IX. BABYLONIAN AND ASSYRIAN CULTURE 534…

IX. BABYLONIAN AND ASSYRIAN CULTURE 534

APPENDIX A. CLASSICAL TRADITIONS 571

APPENDIX B. EXCAVATIONS IN MESOPOTAMIA, AND THEIR RESULTS 600

BRIEF REFERENCE-LIST OF AUTHORITIES BY CHAPTERS 627

A GENERAL BIBLIOGRAPHY OF MESOPOTAMIAN HISTORY 629

THE RELATIONS OF BABYLONIA WITH OTHER SEMITIC COUNTRIES

WRITTEN SPECIALLY FOR THE PRESENT WORK

BY JOSEPH HALÉVY

Professor in the Collège de France, Paris

Ingratitude in masses, as in individuals, is very apt to be the reward of great benefactors. Egypt, taciturn, proud, and self-contained, was respected and admired by all her neighbours, while Greece and Judea, the shining beacons of Mediterranean civilisation, from the point of view of morals and science, have had the mortification of receiving ineffaceable stigmas. In the popular language of our own day, “Greek” and “Jew” are such offensive sobriquets that the descendants of these two glorious races seek to avoid the use of those names when describing their origins.

Babylonia, after her conquest and disappearance from the scene of the world, although she was vastly superior to her destroyers, did not escape this little-deserved fate. To the contemporaries of her fall, Babylon is only the city of courtesans and insipid magic; nevertheless, in the days of her strength, she ruled the barbarian world that surrounded her by other means than naked flesh and empty formulas of incantation. For thousands of years she shone with an unparalleled brilliancy, and illuminated with her vivifying rays the rude peoples with which she was in contact. Her influence left indelible traces even on the civilisations of western Asia and of the Greek world, partly through the agency of the Phœnicians and Aramæans. And if her disappearance caused no disturbance in the march of progress, it is because her mission was fulfilled long before the epoch of her decline. From the reign of Xerxes, plundered Babylon gradually decayed; on the arrival of Alexander she was already three-fourths in ruins. The war of the Diadochi and the advent of the Parthian dynasty completed her entombment. There was none to assume her moral heritage at that time, for the heir had already taken all that was precious and truly imperishable.

A truly intellectual culture is manifested in the possession of a form of writing. The existence of it in Babylon is proved by documents that go back to the fifth millennium B.C. The letters consist as yet of linear strokes representing certain parts of the human body, various kinds of animals, plants, and natural or manufactured objects. It was not until later that these strokes assumed the wedge form that has caused the name “cuneiform” system to be applied to them. The primitive characters are few in number--about fifteen--and are joined with one another to form a syllabary that is both ideographic and phonetic.

The intrinsic nature of these values is a striking proof of the Semitic origin of the system, and completely refutes the hypothesis of the earlier decipherers that there existed on Babylonian soil prior to the Semites an alien race called “Sumerian” or “Accadian,” from whom came the cuneiform characters, as well as the entire Semitic civilisation of Babylonia. Such syllables as ab, “father”; an, “god”; el, “pure, bright”; en, “lord”; sal, “servant, woman”; il, “high”; is, “tree, wood”; ul, “past”; mu, “name”; rat, “canal”; sag, “summit, head”; rig, “plant, green leaf,” etc., are taken from fundamental Semitic words of the Babylonian language, which, except for slight variations, was also that of Elam and Assyria. Nowhere, and at no period of their existence, is any linguistic modification noticed which could be attributed to the intrusion of a foreign element.

Without risk of being accused of exaggeration, we may place the beginning of writing in the sixth, or even in the seventh, millennium before our era; and yet the Babylonian language has the worn and phonetically impoverished character which it always preserved in comparison with its sister languages. This is an astonishing phenomenon, and gives an idea of the extreme antiquity, not only of the existence of the Semites in Babylonia, but of the development of the great civilisation of which they were the creators.

For, after the appearance of the written documents on stone and on clay tablets, we meet with a most remarkable ancient civilisation: monarchical institutions, communal organisations, flourishing agriculture, systematic canalisation, metal working, proprietorship of land, extensive commercial transactions, fixed taxes, the establishment of governors in subject countries. With regard to science, astronomy was cultivated and there were observatories for the study of the movements of the stars and the eclipses. The Babylonians had the divisions of the year, the month, and the day; they fixed weights and measures, and calculated square and cube roots. A rational classification facilitated the knowledge of botany and zoology. Dynastic lists were drawn up with care, in which the principal historical events of the reigns were recorded. Finally, the spiritual needs of the nation were satisfied by a vast mythological system which is lost in the night of time, and on the basis of which innumerable epic tales were developed. Among these the stories of the creation and of the deluge, the descent of Ishtar into Hades, the adventures of Gilgames and Etanna, etc., rank among the most beautiful products of the poetic imagination. On the other hand, the fetichistic mysticism of prehistoric times was transformed into a learned magic, which was combined with religious and moral elements, and claimed to be based upon miraculous facts that had, however, been proved by experience.

A Babylonian furnished with these elements of intellectual culture must, in spite of his superstitions and the real gaps in his knowledge, have seemed a superior being to the neighbouring tribes which had the same racial instincts, but whose development was still embryonic and had taken place under totally different conditions. It is nothing astonishing, then, that the most capable of these semi-savages hastened to adopt, in different degrees, a large part of the Babylonian civilisation, the advantages of which they had learned to appreciate. As usual, it is the apparent and material side that was accepted first; after a more intimate acquaintance with the Babylonian mode of life, these peoples were captivated by the religious conceptions and the powerful attraction of the legends and the magic. All this slowly filtered into the mind of the other Semitic peoples, and became so well embodied there that some centuries later it formed an integral part of their national substance, and to such a degree that it has been possible to disentangle their true origin only by means of an arduous research which has not yet said the last word.

The extension of Babylonian civilisation beyond its primitive cradle had its greatest strength during the glorious reign of Sargon I, the first monarch known to have made military expeditions into the countries of the west. We shall have, then, to consider, first, the pre-Sargonic, second, the post-Sargonic, epochs.

Before the reign of Sargon, about thirty-eight hundred years before our common era, Babylonia had succeeded in forming itself into a national body, having the same manners, speaking the same language, and using the same alphabet. No alien people broke into this unity of race and genius, which included on its eastern side the inhabitants of the Elamitic plain, forming a simple annex to Babylonia on that side of the Tigris. The great excess of population flowed into the fertile plains extending between the Tigris and the mighty chain of the Zagros, and founded the little kingdoms of Suti, Lulubi, Namar, and with greater success the powerful kingdom of Assyria, which during the years of its prosperity became the most powerful military state of the oriental world.

These very ancient colonies were often in conflict with the mother country, and Assyria even succeeded in imposing its iron yoke for several generations; but, save for Sennacherib’s moment of violent passion, Babylonia remained for all of them a centre of light and of religious mystery. The Babylonian divinities have their temples and serve as types for various localisations. In Assyria, especially, Ishtar of Nineveh, Ishtar of Arbela, Ishtar of Kidmur, etc., are worshipped. The Babylonian origin is perpetuated in the new capital Ninua (Nineveh), which is the name of a locality of Babylonia, while the ancient capital Asshur recalls the name of the most ancient god of the Babylonian epic of creation.

It goes without saying that among the neighbouring tribes of different languages Babylonian influence could not penetrate so completely. In the south the numerous Aramæan tribes persisted in their nomadic state; in the mountainous districts of the east the Susio-Amardians, in the north the Vannians and the Mitannians, while accepting Babylonian civilisation, use along with the ordinary Babylonian syllabary a more limited one for writing their own languages. Traces of Assyrian influences in ancient epochs have been proved in Cappadocia, which shows the great antiquity of the kingdom of Assyria. But the most important and most enduring influence manifests itself in the Semitic region of the extreme west, in Syrio-Phœnicia and in Palestine.

Through the discovery of the tablets of Tel-el-Amarna, which date from the reigns of Amenhotep III and Amenhotep IV, it was learned with astonishment that in the fourteenth century before our era, Babylonian was the diplomatic language, not only of the western Semites, but also of the sovereigns of Egypt. Syria and Phœnicia then formed a vassal province of the Pharaohs, probably as a result of the conquests of Tehutimes III; the use of Egyptian writing, or at least of the special Assyrian type, was to be expected there, but it is the Babylonian alphabet, the Babylonian dialect, that we find in use. We are forced to conclude that the extension of Babylonian culture was due to an occupation of Syria by the Babylonians at an extremely early period, when Assyria was still too feeble to bar the way to the country of its origin. History shows the truth of this, for it tells us that Sargon I spent three years in Syria, and finally made himself master of it; in one of his maritime expeditions he even crossed to the island of Cyprus and took possession. It is probable that this vassalage of Syria to Babylonia underwent frequent reactions and interruptions of continuity, due in great part to the policy of Egypt, which was seeking an outlet to the north. The plan of thwarting the covetousness of the Pharaohs for this province, if not of simply annexing the valley of the Nile to the great empire of the East, was carried out by Sargon I in an invasion of Egypt, the success of which is recorded in the account of the haruspices [Tablet of Omens]. His son Naram-Sin, according to the same documents, likewise invaded Egypt and killed its king, whose name has unfortunately disappeared on account of the breaking of the tablet. Egypt, intimidated, made no hostile movement for several centuries, which undoubtedly strengthened the Babylonian authority in Syria under all the dynasties that successively occupied the throne in the capital of Chaldea.

In the age of Abraham, when Elam exercised supremacy over Babylonia, the king of the latter country, Khammurabi, the Amraphel of Genesis, figures among the kings who had accompanied the Elamite suzerain in his expedition against several tribes of eastern and southern Palestine (Gen. xiv.). Seven centuries later the Egyptian functionaries of Syrio-Phœnicia correspond in Babylonian with the court of Thebes. This province had been conquered a half-century before by Tehutimes III; and the Egyptian supremacy left its trace in the invention of the Phœnician alphabet, which marks the decision to break with Babylonian sympathies in favour of the intellectual culture of Egypt, of which the city of Byblus was to be the principal centre.

A remarkable circumstance furnished the occasion for this decision. In this city, where mystic tendencies seem to have prevailed over the desire for the riches that navigation and commerce bring, a local goddess was worshipped, called Baal-Gebal, “Lady of Byblus,” who represented one of the numerous Semitic goddesses known under the name of Baalat or Belit. She was identified with the great Egyptian goddess Isis, and the myth of Osiris was attached to the shore of this city to such an extent that the priesthood of Byblus was believed to be in possession of the true meaning of these mysteries. At the bottom of this process was the desire of finding a ground of agreement for all the religious conceptions of the civilised nations of the age. In the matter of religion, as in the arts and industry, the rôle of the Phœnicians consisted in serving as intermediaries, as zealous apostles who saw the advantage of being useful to the barbarians after having obtained profit from them, and hoped to profit further in the future.

So, after this reconcilement with the Egyptian religion, the exportation of manufactured articles to the valley of the Nile, or of imitations of Egyptian art, which was so strongly marked with a religious stamp, could develop indefinitely in all the Mediterranean regions and contribute to the prosperity of the mother country and her colonies. So, after the fourteenth century before the common era, the invention of alphabetic writing had barred the way for the extension of Babylonian writing into the European world. The ancient spiritual legacy of Babylonia’s thousand years of domination, a natural product of the Semitic genius, was too strongly anchored in Syrio-Phœnicia to be totally eclipsed, or even to descend to an inferior rank under the pressure of Egyptian influence.

Egypt, with its language deprived of all outlet and with its essentially funereal mythology, was incapable of producing a movement of renaissance in foreign peoples. The spiritual condition remained without notable change, but, direct contact with Babylonia having become more difficult, the Phœnicians were obliged to record in their own language their ancestral and divine traditions, in which the universal elements received from Babylonia always remained preponderant.

Of Phœnician literature nothing is known in the original language, but some cosmogonic data taken from the book of Sanchoniathon by Philo of Byblus reflect myths that can have been produced only on the soil of Babylon, although the Philhellenic author is unable to interpret them with exactness. The primordial couple of chaos, Apason and Tomoth, are in reality the Babylonian divinities prior to the creation: Apsu, “ocean, abyss,” and Tiamat, “sea”; but Philo, carried away by Neoplatonic doctrine and confounding similar consonants, attributes to Apason the meaning of “desire,” and seems to discern in Tiamat the divinity Mot, “death,” symbolical of matter. Another goddess, Chosartes, recalls the consort of Asshur, Kishar, of cosmogonic character. On the Syrio-Phœnician monuments we often read the name of the goddess Anath, bearing the title of “force of life or of the living,” but the masculine consort is not met with. The Babylonian inscriptions fill the gap by very frequently furnishing the couple Anu and Anata. Philistia worshipped principally the ichthyomorphous god Dagon, who is no other than the Babylonian Daganu, associated with Anu.

Among other divine personages we note in the first place Tammuz, consort of Astarte, who was slain by a boar in the flower of his youth. His death was mourned for a month each year, and his resurrection was later celebrated with frenzied demonstrations of joy. This myth of nature, symbolical of the passing of summer and metaphorically of that of ardent and passionate youth, has as its basis the Babylonian tale of Du’uzu, eponym of the month of that name (Tammuz), who died prematurely, and whom the goddess Ishtar (Astarte), the incarnation of ardent passion, endeavours, though in vain, to bring back from the kingdom of death. The grief and the heroic effort of the goddess are told in a touching manner in the beautiful poem, entitled The Descent of Ishtar into Hades. The Phœnicians mourned Tammuz under the honorary title of Adon, Adonim, “lord,” whence the Greek Adonis. From Phœnicia this rite passed to Greece, and was celebrated there with no less pomp, while the descent of Ishtar became there the point of departure for several analogous legends.

Less known is the cult of the Babylonian god of war, Nergal, who had sanctuaries in Phœnicia. Among celestial gods we identify Hadad or Hadod, styled “king of the gods,” Rimmon, Nabu, Sin, and Mar, called among the Babylonians Adad, Ramman (god of the air), Nabu, Sin, Allat, and Marduk (god of Babylon). The inscriptions of Sam’al add to these Nusk and Be’el-Kharran, one of whom is the Babylonian Nusku, the other a local Bel of the Babylonian city of Kharran, whose cult was transplanted to the city of the same name in Upper Mesopotamia.

Since very remote antiquity certain names of Babylonian divinities have been fixed in Syrio-Phœnicia as names of places and persons: the city of Nebo in Moab, the desert of Sin, and probably also Mount Sinai in Arabia Petræa, the fortress of Anathoth in the territory of Benjamin; Ana, a chief of Esau, Anath, a judge of Israel, Hadad, the common name of a king of Aram and a king of Idumæa. So many reminiscences of the superior rank of the Babylonian religion clearly prove how the mind of the western Semites was imbued and moulded into permanent form by their ancient masters in the ages preceding the occupation of Syria by the Egyptians. Egypt did almost nothing to modify the tendencies of the subject peoples; she contented herself with collecting the taxes, and gave nothing in exchange. We must not then be surprised that, if we except the maritime coast, Egyptian dominion left no trace on the civilisation of the interior of Syria. These peoples, when they became independent, continued to cultivate the germs of civilisation they had received in such abundance, but regarded them as their own creations.

Passing to the nomads of northern Arabia we find ourselves before an ethnographic unknown, the ancient tribes having disintegrated and new ones formed, a transformation that was certainly repeated several times. There is as yet no agreement on the question whether the tribes called in ancient times Ishmaelites and Ceturians spoke Arabic or Aramæan. It is, however, certain that fragments of southern tribes of true Arabian race moved to the north at periods very difficult to determine. It is not very long since it was affirmed that these unstable populations lacked every element of civilisation, and it was even claimed that they were a pure example of unmixed Semitic race, to which an instinctive monotheism was attributed.

These speculations have been dissipated by the testimony of the Assyrian texts, which show that the Arabs possessed statues of their gods. These proud children of the desert even signed their submission to the government of Nineveh, in order to recover the statues which the Assyrians had taken from them in the course of an expedition into the interior of Arabia. The possession of statues implies the existence in the oases of fixed sanctuaries, of religious rites, and of a traditional priesthood.

When we consider that the conquering nation of the Persians did not arrive at the idea of anthropomorphic gods until the time of Artaxerxes II, and then solely under the influence of the Babylonian cult, we cannot doubt that the worship of statues by the nomadic Arabs in the seventh century before our era was due to the same influence. The Ishmaelites were particularly devoted to Atar Celeste, that is, to the great goddess Ishtar, whose cult spread from Babylon among all the Semites of Syria.

In the oasis of Teyma a stele has been found that fixes the revenues of a priest, who had lately been installed, to provide for the expenses of the cult of an adopted divinity, and this priest is dressed in the mode of the Babylonian priesthood. Such a borrowing is all the more remarkable because the garments of sacrificing priests had in antiquity a meaning intimately connected with the religious mysteries. This fact supposes the presence of Babylonian instructors at some previous epoch.

Hedjaz forms the first province, whose inhabitants belong to the Arabian race, properly so called, whose idiom and whose writing are very different from those of the Aramæan populations of the north. Some of these tribes settled in the east of Syria, on the edge of the desert, especially in the oasis of Safa, south of Damascus. We must wait until the numerous graffiti, discovered in recent times, are published, before we can get an exact idea of the theophorous names used among these tribes. The names Bel and Hadad figure here, however; but this may be a late borrowing from their Aramæan neighbours. From northern Hedjaz we have a considerable number of inscriptions and graffiti, copies of which are still to be regarded with caution, and there, too, the names Bel, Hadad and compounds of the Babylonian Nabu, are found in the list of names of the nomads.

More interesting is the ancient name of Mecca, Macoraba, which originally designated the celebrated central sanctuary of the region. This name is derived front the verb karaba, which in Babylonian means “worship, bless, pray”, in evident proof of an ancient borrowing from the idiom of the cuneiform texts. We shall know some day what the inscriptions of middle and southern Hedjaz contain in the way of theophorous names. These inscriptions certainly exist, and await a traveller courageous enough to save them from total destruction at the stupid hands of the pilgrims. The famous black stone of Kaaba seems to bear an inscription of which it would be well to have a photograph.

We know still less what is reserved for us in the graffiti scattered in the intermediate region between Hedjaz and Yemen; the graphic chain cannot have been interrupted in this latitude, which from great antiquity formed the entrance to the highly civilised kingdom of Sheba, and which, owing to its production of aromatic essences, had commercial relations with the peoples of the Mediterranean.

Yemen was composed of four kingdoms, of which that of Sheba seems to have been the most ancient and most powerful; the other three are Catabania, Hadramaut, Mahrah or Tafat. Of the latter we have no indigenous information prior to Islamism, and there is reason to believe that it formed a vassal state of Hadramaut. The latter is pre-eminently the spice-producing region, and Catabania may be considered as an ancient colony of Hadramaut, which was founded on the northern route for a commercial purpose, and later gained its independence.

In its turn Catabania founded, again, on the northern route, another colony, which, on gaining its freedom, called itself the Minyæan people, after the principal city, Ma’in. The Minyæi left traces of their activity at Egra on the frontier of Nabatia, and in central Egypt at Oxyrhyncus, where they had a settlement at the time of the first Ptolemies; but their presence in Egypt in the Persian period is proved by a votive inscription, thanking their gods for having saved their caravan from the danger by which it had been threatened during the war between the Egyptians and the Medes, i.e., the Persians. From Egypt they sent their caravans to Gaza in Phœnicia and into all Syria.

