* We have no direct testimony in support of this hypothesis, but several important considerations give it probability. As no tribute from Babylon is mentioned in the Annals of Thutmosis III., we must place the beginning of the relations between Egypt and Chaldaea at a later date. On the other hand, Burnaburiash II., in a letter written to Amenothes III., cites Karaindash as the first of his fathers, who had established friendly relations with the fathers of the Pharaoh, a fact which obliges us to place the interchange of presents before the time of Amenothes III.: as the reigns of Amenothes II. and of Thutmosis IV. were both short, it is probable that these relations began in the latter years of Thutmosis III.

The remoteness of Egypt from the Babylonian frontier no doubt relieved Karaindash from any apprehension of an actual invasion by the Pharaohs; but there was the possibility of their subsidising some nearer enemy, and also of forbidding Babylonish caravans to enter Egyptian provinces, and thus crippling Chaldaean commerce. Friendly relations, when once established, soon necessitated a constant interchange of embassies and letters between the Nile and the Euphrates. As a matter of fact, the Babylonian king could never reconcile himself to the idea that Syria had passed out of his hands. While pretending to warn the Pharaoh of Syrian plots against him,* the Babylonians were employing at the same time secret agents, to go from city to city and stir up discontent at Egyptian rule, praising the while the great Cosssean king and his armies, and inciting to revolt by promises of help never meant to be fulfilled. Assyria, whose very existence would have been endangered by the re-establishment of a Babylonian empire, never missed an opportunity of denouncing these intrigues at head-quarters: they warned the royal messengers and governors of them, and were constantly contrasting the frankness and honesty of their own dealings with the duplicity of their rival.

* This was done by Kurigalzu I., according to a letter addressed by his son Burnaburiash to Amenothes IV.

This state of affairs lasted for more than half a century, during which time both courts strove to ingratiate themselves in the favour of the Pharaoh, each intriguing for the exclusion of the other, by exchanging presents with him, by congratulations on his accession, by imploring gifts of wrought or unwrought gold, and by offering him the most beautiful women of their family for his harem. The son of Karaindash, whose name still remains to be discovered, bestowed one of his daughters on the young Amenothes III.: Kallimasin, the sovereign who succeeded him, also sent successively two princesses to the same Pharaoh. But the underlying bitterness and hatred would break through the veneer of polite formula and protestations when the petitioner received, as the result of his advances, objects of inconsiderable value such as a lord might distribute to his vassals,'or when he was refused a princess of solar blood, or even an Egyptian bride of some feudal house; at such times, however, an ironical or haughty epistle from Thebes would recall him to a sense of his own inferiority.

As a fact, the lot of the Cossaean sovereigns does not appear to have been a happy one, in spite of the variety and pomposity of the titles which they continued to assume. They enjoyed but short lives, and we know that at least three or four of them—Kallimasin, Burnaburiash I., and Kurigalzu I. ascended the throne in succession during the forty years that Amenothes III. ruled over Egypt and Syria.*

* The copy we possess of the Royal Canon of Babylon is mutilated at this point, and the original documents are not sufficiently complete to fill the gap. About two or three names are missing after that of Agumkakrime, and the reigns must have been very short, if indeed, as I think, Agumka- krimi and Karaindash were both contemporaries of the earlier Pharaohs bearing the name of Thutmosis. The order of the names which have come down to us is not indisputably established. The following order appears to me to be the most probable at present:—

Karaindash. Kallimasin. Burnaburiash I. Kurigalzu I. Burnaburiash II. Karakhardash. Kadashmankiiarbe I. Nazibugas II.. Kurigalzu II. Nazimaruttasii. Kadashmanturgu.

This is, with a slight exception, the classification adopted by Winckler, and that of Hilprecht differs from it only in the intercalation of Kudurturgu and Shagaraktiburiash between Burnaburiash II. and Karakhardash.

