in Kummukh obliged him to don his harness again (708 B.C.). King Mutallu had entered into an alliance with Argistis of Urartu, and took the field with his army; but when details of what had taken place in Chaldęa reached his ears, and he learnt the punishment that had been inflicted on the people of Bīt-Yakin, his courage failed him.

         Drawn by Faucher-Gudin, from the restoration by Thomas, in
         Place.

He fled without waiting for the Assyrians to appear, and so great was his haste that he had no time to take his family and treasure with him. Sargon annexed his kingdom, placed it under the government of the tartan, and incorporated into his own the whole army of Kummukh, including 150 chariots, 1500 horsemen, 20,000 archers, and 10,000 pikemen. In the following year (707) his vassal Dalta died, leaving two sons, Nibi and Ishpabara, both of whom claimed possession of the fief of Ellipi; Nibi appealed to Elam for help, and Ishpabara at once turned for aid to Assyria. Sargon sent him a body of troops, commanded by seven of his generals, while Shutruk-nakhunta lent his protégé 4500 bowmen; Ishpabara won the day, took the city of Marubishti by storm, and compelled his brother to take refuge in Susian territory. The affair wras over so quickly that it caused practically no delay in the completion of the works at the capital. The consecration of a new city necessitated the observance of a host of complicated ceremonies, which extended over several months. First of all provision had to be made for its religious worship; the omens were consulted in order to determine which of the gods were to be invoked, and, when this was decided, there followed the installation of the various statues and arks which were to preside over the destinies of the city and the priests to whom they were intrusted; the solemn inauguration took place on the 22nd day of Tisri, in the year 707 B.C., and from that day forward Dur-Sharrukīn occupied the rank officially assigned to it among the capitals of the empire. Sargon, however, did not formally take up his residence within it till six months later, on the 6th day of Iyyār, 706. He must, by this time, have been advancing in years, and even if we assume him to have been a young man when he ascended the throne, after the sixteen years of bodily fatigue and mental worry through which he had passed since coming into power, he must have needed repose. He handed over the government of the northern provinces to his eldest son Sin-akhź-irba, better known to us as Sennacherib, whom he regarded as his successor; to him he transferred the responsibility of keeping watch over the movements of the Mannai, of Urartu, and of the restless barbarians who dwelt beyond the zone of civilised states on the banks of the Halys, or at the foot of the distant Caucasus: a revolt among the Tabal, in 706, was promptly suppressed by his young and energetic deputy. As for Sargon himself, he was content to retain the direct control of the more pacific provinces, such as Babylon, the regions of the Middle Euphrates, and Syria, and he doubtless hoped to enjoy during his later years such tranquillity as was necessary to enable him to place his conquests on a stable basis. The envious fates, however, allowed him but little more than twelve short months: he perished early in 705 B.C., assassinated by some soldier of alien birth, if I interpret rightly the mutilated text which furnishes us with a brief mention of the disaster. Sennacherib was recalled in haste from the frontier, and proclaimed king immediately on his arrival, thus ascending unopposed to the throne on the 12th day of Ab. His father’s body had been left unburied, doubtless in order that he might verify with his own eyes the truth of what had been told him concerning his death, and thus have no ground for harbouring suspicions that would have boded ill for the safety of the late king’s councillors and servants. He looked upon his father’s miserable ending as a punishment for some unknown transgression, and consulted the gods to learn what it was that had aroused their anger, refusing to authorise the burial within the palace until the various expiatory rites suggested by the oracle had been duly performed.*

         * This is my interpretation of the text published and
         translated by Winckler. Winckler sees in it the account of
         a campaign during which Sargon was killed by mountaineers,
         as was Cyprus in later times by the Massagetse; the king’s
         body (according to him) remained unburied, and was recovered
         by Sennacherib only after considerable delay. In support of
         his version of this event Winckler cites the passage in Isa.
         xiv. 4-20, which he takes as having been composed to exult
         over the death of Sargon, and then afterwards adapted to the
         death of a king of Babylon.