Prior to this the trade in incense and spices seems to have been in the hands of the Sabæans. Solomon (about the year 1000 B.C.) sought to make a treaty with this people, whose queen had made him an official visit at Jerusalem. It is to be presumed that the Sabæans also sent caravans directly to Nineveh and Babylon by way of the oases of Negran, Wady Dawassir, and Gebel-Sammar. Owing to these almost uninterrupted visits, the peoples of southern Arabia were in a position to learn and practise customs and rites peculiar to the eastern Semites; for example, the employment of aromatic fumigation as a means of purification after sexual intercourse. The Sabæan pantheon contained El (the Assyrio-Babylonian Ilu) under the guise of a divine personage, and not simply as an abstract term for “god.” The Babylonian Ishtar, daughter of Sin, is transformed into a male divinity, Athtar, son of Sin. The manifold diversification of the Babylonian goddess appears also in the Sabæan Athtar; the great religious centres of Sheba each possess their own Athtar. Nabu, the Babylonian god of writing and prophecy, was also worshipped by the Catabanians under the somewhat disguised form of Anbai. From the point of view of art, the technique of sculpture and decoration often recalls the Babylonian style. Finally, we meet in the kingdom of Sheba the Assyrian institution of the limmi, or annual archons, an institution that existed also at Carthage, but nowhere else on the Asiatic continent, least of all in a monarchical state.

We know very little of the religion of the Agazi or Semites of Abyssinia; a pre-Christian inscription asserts, however, that the cult of El and of Astar (Astarte) flourished among them. Their pantheon included also a god of war called Mahram, the equivalent of the Ninib or Adar of the Semites of the north.

On the opposite side, at the extreme east of the Arabian peninsula, along the Persian gulf, the most important agglomeration formed the kingdom of Gerrha. The Gerrhæans maintained commercial relations with both Egypt and Chaldea. One of their cities bore the name of Bilbana, “Bil (Bel) has built,” a certain indication that it had adopted the cult of the most popular Babylonian god. Facing this coast is the Bahrein group of islands, the largest of which contains a number of tombs in which cuneiform inscriptions in the Babylonian language have been found.

We have now made the round of the whole Semitic region, and everywhere we have been able to show striking Babylonian influences in spite of the enormous distance in time and space that separates the converging rays from their point of radiation. But before concluding, we must halt upon a particular territory, a territory that forms but an imperceptible point in this vast region, but which in spite of its material diminutiveness brought forth a nation that was destined to assume the glorious rôle of being the legitimate heir of the great Babylonian ancestor, and of directing the conscience not only of the Semitic race, but of the most civilised portion of the human race in general.

This nation, which chance seems to have thrown into the world without defence, in the midst of hostile elements that were furious for its destruction, and whose name, Israel, exactly symbolises the unremitting struggle against the terribly destructive powers that surround it, this nation, I say, had the strength to transform the splendid polytheistic heritage that had fallen to it from Babylon into a monotheistic theory of an astounding originality. The transformation of the antique legacy took place only after centuries of struggle between the best part of the nation, the party of the prophets, and the conservatism of the mass of the people, who were everywhere attached to the ancient traditions.

The writings of this monotheistic minority, which finally imposed itself upon the entire nation, enable us to appreciate the importance of the ancient elements, the dross of which was rejected in the refining process of the prophets. Genesis has preserved two great and very characteristic Babylonian epics,--the Creation, and the Deluge,--but how different in spirit, in spite of the close similarity in outline and external form.

In the Babylonian cosmogony, chaos, incarnate in the female dragon Tiamat, the primordial ocean, brings forth at the same time the gods and the most horrible, malevolent monsters. Having learned that the gods wish to build themselves a more commodious residence in her domain, she gathers her forces, furiously attacks the clan of gods, and puts them to flight. They unite again and choose as their champion Marduk, the son of Yan, who succeeds in vanquishing the terrible ancestress. Marduk cuts the body of Tiamat into two pieces, and of them he constructs heaven and earth. Then he proceeds to make the heavenly bodies, and arranges them in an immutable order; he stocks the earth with plants and animals, and has man made by the goddess Arura, who fashions him out of the dust of the earth.

This myth, splendid as an epic invention, is too rude to contain the least philosophical principle. The Hebrew thinker, while retaining the general outline, has eliminated the whole crowd of monstrous or ugly divinities unworthy to receive the homage of the human race. The picture has lost nothing in extent; but a single, all-powerful god first creates chaotic matter, and then organises it, step by step, for the sole benefit of the human race. The cycle of the ten antediluvian patriarchs, which includes millions of years, is reduced to sixteen hundred years, and thus brought within the range of actual humanity. Finally, the deluge, in the primitive legend the result of the mad arrogance of the god Bel, is justified by the extraordinary corruption of the men of that epoch.

Like a true reformer the prophetic narrator has raised upon the Babylonian basis a new system whose rational and moral side need not fear comparison with any other religious doctrine of humanity. Among the Greeks, no religious or social reform could be developed and preserved that took for a basis their castes of irresponsible gods. Egypt perished without having attempted to rise from its coarse animal-worship. Babylonianism alone, by its hymns and its epics, still lives to-day as an important factor in universal religion, although under a form idealised by genius. Materially, Babylon is but a memory, but a delicate part of its atoms passed into the vigorous constitution of its spiritual heir, the sacred book of Hebrew monotheism, to become the common property of humanity.

MESOPOTAMIAN HISTORY IN OUTLINE

A PRELIMINARY SURVEY COMPRISING A CURSORY VIEW OF THE SOURCES OF MESOPOTAMIAN HISTORY AND OF THE SWEEP OF EVENTS, AND A TABLE OF CHRONOLOGY

The Babylonians and Assyrians were two very important peoples of remote antiquity, inhabiting the region of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers in southwestern Asia. The Greeks regarded these peoples as constituting one nation and called their country Mesopotamia, a name that could properly be applied to only a part of their territory. The Babylonians and Assyrians, themselves, on the other hand, regarded each other as alien peoples, though both belonged to the same Semitic stock. The Babylonians were the more ancient, and their territory lay to the south, where, many scholars believe, they had been preceded by a people of a different race.

Though the seat of this early civilisation is geographically small in extent, yet the peoples who entered into it were by no means homogeneous, nor was their history a continuous record of unbroken political succession. On the contrary, at least two different races of people were involved,--a Turanian stock in the early Babylonian history, a Semitic stock in all the later periods,--and at least three successive kingdoms or empires, not to speak of mere changes of dynasty. The earliest period known to us--that which left records at Nippur and Shirpurla, in old Babylonia--had its seat in the southern portion of the territory bordering on the sea; thence, seemingly, civilisation spread northward. Assyriologists are not fully agreed as to the share which the non-Semitic race had in this early civilisation. It has even been questioned whether these so-called Sumerians really existed at all.[15] In any event the Semitic Babylonians acquired full control at a very early period.

The Assyrian kingdom--which came to be a veritable world-empire--had its seat at Calah and afterwards at Nineveh. It conquered and absorbed the old Babylonian kingdom, and then reached out for domination to the east and to the west, finally overrunning even Egypt.

The Bible accounts preserve records of some of its most famous kings, including Sennacherib. The Greek legends are chiefly concerned with a mythical Semiramis, the alleged founder of Nineveh, and with a seemingly mythical Sardanapalus, who perished after an inglorious reign, in the destruction of Nineveh, which came about suddenly and dramatically in the year 606 B.C.--the Sardanapalus myth being, however, based on an actuality.

After the destruction of Nineveh, Babylon, the capital of Babylonia, resumed renewed importance as a world metropolis. Nebuchadrezzar, the most famous king of this period, besieged Jerusalem and carried the Israelites to his capital (the Babylonian capital). The classical accounts preserve reminiscences of the magnificence of Babylon in this period. The course of the New Babylonian empire, though brilliant, was brief, ending with the overthrow of Babylon by the Persians under Cyrus in the year 538 B.C. Babylon was not, like Nineveh, totally destroyed; but it never regained autonomy or anything approaching its former importance. It was one of the Persian capitals for two centuries, until in 331 B.C., with the downfall of the Persian empire, it passed into the hands of Alexander the Great, who, after his eastern conquests, chose it as the capital of his newly acquired empire. But Alexander died in his new capital almost immediately, and his death was the last great world-historic event that occurred in Mesopotamia. In the course of a few centuries thereafter, the whole region that for so many years had been the very heart of the world’s civilisation, became a barren wilderness, and Babylon itself, like Nineveh before it, was reduced to a mere earth-covered mound of ruins, the very location of which was practically forgotten.

Such a fate was tragic enough; yet after all it seems less cruel than the destiny of such nations as Egypt, and in later time, Greece, which live on in senescence long after all vestige of their power has departed. And in any event, Mesopotamia had had its full share of glory, for no other region of the globe, within historic times, with the possible exception of Egypt alone, has so long held rank as a centre of influence and civilisation. If the earlier walls of the Temple of Bel (Baal) at Nippur really date from 6000 or 7000 years B.C. as the records seem to prove, there was a continuous, powerful empire in Mesopotamia for at least five or six thousand years. The civilisations of Greece, of Rome, or of any modern state, seem mere mushroom growths in comparison.

In studying the history of Egypt we have caught occasional glimpses of this oldest Asiatic civilisation of Babylonia and Assyria, and it is almost impossible to avoid drawing comparisons between these two countries, so closely related are the two peoples in the minds of all students. It is true that the ethnological types are quite different, and that the two peoples, during the greater part of their existence, did not mingle much with one another. Often they were at war, and it is traditional that for the most part the Egyptians repelled rather than invited any advances from their Asiatic neighbours. Nevertheless, their own interests dictated a commercial policy that led first and last to an extensive intermingling between all the contemporary civilisations of western Asiatic antiquity, and there are abundant evidences that the same influence extended also to the Nile Valley.

But even had this not been the case,--even had Egypt and Mesopotamia been shut off absolutely one from the other,--it would still be impossible for the modern student to disassociate the two, so many are the links of association between them. The fact that these two are the oldest civilisations known to us, and the further fact that there has been a constant question in the minds of investigators as to which one of these ancient peoples can claim priority of development, form in themselves an indissoluble bond of union. Yet in some respects the story of the Babylonians and Assyrians is unique; because this well-nigh greatest of civilisations was blotted out absolutely almost before the oldest European civilisation was under way. Egypt, indeed, declined in power at about the same period and permanently lost autonomy, but its pyramids and temples and numberless antiquities remain as obvious testimonials of its former greatness; whereas the monuments of Mesopotamia--the ruins of such wonderful cities as Nippur, Babylon, and Nineveh--were completely buried under the accumulating earth deposits of centuries, and almost absolutely lost to view. For more than two thousand years the names of these once famous cities were only reminiscences. No one knew accurately even their site, and scarcely an antiquity of any description was known to be preserved that evidenced the sometime greatness of the Mesopotamian civilisation.

During this long period a few reminiscences preserved in the writings of Berosus, Diodorus, Herodotus, and a few other classical writers, and in the text of Hebrew writings, gave all the clews that were obtainable, and apparently all that could ever be obtained regarding one of the most remarkable peoples of antiquity.

We have said that the entire destruction of the Mesopotamian civilisation gave it peculiar interest. It should not be forgotten, however, that at least one other very important people of antiquity, namely the Hittites, met with a like fate. Probably there were still others whose names even are unknown to us. But the story of Mesopotamia stands quite by itself in the fact that it has been very largely restored to us through the efforts of modern explorers. We have seen that the decipherment of the hieroglyphics led to a much fuller understanding of Egyptian history than had previously been possible; yet, after all, these new revelations sufficed to fill in the outlines of an old story, rather than to create an altogether new one. But in the case of Babylonia and Assyria the modern investigators had virtually a blank canvas upon which to work in reconstructing the history. The Bible references and the classical myths gave but the most shadowy outlines. Yet traditions are all powerful for the transmission of knowledge in a vague form, and throughout all generations it had never been doubted that the reminiscences of Mesopotamian greatness had a firm foundation in fact, though few historians were visionary enough to dare hope that more tangible evidence would ever be forthcoming, and not even the most enthusiastic dreamer could have suspected that such records as the nineteenth century has restored to us had been preserved.

Even now, looking back from the standpoint of accomplishment, it seems almost incredible that the monuments of a great civilisation--treasures of art, and voluminous literary records--should have been absolutely hidden from human view for a minimum period of more than two thousand years, and should then have been restored in almost their original condition. Yet such is the fact regarding the antiquities of Mesopotamia.

OUR SOURCES FOR MESOPOTAMIAN HISTORY

The reports that have come down to us from antiquity dealing with the history of Babylonia and Assyria are relatively meagre in extent and decidedly untrustworthy from an historical standpoint. Without doubt numerous classical writers dealt with the subject, but of such writings, only a few have been preserved. So far as known, the principal native historian of the later period of Babylonian history was Berosus. He was a Chaldean priest living in the time of Alexander the Great, as his own writings testify. He had access to the ancient documents of his country, and is believed to have made excellent use of them. Unfortunately, only meagre remnants of his history have come down to us, and these more or less distorted through the medium of transcribers, the chief of these being Alexander Polyhistor and Eusebius. Had we the entire work of Berosus, he would, perhaps, perform some such function for Mesopotamia as Manetho performed for Egypt; but as the case stands, the remnants of Berosus serve to transmit certain interesting traditions, particularly with reference to Babylonian cosmogony, rather than to preserve any considerable historical records.

The classical historian whose account of the Babylonians and Assyrians has been most largely copied was Ctesias. This writer was a Greek who served for seventeen years (415-398 B.C.) as court physician to the Persian king Artaxerxes Mnemon, and who wrote a history of Persia alleged to be based upon native documents. In this history Ctesias considered the contemporary civilisation, but he was interested rather in picturesque traditions than in the sober historical narratives, and the records he preserved are chiefly of a nature which the modern critical historian pronounces fabulous. The original work of Ctesias has perished, but its character is fairly established through the writings of other authors who used Ctesias as a source. Foremost among the latter is Diodorus, whose account of the Assyrians represents the ideas that were current throughout classical times, and continued in vogue until the nineteenth century.

The most authentic classical accounts of the Babylonians are those given by Herodotus and by Strabo, both of whom spoke as eye-witnesses. Unfortunately, these writers did not have access to the native materials, and their accounts, while throwing interesting sidelights upon the later civilisation, do very little towards enlightening us as to the actual history of the greatest of Asiatic peoples of antiquity.

A few other fragments have been preserved from the classical writings, notably some bits from Abydenus, preserved through Eusebius. To these must be added numerous references to the Babylonians and Assyrians in the biblical writings. Taken altogether, however, these classical and oriental traditions fail to give us more than the vaguest picture of Mesopotamian history.

The real sources of that history are the original chronicles of the Babylonians and Assyrians themselves, which were inscribed on stone slabs and on tablets of clay. The clay tablets, after being inscribed, were dried, forming almost imperishable bricks. Tens of thousands of these were preserved beneath the ruins of Mesopotamian cities, and were first brought to light in the nineteenth century. Among these are several lists of kings, and other chronological documents of a somewhat general character. One document attempts the synchronism of Babylonian and Assyrian history. Then there are numerous tablets and cylinders and wall inscriptions which record the deeds of individual kings, including such famous monarchs as Sennacherib. Vast quantities of documents are doubtless still buried in Mesopotamia, and a large proportion of the inscriptions that have been exhumed are still undeciphered. But enough of these documents have been discovered and read to restore the outline of Babylonian and Assyrian history as a whole; and for certain periods, including the time of greatest Assyrian power, very full records are at hand. The result of these recent discoveries has been the practical substitution of secure historical records for the old classical and oriental traditions regarding the Babylonians and Assyrians.

The modern workers who have assisted in the restoration of Mesopotamian history through the recovery and decipherment of the monumental inscriptions make up in the aggregate a large company. The chief explorers of the earliest period were Botta and Layard. Then came Fresnel, Thomas, and Oppert, followed by Rassam, George Smith, Ernest de Sarzec; the Germans, Koldewey and Moritz, and the Americans, Peters, Hilprecht, and Haynes.

The work of interpreting the newly found Assyrian records began with Sir Henry Rawlinson in England, Eberhard Schrader in Germany, and a small company of other workers, about the middle of the nineteenth century. The difficulties of deciphering records in an unknown language, and of an extremely intricate character, at first seemed almost insuperable; but with the aid of the knowledge of Ancient Persian, already acquired earlier in the century through the efforts of Grotefend and his followers, together with the hints gained by comparison with the Hebrew language and other extant Semitic tongues, a working knowledge of the Assyrian language was at last attained. Since then the decipherment of the inscriptions has gone on unceasingly, and a constantly growing band of workers has added to our knowledge.

Most of the excavators and explorers have, very naturally, given us personal accounts of their labours. Botta’s labours, however, were chiefly made public through the publications of Victor Place; and in more recent times, Heuzey has published the chief accounts of the excavations of De Sarzec. Layard, on the other hand, the greatest of all Assyrian explorers, gave full accounts of his own discoveries, and interpreted the monuments as well as described them. He restored to us a picture of Mesopotamian civilisation somewhat as Wilkinson had done for Egypt. Of the more recent workers who have written about Babylonia and Assyria the most important are Meyer, Hommel, Winckler, Muerdter, and Delitzsch in Germany; Tiele in Holland; Lenormant, Babelon, Menant and Halévy in France; Sayce in England, and Peters, Hilprecht, Harper and Rogers in America.

Thanks to the records thus made available, the history of this most ancient civilisation is no longer a mere hazy figment of tradition, but has become a sharply outlined picture. We are able to trace, not indeed the origin of the Mesopotamian civilisation--for the beginnings of national life evade us here as elsewhere--but its very early development in the cities of old or southern Babylonia. Antiquarian documents, aided by estimates as to the rate of deposit of sediment at the mouth of the rivers, enable us to fix, at least approximately, the dates for this early civilisation. These figures cannot pretend to exact accuracy, but the Assyriologist assures us with some confidence that they carry us back to a period something like six or seven thousand years B.C. At this remote time the civilisation of southern Babylonia was already established in its main features. The people of Ur, Nippur, Shirpurla, and Babylon were able even then to build elaborate palaces and temples, to carve interesting sculptures, to make ornaments of glass, and to record their thought in words traced in the most complex script. In a word, the main characteristics of Mesopotamian civilisation were fully established several millenniums before the Christian era, and abundant proofs of this fact have been preserved to us.

It must not be supposed, however, that the records exhumed from the ruins of these ancient capitals have given us full information regarding the entire stretch of this long material existence. The fact is quite otherwise. Only comparatively short periods are covered fully by the historical records in the wedge writing, and there are reaches of some thousands of years in the aggregate, regarding which our knowledge is still most fragmentary. Indeed, the history of the old Babylonian kingdom in its entirety is known at present only in the most general way. But it seems almost miraculous that we should know even the outlines of this ancient story.

THE ANCIENT KINGDOMS OF BABYLONIA

The earliest known inhabitants of Babylonia were a people of whose origin nothing is known except that they were not Semites. After a time they are called sometimes Sumerians, sometimes Accadians. Sumer was the southern portion of Babylonia, Accad the northern. The Accadian language is now considered a dialect of the Sumerian, the older form.