Perhaps the rapidity of this succession may have arisen from some internal revolution or from family disturbances. The Chaldaeans of the old stock reluctantly rendered obedience to these Cosssean kings, and, if we may judge from the name, one at least of these ephemeral sovereigns, Kallimasin, appears to have been a Semite, who owed his position among the Cossoan princes to some fortunate chance. A few rare inscriptions stamped on bricks, one or two letters or documents of private interest, and some minor objects from widely distant spots, have enabled us to ascertain the sites upon which these sovereigns erected buildings; Karaindash restored the temple of Nana at Uruk, Burnaburiash and Kurigalzu added to that of Shamash at Larsam, and Kurigalzu took in hand that of Sin at Uru. We also possess a record of some of their acts in the fragments of a document, which a Mnevite scribe of the time of Assurbanipal had compiled, or rather jumbled together,* from certain Babylonian chronicles dealing with the wars against Assyria and Elam, with public treaties, marriages, and family quarrels. We learn from this, for example, that Burnaburiash I. renewed with Buzurassur the conventions drawn up between Karaindash and Assurbelnishishu. These friendly relations were maintained, apparently, under Kurigalzu I. and Assur-nadin-akhi, the son of Buzurassur;** if Kurigalzu built or restored the fortress, long called after him Dur-Kurigalzu,*** at one of the fords of the Narmalka, it was probably as a precautionary measure rather than because of any immediate danger. The relations between the two powers became somewhat strained when Burnaburiash II. and Assuruballit had respectively succeeded to Kurigalzu and Assur-nadin-akhi; **** this did not, however, lead to hostilities, and the subsequent betrothal of Karakhardash, son of Burnaburiash II., to Mubauitatserua, daughter of Assuruballit, tended to restore matters to their former condition.

* This is what is generally called the "Synchronous History," the principal remains of which were discovered and published by H. Rawlinson. It is a very unskilful complication, in which Winckler has discovered several blunders.

** Assur-nadin-akhi I. is mentioned in a Tel el-Amarna tablet as being the father of Assuruballit.

*** This is the present Akerkuf, as is proved by the discovery of bricks bearing the name of Kurigalzu; but perhaps what I have attributed to Kurigalzu I. must be referred to the second king of that name.

**** We infer this from the way in which Burnaburiash speaks of the Assyrians in the correspondence with Amenothes IV.

The good will between the two countries became still more pronounced when Kadashmankharbe succeeded his father Karakhardash. The Cossaean soldiery had taken umbrage at his successor and had revolted, assassinated Kadashmankharbe, and proclaimed king in his stead a man of obscure origin named Nazibugash. Assuruballit, without a moment's hesitation, took the side of his new relatives; he crossed the frontier, killed Nazibugash, and restored the throne to his sister's child, Kurigalzu II., the younger. The young king, who was still a minor at his accession, appears to have met with no serious difficulties; at any rate, none were raised by his Assyrian cousins, Belnirari I. and his successor Budilu.*

* The Synchronous History erroneously places the events of the reign of Ramman-nirari in that of Belnirari. The order of succession of Buzurassur, Assuruballit, Belnirari, and Budilu, has been established by the bricks of Kalah-Shergat.

Towards the close of his reign, however, revolts broke out, and it was only by sustained efforts that he was able to restore order in Babylon, Sippara, and the Country of the Sea. While the king was in the midst of these difficulties, the Elamites took advantage of his troubles to steal from him a portion of his territory, and their king, Khurbatila, challenged him to meet his army near Dur-Dungi. Kurigalzu accepted the challenge, gained a decisive victory, took his adversary prisoner, and released him only on receiving as ransom a province beyond the Tigris; he even entered Susa, and, from among other trophies of past wars, resumed possession of an agate tablet belonging to Dungi, which the veteran Kudurnakhunta had stolen from the temple of Nipur nearly a thousand years previously. This victory was followed by the congratulations of most of his neighbours, with the exception of Bamman-nirari II., who had succeeded Budilu in Assyria, and probably felt some jealousy or uneasiness at the news. He attacked the Cossaeans, and overthrew them at Sugagi, on the banks of the Salsallat; their losses were considerable, and Kurigalzu could only obtain peace by the cession to Assyria of a strip of territory the entire length of the north-west frontier, from the confines of the Shubari country, near the sources of the Khabur, to the suburbs of Babylon itself. Nearly the whole of Mesopotamia thus changed hands at one stroke, but Babylon had still more serious losses to suffer. Nazimaruttash, who attempted to wipe out the disaster sustained by his father Kurigalzu, experienced two crushing defeats, one at Kar-Ishtar and the other near Akarsallu, and the treaty which he subsequently signed was even more humiliating for his country than the preceding one. All that part of the Babylonian domain which lay nearest to Nineveh was ceded to the Assyrians, from Pilaski on the right bank of the Tigris to the province of Lulume in the Zagros mountains. It would appear that the Cossaean tribes who had remained in their native country, took advantage of these troublous times to sever all connection with their fellow-countrymen established in the cities of the plain; for we find them henceforward carrying on a petty warfare for their own profit, and leading an entirely independent life. The descendants of Gandish, deprived of territories in the north, repulsed in the east, and threatened in the south by the nations of the Persian Gulf, never recovered their former ascendency, and their authority slowly declined during the century which followed these events. Their downfall brought about the decadence of the cities over which they had held sway; and the supremacy which Babylon had exercised for a thousand years over the countries of the Euphrates passed into the hands of the Assyrian kings.