Thus mysteriously disappeared the founder of the mightiest dynasty that ever ruled in Assyria, perhaps even in the whole of Western Asia. At first sight, it would seem easy enough to determine what manner of man he was and to what qualities he owed his greatness, thanks to the abundance of documents which his contemporaries have bequeathed to us; but when we come to examine more closely, we soon find the task to be by no means a simple one. The inscriptions maintain so discreet a silence with regard to the antecedents of the kings before their accession, and concerning their education and private life, that at this distance of time we cannot succeed in forming any clear idea as to their individual temperament and character. The monuments record such achievements as they took pride in, in terms of uniform praise which conceal or obliterate the personality of the king in question; it is always the ideal Assyrian sovereign who is held up for our admiration under a score of different names, and if, here and there, we come upon some trait which indicates the special genius of this or that monarch, we may be sure that the scribe has allowed it to slip in by accident, quite unconscious of the fact that he is thus affording us a glimpse of his master’s true character and disposition. A study of Sargon’s campaigns as revealed in his annals will speedily convince us that he was something more than a fearless general, with a keen eye to plunder, who could see nothing in the most successful expedition but a means of enriching his people or adding to the splendours of his court. He was evidently convinced that certain nations, such as Urartu and Elam, would never really assimilate with his own subjects, and, in their case, he adhered strictly to the old system of warfare, and did all he could to bring about their ruin; other nations, on the contrary, he regarded as capable of amalgamation with the Assyrians, and these he did his best to protect from the worst consequences of their rebellion and resistance. He withdrew them from the influence of their native dynasties, and converted their territories into provinces under his own vigilant administration, and though he did not scruple to send the more turbulent elements among them into exile, and did his best to weaken them by founding alien colonies in their midst, yet he respected their religion, customs, and laws, and, in return for their obedience to his rule, guaranteed them an equitable and judicious government. Moreover, he took quite as much interest in their well-being as’ in his own military successes, and in the midst of his heroic struggles against Rusas and Merodach-baladan he contrived to find time for the consideration of such prosaic themes as the cultivation of the vine and of corn; he devoted his attention to the best methods of storing wine, and sought to prevent “oil, which is the life of man and healeth wounds, from rising in price, and the cost of sesame from exceeding that of wheat.” We seem to see in him, not only the stern and at times cruel conqueror, but also the gracious monarch, kind and considerate to his people, and merciful to the vanquished when policy permitted him to indulge his natural leaning to clemency.

END OF VOL. VII.

    End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of History Of Egypt, Chaldęa, Syria,
    Babylonia, and Assyria, Volume 7 (of 12), by G. Maspero

    *** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK HISTORY OF EGYPT, CHALDĘA ***

    ***** This file should be named 17327-h.htm or 17327-h.zip *****
    This and all associated files of various formats will be found in:
            http://www.gutenberg.org/1/7/3/2/17327/

    Produced by David Widger

    Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions
    will be renamed.

    Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no
    one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation
    (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without
    permission and without paying copyright royalties.  Special rules,
    set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to
    copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to
    protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark.  Project
    Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you
    charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission.  If you
    do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the
    rules is very easy.  You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose
    such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and
    research.  They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do
    practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks.  Redistribution is
    subject to the trademark license, especially commercial
    redistribution.

    *** START: FULL LICENSE ***

    THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
    PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK

    To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free
    distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
    (or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project
    Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project
    Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at
    http://gutenberg.net/license).

    Section 1.  General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm
    electronic works

    1.A.  By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm
    electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
    and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
    (trademark/copyright) agreement.  If you do not agree to abide by all
    the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy
    all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession.
    If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project
    Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the
    terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or
    entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.

    1.B.  “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark.  It may only be
    used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
    agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement.  There are a few
    things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works
    even without complying with the full terms of this agreement.  See
    paragraph 1.C below.  There are a lot of things you can do with Project
    Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement
    and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
    works.  See paragraph 1.E below.

    1.C.  The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the Foundation”
     or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project
    Gutenberg-tm electronic works.  Nearly all the individual works in the
    collection are in the public domain in the United States.  If an
    individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are
    located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from
    copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative
    works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg
    are removed.  Of course, we hope that you will support the Project
    Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by
    freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of
    this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with
    the work.  You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by
    keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project
    Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others.

    1.D.  The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
    what you can do with this work.  Copyright laws in most countries are in
    a constant state of change.  If you are outside the United States, check
    the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement
    before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or
    creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project
    Gutenberg-tm work.  The Foundation makes no representations concerning
    the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United
    States.

    1.E.  Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:

    1.E.1.  The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate
    access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently
    whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the
    phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the phrase “Project
    Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed,
    copied or distributed:

    This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
    almost no restrictions whatsoever.  You may copy it, give it away or
    re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
    with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.net

    1.E.2.  If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived
    from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is
    posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied
    and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees
    or charges.  If you are redistributing or providing access to a work
    with the phrase “Project Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the
    work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1
    through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the
    Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or
    1.E.9.