Civilisation in the land goes back at least to 6000 B.C. Between 5000 and 4000 B.C. this people was invaded by a warlike Semitic race, the Babylonians of history, who came, perhaps, from Arabia. What portion of the aborigines the invaders did not expel or destroy they assimilated, gradually assuming the older civilisation.

The chronology of the earlier period is largely speculative. Recent chronology begins with the kingdom of Babylon about the time of Khammurabi. For the earlier kingdoms, we, for the most part, follow the dates of Professor Rogers.

Without referring to the legendary history of Babylonia, related by Berosus, which is mentioned elsewhere, our earliest knowledge of the land is of a country of independent kingdoms, the cities with the temples forming their centres. The ruler is often the patesi or high priest.

THE KINGDOM OF KENGI

Before 4500 B.C. =En-shag-kush-anna= is king of Kengi, in southern Babylonia, but whether he was Sumerian or Semite, we do not know. He is patesi of En-lil, the later Bel. Of his kingdom, Shirpurla-Girsu (or Sungir) is the capital and Nippur the religious centre. Later, Sungir is called Sumer and gave its name to the whole of southern Babylonia. The chief rival of Kengi is the Semitic kingdom of Kish in the north, which En-shag-kush-anna defeated but only temporarily checked. We know of no other king of Kengi.

Monuments.--Several vase inscriptions found at Nippur.

THE KINGDOM OF KISH

Recovers itself quickly after its reverse by En-shag-kush-anna. A certain U-dug is patesi of Kish at the time of this revival.

4400 =Mesilim=, king of Kish, subjugates Shirpurla, at the time of Lugal-shug-gur. This supremacy is maintained for a short period, 4200 until E-anna-tum, king of Shirpurla, shakes off the yoke. Kish is left very feeble after this, but gradually recovers its power.

3850 =Alusharshid=, the last great king of Kish before the conquest of Sargon I.

Monuments.--Many vase inscriptions.

THE KINGDOM OF GISHBAN

4400 =Ush= is patesi, contemporary of Mesilim of Kish. He wages war with Shirpurla on the question of boundaries. Gishban is subjugated 4200 by E-anna-tum of Shirpurla. At the latter’s death, =Ur-lumma=, patesi, invades Shirpurla and probably suffers a slight defeat.

4120 Great defeat of Ur-lumma by Entemena of Shirpurla.

4000 =Lugal-zaggisi=, patesi, son of Ukush, leads a victorious army against the south. The whole of Babylonia to the southern gulf is subjugated. He becomes king of Erech and is styled “king of the whole world.” He revives the ancient cults of Lower Mesopotamia.

Monuments.--Vase inscriptions.

THE KINGDOM OF SHIRPURLA

Shirpurla, sometimes called Lagash--the modern Telloh--is situated north of Mugheir on the east side of the Shatt-el-Khai. The oldest king that we know is

4500 =Urukagina.=--A great warrior and administrator. He builds and restores temples and also a canal for the capital Sungir (Girsu). 4400 One of his successors is =En-ge-gal=, and another, =Lugal-shug-gur=, is reduced by Mesilim of Kish to a patesi.

4300 In the enfeebled kingdom, dominated by the rulers of Kish, a new family headed by =Ur-Nina= comes to the throne. He is famous as a temple builder, but also begins to prepare his kingdom to throw off the yoke of Kish. He calls himself king though his son is still patesi.

Monuments.--Vase inscriptions.

4250 =Akurgal= succeeds Ur-Nina. He is the father of E-anna-tum and En-anna-tum I.

4200 =E-anna-tum=, the hero who delivers his country from the thraldom of Kish, and resumes the royal title. After this he puts Gishban under his yoke, and wages successful wars against Erech, Ur, Larsa, Az, and Ukh. He builds a wall around one of the suburbs of Shirpurla, digs canals for boundary lines, etc. Is a great and wise administrator as well as a mighty warrior.

Monuments.--The famous “Vulture Stele” now in the Louvre--many inscriptions.

=En-anna-tum I= succeeds his brother E-anna-tum. An unsuccessful invasion of Shirpurla by the patesi of Gishban.

4120 =En-teme-na=, son of En-anna-tum I, defeats and destroys army of the patesi of Gishban.

Monuments.--The Cone of En-teme-na. The “silver vase”--an exquisite piece of art placed on the altar of the god Nina at Singur.

4100 =En-anna-tum II=, the last patesi of the dynasty of Ur-Nina, since his son, Lummadu, bears no title. Conquest of Shirpurla by Lugal-zaggisi of Gishban.

4100-3800 There are patesis in Shirpurla, ruled over by Lugal-zaggisi and his successors.

3800-3100 The darkest age of Babylonian history. Lugal-ushumgal was patesi and vassal of Sargon I. In all probability the kings of Agade ruled over Shirpurla until dispossessed by the second dynasty of Ur. Of all the patesis, the vassal rulers, of this period =Ur-Bau= 3500 (?) and =Gudea= 3300 (?) are the most prominent. Ur-Bau’s rule seems to have been peaceful; Gudea is a warrior; he wrests the territory of Anshan from Elam. Builds the temple of Nina at Singur.

Monuments.--Many inscriptions.

The civilisation of Shirpurla was a high one, and it contained no Semitic elements.

THE KINGDOM OF UR (THE BIBLICAL “UR OF THE CHALDEES”)

IST DYNASTY

The first king of this dynasty appears after the conquest of Erech by Lugal-zaggisi of Gishban. He would appear to have overthrown Lugal-zaggisi.

3900 =Lugal-kigubni-dudu.=

=Lugal-kisali=, his son.

Their rule includes Ur, Erech, and Nippur, and possibly they conquered Shirpurla. The fate of this dynasty with the names of its other rulers is unknown, but it probably falls before the power of Agade.

Monuments.--Inscriptions of the two above-mentioned kings.

THE KINGDOM OF GUTI AND LULUBI

There are inscriptions relating to two kings, =Lasirab= of Guti and =Anu-banini= of Lulubi. They seem to have been contemporaneous with Sargon I (3800 B.C.).

THE KINGDOM OF AGADE

3800 The earliest known dynasty is Semitic, and the first ruler is =Sargon I= (=Shargani-shar-ali=), son of Itti-Bel. By conquest he founds an empire from Elam to the Mediterranean, and from the extreme south of Babylonia to Apirak and Guti.

Monuments.--Engraved seals of wonderful execution, inscriptions, and contract tablets.

3750 =Naram-Sin=, son of Sargon, succeeds him. First to assume title “King of the Four Quarters of the World”--a great conqueror and builder. Campaigns against Apirak and Magan (Arabia).

Builds temples at Nippur and Agade. Temple E-barra of Shamash at Sippar. This temple is the one in which Nabonidus found the “tablet with the writing of the name of Naram-Sin,” by which we are able to fix the date of his reign.

Under Sargon I and Naram-Sin there is a high state of organisation and civilisation in the kingdom. There were judges, musicians, physicians, good roads, etc. Thureau-Dangin says: “The epoch of Sargon and Naram-Sin certainly marks a culminating point in the history of the old Orient.”

Monuments.--Inscriptions.

3700 =Bingani-shar-ali=, son of Naram-Sin.

Further history of the kingdom of Agade is still unknown. Apparently the later kings gradually lose their power before that of the second dynasty of Ur.

The first period of Babylonian history is now closed. The Semites are in full possession of the land. We have the main seat of power at Agade with the rulers of Shirpurla reduced to patesis.

THE SECOND DYNASTY OF UR

These kings add the title “King of Sumer and Accad” to that of Ur, combining the hostile elements of the North and South under one rule; “restoring,” says Radau, “in old Babylonia the peace which had been disturbed for many centuries, even from the time of the original Semitic invasion.”

3200 =Ur-gur= holds sway over both Semites and Sumerians (Agade and Shirpurla). His capital is at Ur. Famous as a temple builder. Builds temple Teimila to Nannar (moon god) at Ur, temple E-anna to Ishtar at Erech, temple E-barra to Shamash at Larsa.

Monuments.--Pyramidal tower at Nippur. Inscriptions.

3150 =Dun-gi I= succeeds. Continues his father’s work.

Builds temples of Nin-mar, Nina, Ningirsu, Dam-gal-nunna, and Ea, in Sungir, Nippur, and Kutha.

These two were ancestors of a long line of kings, concerning whom history is still silent. Apparently ground in southern Babylonia was soon lost, for we find

THE KINGDOM OF ERECH

3100-3000 Two kings of pure Semitic names are known at this period. =Singashid=, probably the founder of the dynasty, and =Sin-gamil=. The probable history of this kingdom is that of a strong Semitic colony in southern Babylonia making itself independent and establishing a king and capital at Erech. With Sin-gamil, the thread of its history is lost.

Monuments.--Inscriptions relating to building of palace, temples, and restoration of temples at Erech.

THE KINGDOM OF ISIN

A Semitic kingdom, similar to that of Erech, is established at Isin in the north. These kings extend their power to Nippur, Ur, Eridu, and finally to Erech, extinguishing the dynasty ruling there.

The kings add “king of Sumer and Accad” to that of Isin, showing also that the second dynasty of Ur has ceased to exist.

3000 =Libit-Ishtar.=

Monuments and cylinder inscriptions.

Other kings are, =Ishbigarra=, =Bur-Sin I=, =Ur-Ninib=, =Idin-Dagan=.

2850 =Ishme Dagan=, the last to bear the title of Sumer and Accad. His son En-anna-tum is a vassal of the third dynasty of Ur.

Monuments.--Tablet inscriptions.

THE THIRD DYNASTY OF UR

The early kings call themselves simply Kings of Ur.

2800 =Gungunu= puts an end to the dynasty of Isin. He is succeeded by =Ur-gur II= and =Dungi II=, order uncertain.

They build many temples, and Ur-gur II fortifies the wall of his capital, hence he must have been harassed by enemies. We have records that the patesis of Shirpurla still existed at this time.

Monuments.--Votive and seal inscriptions.

2700 =Dungi III.=--The kings from now on add “King of the Four Quarters of the World” to their title, and for this reason some scholars reckon this king as the first of a fourth dynasty. He is followed by =Bur-Sin II=, =Gamil-Sin=, and =Ine-Sin=; the latter ruling about 2580. We have no knowledge of other kings, but about 2450-2400 the “Kingship of the Four Quarters of the World” is overthrown in the north by the Ist Dynasty of Babylon and in the south by Nur-Adad of Larsa.

Monuments.--Building records and contract tablets.

THE KINGDOM OF LARSA

2400 Successful rebellion of southern Babylonia against the kings of Ur. The kingdom of Larsa founded by =Nur-Adad=.

2370 =Sin-iddin= succeeds his father and extends his kingdom over Sumer and Accad.

2350 =Kudur-nankhundi=, king of Elam, invades southern Babylonia. Under Kudur-nankhundi’s successor, =Kudur-lagamar= 2340 (=Kudur-dugmal=, probably the Hebrew =Chedoriaomer=) the Elamites establish a kingdom in Larsa with =Rim-Sin= (=Eri-aku=) at its head. He adopts Sin-iddin’s titles. 2312 The latter appeals to Khammurabi, king of Babylon, who overpowers Rim-Sin.

THE KINGDOM OF BABYLON

IST DYNASTY, 2450-2150 B.C.

In the days of Sumer and Accad there is no mention of Babylon, which must, however, have developed into some importance during the supremacy of Isin (3000-2850). Dates are now more reliable.

2450 =Sumu-abi= overthrows the Ur Dynasty in Babylon, but the rebellion does not extend beyond that city.

2440 =Sumu-la-ilu.=--He builds six strong fortresses in Babylon.

2405 =Zabu.=--He builds temple E-dubar in Sippar. The country is evidently in revolution, for mention is made of a pretender, Immeru.

2290 =Apil-Sin.=

2370 =Sin-muballit.=

Only monuments of these reigns, contract tablets.

2342 =Khammurabi.=--Probably the =Amraphel= of the Bible, a contemporary of Abraham. The maker of a united Babylon, for in 2312 called upon by Sin-iddin, he expels Rim-Sin and the Elamites from Larsa, and adding southern Babylonia to his dominions, resumes the titles of the kings of Ur, Isin, and Larsa. He begins to develop his new kingdom, digging canals for water supply. Builds a great storehouse for wheat in Babylonia. Enlarges temples of E-zida and E-sagila in Borsippa.

Monuments.--Letters and inscriptions.

2287-2150 The remaining kings of the dynasty lived in complete peace. The few remains of their age witness a high civilisation and great prosperity.

Monuments.--Contract tablets.

IIND DYNASTY, 2150-1783 B.C.

2150-1783 Called the dynasty of Uru-Azag (probably referring to a district of the city of Babylon). Eleven kings of Sumerian origin reign for 368 years. There is but little known of them.

No monuments of this dynasty.

IIIRD DYNASTY, 1783-1207 B.C.

1783 The Kossæans or Kassites (Kasshu) from the mountains of Elam establish a dynasty with =Gandish= or =Gaddash= the first king. They had entered the country as roving bands, had overrun it, and finally attained the power. Culture and civilisation are assimilated by the newcomers.

1700 =Agum-kakrime=, the first king of the dynasty of whom we have any details. His kingdom is greater than that of Khammurabi. The land of Padan is subject to him. Some statues of gods that had been previously carried away are restored to Babylon.

1450 =Karaindash.=--In this reign we have the first evidence of intercourse between the kingdoms of Assyria and Babylonia--a treaty with Asshur-bel-nish-eshu, king of Assyria, concerning boundary line. Builds a temple to Nana, goddess of E-Anna.

1430 =Kadashman-Bel.=--He corresponds with Amenhotep III, of Egypt.

Monuments.--Letters found at Tel-el-Amarna.

1420 =Burnaburiash I.=--Contemporary with Puzur-Asshur of Assyria, with whom he seems to have had difficulties regarding questions of boundary. Builds a temple to the Sun-god at Larsa.

1410 =Kurigalzu I.=--The city of Dur-Kurigalzu is named after him. He probably rebuilds it.

Monuments.--Correspondence with Pharaoh of Egypt. (Tel-el-Amarna.)

1400 =Burnaburiash II.=--His successor. Long and prosperous reign.

Monuments.--Correspondence with Amenhotep IV, of Egypt. (Tel-el-Amarna.)

1370 =Kharakhardash=, marries a daughter of Asshur-uballit, king of Assyria. His son, =Kadashman-Kharbe I=, conducts a campaign against the Sutu, whom he conquers, and among whom he settles some of his subjects.

1360 Rebellion of the Kassites, who, jealous of the growing Assyrian influence, kill the king and place on the throne =Nazibugash=, who is defeated and killed by Asshur-uballit, the king of Assyria.

1350 =Kurigalzu II.=--Placed on the throne by the Assyrian king, invades Elam, and conquers the city of Susa (or Shushan). Battle with Bel-nirari, king of Assyria, with doubtful result.

1340-1286 Continuous struggle between Babylonia and Assyria under the following kings: =Nazi-Maruttash= (1340), =Kadashman-Turgu=, =Kadashman-Buriash= (1330), =Kudur-Bel= (1304-1299), =Shagarakti-Buriash= (1298-1286).

1285-1270 The king of Assyria, Tukulti-Ninib I, invades Babylon, enters the town, removes the treasures of the temple, and carries away the god Marduk to Assyria. This invasion took place probably under the reign of =Bibeiashu=, whose successors, =Bel-shum-iddin=, =Kadashman-Kharbe II= (1277-1275), and =Adad-shum-iddin= (1274-1269), were very likely only vassals of Tukulti-Ninib, who was the real king of Babylon for seven years.

1270 The Babylonians rise in revolt, drive the Assyrians from Babylon, 1269 and make =Adad-shum-usur= king, under whom the power of Babylon begins to revive. Assyria attacked, the king, Bel-kudur-usur, slain, and a portion of Assyrian territory annexed.

1238-1224 =Meli-Shipak.=--Successful against the Assyrian king, 1223-1211 Ninib-apal-esharra, so that under =Marduk-apal-iddin=, the Babylonian dominion extends over nearly the whole of the valley.

1210 Under the last two kings of this dynasty, =Zamamu-shum-iddin= and 1209 =Bel-shum-iddin=, Babylonia threatened by the Assyrian Asshur-dan.

1207 End of the dynasty as result of a Semitic revolution.

IVTH DYNASTY, 1207-1075 B.C.

The origin of this (Isin) dynasty still doubtful. There are eleven kings, of whom four or five are unknown to us.

1135 =Nebuchadrezzar I=, sixth king, exhibits the old-time spirit. Invades Assyria, but is repulsed. Is successful in campaigns against the people of Elam and Lulubi, even penetrates into Syria.

Monuments.--Monolithic inscription concerning grant of land to Ritti Marduk of Bit-Karziyabku.

1110 In the reign of =Marduk-nadin-akhe=, Tiglathpileser I of Assyria invades Babylon and takes the capital.

1083 At death of =Marduk-shapik-zer-mati=, a usurper, =Adad-apal-iddin= takes the throne.

1078 End of dynasty with death of =Nabu-shum=.

VTH, VITH, VIITH, VIIITH DYNASTIES, 1075-728 B.C.

A series of short-lived dynasties all struggling with the rising power of Assyria.

1075 Dynasty of Sea Lands, at the estuaries of the Tigris and the Euphrates upon the Persian Gulf, which later exercises great influence upon the history of Babylonia. This dynasty numbers only three kings, who reign together twenty-one years five months, or, according to the Babylonian chronicle, twenty-three years; viz. =Sibar-Shipak=, slain and buried in palace of Sargon. In his reign the Elamites pillage Sippar and do much damage; =Ea-mukin-zer=, of whom nothing is known, and =Kasshu-nadin-akhe=. These kings engaged on rebuilding the temple of the Sun at Sippar.

1053-1033 The dynasty of Sea Lands in Babylonia followed by the dynasty of Bit-Bazi, numbering also only three kings: =Eulbar-shakin-shum=, =Ninib-kudur-usur=, and =Silanim-shukamuna=, followed by a dynasty of Elam with only one king, whose name is unknown.

1027 The VIIIth Dynasty. Babylonian stock having exhausted its vigour, now intermixed with Kassite and other foreign blood.

747 =Nabu-nasir= (=Nabonassar=) of the VIIIth Dynasty comes to the throne. A time of literary activity.

732 =Nabu-nadinzer=, his successor, slain by =Nabu-shum-ukin=.

731 =Ukinzer= replaces Nabu-shum-ukin. Tiglathpileser III invades Babylon and determines to end the rule of native princes in the land.

728 =Tiglathpileser=, king of Babylon. =End of the Old Babylonian Empire.=

THE ASSYRIAN EMPIRE

FIRST PERIOD, 1830-1120 B.C.

Assyria was colonised from Babylonia. The date is uncertain, but Nineveh was in existence in 3000 B.C. The early rulers appear to have been subject priest-princes of the kings of Babylonia.

1830-1810 The first known rulers (Ishakke) are =Ishme-Dagan= and his son, =Shamshi-Adad I=, who builds a great temple in the city of Asshur, dedicated to the gods Anu and Adad.

1800-1700 Little known of their successors =Igur-kapkapu=, =Shamshi-Adad II=, while the dates of =Khallu= and =Irishum= are unknown.

Monuments.--A few inscriptions.

1700 =Bel-Kapkapu.=--The first to take the title of king, and therefore considered the real founder of the monarchy, probably the Bel-bani, of whom Esarhaddon claimed to be a direct descendant.