Assyria itself was but a poor and insignificant country when compared with her rival. It occupied, on each side of the middle course of the Tigris, the territory lying between the 35th and 37th parallels of latitude.*

* These are approximately the limits of the first Assyrian empire, as given by the monuments; from the Persian epoch onwards, the name was applied to the whole course of the Tigris as far as the mountain district. The ancient orthography of the name is Aushar.

It was bounded on the east by the hills and mountain ranges running parallel to the Zagros Chain—Gebel Guar, Gebel Gara, Zerguizavan-dagh, and Baravan-dagh, with their rounded monotonous limestone ridges, scored by watercourses and destitute of any kind of trees. On the north it was hemmed in by the spurs of the Masios, and bounded on the east by an undefined line running from Mount Masios to the slopes of Singar, and from these again to the Chaldaean plain; to the south the frontier followed the configuration of the table-land and the curve of the low cliffs, which in prehistoric times had marked the limits of the Persian Gulf; from here the boundary was formed on the left side of the Tigris by one of its tributaries, either the Lower Zab or the Badanu. The territory thus enclosed formed a compact and healthy district: it was free from extremes of temperature arising from height or latitude, and the relative character and fertility of its soil depended on the absence or presence of rivers. The eastern part of Assyria was well watered by the streams and torrents which drained the Iranian plateau and the lower mountain chains which ran parallel to it. The beds of these rivers are channelled so deeply in the alluvial soil, that it is necessary to stand on the very edge of their banks to catch a sight of their silent and rapid waters; and it is only in the spring or early summer, when they are swollen by the rains and melting snow, that they spread over the adjacent country. As soon as the inundation is over, a vegetation of the intensest green springs up, and in a few days the fields and meadows are covered with a luxuriant and fragrant carpet of verdure. This brilliant growth is, however, short-lived, for the heat of the sun dries it up as quickly as it appears, and even the corn itself is in danger of being burnt up before reaching maturity. To obviate such a disaster, the Assyrians had constructed a network of canals and ditches, traces of which are in many places still visible, while a host of shadufs placed along their banks facilitated irrigation in the dry seasons. The provinces supplied with water in this manner enjoyed a fertility which passed into a proverb, and was well known among the ancients; they yielded crops of cereals which rivalled those of Babylonia, and included among their produce wheat, barley, millet, and sesame. But few olive trees were cultivated, and the dates were of inferior quality; indeed, in the Greek period, these fruits were only used for fattening pigs and domestic animals. The orchards contained the pistachio, the apple, the pomegranate, the apricot, the vine, the almond, and the fig, and, in addition to the essences common to both Syria and Egypt, the country produced cedrats of a delicious scent which were supposed to be an antidote to all kinds of poisons. Assyria was not well wooded, except in the higher valleys, where willows and poplars bordered the rivers, and sycamores, beeches, limes, and plane trees abounded, besides several varieties of pines and oaks, including a dwarf species of the latter, from whose branches manna was obtained.