    1.E.3.  If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted
    with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
    must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional
    terms imposed by the copyright holder.  Additional terms will be linked
    to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the
    permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.

    1.E.4.  Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm
    License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
    work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm.

    1.E.5.  Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
    electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
    prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
    active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
    Gutenberg-tm License.

    1.E.6.  You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
    compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any
    word processing or hypertext form.  However, if you provide access to or
    distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than
    “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official version
    posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.net),
    you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a
    copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon
    request, of the work in its original “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other
    form.  Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm
    License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.

    1.E.7.  Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
    performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works
    unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

    1.E.8.  You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
    access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided
    that

    - You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
         the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method
         you already use to calculate your applicable taxes.  The fee is
         owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he
         has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the
         Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.  Royalty payments
         must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you
         prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax
         returns.  Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and
         sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the
         address specified in Section 4, “Information about donations to
         the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.”

    - You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
         you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
         does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm
         License.  You must require such a user to return or
         destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium
         and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of
         Project Gutenberg-tm works.

    - You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any
         money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
         electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days
         of receipt of the work.

    - You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
         distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works.

    1.E.9.  If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm
    electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set
    forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from
    both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael
    Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark.  Contact the
    Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.

    1.F.

    1.F.1.  Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
    effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
    public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm
    collection.  Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
    works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain
    “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or
    corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual
    property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a
    computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by
    your equipment.

    1.F.2.  LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Right
    of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
    Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
    Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
    Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
    liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
    fees.  YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
    LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
    PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH F3.  YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
    TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
    LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
    INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
    DAMAGE.

    1.F.3.  LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
    defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
    receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
    written explanation to the person you received the work from.  If you
    received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with
    your written explanation.  The person or entity that provided you with
    the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a
    refund.  If you received the work electronically, the person or entity
    providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to
    receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund.  If the second copy
    is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further
    opportunities to fix the problem.

    1.F.4.  Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
    in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’ WITH NO OTHER
    WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO
    WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.

    1.F.5.  Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
    warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages.
    If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the
    law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be
    interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by
    the applicable state law.  The invalidity or unenforceability of any
    provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.

    1.F.6.  INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
    trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
    providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance
    with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production,
    promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works,
    harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees,
    that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do
    or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm
    work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any
    Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause.

    Section  2.  Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm

    Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of
    electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers
    including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers.  It exists
    because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from
    people in all walks of life.

    Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
    assistance they need, is critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm’s
    goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will
    remain freely available for generations to come.  In 2001, the Project
    Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
    and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations.
    To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
    and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4
    and the Foundation web page at http://www.pglaf.org.

    Section 3.  Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
    Foundation

    The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit
    501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
    state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
    Revenue Service.  The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification
    number is 64-6221541.  Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at
    http://pglaf.org/fundraising.  Contributions to the Project Gutenberg
    Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent
    permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.

    The Foundation’s principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S.
    Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered
    throughout numerous locations.  Its business office is located at
    809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email
    business@pglaf.org.  Email contact links and up to date contact
    information can be found at the Foundation’s web site and official
    page at http://pglaf.org

    For additional contact information:
         Dr. Gregory B. Newby
         Chief Executive and Director
         gbnewby@pglaf.org

    Section 4.  Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
    Literary Archive Foundation

    Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide
    spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of
    increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
    freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest
    array of equipment including outdated equipment.  Many small donations
    ($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
    status with the IRS.

    The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
    charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
    States.  Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
    considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
    with these requirements.  We do not solicit donations in locations
    where we have not received written confirmation of compliance.  To
    SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any
    particular state visit http://pglaf.org

    While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
    have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
    against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
    approach us with offers to donate.

    International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
    any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
    outside the United States.  U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.

    Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation
    methods and addresses.  Donations are accepted in a number of other
    ways including including checks, online payments and credit card
    donations.  To donate, please visit: http://pglaf.org/donate

    Section 5.  General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
    works.

    Professor Michael S. Hart is the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm
    concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared
    with anyone.  For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project
    Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.

    Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed
    editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S.
    unless a copyright notice is included.  Thus, we do not necessarily
    keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.

    Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility:

         http://www.gutenberg.net

    This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm,
    including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
    Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
    subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.