1700-1450 A dark age of Assyrian history. We know nothing of it, except that after the battle of Megiddo (ca. 1525) the ruler of Assyria sends presents to Tehutimes III.

1450 Assyria is now recognised by Babylonia as an independent kingdom. Its ruler, =Asshur-bel-nish-eshu=, makes a treaty with Karaindash, king of Kardunyash (Babylonia) concerning boundaries.

1420 =Puzur-Asshur=, treats with the Babylonians concerning the boundary.

1400 =Asshur-nadin-akhe II=, his successor, contemporary of Amenhotep IV, king of Egypt. Builds or restores a palace in Asshur.

Monuments.--Friendly correspondence with Amenhotep IV in the Tel-el-Amarna letters.

1370 Succeeded by =Asshur-uballit=, whose daughter, Muballitat Sheru’a, is married to Karakhardash, king of Babylon. The murder of his son, Kadashman-Kharbe I, brought about Assyrian intervention, and a grandson of Asshur-uballit, Kurigalzu, is placed on the throne. Babylonia now partially subject to Assyria. Campaigns of Asshur-uballit against the Shubari.

1360 His son =Bel-nirari= said to have conquered the inhabitants of the neighbouring Elamite foothills. These Assyrian conquests lead to a conflict between Kurigalzu II and Bel-nirari, in which the latter is victorious. A rearrangement of the boundary lines between the two countries is the result.

1350 His son, =Pudu-ilu=, a great warrior, considerably extends his kingdom.

Monuments.--A few brief inscriptions.

1345 His son and successor, =Adad-nirari I=, continues conquests in neighbouring territory. Rebuilds captured cities. Struggle with Babylonian king. He adds considerably to strength of kingdom.

Monuments.--A bronze sword, on which he calls himself king of Kishshati; an inscription, the oldest yet found with an eponym date.

1330 His son, =Shalmaneser I=, establishes colonies between the Euphrates and Tigris as a bulwark against the nomadic populations of the farther north. Subjects the Musri in northern Syria. Assyrians cross the Euphrates for the first time. The rapidly growing kingdom firmly established as far as the Balikh and perhaps the Euphrates. New capital built at Calah.

Monuments.--Two broken tablets.

1290 Under his son and successor, =Tukulti-Ninib I=, there is renewed trouble between Assyria and Babylonia. Invasion of Babylonia; capital taken. Conquered city governed from Calah, Assyrian officers stationed both in the north and south of the country. Tukulti-Ninib adopts the title of “King of Sumer and Accad” in addition to his former titles, “King of Kishshati” and “King of Asshur.” This rule over Babylonia maintained for seven years only. The king is killed in civil war. The most brilliant reign in Assyrian history up to this time. The steady and rapid progress of the Assyrians now checked.

1280 Rapid decline of Assyrian power under =Asshurnazirpal I=, Tukulti-Ninib’s son. An attack of Babylonia is repulsed with difficulty.

1250 Under his successors, =Asshur-narara= and =Nabu-daian=, the Assyrian power continues to wane, while the Babylonian increases.

1240-1235 Under =Bel-kudur-usur= and =Ninib-apal-esharra= Assyria is invaded by the Babylonians under Meli-shipak and Marduk-apal-iddin. All the southern and part of the northern and western conquered territory lost.

1210 Under =Asshur-dan I= rehabilitation of Assyrian power. He crosses the Lower Zab, invades Babylonian territory, and restores a small section of it to Assyria.

1150 Further Assyrian gains under =Mutakkil-Nusku= and 1140 =Asshur-rish-ishi=, who restores temple of Ishtar at Calah.

SECOND PERIOD, 1120-885 B.C.

1120 =Tiglathpileser I= (=Tukulti-apal-esharra=, my help is the god Ninib).--He builds up anew the Assyrian Empire, and thus records his work of conquest: “In all forty-two countries and their kings from the Lower Zab (and) the border of the distant mountains to beyond the Euphrates to the land of the Hittites and the Upper Sea of the Setting Sun, from the beginning of my sovereignty until my fifth year my hand has conquered.” His great success in war equalled by a marvellous story of peaceful achievements. The capital of Assyria brought back from Calah to Asshur; the temples of Ishtar, Adad, and Bel rebuilt, palaces restored and rebuilt.

Monuments.--The eight-sided prism found at Calah: several fragmentary annals of the early years of his reign.

1090 Under his successors, =Asshur-bel-kala= and =Shamshi-Adad III=, both sons of Tiglathpileser, further peaceful development, with gradually a falling off in the power and dignity of the kingdom. The former king maintains terms of peace with the king of Babylonia, Marduk-shapik-zer-mati, who thereby seems to be considered an independent monarch. As to Shamshi-Adad I, he is known to us only as the rebuilder of the temple of Ishtar in Nineveh.

1050-950 A dark age. The fortunes of Assyria are at low ebb. In this period reigned =Asshurnazirpal II=, =Erba-Adad=, =Asshur-nadin-akhe=, and =Asshur-erbi=. The last loses territory to the Aramæans, but he seems to have invaded Phœnicia.

950 =Tiglathpileser II=, who calls himself “King of Kishshati and King of Asshur.”

930 =Asshur-dan II=, his son.

911 =Adad-nirari II.=--Revival of struggle with Babylonia. Defeats Shamash-mudammik of Babylon in battle of Mount Yalman, also his successor Nabu-shum-ishkun. Assyrian cities given to Babylonia. Treaty of peace between the two nations.

890 =Tukulti-Ninib II.=--The period of weakness is passing. Babylon ceases to be troublesome, and the Assyrians begin to seek tribute in the north and west. The king ravages Armenia and the land of Kummukh.

THIRD PERIOD, 885-722 B.C.

885 =Asshurnazirpal III=, begins campaigns of conquest at once. In ten years all of Tiglathpileser I’s empire in the north, east, and west, conquered or intimidated into subjection with atrocious cruelties and barbarous devastations, is under heavy tribute.

876 A great invasion of the west. At his approach all the cities from Carchemish to Tyre hasten to send presents and arrange for tribute. The campaign ends in the gathering of timber for the temple of Ishtar at Nineveh.

867 A short and bloody campaign against Kummukh, Qurkhi and the country around Mount Masius. Asshurnazirpal rebuilds Calah, and constructs a canal to supply the city with water from the Lower Zab.

Monuments.--The royal palace unearthed at Nimrud; monolith containing accounts of his reign discovered by Layard at Nimrud; several lesser inscriptions.

860 =Shalmaneser II=, his son, continues his father’s conquests with similar cruelty. Campaign against Nairi and first of many campaigns in the north and east lasting until 830 with no real success.

857 The Aramæans of Bit-Adini in the Mesopotamian valley finally conquered and their land placed under Assyrian government.

854 Shalmaneser proceeds successfully against a coalition of North Syrian princes, Israel and Phœnicia. Battle of Qarqar. Yearly tribute imposed on states of northern Syria.

852 Marduk-nadin-shun of Babylon calls Shalmaneser to help him against his rebellious brother Marduk-bel-usati. Shalmaneser attacks and vanquishes the rebels and Marduk-nadin-shum rules under an Assyrian protectorate. The king of Assyria is once more the real ruler of Babylon.

849-834 Campaigns against the west. The results are not definite, and little is done except to pave the way for the future. Attack upon Ben-Hadad II of Damascus and his allies. Jehu sends aid against Damascus and the Assyrians get their first hold upon Israel.

827 Rebellion of Shalmaneser’s son Asshur-danin-apli which splits the kingdom into two discordant parts.

825 Death of Shalmaneser.

Monuments.--The black basalt obelisk containing story of his wars; monolith with portrait in bas-relief; gate inscriptions from Balauat.

823 =Shamshi-Adad IV=, after two years of civil war with his brother, is acknowledged legitimate king.

822-814 Campaigns in north, east, and west to receive allegiance.

813 Invasion of Chaldea.

812 Invasion of Babylon where Marduk-balatsu-iqbi refuses to pay tribute--a decisive victory.

Monuments.--Inscriptions.

811 =Adad-nirari III= succeeds his father--a ruler who increases Assyrian prestige immensely. Successful campaigns in the west. Eight brilliant campaigns against the Medes.

796-795 Babylon invaded--now practically an Assyrian province. The king tries to efface all national differences. Temples built in Assyria similar to those of Babylon, and Babylonian forms introduced into the ritual.

Monuments.--A statue of Nabu from the temple of Calah; inscriptions.

782 =Shalmaneser III=, a period of decline sets in. Of his ten campaigns, six are against the growing power of Urartu, which is trying to wrest the land of Nairi from the Assyrians.

772 =Asshur-dan III.=--The decay continues. Campaigns against Damascus, and Khatarikka in Syria. Two invasions of Babylon (771-767).

763-758 A series of rebellions in various parts of the kingdom.

754 =Asshur-nirari II.=--A reign of decadence. Campaigns against Arpad and Nairi, but no attempt to collect tribute.

746 Rebellion in Calah. Asshur-nirari disappears and with him the royal family that has ruled Assyria for centuries.

FOURTH PERIOD, 745-606 B.C.

745 =Pulu.=--A man of obscure origin obtains the throne, probably as the outcome of the Calah rebellion. He takes the name of =Tiglathpileser (III)=, and begins at once the formation of a great world-empire and proceeds first against Babylonia. Reconquers the country as far south as Nippur and reorganises the government. Makes a fixed policy of planting colonies and transporting captives. He next subdues the troublesome land east of Assyria, and sends his general, Asshur-danin-ani, into Media. Second expedition into Media (737), but withal the country remains practically independent. He takes up a difficult problem in the north where Argistis of Urartu had regained much territory, and his successor, Sarduris II, has formed an alliance with many northern princes. The armies of Sarduris and Tiglathpileser meet and the former is forced to retire.

742 Tiglathpileser, free from Sarduris, attacks Arpad, which falls, 740. Many neighbouring states send presents. The king of Unqi resists, but is soon taken and his country annexed to Assyria.

739 Part of Nairi taken. Tiglathpileser sets out to break the coalition of Syrian princes against him, aiming at Uzziah of Judah, the ringleader. Menahem of Israel weakens and pays the Assyrian heavy tribute, whereupon he abandons attacks on Judah, but subdues, and returns home with tribute from, all the other members of the league.

735 Campaign against Urartu--does not conquer but breaks the spirit of the country.

734-732 Campaigns in Syria. Damascus taken. Ahaz of Judah gives homage. Other lands incorporated with Assyria. Gaza captured.

731-729 He invades Babylonia to settle the internal strife raging there. Determines to do away with native princes. Ukinzer deposed. Merodach-baladan of Bit-Yakin gives homage.

728 Proclaimed legitimate king of Babylon.

Monuments.--The annals badly defaced by Esarhaddon; the slabs of Nimrud; inscription on clay tablets.

726 =Shalmaneser IV= succeeds.

725 Hoshea of Israel in alliance with Shabak of Egypt refuses tribute. Shalmaneser lays siege to Samaria.

THE SARGONIDES, 722-606 B.C.

722 =Sargon II=--a usurper succeeds. Samaria falls in this year. The inhabitants are removed to the Median mountains and replaced by colonists from Kutha.

721 Merodach-baladan rebels and is proclaimed king of Babylon. Sargon proceeds unsuccessfully against him. Rebellion in Hamath, joined by Gaza and Samaria.

720 The confederation defeated at Raphia.

720-710 Continuous campaigns. Successful attack on Urartu. Coalition in the north broken up.

717 Assyrian governors installed throughout the country. The career of Carchemish ended.

710 Merodach-baladan defeated. Sargon adopts title “Shakkanak,” Governor, of Babylon.

707 The great palace in his city of Dur-Sharrukin (Khorsabad) is finished. The walls are covered with magnificent inscriptions. He enters it the next year.

Monuments.--The palace of Dur-Sharrukin with inscriptions--other inscriptions.

705 =Sennacherib= (=Sin-akhe-erba=) succeeds his father.

702 Visits rebellious Babylonia and makes Bel ibni king.

701 Coalition against Sennacherib of Syrian princes and Tirhaqa of Egypt. The Assyrian attacks Phœnician cities and most of Syria submits. Battle of Altaku. Sennacherib’s army ravaged by pestilence, and he returns to Nineveh which he has made his capital.

700 Bel-ibni becomes hostile to Assyria through force of public opinion. Merodach-baladan and Marduk-ushezib of Chaldea join him. Sennacherib defeats them and has his own son Asshur-nadin-shum proclaimed king of Babylon.

694 Campaigns against the Chaldeans settled in Elam. Asshur-nadin-shum captured by the Elamites and Nergal-ushezib crowned.

692 Mushezib-Marduk made king of Babylon. With the Elamites, the Babylonians oppose Sennacherib at Khalule (691) and are utterly defeated.

689 Destruction of Babylon by Sennacherib.

688-682 Sennacherib absent in Arabia.

681 Murder of Sennacherib by his sons Nergal-shar-eser and Adarmalik.

681 =Esarhaddon= (=Asshur-akhe-iddin=) succeeds his father.

681-672 Nine campaigns to repress rebellions in different parts of the empire.

672 Destruction of Sidon. City of Kar-Asshur-akhe-iddin built on the same spot.

670 Esarhaddon appears in Egypt to punish Tirhaqa. Memphis taken. The whole country surrenders to Esarhaddon who reorganises the government.

668 Esarhaddon abdicates. He appoints his son Shamash-shum-ukin viceroy of Babylonia, and another son, Asshurbanapal, receives the throne of Assyria.

Monuments.--The “Black Stone,” the stele of Zenjirli; other inscriptions.

668 =Asshurbanapal= begins his reign.

667 Sends an army to Egypt which defeats Tirhaqa who has retaken Memphis. Conspiracy of Egyptian princes to restore Tirhaqa. They are taken and punished. Exacts tribute from King Baal of Tyre, and other princes.

655 Psamthek I of Egypt throws off the Assyrian yoke.

Campaign against Elam.

War with Shamash-shum-ukin, who plots against Assyria, and severe punishment of Babylonia. Cruel onslaught on Elam for assistance to Shamash-shum-ukin and his allies. The same fate is meted out to the Arabians.

Asshurbanapal is famous as a builder. Temple of E-kur-gal-kurra in Nineveh adorned. Rebuilding of E-sagila in Babylon completed. E-zida in Borsippa is embellished. The palace of Nineveh reconstructed and a great library built and equipped. Vast building operations in Babylonia and Arbela. His reign is one of great glory in works of peace, but Egypt has been lost, and many foreign provinces are on the verge of regaining their liberty.

Monuments.--Many records from the library of Nineveh.

626-609 Asshurbanapal succeeded by =Asshur-etil-ili-ukinni=, =Sin-shum-lishir=, and =Sin-shar-ishkum= (=Saracus=), of whom we have but little knowledge.

625 First appearance of the Scythian tribes in Assyria. They invade the land and burn Calah.

609 =Sin-shar-ishkum= attacks Babylonia, of which Nabopolassar is now king. The latter allies himself with the Scythian tribe of the Manda, which attacks Nineveh.

606 Sin-shar-ishkum sets fire to palace and perishes in the flames.

Nineveh taken and destroyed, as well as Dur-Sharrukin and Asshur.

The Manda secure the old land of Assyria, together with the northern provinces as far as the river Halys. The Babylonians take the southern and the Syrio-Phœnician possessions. =End of the Assyrian Empire.=

THE NEW EMPIRE OF BABYLON

606-538 B.C.

=Nabopolassar= (=Nabu-apal-usur=), an Assyrian governor of Babylonia about 625, finally becomes king, and a powerful rival of Assyria. After the destruction of Nineveh he receives his share of the old empire, and continues his reign in peace. Neku II of Egypt marches upon Babylonia. Country developed by canals and great buildings. Temple of Belit at Sippar rebuilt.

604-562 =Nebuchadrezzar= (=Nabu-kudur-usur=). Before he becomes king, he has defeated Neku at Carchemish (605). Campaign against Judah. Jerusalem twice besieged in 597, when Jehoiachin had to surrender, in whose place Mattaniah, a son of Josiah, was made king under the name of Zedekiah; and again in 586 when the city is taken, plundered, and destroyed. Population deported and Gedaliah placed as governor.

585-573 Investment of Tyre for thirteen years. Finally taken in 573 and King Ithobaal II deposed.

567 Invasion of Egypt in the reign of Aahmes II; heavy booty secured, but no lasting results. Splendid works of peace shown in numerous inscriptions. Extensive building operations. The walls of Babylon rebuilt and rendered impregnable. Canals repaired and temples reconstructed. Temples of Borsippa repaired and the walls reconstructed, also at Sippar, Larsa, Ur, Dilbat, Baz, and Erech.

Monuments.--Many inscriptions.

562 =Amil-Marduk= (the biblical =Evil-merodach=). No inscriptions found. 560 Assassinated by =Nergal-shar-usur= (=Neriglissor=).--Under him Babylon adorned and enlarged. The temple E-sagila beautified. Canal system regulated. Succeeded by 556 =Labashi-Marduk=, who was killed after a reign of only nine months, and succeeded by 555 =Nabu-Na’id= (=Nabonidus=), a usurper. Chiefly engaged in building and restoring temples. The temple E-ulbar restored and temples at Sippar and Kharran in Babylonia rebuilt.

539 Babylonia invaded by Cyrus of Elam and Persia.

538 Sippar taken. Babylon surrenders. Triumphal entrance of Cyrus into the city. =Babylonia a Persian province.=

FOOTNOTES

[15] [The theories of those who deny the existence of the Sumerians have been already given in the Introductory Essay, pages 309-317, by Professor Halévy, the leader of the anti-Sumerian school. The present trend of opinion is, however, largely toward the Sumerian theory.]

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us

I. LAND AND PEOPLE

Cities have been, and vanished; fanes have sunk, Heaped into shapeless ruin; sands o’erspread Fields that were Edens; millions too have shrunk To a few starving hundreds, or have fled From off the page of being. Now the dead Are the sole habitants of Babylon; Kings, at whose bidding nations toiled and bled, Heroes, who many a field of carnage won, Their names--their boasted names to utter death are done.

--JAMES GATES PERCIVAL.

It should be explained here at the very beginning that in speaking of the Mesopotamian civilisation as a unit, we are adopting for the sake of convenience a form of expression that is not historically accurate. Even the word “Mesopotamia” cannot be justified on strict analysis. The word is from the Greek, and means, literally, “between the rivers,” an obvious reference to the fact that the important portion of the territory in question lies between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. The word was used by the Greeks in indiscriminate application to Babylonia and Assyria, and its extreme convenience as a generic term has led to its retention in lieu of a better one; yet, as has been said, it cannot be applied with strict accuracy unless its etymological significance be quite overlooked; for, curiously enough, neither Babylon nor Nineveh was wholly situated in the territory which the Greek word describes. Babylon lay partly on the western shore of the Euphrates river, and Nineveh was situated on the eastern shore of the Tigris. But in common usage, as so often happens, the exact implication of the word “Mesopotamia” has been overlooked, and the word itself has come to be applied to the entire region of Babylonia and Assyria. In this sense, rather than in the more restricted one, we shall find it convenient as a substitute for the more cumbersome appellation, Babylonia-Assyria.