This is a saccharine substance, which is deposited in small lumps, and is found in greater abundance during wet years and especially on foggy days. When fresh, it has an agreeable taste and is pleasant to eat; but as it will not keep in its natural state, the women prepare it for exportation by dissolving it in boiling water, and evaporating it to a sweetish paste, which has more or less purgative, qualities. The aspect of the country changes after crossing the Tigris westward. The slopes of Mount Masios are everywhere furrowed with streams, which feed the Khabur and its principal affluent, the Kharmis;* woods become more frequent, and the valleys green and shady.

* The Kharmis is the Mygdonios of Greek geographers, the Hirmas of the Arabs; the latter name may be derived from Kharmis, or it may be that it merely presents a fortuitous resemblance to it.

The plains extending southwards, however, contain, like those of the Euphrates, beds of gypsum in the sub-soil, which render the water running through them brackish, and prevent the growth of vegetation. The effects of volcanic action are evident on the surface of these great steppes; blocks of basalt pierce through the soil, and near the embouchure of the Kharmis, a cone, composed of a mass of lava, cinders, and scorial, known as the Tell-Kokab, rises abruptly to a height of 325 feet. The mountain chain of Singar, which here reaches its western termination, is composed of a long ridge of soft white limestone, and seems to have been suddenly thrown up in one of the last geological upheavals which affected this part of the country: in some places it resembles a perpendicular wall, while in others it recedes in natural terraces which present the appearance of a gigantic flight of steps. The summit is often wooded, and the spurs covered with vineyards and fields, which flourish vigorously in the vicinity of streams; when these fail, however, the table-land resumes its desolate aspect, and stretches in bare and sandy undulations to the horizon, broken only where it is crossed by the Thartar, the sole river in this region which is not liable to be dried up, and whose banks may be traced by the scanty line of vegetation which it nourishes.



Drawn by Boudier, from the cut in Layard.

In a country thus unequally favoured by nature, the towns are necessarily distributed in a seemingly arbitrary fashion. Most of them are situated on the left bank of the Tigris, where the fertile nature of the soil enables it to support a dense population. They were all flourishing centres of population, and were in close proximity to each other, at all events during the centuries of Assyrian hegemony.*

* We find, for example, in the inscription of Bavian, a long enumeration of towns and villages situated almost within the suburbs of Nineveh, on the banks of the Khoser.

Three of them soon eclipsed their rivals in political and religious importance; these were Kalakh and Nina on the Tigris, and Arbailu, lying beyond the Upper Zab, in the broken plain which is a continuation eastwards of the first spurs of the Zagros.* On the right bank, however, we find merely some dozen cities and towns, scattered about in places where there was a supply of water sufficient to enable the inhabitants to cultivate the soil; as, for example, Assur on the banks of the Tigris itself, Singara near the sources of the Thartar, and Nazibina near those of the Kharmis, at the foot of the Masios. These cities were not all under the rule of one sovereign when Thutmosis III. appeared in Syria, for the Egyptian monuments mention, besides the kingdom of Assyria, that of Singara** and Araphka in the upper basin of the Zab.***

* The name of Arbeles is written in a form which appears to signify "the town of the four gods."

** This kingdom of Singara is mentioned in the Egyptian lists of Thutmosis III. Schrader was doubtful as to its existence, but one of its kings is mentioned in a letter from the King of Alasia to Amenothes IV.; according to Niebuhr, the state of which Singara was the capital must have been identical, at all events at one period, with the Mitanni of the Egyptian texts.

*** The Arapakha of the Egyptian monuments has been identified with the Arrapakhitis of the Greeks.

Assyria, however, had already asserted her supremacy over this corner of Asia, and the remaining princes, even if they were not mere vicegerents depending on her king, were not strong enough in wealth and extent of territory to hold their own against her, since she was undisputed mistress of Assur, Arbeles, Kalakh, and Nineveh, the most important cities of the plain. Assur covered a considerable area, and the rectangular outline formed by the remains of its walls is still discernible on the surface of the soil. Within the circuit of the city rose a mound, which the ancient builders had transformed, by the addition of masses of brickwork, into a nearly square platform, surmounted by the usual palace, temple, and ziggurat; it was enclosed within a wall of squared stone, the battlements of which remain to the present day.* The whole pile was known as the "Ekharsagkurkurra," or the "House of the terrestrial mountain," the sanctuary in whose decoration all the ancient sovereigns had vied with one another, including Samsiramman I. and Irishum, who were merely vicegerents dependent upon Babylon. It was dedicated to Anshar, that duplicate of Anu who had led the armies of heaven in the struggle with Tiamat; the name Anshar, softened into Aushar, and subsequently into Ashshur, was first applied to the town and then to the whole country.**

* Ainsworth states the circumference of the principal mound of Kalah-Shergat to be 4685 yards, which would make it one of the most extensive ruins in the whole country.