It has already been pointed out that we have to do with different races of people in dealing with Mesopotamian history. After a long dispute, carried on chiefly by philologists, it is now generally conceded that the earliest civilisation of southern Babylonia was due to a non-Semitic people, the Sumerians.[16] To this people, it would seem, must be ascribed the honour of developing the chief features of Mesopotamian civilisation, including the invention of the cuneiform system of writing. It is not at all clear at precisely what time the Semitic people, destined ultimately to become predominant in this region, made their appearance. Nor is the place of Semitic origin agreed upon among students of the subject. Some authors,[17] as Von Kremer, Guidi, and Hommel, hold that Babylonia was itself originally the cradle of the race. Others, including Sprenger, Sayce, Schrader, De Goeje, Wright, and Barton, contend that the Semites invaded Babylonia from Arabia. Yet others, including Palgrave, Gerland, Bertin, Brinton, Nöldeke, Jastrow, Keane, and Schmidt, hold to the African origin; while a modification of these views advocated by Wiedemann, De Morgan, and Erman supposes that both the Semites and Hamites rose in Arabia, and had their common civilisation before the Hamites went to Africa. Confronted with such conflict of opinions, the historian must be content to regard the exact antecedents of the Semites, previous to their appearance in Babylonia, as quite unknown.

As to the date of the beginnings of Semitic civilisation in Mesopotamia, Dr. John P. Peters, making use of Ainsworth’s estimates as to the amount and rate of alluvial deposit at the head of the Persian Gulf, computes that the seacoast must have been established this side of the site of the city of Ur about 6600 B.C., which date must, therefore, represent the earliest possible period for the foundation of that city. Ur was apparently the most southerly city of old Babylonia, and Nippur apparently the most northerly. Dr. Peters’ excavations at Nippur lead him to base its foundation at some period previous to 6000 B.C., and possibly previous to 7000 B.C.[a] He sums up his theory as follows:

“My suggestion, from the various facts here marshalled, would be that the original home of civilisation in Babylonia was the strip of land from Nippur southward to the neighbourhood of Ur, and not, as has sometimes been argued, the region about Babylonia and northward to Sippara; while the latter region is in itself older, it does not seem to have been older as the home of civilised man.

“The ancestors of the civilisation of Babylonia seem to have come from the region between Nippur and what was then the coast of the Persian Gulf. This would accord also with the tradition preserved to us in later sources that civilisation came to Babylonia out of the Persian Gulf. Possibly Eridu, on the Arabian plateau near the western shore and not far from the head of what was then the Persian Gulf, may represent the oldest seat of that civilisation. However that may be, at a very early period Nippur became the centre of civilisation and religion, being founded at a time when everything below Ur probably was still under water. As early as the close, if not the beginning, of the seventh millennium B.C., this strip of land at the head of the then Persian Gulf seems to have been the home of the civilised men, and from here civilisation spread northward.”[f]

THE LAND

The land of the Euphrates and Tigris lies between the Iranian country on the east and the Syrio-Arabian district on the west, from the chain of mountains of the Zagros to the rocky heights of the Lebanon and the Syrian desert. From the mountains of Armenia, in which both rivers have their source, the land gradually declines to the plain, extending from the point of their union to where they fall into the Persian Gulf.

The upper-river beds, winding through a high-lying, sometimes fertile steppe country, are surrounded by heights, where plane and cypress groves alternate with green meads and a rich growth of many-coloured flowers and plants.

As the land grows flatter, these valleys widen to fertile pastures on the river-banks, whilst the wide central plain grows more and more bare and treeless, until it ends at last in a desert trodden only by a few wandering shepherds with their flocks, and full of ostriches, bustards, and wild game. This is known as the between-river (Mesopotamia) district, which extends into a wide plain of rich brown soil, about a hundred miles above the mouth, where the two rivers approach most nearly, and the banks touch the so-called Median wall.

This plain, famous for its uncommon fertility as well as for its historic importance, the “Shinar” Land of the Semites, and the Babylonia of the Greeks, is as rainless as Egypt, and would have dried up into a sandy desert, had not nature and human artifice contrived means of irrigation.

For in the spring, when the snow melts on the Armenian mountains, both rivers overflow their banks and water the thirsty land. This overflowing of the gently moving Euphrates is as regular as that of the Nile; the wide tract of water is unopposed in its inundation of the plain and, like the Nile, it deposits a rich mud soil, and man’s resources are called into play to aid nature by the artificial conduct of water and by means of dams to give the neighbouring district a share in the fertilising irrigation.

But the bed of the Tigris growing decidedly more narrow as it nears the sea, receives the devastating stream from the eastern and northern mountains, and the force of the waters transports the fertile soil from the fields and transforms the plains into a wide swampy land, covered with reeds and rushes.

The inhabitants, therefore, had the double task of stemming the force of the stream to prevent destructive inundations, and of securing a course for the fertilising waters by canals and lakes. So the Babylonian plains were sown with such a number of small and great canals, dams and ditches, that the waterworks and means of irrigation were a source of wonder and astonishment to the whole of antiquity. These canals, cut in every direction and decreasing in size until they were almost rivulets, were furnished with countless machines and pump-works. Many of these canals, which should have been kept free by continuous clearing from the stoppage of mud, were lost in the sand; others, emptying into the Tigris, increased its size, the nearer it approached the sea, while the waters of the Euphrates were decreased through the drain of the canals.[b]

The Tigris and the Euphrates have both flood seasons and carry their waters over a wide extent of country, exactly as the Nile. This fact is so perfectly clear that there can be no doubt concerning it, though Herodotus directly asserts the contrary, saying, “The river does not, as in Egypt, overflow the corn lands of its own accord, but is spread over them by the help of engines.” The rise is indeed not so prolonged as the rise of the Nile, but its influence is, nevertheless, distinctly to be seen. Furthermore, the water was retained in sufficient quantity to supply an irrigation system far back from the river for the grain harvest, after the fall of the river. This entire system is now a vast ruin. The river rises and falls as it wills, and sweeping far over the western bank, turns the country into a morass. The harm of this is both negative and positive. It makes impossible any such great ingathering of grain as existed when this great valley was the world’s granary, and it fills the land with a dangerous miasma, which produces fevers and leaves the inhabitants weak and sickly. There are few instances in the world of a sadder waste of a beautiful and fertile country.[e]

Old writers give the most brilliant descriptions of the wonders of the district. Xenophon praises the quality and quantity of the dates, of the groves of palms which line the banks of the lower course of the two rivers and break the uniformity of the landscape, and are still very productive where the cruel Turkish rule has not changed the garden into a desert.

Herodotus lays particular stress upon the natural fertility of the country, for he writes: “Babylon is, as we know, famed for the best tillage of all lands, producing always two hundredfold of fruit and, in very good years, three hundredfold. The leaves of the wheat and barley are all four fingers wide, and I very well know, but I would rather not say, to what size the millet and seed grow; for I am certain that those who have not been in Babylon, will not believe it. There are few trees, no fig trees, no vine, no olive. They have no oil but what they make from sesame. But palm trees grow all over the country, and the fruit is eaten and honey and wine made from it.”

This country is now almost a desert, without buildings and vegetation, a world of tower-like ruins, which vary the monotony of the vast plains.

“From these heights,” says Ritter in his Geography, “one sees in the solemn stillness of this ruined world the far-reaching wide mirror of the Euphrates, winding majestically through that solitude like a royal pilgrim among the silent ruins of his departed kingdom. The palaces and temples, and the magnificent buildings, have all dropped into dust and ruin; hanging gardens and blooming paradises have fallen into gray, rush-grown, swampy marshes; and even there, where once the captive Israelites hung up their harps in the royal capital, and sang their songs of mourning over fallen Jerusalem, only a few imperishable willows remain, and the silence is unbroken by a voice of joy or mourning.”

Assyria, a mountainous district between the Tigris and the mountainous western boundary of Iran, is not so fertile as Babylonia, but its high position gives it a bracing climate.

Like the southern plains, it has little rain, but it is partially watered by the numerous rivers which flow eastward and westward to the Tigris, and partially by the canals and water conduits, and is rendered tolerably fertile by careful cultivation.

In the south only a few palm trees and cypresses break the monotony of the wide tilled fields, as in the Babylonian plain, but in the centre of the country are Aturia and Arbelitis (Adiabene) where the Upper Zab, the Zabatus or Lycus of classical writers, pours its blue waters into the Tigris, and there are fruitful hills, with protected valleys, full of corn, wine, sesame, figs, olives, and oranges; naphtha streams give forth their precious oil, and farther northward on the borders of Armenia and Media there are mountainous districts, the heights of which are crowned with woods of oak and pine. The eastern district at the foot of the Zagros (Chalonitis) is particularly prized for its wealth of palms, fruit trees, and olives, and the country of Arpakha (Arrapachitis) in the Chaldean mountains is considered the home of Abraham. From hence he descended into the river district of the centre and settled in the land around Kharran.

Northward lies the pasture land of Mesopotamia, whose wide plains became the scenes of bloody battles, and where races and royal families sought to eternalise their transitory power by the foundation of cities, which have mostly vanished, leaving no trace behind them. Like the Assyrian hill country, it gradually declines into grass-grown steppes until, in the south, it becomes a desert whose waterless wastes are trodden only by wandering Arabs.[b]

So far back as we have yet been able to penetrate, we find in the southern part of Mesopotamia a number of petty independent kingdoms, governed from their capital cities. Our present knowledge of this land and its inhabitants may be briefly summed up.

After the river Euphrates, with countless windings and sharp falls, has cleft the Syrio-Mesopotamian plain where it fertilises the districts contiguous on its banks, it approaches to within a few miles of the Tigris, and both streams water a completely flat plain, intersected by numerous rivers and canals, and, for the most part, flooded by the Euphrates in the summer.

The numerous districts on both sides of the lower Tigris and west of the Euphrates which are out of reach of the irrigation have a desert character, as rain is as rare here as in Egypt. But the irrigated land was proportionately fertile; at least it was so in antiquity and the Middle Ages. The district at the mouth of the streams was of a marshy character with numerous swamps and lakes. In olden times the confluence of both rivers, at latitude about 31° N., formed a long narrow bay which has now been filled up by their deposits. The Arabian Desert lies at the west of the Euphrates, or rather on its western arm, the Pallakopas. The country on the east of the Tigris rises gradually to the wild mountainous boundary of the Iranian highlands, which descends in terrace form to the Tigris, to which it sends numerous rivers, which in earlier times flowed direct into the sea.

At the present time the greater part of this district is a swampy desert traversed only by wandering tribes, whilst in antiquity, and again at the time of the Caliphs, it was made one of the most fertile countries in the world by dint of careful irrigation, regulation, and the construction of dams and canals.[18]

The most ancient population of this country formed several closely related races which had no connection with the other nations of Western Asia, but in the course of historical evolution they lost their language and nationality and were submerged in the neighbouring races.

In the land of Makan, the district of the mouth of the two chief rivers, were the Sumerians (Sumer, with its chief city of Ur, on the Euphrates); and in the northern part of the river country (Melucha land) from Erech, now Warka, upwards to the borders of the Mesopotamian steppes, lived the Accadians, so called from Agade, their capital, north of Babylon. To the east of the Tigris, far into the pathless districts of the Zagros Mountains, dwelt the warlike races of the Kossæans (Assyrian Kasshu). From their home, mode of life and character, they were evidently the predecessors of the modern Kurds, who belong, by language, to the Iranians. Next came the land of Elam, or Anshan, as it was called in the language of the country, the district of the rivers Choaspes and Eulæos, called by the Greeks Kissian, with the capital Shushan, the Susa of the Greeks.

Whilst the Kossæans were always a wild mountainous people, and the inhabitants of the plains of Elam, although they had a firmly established state organization, were dependent on their western neighbours for culture, Sumer and Accad (i.e. Babylonia) possessed an ancient and a complete, independently evolved culture, which, although second to that of the Lower Nile in innate worth and exclusive evolution, perhaps exceeded it in historical influence. The surplus of water from inundations was distributed over the country by means of canals and dykes. Thus ensued a better-ordered life of the state from the closer union of the different provinces. The temples of the great gods formed the centres of the different districts from which, as with the Egyptians, the cities of Babylonia arose first everywhere.

In Ur (now El-Mugheir) there was a temple of the moon-god Sin (or Nannar). In Eridu (now Abu Shahrein) was the temple of Ea, the ancient god of the ocean, and in Larsa (now Senkereh) that of the sun-god Babbar (or Shamash), the lord of the city. The latter was worshipped in like manner in Sippar (now Abu Habba), whilst in the neighbouring Agade (Accad) the goddess Anunit was the deity of the city. On the south lay the sacred “Gate of the Gods” Ka-Dingira, the Semitic Babel (Babylon), the capital of the country. [With it was later united the city of Borsippa.] The city Erech (Orchoë, now Warka), the sanctuary of the goddess Nana (Ishtar), was held in special veneration. North of Larsa was Girsu; on the canal Shatt-el-Khai was probably Lagash (now Telloh); north of this the city of Isin; near it was for a time the chief city of all Babylonia, Nippur, which was the home of the god Bel. It is here that the excavations of the University of Pennsylvania have been so fruitful. About fifteen miles northeast of Babylon was Kutha (now Tel-Ibrahim), whose god was Nergal; near Kutha was Kish. In the northern limit of Babylonia were Dur-Kurigalzu, nearly opposite the present Baghdad; and Upi [or Opis.]

It seems therefore that the lay dynasty arose mainly from the priesthood of these temples, for the kings are universally found in closest relation to the city deities, in whose honour they built or restored the temples, and down to their last day the priestly dignity ranked foremost in the title of the Babylonian kings.[c]

ORIGINAL PEOPLES OF BABYLON: THE SUMERIANS

It is coming to be a common agreement among Assyriologists that the original peoples of Babylon were of a race that was not Semitic. Just what it was these scholars are not yet prepared to say; although the inclination of belief is that it was an Indo-European race and most likely of the Turanian family. An attempt has recently been made to connect the aborigines with the Ugro-Finnish branch of the Ural-Altaic family, but with what success it is still too soon to say. But whatever these people, the Sumerians, may have been, they occupied the land of Babylonia until dislodged by a great wave of Semitic migration. This fact has not gone unchallenged, and from the ranks of Philology there has come a strong contention for a Semitic origin of the Babylonians, and the assertion that the Sumerian texts “do not represent a real language, but a kind of cipher written according to an artificial system of grammar.” And throughout the following discussion, written by Professor Hommel, it must not be forgotten that Professor Halévy, the originator of the theory of the Sumerian texts summarised above, still champions his contention and adduces evidence for it that seems to him conclusive.[a]

It has often been observed that southern Babylonia was originally the proper home of the Sumerians, while as early as the beginning of the fourth millennium before the Christian era the Semitic Babylonians were already settled in northern Babylonia, and, as is proved by the Naram-Sin inscription and several dating from the time of Sargon, his father (circa 3800 B.C.) had already acquired the Sumerian character (and, by inference, the Sumerian civilisation). In the case of southern Babylonia, the discoveries at Telloh have put us in possession of a number of sculptures--some of them in relief, others severed heads of statues, dating from the period between circa 4000 B.C., or earlier, and circa 3000. These present two different types. One is characterised by a rounded head with slightly prominent cheek bones, always beardless, and usually with clean-shaven crown. To this type certainly belong the representations of vanquished foes on the archaic sculpture, known as the Vulture stele, though the primitive method of representing the brow and nose by a single slightly curved line gives a merely superficial resemblance to the Semitic cast of countenance. The other is a longer-skulled (dolichocephalous) type, with thick, black hair and long, flowing beard.

It is certainly by no mere accident that the heads of the Telloh statues, most of which are supposed to represent kings, are of the first-mentioned (Sumerian) type, while the bronze votive offerings, which likewise bear the name of Gudea, are carried, as is evident at a glance, by Semites. And as there were Semites among the subjects of Gudea, where the Sumerians were the dominant race, so we find the same Semitic type clearly marked in the figures round the stem of a vase; while the party of musicians, who are seen approaching with submissive gestures on the fragment of a bas-relief, which probably also dates from the reign of Gudea, must likewise be of Semitico-Babylonian descent.

Fortunately, ancient Babylonian art gives us the opportunity, not merely of studying the wholly non-Semitic language of the earliest inhabitants of Babylonia in lengthy bilingual original inscriptions such as many of the statues of Gudea bear, but of seeing with our own eyes the bodily semblance of this singular people, and so observing the striking correspondence of non-Semitic elements in speech and facial type. In this connection we would draw attention to an ancient Babylonian statue of a female figure, now in the Louvre at Paris. We may confidently assume that the woman represented is a Sumerian and not a Semitic Babylonian; and it may thus be regarded as a splendid counterpart to the Gudea statues, which by the whole character of workmanship it calls to mind. Whether we have here a queen or some other lady of high rank (the supposition that she is a goddess appears to be excluded by the absence of the head-dress goddesses are wont to wear) cannot, of course, be determined with certainty. It is only natural that various mixed types should have developed in course of time, especially in northern Babylonia; and many of the faces we meet with--on the seal-cylinders more particularly--may be representations of such.

That the Sumerians, like the Semites, were not an autochthonous race in Babylonia follows from the condition of the soil, which had to be rendered fit for agriculture, and indeed, for human habitation, by a system of canals. Whence, then, did the Sumerians originally come, before they took possession of the swampy Euphrates valley and settled there?

There is a word in Sumerian, “Kar” (Turkish yer), which means “country” (as does the Turkish word). But in Sumerian it has also come to signify “mountain” and likewise “east” (since the mountains lie only in the east of Babylonia)--meanings which the Turkish word does not bear. This is, therefore, a clear indication that, even after the Sumerians had settled in Babylonia, the range on the Median frontier and what lay behind it always passed with them for their true country, the original home whence they had come. There is also extreme significance in the fact that they were originally unacquainted with both the lion and the horse, as also with wine (and consequently with the vine) and the palm tree; for they had no names for them, and called the lion “great dog” (nug magh), the horse “ass of the mountains” or “of the east,” wine the “drink of life” (gish-tin, from gash-tin), and the palm “tree of Magan” (mis-magan), or “the upright” (ügin, in its Semitic form mus-ukannu).

THE SEMITIC BABYLONIANS

By far the greater part of Babylonian literature, as well as the many official documents of the kings of Babylon (in the more restricted sense of the term) and Asshur is written in a language which was clearly perceived, as early as 1849, to be intimately related to the so-called Semitic languages of Anterior Asia. The relationship is but confirmed by the type presented to us in various statues and sculptures in relief, apart, of course, from the Sumerian sculptures of the very oldest period; though in Babylonia we frequently meet with a hybrid type, yet even in this the Semitic element is unmistakable. In the heads of Assyrian figures the Semitic characteristics are very strikingly marked. But since the Babylonians and Assyrians were a single nation as far as language is concerned, and differed in blood only by the fact that there seems to have been a strong admixture of some foreign element in the former, while the latter presents a strongly marked and far purer racial type, it may be taken as proved that this type is that of the Semitic races, a conclusion which is doubly vouched for by language and by facial conformation. It has already been remarked in the foregoing chapter, that (unlike the Sumerians) the Semitic population of Babylonia, which we meet with in northern Babylonia as early as 3800 B.C., and which predominated there from 2500 B.C. (or even earlier) onwards, was distinguished by an abundant growth of black hair and long beards.

From the circumstance that in the third millennium before the Christian era the old Babylonian kings who resided in Middle Babylonia (particularly at Nisin and Erech) and in Ur and Larsa bore Semitic names, though the inscriptions that have come down to us from their reigns are written entirely in Sumerian, we are probably justified in concluding that in Middle Babylonia, where the dominant Sumerian population of the south and the dominant Semitic population of the north must have come most directly into contact, the interfusion of the two races was at that time taking place on a very large scale. On the other hand, in northern Babylonia, where Sumerians had lived from the very earliest period, but had never risen to any political importance as compared with the Semitic immigrants, the two must have lived strictly apart down to 2000 B.C. (the latest date of which we can be certain), for not long before that time colonists went out from northern Babylonia and founded the empire of Assyria. The far greater purity of the Semitic type among the Assyrians, together with the absolute identity of their language and civilisation with that of Babylonia, leads inevitably to the inference that the intermixture of Sumerian blood with Semitic in North Babylonia had either not begun, or had as yet proceeded but a very little way.

Tested thus by philology, the Assyrio-Babylonian language, together with Canaanitish (under which title we include Phœnician, Hebrew, and Moabitish), Aramaic (Syrian, the so-called Biblical Chaldee, Palmyrene, etc.), and Arabic (and under this heading not only the Sabæan tongue of southern Arabia, but the Ethiopian and Amharic languages of Abyssinia, should be placed), belong to a single well-defined group which we have long been accustomed to call Semitic (cf. Stade’s Geschichte des Volkes Israel) and the races which spoke and speak them are known to ethnology as Semites. From the remotest antiquity down to modern times these races have maintained a singular purity of blood and racial type; the Canaanites represented in Egyptian tombs of the XIIth Dynasty, the Assyrian heads in the bas-reliefs of Nineveh, the features of Jews at the present time living in the midst of Indo-Germanic nations, and the Bedouins who to-day roam the Syrian and Arabian deserts, all exhibit a family likeness so remarkable that we see that throughout the whole course of history they can have mingled but little with alien races. The question of how and from what causes the Semitic type in Assyria came to be preserved in greater purity than in Babylonia itself, whence the Assyrians emigrated, is one that has been briefly touched upon above.

Under these circumstances it is only to be expected that the constant type of character proper to other Semites should be discoverable, or, at least, in part recognisable in the Babylonians and Assyrians; although we are bound to take into account the fact that even in later days the Hebrews retained much of their old nomadic habits, that the Aramæans of the Assyrian period were for the most part nomadic, and that the Arabs are so still; while from the very beginning of their appearance in history the Semitic inhabitants of the regions about the Euphrates and Tigris are a home-dwelling people on a high level of civilisation. Many traits of primitive national character tend to be obliterated or modified by such an advance to a superior stage of civilisation, while others, foreign to the brother or kindred races which remained longer or still remain in the nomadic stage, are developed.

In the Assyrians and Babylonians, as a matter of fact, we must meet with so much that recalls instinctively their kin with those whom the Bible and universal history have long rendered us familiar that it offers the fullest confirmation of the conclusions arrived at by a study of their language and physical type. It is very difficult to compress into a few words a correct description of Semitic national character.

Eduard Meyer, in his otherwise admirable Geschichte des Alterthums, says, “A very matter of fact habit of thought, keen observation of detail, a calculating intellect ever directed to practical aims, keeping the creations of the imagination completely under control and averse from any freer flight of the spirit into the Illimitable, such are the characteristics that distinguish the Arabs and Phœnicians, Hebrews and Assyrians,”--a judgment which, though in the main correct, is nevertheless not exhaustive. [Some of Professor Meyer’s other estimates are less satisfactory to Professor Hommel, who quotes the following with entire disapproval, claiming that they quite misrepresent the true character of the Semitic mind: “This same abominably matter-of-fact habit of thought, which dominates the Koran and by means of which it wrought its effect, lies at the root of the human sacrifices of the Canaanites, the religious phrases of the Assyrians, and, finally, of Yahvism” (i.e. the religion of the Old Testament). “The relation of the individual to the god is regarded in a strictly rationalistic and calculating spirit. An ethical or mystical relation to the Deity is wholly alien to the Semitic mind.”] Compare these and other passages of the same sort [Professor Hommel continues] with the fact that, on the contrary, a monotheistic tendency stronger than in any other race in the world, and combining with it the idea of a heartfelt surrender of the whole man to the Deity, was one of the principal characteristics of the Semitic mind as a whole (though most highly developed among the Israelites).

It is true that the cruelty of the Assyrians to foreign prisoners of war, which often shocks us and estranges our sympathies from the whole nation, recall certain instances of a like defect among the ancient Israelites too strongly not to tempt us to think of it as a Semitic propensity; but nevertheless these are mere excesses and excrescences which must not be set to the account of national character. The Semite is not naturally cruel. If he were so, the trait must have come out most strongly in the Bedouin Arabs, who for centuries have remained at the barbaric stage in religious matters; whereas this is not so, but rather the reverse. With many races (some of them Indo-Germanic) of whom the most unspeakable horrors and acts of violence are recorded in the course of history, sheer lust of blood and torture has been the motive of such actions (or rather crimes), while the cruelties just referred to sprang from the dark side (revolting, it must be confessed) of a national virtue: true zeal for the Holiest.

THE ORIGINAL HOME OF THE BABYLONIAN SEMITE

On such questions as the degree of kinship in which the Babylonians and Assyrians stood to other Semites, their original home, their last halting-places, and consequently the sequence of Semitic migrations, Eduard Meyer holds the same views as the famous orientalist, Sprenger, to wit, that Arabia, i.e. the desert as distinct from the arable land, used from the very earliest times to send forth the surplus of her predatory and rapacious Bedouin population to the great pastoral districts in the vicinity, that is, to Palestine, the plain of Mesopotamia (Aram), and, in times long out of mind, to northern Babylonia also; that they were, so to speak, deposited there from time to time, and that all Semitic nations whom we meet with in a state of civilisation in the course of subsequent history have come into being in this manner.

“But this ingenious theory has been directly refuted by later investigations set on foot by A. von Kremer, and followed up by Ign. Guidi at Rome, and, more especially, by myself, with a view to discovering what domestic animals and cultivated plants were known to the original Semitic stock. By the year 1879 Guidi and I had come independently and, to some extent, by different ways to the conclusion that the original home of the Semites could not possibly be Arabia, but must be sought farther to the northeast. In the treatise, Die sprachgeschichtliche Stellung des Babylonisch-Assyrischen, I succeeded in proving further that the people who afterwards became the Babylonians and Assyrians must have separated from the common stock in some part of central Asia where the lion was indigenous, and emigrated into northern Babylonia through one of the passes of the Medio-Elamite range certainly no later than the fifth millennium B.C. The rest, however, came by way of the southern shore of the Caspian Sea--probably towards the end of the fourth millennium and at all events later than the Hamites of northern Babylonia--and entered what was afterwards Aramæan Mesopotamia from the north, then occupied it, and spread gradually from thence to Syria, Palestine, and Arabia.” (Hommel.) So, by subsequent offshoots and migrations, they became the Aramæans, Canaanites, and Arabs.

This theory furnishes, on the one hand, the first satisfactory explanation of many points in which Babylonian development, in language and various respects, differs from that of other Semites. On the other hand, it sets the large amount they have in common in a most interesting light, since it proves to be the primitive heritage of the Semitic race.

The whole question of the manner of Semitic migrations and offshoots is one that cannot be a matter of indifference to the historian, as may be objected in some quarters; and for a right understanding of the history of Babylonia in the earliest times, it is of the utmost consequence that we should know whether the Semitic Babylonians were a distinct branch, as compared with their brethren, whose relations among themselves were much closer, and whether the beginning of their migration had led their steps through the land where grew the olive, fig, vine, and other cultivated plants not to be found in Babylonia; and lastly, it is imperative for a right comprehension of the history of Semitic civilisation to arrive at a decision on these questions. The fact that we find in the Assyrio-Babylonian language no trace of the common Semitic name (found in Aramaic, Canaanitish, and Arabic) for the three plants just mentioned, and others of the same nature, constitutes, together with weighty philological considerations, the positive argument in favour of the theory I have set forth: namely, that the route by which the Semitic settlers of the lower Euphrates came did not lie through regions where these plants are indigenous, but that they migrated in advance of the rest of the Semites straight from the east or northeast into anterior Asia and so to their new home of Babylonia.[d]

FOOTNOTES

[16] [Compare, however, Professor Halévy’s Introductory Essay.]

[17] [See Sketch of Semitic Origins, by G. A. Barton, Ph.D. New York and London, 1902.]

[18] [This entire system is now a vast ruin, according to Rogers, who adds: “The great valley has a climate which appears little fitted to produce men of energy and force, for the temperature over its entire surface is very high in the summer season. It is, however, altogether probable that in the period of the ancient history neither the heat nor the sand was such a menace.… During the period of the glory of Babylon these sand waves (from Arabia) had certainly not gone beyond the Euphrates, and they could hardly have reached it.”]

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us

II. OLD BABYLONIAN HISTORY

We have here the mere dust of history, rather than history itself; here an isolated individual makes his appearance in the record of his name, to vanish when we attempt to lay hold of him; there the stem of a dynasty which breaks abruptly off, pompous preambles, devout formulas, dedications of objects or buildings; here and there the account of some battle, or the indication of some foreign country with which relations of friendship or commerce were maintained--these are the scanty materials out of which to construct a connected narrative.--MASPERO.

Recent researches in old Babylonia have brought to light a very large quantity of historical documents which tell a most important story, inasmuch as they have to do with the very remotest periods of antiquity. At Telloh, the site of the ancient city of Shirpurla, the French explorers have found an abundance of interesting material, while the Americans have exhumed, and are still exhuming, at Nippur, a mass of documents which bids fair to rival in quantity the voluminous records from the libraries of the Assyrian kings. In a single season’s excavating, Mr. Haynes has very recently brought to light thousands of inscribed tablets, some of which date from a period as long anterior to the time of the great Assyrian kings as that time is to our own.

The historian is to be particularly congratulated in that many of these ancient documents have the most direct bearing upon his studies. It has already been pointed out that the Babylonians were much more amply endowed with historical sense than were the Egyptians. They had a tolerably full appreciation of the importance of chronology, and though, like the Egyptians, they lacked a fixed era from which to reckon, they, to some extent, compensated for this defect by the ample series of king lists and “synchronisms” which various monarchs caused to be written. Several of these chronological documents have been restored to us by the various excavators, and, thanks to these, the outlines of considerable periods of early Babylonian history are now more accurately known than many much more recent epochs of occidental history.

Unfortunately, these ancient lists consist, for the most part, of tables of names having strange and unfamiliar sounds. To the average reader these names are necessarily repellant. Such words as E-anna-tum, Urumush or Alusharshid, Samsu-iluna, Kadashman-Kharbe cannot well be otherwise than mystifying when unconnected with any vivid sequence of tangible events. And for the most part the names of these earliest rulers of Babylonia stand, in the present state of our knowledge, as mere names, with only here and there a suggestion of tangibility. Now and then we hear that a bas-relief of a certain king has been preserved, as in the case of one Ur-Nina, “builder of an edifice attached to the temple of Nina at Lagash,”[19] and in such a case the mind conjures a curious world of associations at thought of an actual likeness, real or alleged, being preserved for a period of more than six thousand years. The king whose image is thus tangibly brought to view after all these centuries of oblivion must seem a very real personage, however little else is known of him or of his achievements.

Again, in the case of certain other monarchs, there are brief records of campaigns and conquests against neighbouring peoples whose very names, perhaps, have been preserved to us only through this incidental mention. In such cases the mind is stimulated to the formation of vague pictures of unknown peoples of that remote era, and the least imaginative person must feel a bewildered sense of wonderment as to what these peoples were like, whence they came, and whither they vanished. But for that matter the Babylonian kings themselves, and the peoples over whom they ruled, seem shadowy and mysterious enough, to say nothing of their neighbours. The present knowledge does not by any means suffice to give us a full list of the names of these early monarchs.

In all probability there are lists still in existence buried in the ruins of various cities, as yet unexplored, that in time will restore to us a reasonably full record of those long stretches of time which now seem so hazy. In numerous places the excavations are still going on, discoveries are daily being made, undeciphered material is being read; in a word, new chapters of this oldest past are being almost daily brought to light. Whatever is written to-day regarding early Babylonian history must then, in the nature of the case, be subject to possible revision to-morrow. At least this is true to the extent that additions are sure to be made to the present incomplete knowledge in the near future. It does not follow, however, that the knowledge of the present will be altogether superseded. Such king lists as have been already deciphered, covering in the aggregate considerable periods of time, may be depended upon, in general, as accurate and permanent records, which will be supplemented rather than supplanted by the new records of future discovery. Meantime, we must be content with the glimpses into here and there an epoch, and with the citation of here and there a name, covering as best we may some three or four thousand years of Babylonian history in a few meagre chapters.

Tantalising as it is to catch such mere glimpses into realms that must be fascinating could we but know their fuller history, there is at least a certain consolation in the thought that our generation is the first within the past two thousand years to gain even a glimpse of these epochs of history. Even in classical times nothing was known of early Babylonia: such reminiscences of Mesopotamian greatness as were preserved pertained to the later Assyrian history and to New Babylonia. And the Assyrians and New Babylonians themselves were possessed of but little information regarding their remote ancestors, whose records were, in the main, as completely hidden from them as they have been from all succeeding generations of men until our own time.

To co-ordinate properly the great mass of information, unearthed of late years concerning the numerous states that existed in Babylonia in the earliest historic period, is the task that Dr. Hugo Radau has undertaken with great success. The following extract from his recently published work[20] will give the reader the latest knowledge of these petty kingdoms, and enable him to understand how the greater ones absorbed the lesser, and how the way was thus paved for the union of all Babylonia under one ruler.[a]

THE BEGINNINGS OF HISTORY

[Sidenote: [ca. 4500 B.C.]]

The oldest king of Babylonia of whom we have any record, is Enshagkushanna, whose date we have placed before 4500 B.C. He calls himself “lord of Kengi,” the southern part of Babylonia. As to his nationality, whether he was a so-called “Sumerian” or a “Semite,” we have no means of knowing. Besides “lord of Kengi,” he seems to have had another title, viz. “king of … “ The lacuna probably contained the names of the capital of the kingdom. He must have waged war against Kish in northern Babylonia, which city he terms “wicked of heart.” He was the victor, and presented the spoil to “Enlil, king of the lands.” Enlil--the later Bel--was the chief god in Nippur; Nippur accordingly was called En-lil-ki, the “city of Enlil.” Hence Enlil of Nippur seems to have been the god who wielded the chief influence over the inhabitants of Early Babylonia. From inscriptions of certain patesis[21] of Shirpurla, as well as from those of Lugalzaggisi, we know that this temple was under the control of the king, who called himself accordingly patesi-gal, “the great patesi.” But it also had its own “chief local administrator,” the dam-kar-gal, who in his turn had several minor priests or patesis under him. The cult of this god seems to have been well arranged; the king, being the summus episcopus, had a host of other officers (priests) under him, who exercised the ordinary functions of the so-called priesthood of Bel. Few as the historical notices are, yet they enable us to get an insight into the condition of the land and of the people at this remote time. They show us that a struggle went on between the south (Kengi) and the north (Kish) which struggle lasted undoubtedly for several centuries.

Prominent cities at this time were the capital of Kengi, i.e. Shirpurla-Girsu, as we shall see later on; not Erech (Hilprecht), Nippur, and Kish.

It is necessary, however, before tracing the different steps in the development of Kish, to turn our attention to a kingdom called in the inscriptions “Shirpurla.” The inscriptions of the rulers of this kingdom give us an impression of a power and might which presupposes centuries for its development. All that we know of its art and civilisation tends in the same direction.

THE RULERS OF SHIRPURLA

[Sidenote: [ca. 4500-4100 B.C.]]

Shirpurla is the modern Tel-Loh (or Telloh) where De Sarzec found the inscriptions relating to the rulers of this dynasty. It is situated fifteen hours north of Mugheir, on the east side of the Shatt-el-Khai, and about twelve hours east of Warka. At this early time the city of Shirpurla seems to have included four component parts, viz. Girsu, Nina, Uruazagga, Erim. Thus it happened that one and the same king might call himself either “king of Shirpurla” or “king of Girsu.” These suburbs were built by various rulers in honour of their favourite gods or goddesses. Whether Shirpurla is the right reading, or Sirgulla (Hommel), we do not know. According to Pinches, Guide to the Kuyunjik Gallery, p. 7, London, 1883, and Babyl. Records, iii, p. 24, Shirpurla may read Lagash, which reading is adopted throughout by Jensen in K. B. iii. We retain the old reading Shirpurla, because this writing occurs most frequently in the monuments.

The rulers of Shirpurla may conveniently be grouped under four divisions:

(1) The dynasty of Urukagina--beginning with this ruler or his predecessor(s) and ending with Lugalshuggur and his successor(s).

(2) The dynasty of Ur-Nina, ending with Lummadur.

(3) The patesis between Lummadur and Ur-Ba’u.

(4) Ur-Ba’u and his successors, ending with Gala-Lama.

To Urukagina, the oldest member of the first dynasty of Shirpurla, we have assigned the approximate date of 4500 B.C. His greatness consisted not so much in successful wars against the neighbouring cities, as in securing a peaceful administration for his country and city. As “king of Girsu-Shirpurla,” he devoted his energy to the building of different storehouses, that should take up “the abundance of the countries,” and erected temples for different gods--thus showing his devotion and piety. He built “for Nina the beloved canal, the canal Nina-ki-tum-a,” and thus supplied his city with water. Bel of Nippur still exercises the highest influence. Ningirsu (“the lord of Girsu”) is the chief city-god, under whose control the capital stands. He is the Gud or “hero” of Enlil. In somewhat later inscriptions, Ningirsu has the title gud-lig-ga, “the strong hero” of Enlil. Many other gods are mentioned in his inscriptions.

To this oldest dynasty of Shirpurla belongs also a certain En-gegal (“lord of abundance” or “very rich”). He, like Urukagina, calls himself “lugal Pur-shir-la,” “king of Shirpurla.” Besides this he bears the proud title “lugal ki-gal-la,” “the great king,” and terms himself shib (dingir) Nin-gir-su, “the priest of Ningirsu,” a title similar to that of patesi-gal. From the title “the great king” we may venture to conclude that he, unlike his predecessor, must have carried his arms successfully against his enemies, who had previously succeeded in plundering Shirpurla; but fate decreed that his royal capital should be reduced to the seat of a patesi. Kish, having been defeated some time before by Enshagkushanna, seems to have acquired new strength. Its king, Mesilim, became lord paramount of Shirpurla, thus reducing its rulers to mere patesis. The name of only one of these earliest patesis is preserved to us, i.e. Lugal-shug-gur, who is mentioned in the inscription of Mesilim. The sovereignty of Kish over Shirpurla does not seem to have lasted very long. Shirpurla regained its former glory under a new dynasty, namely, that of Ur-Nina.

[Sidenote: [ca. 4300-4200 B.C.]]

With Ur-Nina begins a new dynasty, probably the mightiest of early Babylonia, the duration of its sovereignty extending from 4300 B.C. to 4100 B.C. Looking at the art and the inscriptions of these kings, we cannot help thinking that in Shirpurla civilisation must have been far advanced, so far advanced as to force upon us the conclusion that “several centuries have elapsed before men could reach this stage of civilisation.” The greater number of these art treasures are preserved in the Louvre; the inscriptions found on them have been published in Découvertes en Chaldée and in the Revue d’Assyriologie.