** Another name of the town in later times was Palbeki, "the town of the old empire," "the ancient capital," or Shauru. Many Assyriologists believe that the name Ashur, anciently written Aushar, signified "the plain at the edge of the water"; and that it must have been applied to the town before being applied to the country and the god. Others, on the contrary, think, with more reason, that it was the god who gave his name to the town and the country; they make a point of the very ancient play of words, which in Assyria itself attributed the meaning "good god" to the word Ashur. Jensen was the first to state that Ashur was the god Anshar of the account of the creation.

The god himself was a deity of light, usually represented under the form of an armed man, wearing the tiara and having the lower half of his body concealed by a feathered disk. He was supposed to hover continually over the world, hurling fiery darts at the enemies of his people, and protecting his kingly worshippers under the shadow of his wings. Their wars were his wars, and he was with them in the thick of the attack, placing himself in the front rank with the soldiery,* so that when he gained the victory, the bulk of the spoil—precious metals, gleanings of the battle-field, slaves and productive lands—fell to his share. The gods of the vanquished enemy, moreover, were, like their princes, forced to render him homage. In the person of the king he took their statues prisoners, and shut them up in his sanctuary; sometimes he would engrave his name upon their figures and send them back to their respective temples, where the sight of them would remind their worshippers of his own omnipotence.** The goddess associated with him as his wife had given her name, Nina, to Nineveh,*** and was, as the companion of the Chaldaean Bel, styled the divine lady Belit; she was, in fact, a chaste and warlike Ishtar, who led the armies into battle with a boldness characteristic of her father.****

* In one of the pictures, for instance, representing the assault of a town, we see a small figure of the god, hurling darts against the enemy. The inscriptions also state that the peoples "are alarmed and quit their cities before the arms of Assur, the powerful one."

** As, for instance, the statues of the gods taken from the Arabs in the time of Esarhaddon. Tiglath-pileser I. had carried away twenty-five statues of gods taken from the peoples of Kurkhi and Kummukh, and had placed them in the temples of Beltis, Ishtar, Anu, and Ramman; he mentions other foreign divinities who had been similarly treated.

*** The ideogram of the name of the goddess Nina serves to write the name of the town Nineveh. The name itself has been interpreted by Schrader as "station, habitation," in the Semitic languages, and by Fr. Delitzsch "repose of the god," an interpretation which Delitzsch himself repudiated later on. It is probable that the town, which, like Assur, was a Chaldaean colony, derived its name from the goddess to whom it was dedicated, and whose temple existed there as early as the time of the vicegerent Samsiramman.

**** Belit is called by Tiglath-pileser I. "the great spouse beloved of Assur," but Belit, "the lady," is here merely an epithet used for Ishtar: the Assyrian Ishtar, Ishtar of Assur, Ishtar of Nineveh, or rather—especially from the time of the Sargonids—Ishtar of Arbeles, is almost always a fierce and warlike Ishtar, the "lady of combat, who directs battles," "whose heart incites her to the combat and the struggle." Sayce thinks that the union of Ishtar and Assur is of a more recent date.



Drawn by Faucher-Gudin, from squeezes brought back by M. do Morgan.