The first king of this dynasty was Ur-Nina (servant of Nina). The dynasty of Urukagina must have been reduced to mere nothingness by the kings of Kish, so that Ur-Nina found it easy to take possession of the throne. He must have been of an old family, for he mentions the name of his father and grandfather, who have the title neither of patesi nor of king. He, like his predecessor seems to have been great in peace. He built temples and various storehouses. A passage in his inscriptions where he records the building of the “wall of Shirpurla,” suggests that the old enemy, Kish, was still troublesome, so that he found it necessary to fortify his capital against the deadly enemies from the north.

The son of Ur-Nina, who succeeded him upon the throne of Shirpurla, was Akurgal. As yet no inscriptions of this monarch have been found. All that is known about him is gathered either from the inscriptions of his son (Eannatum) or from those of his father (Ur-Nina). In these inscriptions eight sons of Ur-Nina are mentioned. If we classify them according to their height, and take this as a basis for determining their age, we would get the following result:

UR-NINA -------------------------------------------------------------- (1) Lid-da, (2) Mu-ri-kur-ta, (3) A-ni-kur-ra, (4) Lugal-shir, (5) A-kur-gal, (6) Nun-pad, (7) E-ud-bu, (8) Nina-ku-tur-a.

It is remarkable that the first-born, Lidda, is mentioned in only one inscription. Did he never succeed his father upon the throne of Shirpurla? Did Akurgal, his fifth son, in preference to all the others, inherit the royal sceptre, and thus become the immediate successor of Ur-Nina? Interesting as these questions are, we are yet, with the means on hand, unable to decide them. This much only we know, that both Eannatum and Enannatum I, call themselves, “son of Akurgal.” Another interesting fact is that Eannatum, in his “Stèle des Vautours,” calls his father lugal (“king”) of Shirpurla, while in his other inscriptions he only terms him “patesi of Shirpurla.” Not very much can be concluded from this, because even Ur-Nina is styled by Eannatum “patesi of Shirpurla.” The translation of this latter passage, is not yet certain. Ur-Nina’s successor, however,--either Lidda or Akurgal,--may have lost the title “king” in consequence of an unsuccessful war. Eannatum, on the other hand, being more successful, resumes again for a short time the title “king” after his victory over Kish. This latter fact is very important. Eannatum expressly tells us that Innanna gave him the nam-lugal Kish-ki, “the kingship of Kish,” while as ruler of Shirpurla he was only patesi. The state of affairs then was as follows:

Ur-Nina, a usurper, was able to constitute himself king of Shirpurla in consequence of the weakness of the patesis of Shirpurla who preceded him, they having been reduced by the kings of Kish to complete powerlessness. Ur-Nina’s successors, however, were not able to retain the title of their father. Was it internal disharmony between the sons of Ur-Nina which caused this? They lost the title “king,” and had to accept that of patesi. Undoubtedly they were forced to do this by one of the successors of Mesilim, i.e. by a king of Kish. Eannatum--a great hero--was able to overcome the old enemy Kish. He even was so fortunate as to add to his old title, “patesi of Shirpurla,” that of “king” (sc. of “Kish”) and by a stretch of this latter title he may have also called himself “king of Shirpurla.” The successors of Eannatum called themselves, and are called without exception “patesis of Shirpurla.”

[Sidenote: [ca. 4200 B.C.]]

After these preliminary remarks about the titles of the different members of the dynasty of Ur-Nina, we now turn our attention to Eannatum (i.e. “The house of heaven is stable”), the son of Akurgal himself. Whether he reigned contemporaneously with his brother Enannatum I or not, we cannot tell. The fact that the sons of Enannatum I succeeded upon the throne of Shirpurla makes it reasonable to suppose that Eannatum preceded Enannatum I. This latter ruler seems to have played only a minor rôle in early Babylonia history. Only two of his inscriptions have so far come down to us. Eannatum, his brother, on the contrary, is the greatest of the whole dynasty. The deeds of this monarch have been preserved to us on different monuments, among which the “Stèle des Vautours” is the most important. In order to obtain a full conception of his time we must compare this “Stèle” with the so-called “Cone” of Entemena. Those monuments in connection with the Galet A, give us the following interesting piece of history:

The god of Shirpurla (Ningirsu) and the god of Gishban, at the instigation of Enlil (god of Nippur), agree to settle the boundaries between their respective territories (Cone i, 1-7). Mesilim, king of Kish,--a contemporary of Lugalshuggur, patesi of Shirpurla,--in the quality of lord paramount of Shirpurla, corroborates the result of this “settling of boundaries,” and erects a statue on the junction of the two territories, to mark out the boundaries of the territory of Shirpurla on the one side and of Gishban on the other (Cone i, 8-12). Ush, however, a certain ambitious patesi of Gishban, is not satisfied with this decision. He takes away the statue which Mesilim had erected, and then invades Shirpurla, undoubtedly to extend his territory beyond the boundary previously fixed (13-21). A war between Shirpurla and Gishban ensues.

Mesilim, who feels dishonoured by this action of Ush, takes the side of Shirpurla and defeats Gishban (22-31). Gishban in course of time again becomes restless. It invades, under its patesi Gunammide, the territory of Shirpurla, and more specifically the Guedin, a district sacred to Ningirsu. “Gunammide, the patesi of Gishban, according to the command of his god … the Guedin, the beloved territory of Ningirsu he destroyed.” Eannatum, after having fortified Shirpurla sufficiently (“the wall of Uruazagga he built”), and having led his armies victoriously against Elam and Gishgal, feels himself strong enough to deal a deadly (?) blow at Gishban. “Gishban he put under the yoke, twenty of its dead ones he buried.” Having done this, he restores the sacred territory, the Guedin, to Ningirsu; concludes a treaty with Enakalli, (one of) the successor(s) of Gunammide; digs a canal “from the great river (i.e. the Euphrates?) to the Guedin,” and makes the Gishbanites swear never to invade the sacred territory of Ningirsu again, nor to trespass this boundary.

“In the future time the territory of Ningirsu, when (the Gishbanites) should invade it again, the dyke and the canal, if they should trespass it, the statue, if they should take it away--at that time when they invade it, then the sa-shush-gal (i.e. Eannatum) of Utu, the powerful king by whom they have sworn, shall rise against Gishban.”

“The Stèle des Vautours” has for its main object the commemoration of this treaty with Enakalli, patesi of Gishban, after the latter city had been defeated by Eannatum. But Eannatum was not satisfied with this; he imposes a heavy tribute upon Gishban, consisting of one karu of grain for Nina and one karu for Ningirsu, besides 144,000 (?) great karu. (Cone ii, 19 ff.) After having reduced Gishban to tranquillity, Eannatum also carries his victorious weapons against Erech (Warka) and Ur (the Ur of the Chaldeans), Ki-Utu (Larsa?) and Az (on the Persian Gulf)--the patesi of which latter city he kills--against Melimme and Arua. These latter cities were all in the neighbourhood of Shirpurla. Last of all he crushes and defeats Zuzu, king of Ukh. But even this does not exhaust the record of his victories. He becomes king of Kish--Kish, which for so long had itself been sovereign over Shirpurla. How this victory was accomplished is not evident from the inscriptions so far extant. Probably at some future time we may find an account of this war.

Eannatum was not only a hero in war, but also a wise administrator. He not only renewed three suburbs of his capital, one of which--Uruazagga--he even surrounded by a wall, but also improved the condition of Shirpurla itself by digging different canals, which he consecrated to his god Ningirsu: the Kishedin, which probably marked the boundary between the Guedin and Gishban, and which the Gishbanites had to swear never to cross; the Lummagirnuntashagazaggipadda along the territory of Ningirsu; and the Lummadimshar.

Urukagina, we have seen, was the first to build a canal, viz. one for Nina, which he called Nina-ki-tum-a. In the Cone of Entemena are also mentioned the canal Lummasirta, the Imdubba, and the Namnundakiggara. Here, then, we have the beginning of the most characteristic feature of Babylonia. Babylonia becomes the “land of canals,” such as the Psalmist had in mind when he wrote that touching psalm, “By the rivers of Babylon we sat down and wept.” Further, Eannatum was not unmindful of his duty to the gods. He confesses that all that he is and that he has comes from his gods. Accordingly, he shows his gratitude by erecting sanctuaries for Enlil, Ninkharsag, Ningirsu, and Utu, and by restoring old buildings, which had been erected by his predecessors in honour of the gods, among which is to be found the Tirash.

In spite of the solemn promise of Gishban never to invade the territory of Shirpurla again, or to pass over the boundary canal, it very soon--probably at the end of the reign of Eannatum, or better, at the beginning of that of Enannatum I--becomes rebellious as before. It invades the territory of Girsu, under the leadership of a certain Urlumma, patesi of Gishban, passes over the boundary canals which Eannatum had made, removes the steles erected on those canals in honour of Ningirsu, casts them into the fire, and even destroys the sanctuaries which Eannatum had built on one of these canals (i.e. the Namnundakigarra) in honour of Enlil, Ninkharsag, Ningirsu, and Utu, and lays waste the country. Enannatum promptly arises to chastise “those dogs” who had dared to break their solemn promise. Whether this battle was decisive or not, is not evident. It seems, however, that Enannatum I gained but a slight victory over Gishban.

For Entemena, the son of Enannatum, finds it necessary to renew the war with Gishban. “He puts Urlumma under the yoke,” i.e. subdues him, forces him to return to his own country, and pursues him to the very midst of Gishban. This triumphant victory began with the decisive battle at the canal Lummasirta in the territory of Shirpurla. “Of his (i.e. Urlumma’s) army sixty men on the side of the Lummasirta he left.” On account of the severe loss Gishban fled. Entemena pursued after it, of which pursuit he records that “he left the bones of the soldiers (of Urlumma) in the field.” Many of these soldiers of Gishban must have fallen, so many that Entemena was obliged “to bury their dead in five different places.”

Arrived in Gishban, Entemena makes a certain priest of Innannaab-ki (or Nin-ab-ki), Ili by name, patesi of Gishban, probably after having deposed Urlumma. As a compensation for the new dignity thus conferred, Entemena commands Ili to build in the territory of Karkar--which latter had also become rebellious--boundary canals and some other buildings. The canal which Eannatum had built “from the great river (Euphrates?) to the Guedin” Entemena prolongs to the Tigris, and also repairs the other canals, which had been destroyed more or less by the Gishbanites, and dedicates them anew to Ningirsu and Nina.

Interesting also is the subscription of this Cone:

“When the men of Gishban the boundary canal of Ningirsu and the boundary canal of Nina--for the purpose of ravaging these territories--shall pass over, then may Enlil destroy the men of Gishban and the men of the mountains; may Ningirsu bring his curse over them; may he lift up his great power; may the soldiery of his (Entemena’s) city be filled with bravery; may in the midst of the city be courage in their hearts.”

With Lummadur, the son of Enannatum II, we arrive at the last representative of the house of Ur-Nina. Nothing but his name is known to us. From the absence of the title patesi behind his name, we may conclude that Enannatum II was the last patesi of the line of Ur-Nina, and that the old enemies, Kish and Gishban, have finally succeeded in overpowering Shirpurla.

It is hardly possible to look back upon this dynasty of Ur-Nina--which, as we have seen, dates from before 4000 B.C.--without being impressed by the high civilisation, cult, the many buildings and canals, military skill, and style of writing. Surely such a people as this could not have sprung into existence as a deus ex machina; it must have had its history--a history which presupposes a development of several centuries more. We would gladly follow up the history of the successors of Lummadur, but the lack of material prevents us from so doing. Passing, therefore, over an interval of about two hundred years in the history of Shirpurla, we turn now to the enemies of the “hero Ningirsu,” i.e. Kish and Gishban (or, better, Gishukh).

KINGS OF KISH AND GISHBAN

[Sidenote: [ca. 4200-4000 B.C.]]

Various changes had befallen the land of Kish. When speaking of Enshagkushanna, we saw that Kish was defeated. It had, however, in course of time again increased in strength. Mesilim was able to establish himself as ruler over Shirpurla at the time of Lugalshuggur. His successors may have retained their glory for a considerable period. They were, however, not able to withstand the mighty weapons of Eannatum. This latter king not only shook off the old yoke which Kish had fastened upon Shirpurla, but even became “king of Kish.” He must have reduced Kish to total impotence. Hence it came about that Kish was vanquished by another power, of which we shall hear shortly.

Just as Gishban, after its defeat by Eannatum, felt strong enough to disregard the solemn promise never to invade the territory of Shirpurla, so Kish, after its overthrow by Eannatum, seems to have rapidly regained its old power. For we find a certain En-ne-ugun, “king of Kish,” who is also termed “king of the hordes of Gishban,” desirous with the help of this latter city to extend the power of his capital. He was, however, defeated by a certain king of a certain country (the names cannot be read on account of the mutilated condition of the tablets). “His statue”--this unknown victorious king records, while relating his victory over En-ne-ugun--“his shining silver, the utensils, his property, he carried away, and presented them to Bel at Nippur.”

In course of time, however, and probably not very long after this defeat, Kish seems to have recovered from this blow. A certain Urzaguddu must have been very successful in his wars, for, in addition to his title “king of Kish,” he calls himself also “king of …” Unfortunately here again we have a gap, so that we cannot determine of what city he became king.

Very little is known of the next king of Kish, Lugaltarsi. At what time subsequent to Urzaguddu he lived we cannot tell. So much only is certain, that he reigned some time before Alusharshid, about 3850 B.C. His inscription--the only one so far known to us--is preserved in the British Museum in which he records the building of Bad-kisal in honour of Bel and Ishtar. We can now place Manishtusu and Alusharshid also among the kings of Kish. Both flourished somewhere about 3850 B.C., before Sargon I.

When reading the inscriptions of these kings, it is as if a new race were speaking to us, so widely different is the language used by these rulers from that of their predecessors, or of any other kings we have so far met with. We here find for the first time the so-called Semitic-Babylonian inscriptions. It is the same language which is also employed in the inscriptions of Sharganisharali and his successors, in that of Lasirab, king of Guti, and of Annubanini, king of Lalubu, all of whom were more or less contemporary with these kings of Kish. Scholars who believe that we must postulate two different races among the inhabitants of early Babylonia call the kings who wrote in this style “Semitic kings,” while the others are referred to the Sumerian population. As a result of this they read the names of these kings in a Semitic way. Manishtusu becomes Ma-an-is-tu-iro (so Winckler). Urumush becomes Alu-usharshid (i.e. “He--some deity--founded the city”).

The inscription of Manishtusu, whom we place provisionally before Urumush, runs, “Manishtuirba, king of Kish, has presented (this) to Belit-Malkatu.”

Of more importance, from the historical point of view as well as from the linguistic, is the next ruler who followed soon after the former. This ruler is Alusharshid. From his inscriptions--to be found in fifty-one fragments of vases, which have been excavated by the expedition of the University of Pennsylvania under Dr. Peters, and partly published by Hilprecht--we learn that he subdued Elam, on the eastern side of the Tigris, and the country of Bara’se (Para’se), from which lands he brought back these marble vases, and dedicated them to his gods at Nippur and Sippar.

For but a short period subsequent to Alusharshid does Kish seem to have enjoyed its old power. The might of Kish gave place to that of Agade, as we shall see shortly. Leaving, therefore, Kish for the present, we turn our attention to the other enemy of Old Shirpurla, viz. Gishban.

[Sidenote: [ca. 4000 B.C.]]

At about 4000 B.C., not long after the time of Eannatum, Gishban seems to have acquired new power and might. It directed its chief attention not so much towards Shirpurla as towards the south. Probably the rulers of Shirpurla had at this time been reduced to utter weakness by its old enemies (i.e. Kish and Gishban), of which enemies Gishban was destined to play the most important rôle in the development of ancient Babylonian history.

Lugalzaggisi, the son of Ukush, patesi of Gishban, we find at the head of the armies of Gishban, which he leads victoriously against the south. After Erech had opened its doors, the whole of Babylonia to the Persian Gulf fell an easy prey to the conquering hero. He, although originally only the son of a patesi, becomes king of Erech, nay, even king of the “whole world.” “Enlil, king of the lands, has given to Lugulzaggisi the kingship of the world; he has made him to prosper before the world; he it was that had placed the lands under his sceptre--the lands ‘from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same.’ He it also was that gave him the tribute of those lands, which he made to dwell in peace, notwithstanding that they had been brought under a new régime.” With these words Lugalzaggisi acknowledges, as the kings of Shirpurla did, that Enlil, and Enlil alone, had granted to him so unprecedented a dominion, extending from the lower sea of the Tigris and the Euphrates (i.e. the Persian Gulf) to the upper sea (i.e. the Mediterranean). Constituted thus “lord of the world,” he now becomes its “summus episcopus.” “In the sanctuaries of Kengi, as patesi of the lands, and in Erech, as high priest, they (the gods) established him.”

To quote Hilprecht: “Babylonia, as a whole, had no fault to find with this new and powerful régime. The Sumerian civilisation was directed into new channels from stagnation; the ancient cults between the lower Tigris and Euphrates began to revive and its temples to shine in new splendour.” Thus, endowed with the highest temporal and spiritual power, he “makes Erech to abound in rejoicing.” Nor does he forget the other representative cities of his domain: “Ur, like a steer, to the top of the heavens he raised.” “Over Larsa, the beloved city of Shamash, he poured out waters of joy.” His own native town and land receive chief attention: “Gishban, the beloved city of … to an unheard-of power he raised.” He, as wise ruler and statesman, not only shows his good will and favour towards the larger and more influential cities, but also protects the weaker ones: “Ki-Innanna-ab he kept in an enclosure, like a sheep that is to be shorn.”

Indeed, “Lugalzaggisi stands out from the dawn (?) of Babylonian history as a giant who deserves our full admiration for the work he accomplished.”

Seeing that Semitisms occur in almost all the earliest inscriptions so far known to us, and that the rulers themselves may have been and probably were Semites--let us confess this--then the other question arises: At what time did the Semites come into the country, so as to induce the original inhabitants to employ expressions foreign to their own language? Where did they come from? To the last question, which has been repeatedly discussed by scholars, different answers have been given. Some make Africa the original home of the Semites; others Arabia; and Hilprecht, who last spoke of this problem, assigns for this purpose Kish, or better, Kharran some distance north of Babylonia. According to his theory, Lugalzaggisi, the great conqueror from Gishban (Kharran), was the first Semite to occupy any territory in Babylonia, and thus opened the way for the Semitic population. But Lugalzaggisi does not antedate Ur-Nina. Ur-Nina is a Semite, as we have seen, consequently Semites were in the country before Lugalzaggisi.

Gishban is not Kharran, but the neighbouring state of Shirpurla; hence the Semites did not come from Kharran, but actually occupied already the whole country of Babylonia. Thus the two questions--when did the Semites invade Babylonia? and, whence did they come?--are still awaiting an answer. It is possible that some tablets may give us a key to this problem, but so far these tablets have not been found.

[Sidenote: ca. 6000-3800 B.C.]

But further, if the Semites at so early a time as 4500 B.C. (Urukagina) had possession of Babylonia and had adopted the old language of the country, which language they interspersed with their own idiom, they must have been for a long time resident in the land. This would bring the immigration of the Semites back to at least 5000 B.C. and earlier, when the Sumerian power began to decay. We must therefore push back the height of Sumerian influence to a yet more remote period.

Hence, whatever view we take in regard to the two peoples and their languages, we are led to the same general result: Civilisation and history must go back to at least 6000 B.C.

THE FIRST DYNASTY OF UR

Of Ur--the Biblical “Ur of the Chaldees”--we have already heard at the time of Eannatum. It was situated at the western side of the Euphrates, opposite the place where the Shatt-el-Khai flows into it. Up to the time of Lugalzaggisi it may not have been of very great importance. This latter ruler, however, “raised it like a steer to the top of the heaven,” hence at no long period subsequent to Lugalzaggisi we meet two kings, father and son, ruling at Ur. It is not impossible that this dynasty may itself have brought about the overthrow of Lugalzaggisi, as to whose successors we have no information. Probably, also, it took possession of the more northern part of Babylonia (Nippur), for we find that both these kings present vases to Enlil, the “lord of the lands.”

The names of these two monarchs forming the first dynasty of Ur are:

Lugalkigubnidudu, and his son (?); Lugalkisalsi.

Their dominion extended over Ur, Erech, and Nippur, probably also over Shirpurla, for the kings of the south could not have gained possession of Nippur without passing Shirpurla. This would explain why we know so very little about Shirpurla at this time. It is, however, remarkable that both these kings should call themselves first “kings of Erech,” and then “kings of Ur”; while on the other hand, Lugalkigubnidudu expressly says that Enlil added (tab) the lordship (nam-en) to the kingship (nam-lugal), which lordship so added was Erech. We would expect that, if he were originally king of Ur, the title, “king of Ur,” would come first. Here, then, we have an analogy to and a confirmation of the argument used in regard to Urzaguddu. The latter king had also two titles, viz. “king of Kish” and “king of …,” and it was argued that the latter title, “king of …,” was the original, i.e. Urzaguddu became later on “king of Kish.” So here “king of Ur” was the original title; Lugalkigubnidudu subsequently became “king of Erech.”

[Sidenote: [ca. 4000-3800 B.C.]]

How long this dynasty flourished, how many rulers were comprised in it, and when and by whom it was overthrown, we cannot tell. Probably, however, it was replaced by a mighty kingdom which arose in the north (that of Agade), destined to bear sway over “the four corners of the world.”

Once more--before we leave southern Babylonia and pass over to the north--we have to direct our attention to Shirpurla. The traces which we possess of the life of Shirpurla and its patesis during this time (i.e. 4100-3800 B.C.) are but fragmentary. Only one patesi is known to us from a tablet recently published by Thureau-Dangin, in the Revue d’Assyriologie. This patesi, Lugalanda by name, cannot have lived very long after Lummadur, for the writing of that tablet shows all the palæographic peculiarities of the inscriptions of Eannatum. Probably he belonged to those patesis over whom Lugalzaggisi or his successors may have ruled.

With the next two patesis, Lugalushumgal and his son (?) Ur-E, we arrive at the time of Sharganisharali [Sargon], 3800 B.C. A considerable gap in this period has still to be filled up. Let us hope that the future excavations, combined with the industry of the decipherer, will bring some light into this darkest of all periods in Old Babylonian history.

Mentioning only another patesi that belongs to this period, Ur-(dingir) Utu(?)--whose name is followed by [nam?] patesi Uru-um-ki-ma (i.e. Ur)--we pass from the south to the north of Babylonia, i.e. to the city of Agade.

KINGS OF AGADE

Agade, near the modern Abu-Habba, formed in olden times with Sippar a double city. It was situated near the Euphrates and north of Babylon. As early as 3800 B.C. Semitic kings ruled in this city, extending their sceptres over the whole of Babylonia.

[Sidenote: [ca. 3800 B.C.]]

The first king, as far as our knowledge goes, was Sharganisharali, cited by us as Sargon I. He was the son of a certain Itti-Bel. This latter is neither called a king nor even a patesi. In this we may see a confirmation of the so-called “legend of Sargon,” according to which this monarch was “of an inferior birth on his father’s side,” and so either a usurper or the founder of the dynasty of Agade. This legend--probably written in the eighth century B.C.--purports to be a copy of an inscription written on a statue of this great king, and bears a certain similarity to the Biblical account of Moses. It reads: “Shargena, the powerful king, the king of Agade, am I. My mother was of noble family (?) [others: was poor], my father I did not know, whereas the brother of my father inhabited the mountains. My town was Azipiranu, which is situated on the bank of the Euphrates. My mother of noble family (?) (or, who was poor) conceived me and gave birth to me secretly. She put me into a basket of shurru (reeds?), and shut up the mouth (?) of it (?) with bitumen; she cast me into the river, which did not overwhelm (?) me. The river carried me away and brought me to Akki, the drawer of water. Akki, the drawer of water, took me up in … Akki, the drawer of water, reared me to boyhood. Akki, the drawer of water, made me a gardener. During my activity as gardener, Ishtar loved me. X + IV years I exercised dominion, … years I commanded the black-headed people (i.e. the Semites) and ruled them,” etc. The rest of this legend tells us something about his campaign against Dur-ilu on the borders of Elam; it is, however, too fragmentary to be coherent.

In connection with this legend we would call the attention of the reader once more to the fact that not merely the identity of this Shargena with our Sharganisharali, his deeds and warlike expeditions recorded in the so-called “Tablet of Omens,” with the date of his rule, have been doubted, but even his very existence. A series of new facts connected with the time of Naram-Sin and Sharganisharali have since come to light by the publication of a great number of contract-tablets written during the reign of these kings. These tablets are to be found in Revue d’Assyriologie, iv, No. iii. Hence it is now impossible to doubt the historicity of Sharganisharali, as was done by Niebuhr.

Down to the time of Hilprecht’s publication of Old Babylonian Inscriptions, Part I, our knowledge of Sargon I was almost entirely drawn from the “legend” and the “Tablet of Omens.” Hence it happened that the great deeds which were attributed to Sargon and Naram-Sin in the “Tablet of Omens” were said to be “purely legendary” (so by Winckler, Geschichte Babylon. und Assyr., p. 38). Others thought that his deeds had been simply projected backwards (so Maspero, Dawn of Civilization, New York, 1895, p. 599; “Sargon II is he who projected backward”); others again, not believing that Sargon I could have undertaken such expeditions and have become practically the “king of the four corners of the earth,” invented another king Sargon (so Hommel, Gesch. Baby. und Assyr., Berlin, 1883, p. 307, note 4; this Sargon he places at about 2000 B.C.).

Thanks to the excavations at Telloh and the industry of Thureau-Dangin, we are now in a position to prove that the statements of the “Tablet of Omens” are correct in almost every particular.

Let us hear what this “Tablet of Omens” has to say. Eleven of these “omens” are ascribed to Sargon and two to Naram-Sin. They generally begin with the phrase: “When the moon was in such and such position,” then Sargon, etc.

The first omen records Sargon’s expedition to and subjection of Elam.

The second tells how he marched to the land Akharri (i.e. the West-land), and subjected it, and that his army subjugated the kibrati irbitta, i.e. “the four corners of the world.”

The third tells us that he brought sorrow upon Kish and Babylon, and built a city after the pattern (?) of Agade, and called it Ub-da-ki, i.e. “place (city) of the world.”

The fourth records another expedition against the West and the taking possession of the four corners of the earth. So also the fifth omen.

The sixth omen is too fragmentary to yield any certain sense.

The seventh gives us a fuller account of the expedition against Akharri; he crosses the sea of the West and wages war against it for three years, takes it, erects there his statues, and transports the prisoners, whom he had taken, over land and sea.

The eighth describes the repairing of one of his palaces, which he calls “E-ki-a-am i-ni-lik,” i.e. “the house”: “so let us walk.”

In the next we hear of a campaign against a certain Kashtubilla of Kasalla, who had revolted. Sargon goes against him, conquers him and his army, and destroys the rebellious country.

The tenth probably is one of the most important. It reads: “Sargon, against whom under this omen the elders of the whole country had revolted, and in Agade had shut him up--Sargon went out, conquered them, and cast them down, subdued their army, and.…”

The last omen tells us something about Sargon’s campaign against the land Suri, how he overcame it, and took it, and how he destroyed its army.

The two omens relating to Naram-Sin record a campaign against Apirak (Omen i) and against Magan (Omen ii). In both expeditions Naram-Sin was so successful, that he even took captive the kings of these countries, viz.: Resh-Ramman (Adad), king of Apirak, and N. N. king of Magan.

According to this “Tablet of Omens,” then Sargon I subdued Elam, the “West-land,” brought woe upon Babylon and Kish, conquered the country Kasalla, suppressed a revolt which had arisen against him while on his expeditions, and finally subdued the land Suri “in its totality.”[b]

[Sidenote: [ca. 3750-2700 B.C.]]

Sargon’s son and successor, Naram-Sin, followed up the successes of his father by marching into Magan, whose king he took captive. He assumed the imperial title of “king of the four zones,” and, like his father, was addressed as a “god.” He is even called “the god of Agade” (Accad), reminding us of the divine honours claimed by the Pharaohs of Egypt, whose territory now adjoined that of Babylonia. A finely executed bas-relief, representing Naram-Sin, and bearing a striking resemblance to early Egyptian art in many of its features, has been found at Diarbekir. Babylonian art, however, had already attained a high degree of excellence; two seal cylinders of the time of Sargon are among the most beautiful specimens of the gem-cutter’s art ever discovered. The empire was bound together by roads, along which there was a regular postal service, and clay seals, which took the place of stamps, are now in the Louvre bearing the names of Sargon and his son. A cadastral survey seems also to have been instituted, and one of the documents relating to it states that a certain Uru-Malik, whose name appears to indicate his Canaanitish origin, was governor of the land of the Amorites, as Syria and Palestine were called by the Babylonians. It is probable that the first collection of astronomical observations and terrestrial omens was made for a library established by Sargon.

Bingani-shar-ali was the son of Naram-Sin, but we do not yet know whether he followed his father on the throne. Another son was high priest of the city of Tutu, and in the name of his daughter, Lipus-Eaum, a priestess of Sin, some scholars have seen that of the Hebrew deity, Yahveh. The Babylonian god, Ea, however, is more likely to be meant.

THE KINGS OF UR

The fall of Sargon’s empire seems to have been as sudden as its rise. The seat of supreme power in Babylonia was shifted southward to Erech, Isin, and Ur. At least three dynasties appear to have reigned at Ur and claimed suzerainty over the other Babylonian states. One of these, under Gungunu, succeeded in transferring the capital of Babylonia from Isin to Ur. It is still uncertain whether Gungunu belonged to the second or third dynasty of Ur; if to the second, among his successors would have been Ur-Gur, a great builder, who built or restored the temples of the Moon-god at Ur, of the Sun-god at Larsa, of Ishtar at Erech, and of Bel at Nippur. His son and successor was Dungi II, one of whose vassals was Gudea the patesi or high priest of Lagash [Shirpurla]. Gudea was also a great builder, and the materials for his buildings and statues were brought from all parts of western Asia, cedar wood from the Amanus Mountains, quarried stones from Lebanon, copper from northern Arabia, gold and precious stones from the desert between Palestine and Egypt, dolerite from Magan (the Sinaitic peninsula), and timber from Dilmun in the Persian Gulf. Some of his statues, now in the Louvre, are carved out of Sinaitic dolerite, and on the lap of one of them is the plan of his palace, with the scale of measurement attached. Six of the statues bore special names, and offerings were made to them as to the statues of the gods. Gudea claims to have conquered Anshan in Elam, and was succeeded by his son, Ur-Ningirsu. His date may be provisionally fixed at 2700 B.C.

[Sidenote: [ca. 2700-2340 B.C.]]

The high priests of Lagash still owned allegiance to Ur, when the last dynasty of Ur was dominant in Babylonia. The dynasty was Semitic, not Sumerian, though one of its kings was Dungi II. He was followed by Bur-Sin II, Gimil-Sin, and Ine-Sin, whose power extended to the Mediterranean, and of whose reigns we possess a large number of contemporaneous monuments in the shape of contracts and similar business documents, as well as chronological tables. After the fall of the dynasty, Babylonia passed under foreign influence.

ACCESSION OF A SOUTH ARABIAN DYNASTY

Sumu-abi (“Shem is my father”), from southern Arabia (or perhaps Canaan), made himself master of northern Babylonia, while Elamite invaders occupied the South. After a reign of fourteen years, Sumu-abi was succeeded by his son, Sumu-la-ilu, in the fifth year of whose reign the fortress of Babylon was built, and the city became for the first time a capital. Rival kings, Pungun-ila and Immeru, are mentioned in the contract tablets as reigning at the same time as Sumu-la-ilu (or Samu-la-ilu); and under Sin-muballit, the great-grandson of Sumu-la-ilu, the Elamites laid the whole of the country under tribute, and made Eri-Aku, or Arioch, called Rim-Sin by his Semitic subjects, king of Larsa. Eri-Aku was the son of Kudur-Mabuk, who was prince of Yamudbal [or E-mutbal], on the eastern border of Babylonia, and also “governor of Syria.”

The Elamite supremacy was at last shaken off by the son and successor of Sin-muballit, Khammurabi, whose name is also written Ammurapi and Khammuram, and who was the Amraphel of Genesis xiv. 1. The Elamites, under their king, Kudur-Lagamar or Chedorlaomer, seem to have taken Babylon and destroyed the temple of Bel-Merodach; but Khammurabi retrieved his fortunes, and in the thirtieth year of his reign (in 2340 B.C.), he overthrew the Elamite forces in a decisive battle and drove them out of Babylonia. The next two years were occupied in adding Larsa and Yamudbal to his dominion, and in forming Babylonia into a single monarchy, the head of which was Babylon.

A great literary revival followed the recovery of Babylonian independence, and the rule of Babylon was obeyed as far as the shores of the Mediterranean. Vast numbers of contract tablets, dated in the reigns of Khammurabi and other kings of the dynasty, have been discovered, as well as autograph letters of the kings themselves, more especially of Khammurabi. Among the latter is one ordering the despatch of two hundred and forty soldiers from Assyria and Situllum, a proof that Assyria was at the time a Babylonian dependency. Constant intercourse was kept up between Babylonia and the West, Babylonian officials and troops passing to Syria and Canaan, while “Amorite” colonists were established in Babylonia for the purposes of trade. One of these Amorites, Abi-ramu or Abram by name, is the father of a witness to a deed dated in the reign of Khammurabi’s grandfather. Ammi-satana, the great-grandson of Khammurabi, still entitles himself “king of the land of the Amorites,” and both his father and son bear the Canaanitish (and South Arabian) names of Abesukh or Abishua [Ebishum], and Ammi-zadok [or Ammi-sadugga].

[Sidenote: [ca. 2287-1100 B.C.]]

Samsu-satana, the son of Ammi-zadok, was the last king of the first dynasty of Babylon, which was followed by a dynasty of eleven Sumerian kings for 368 years. We know but little of them; their capital has not yet been discovered, and no trading documents dated in their reigns have been found. They were overthrown and Babylonia was conquered by Kassites or Kossæans from the mountains of Elam, under Kandish [Gandish] or Gaddas (in 1800 B.C.), who established a dynasty which lasted for 576 years and nine months.

THE KASSITE DYNASTY

Under this foreign domination, Babylonia lost its empire over western Asia. Syria and Palestine became independent, and the high priests of Asshur made themselves kings of Assyria. The divine attributes with which the Semitic kings of Babylonia had been invested disappeared at the same time; the title of “god” is never given to a Kassite sovereign. Babylon, however, remained the capital of the kingdom and the holy city of western Asia. Like the sovereigns of the Holy Roman Empire, it was necessary for the prince, who claimed rule in western Asia, to go to Babylon and there be acknowledged as the adopted son of Bel before his claim to legitimacy could be admitted. Babylon became more and more a priestly city, living on its ancient prestige and merging its ruler into a pontiff. From henceforth, down to the Persian era, it was the religious head of the civilised East.

One of the earlier Kassite kings was Agum-kakrime, who recovered the images of Merodach and his consort, which had been carried away to Khani. At a later date Kadashman-Bel and Burna-buriash I corresponded with the Egyptian Pharaohs, Amenhotep III and Amenhotep IV (1400 B.C.). The Assyrian king Asshur-uballit still owned allegiance to his Babylonian suzerain, and intermarriages took place between the royal families of Assyria and Babylonia. Babylonia, moreover, still sought opportunities of recovering its old supremacy in Palestine, which the conquests of the XVIIIth Dynasty had made an Egyptian province, and along with Mitanni or Aram-Naharain and the Hittites intrigued against the Egyptian government with disaffected conspirators in the West. After the death of Burna-buriash, however, civil war in Babylonia led to Assyrian interference in the affairs of the country, and from this time forward even the nominal obedience of Assyria to its old suzerain was at an end.

ASSYRIAN CONQUEST OF BABYLON

Frequent wars broke out between the two nations, and eventually (about 1280 B.C.) Tukulti-Ninib of Assyria, in the fifth year of his reign, captured Babylon and sent the treasures of E-sagila, the temple of Bel-Merodach, to Asshur. For seven years the Assyrian monarch reigned over Babylonia, then a revolt obliged him to retire; Adad-shum-usur of the native dynasty was placed on the Babylonian throne; and Tukulti-Ninib was shortly afterwards murdered by his son, Asshurnazirpal I. Assyria steadily increased in power, while Babylonia fell more and more into decay. Shalmaneser I, the builder of Calah (now Nimrud) in 1300 B.C., carried his victorious arms in all directions, and Tiglathpileser I extended the Assyrian Empire as far as the Mediterranean (1100 B.C.).

[Sidenote: [ca. 1230-745 B.C.]]

The Kassite Dynasty had fallen about 1230 B.C., in consequence of an attack on the part of the Elamites, and a new dynasty which sprang from Isin took its place, and lasted for 132½ years. Then came a series of short-lived dynasties, ending with that of Nabu-nasir, the Nabonassar of classical writers, who ascended the throne of Babylon in 747 B.C. Assyria was at the time in the throes of a revolution. Civil war and pestilence were devastating the kingdom, and its northern provinces had been wrested from it by Ararat (or Van) [Urartu]. In 746 B.C. Calah rebelled, and on the thirteenth of Airu (April), in the following year, Pulu or Pul, who took the name of Tiglathpileser III, seized the throne, and inaugurated a new and vigorous policy.[c]

At this point it seems well to interrupt the story of Babylonia for a time until we have traced the origins and rise of that Assyrian power in which the fortunes of Babylon were soon involved and subordinated until the destruction of Nineveh, when the New Babylonian Empire emerged into historic prominence.[a]

FOOTNOTES

[19] [Such is the way in which a few Assyriologists read the more commonly accepted “Shirpurla.” Professor Hommel interprets it “Sirgulla,” in favour of which there is something to be said.]

[20] [Quoted by permission from “Early Babylonian History,” New York and London, 1902.]

[21] [The patesi was an official whose office was sacerdotal as well as administrative. We find him at the head of a state before the ruler assumes the title of king and also a viceregent when the country has been conquered by a more powerful nation. The custom seems to have been in this case for the victorious monarch to reduce the vanquished to the rank of patesi, and in such capacity he and his successors continue the local administration.]

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us