These two divinities formed an abstract and solitary pair, around whom neither story nor myth appears to have gathered, and who never became the centre of any complex belief. Assur seems to have had no parentage assigned to him, no statue erected to him, and he was not associated with the crowd of other divinities; on the contrary, he was called their lord, their "peerless king," and, as a proof of his supreme sovereignty over them, his name was inscribed at the head of their lists, before those of the triads constituted by the Chaldaean priests—even before those of Anu, Bel, and Ba. The city of Assur, which had been the first to tender him allegiance for many years, took precedence of all the rest, in spite of the drawbacks with which it had to contend. Placed at the very edge of the Mesopotamian desert, it was exposed to the dry and burning winds which swept over the plains, so that by the end of the spring the heat rendered it almost intolerable as a residence. The Tigris, moreover, ran behind it, thus leaving it exposed to the attacks of the Babylonian armies, unprotected as it was by any natural fosse or rampart. The nature of the frontier was such as to afford it no safeguard; indeed, it had, on the contrary, to protect its frontier. Nineveh, on the other hand, was entrenched behind the Tigris and the Zab, and was thus secure from any sudden attack. Northerly and easterly winds prevailed during the summer, and the coolness of the night rendered the heat during the day more bearable. It became the custom for the kings and vicegerents to pass the most trying months of the year at Nineveh, taking up their abode close to the temple of Nina, the Assyrian Ishtar, but they did not venture to make it their habitual residence, and consequently Assur remained the official capital and chief sanctuary of the empire. Here its rulers concentrated their treasures, their archives, their administrative offices, and the chief staff of the army; from this town they set out on their expeditions against the Cossaeans of Babylon or the mountaineers of the districts beyond the Tigris, and it was in this temple that they dedicated to the god the tenth of the spoil on their return from a successful campaign.*

* The majority of scholars now admit that the town of Nina, mentioned by Gudea and the vicegerents of Telloh, was a quarter of, or neighbouring borough of, Lagash, and had nothing in common with Nineveh, in spite of Hommel's assumption to the contrary.

The struggle with Chaldaea, indeed, occupied the greater part of their energies, though it did not absorb all their resources, and often left them times of respite, of which they availed themselves to extend their domain to the north and east. We cannot yet tell which of the Assyrian sovereigns added the nearest provinces of the Upper Tigris to his realm; but when the names of these districts appear-in history, they are already in a state of submission and vassalage, and their principal towns are governed by Assyrian officers in the same manner as those of Singara and Nisibe. Assuruballit, the conqueror of the Cossaeans, had succeeded in establishing his authority over the turbulent hordes of Shubari which occupied the neighbourhood of the Masios, between the Khabur and the Balikh, and extended perhaps as far as the Euphrates; at any rate, he was considered by posterity as the actual founder of the Assyrian empire in these districts.* Belnirari had directed his efforts in another direction, and had conquered the petty kingdoms established on the slopes of the Iranian table-land, around the sources of the two Zabs, and those of the Badanu and the Turnat.**

* It is called, in an inscription of his great-grandson, Ramman-nirari L, the powerful king "who reduced to servitude the forces of the vast country of Shubari, and who enlarged the territory and limits "of Assur.

** The inscription of Ramman-nirari I. styles him the prince "who crushes the army of the Cossaeans, he whose hand unnerves the enemy, and who enlarges the territory and its limits." The Cossaeans mentioned in this passage are usually taken to be the Cossaean kings of Babylon, and not the mountain tribes.

Like Susiana, this part of the country was divided up into parallel valleys, separated from each other by broken ridges of limestone, and watered by the tributaries of the Tigris or their affluents.



Drawn by Boudier, from a drawing by Pere Durand.

It was thickly strewn with walled towns and villages; the latter, perched upon the precipitous mountain summits, and surrounded by deep ravines, owed their security solely to their position, and, indeed, needed no fortification. The country abounded in woods and pastures, interspersed with cornlands; access to it was gained by one or two passes on the eastern side, which thus permitted caravans or armies to reach the districts lying between the Erythraean and Caspian Seas. The tribes who inhabited it had been brought early under Chaldaean civilization, and had adopted the cuneiform script; such of their monuments as are still extant resemble the bas-reliefs and inscriptions of Assyria.* It is not always easy to determine the precise locality occupied by these various peoples; the Guti were situated near the upper courses of the Turnat and the Badanu, in the vicinity of the Kashshu;** the Lulume had settled in the neighbourhood of the Batir, to the north of the defiles of Zohab;*** the Namar separated the Lulume from Elam, and were situated half in the plain and half in the mountain, while the Arapkha occupied, both banks of the Great Zab.

* Pinches has published an inscription of a king of Khani, named Tukultimir, son of Ilushaba, written in Chaldeo-Assyrian, and found in the temple of Shamash at Sippara, where the personage himself had dedicated it. Winckler gives another inscription of a king of the Guti, which is also in Semitic and in cuneiform character.

** The name is written sometimes Quti, at others Guti, which induced Pognon to believe that they were two different peoples: the territory occupied by this nation must have been originally to the east of the Lesser Zab, in the upper basins of the Adhem and the Diyaleh. Oppert proposes to recognise in these Guti "the ancestors of the Goths, who, fifteen hundred years ago, pushed forward to the Russia of the present day: we find," (he adds), "in this passage and in others, some of which go back to the third millennium before the Christian era, the earliest mention of the Germanic races."

*** The people of Lulumo-Lullubi have been pointed out as living to the east of the Lesser Zab by Schrader; their exact position, together with that of Mount Padir-Batir in whose neighbourhood they were, has been determined by Pere Scheil.

Budilu carried his arms against these tribes, and obtained successes over the Turuki and the Nigimkhi, the princes of the Guti and the Shuti, as well as over the Akhlami and the Iauri.*

* The Shutu or Shuti, who are always found in connection with the Guti, appear to have been the inhabitants of the lower mountain slopes which separate the basin of the Tigris with the regions of Elam, to the south of Turnat. The Akhlame were neighbours of the Shuti and the Guti; they were settled partly in the Mesopotamian plain and partly in the neighbourhood of Turnat. The territory of the Iauri is not known; the Turuki and the Nigimkhi were probably situated somewhere to the east of the Great Zab: in the same way that Oppert connects the Goths with the Guti, so Hommel sees in the Turuki the Turks of a very early date.

The chiefs of the Lulume had long resisted the attacks of their neighbours, and one of them, Anu-banini, had engraved on the rocks overhanging the road not far from the village of Seripul, a bas-relief celebrating his own victories. He figures on it in full armour, wearing a turban on his head, and treading underfoot a fallen foe, while Ishtar of Arbeles leads towards him a long file of naked captives, bound ready for sacrifice. The resistance of the Lulume was, however, finally overcome by Ramman-nirari, the son of Budilu; he strengthened the suzerainty gained by his predecessor over the Guti, the Cossaeans, and the Shubarti, and he employed the spoil taken from them in beautifying the temple of Assur. He had occasion to spend some time in the regions of the Upper Tigris, warring against the Shubari, and a fine bronze sabre belonging to him has been found near Diarbekir, among the ruins of the ancient Amidi, where, no doubt, he had left it as an offering in one of the temples. He was succeeded by Shalmanuasharid,* better known to us as Shalmaneser I., one of the most powerful sovereigns of this heroic age of Assyrian history.



Drawn by Faucher-Gudin, from the sketch published in the Transactions of the Bibl. Arch. Soc.

His reign seems to have been one continuous war against the various races then in a state of ferment on the frontiers of his kingdom. He appears in the main to have met with success, and in a few years had doubled the extent of his dominions.* His most formidable attacks were directed against the Aramaeans** of Mount Masios, whose numerous tribes had advanced on one side till they had crossed the Tigris, while on the other they had pushed beyond the river Balikh, and had probably reached the Euphrates.***

* Shalmanu-asharid, or Shulmanu-asharid, signifies "the god Shulmanu (Shalmanu) is prince," as Pinches was the first to point out.

** Some of the details of these campaigns have been preserved on the much-mutilated obelisk of Assur-nazir-pal. This was a compilation taken from the Annals of Assyria to celebrate the important acts of the king's ancestors. The events recorded in the third column were at first attributed to the reign of Tiglath-pileser I.; Fr. Delitzsch was the first to recognise that they could be referred to the reign of this Shalmaneser, and his opinion is now admitted by most of the Assyriologists who have studied the question.

*** The identity of the Arami (written also Armaya, Arumi, Arimi) with the Aramoans, admitted by the earlier Kammin- nikabi Assyriologists.

He captured their towns one after another, razed their fortresses, smote the agricultural districts with fire and sword, and then turned upon the various peoples who had espoused their cause—the Kirkhu, the Euri, the Kharrin,* and the Muzri, who inhabited the territory between the basins of the two great rivers;** once, indeed, he even crossed the Euphrates and ventured within the country of Khanigalbat, a feat which his ancestors had never even attempted.***

* The people of the country of Kilkhi, or Kirkhi, the Kurkhi, occupied the region between the Tigris at Diarbekir and the mountains overlooking the lake of Urumiah. The position of the Ruri is not known, but it is certain that on one side they joined the Aramaeans, and that they were in the neighbourhood of Tushkhan. Kharran is the Harran of the Balikh, mentioned in vol. iv. pp. 37, 38 of the present work.

** The name of Muzri frequently occurs, and in various positions, among the countries mentioned by the Assyrian conquerors; the frequency of its occurrence is easily explained if we are to regard it as a purely Assyrian term used to designate the military confines or marches of the kingdom at different epochs of its history. The Muzri here in question is the borderland situated in the vicinity of Cilicia, probably the Sophene and the Gumathene of classical geographers. Winckler appears to me to exaggerate their importance when he says they were spread over the whole of Northern Syria as early as the time of Shalmaneser I.

*** Khanigalbat is the name of the province in which Milid was placed.

He was recalled by a revolt which had broken out in the scattered cities of the district of Dur-Kurigalzu; he crushed the rising in spite of the help which Kadash-manburiash, King of Babylon, had given to the rebels, and was soon successful in subduing the princes of Lulume. These were not the raids of a day's duration, undertaken, without any regard to the future, merely from love of rapine or adventure. Shalmaneser desired to bring the regions which he annexed permanently under the authority of Assyria, and to this end he established military colonies in suitable places, most of which were kept up long after his death.*

* More than five centuries after the time of Shalmaneser I., Assurnazir-pal makes mention, in his Annals, of one of these colonies, established in the country of Diarbekir at Khabzilukha (or Khabzidipkha), near to the town of Damdamua.

He seems to have directed the internal affairs of his kingdom with the same firmness and energy which he displayed in his military expeditions. It was no light matter for the sovereign to decide on a change in the seat of government; he ran the risk of offending, not merely his subjects, but the god who presided over the destinies of the State, and neither his throne nor his life would have been safe had he failed in his attempt. Shalmaneser, however, did not hesitate to make the change, once he was fully convinced of the drawbacks presented by Assur as a capital. True, he beautified the city, restored its temples, and permitted it to retain all its privileges and titles; but having done so, he migrated with his court to the town of Kalakh, where his descendants continued to reside for several centuries. His son Tukulti-ninip made himself master of Babylon, and was the first of his race who was able to claim the title of King of Sumir and Akkad. The Cossaeans were still suffering from their defeat at the hands of Bamman-nirari. Four of their princes had followed Nazimaruttash on the throne in rapid succession—Kadashmanturgu, Kadashmanburiash, who was attacked by Shalmaneser, a certain Isammeti whose name has been mutilated, and lastly, Shagaraktiburiash: Bibeiasdu, son of this latter, was in power at the moment when Tukulti-ninip ascended the throne. War broke out between the two monarchs, but dragged on without any marked advantage on one side or the other, till at length the conflict was temporarily suspended by a treaty similar to others which had been signed in the course of the previous two or three centuries.*

* The passage from the Synchronous History, republished by Winckler, contains the termination of the mutilated name of a Babylonian king... ashu, which, originally left undecided by Winckler, has been restored "Bibeiashu" by Hilprecht, in the light of monuments discovered at Nipur, an emendation which has since then been accepted by Winckler. Winckler, on his part, has restored the passage on the assumption that the name of the King of Assyria engaged against Bibeiashu was Tukulti-ninip; then, combining this fragment with that in the Pinches Chronicle, which deals with the taking of Babylon, he argues that Bibeiashu was the king dethroned by Tukulti-ninip. An examination of the dates, in so far as they are at present known to us from the various documents, seems to me to render this arrangement inadmissible. The Pinches Chronicle practically tells us that Tukulti-ninip reigned over Babylon for seven years, when the Chaldaeans revolted, and named Rammanshumusur king. Now, the Babylonian Canon gives us the following reigns for this epoch: Bibeiashu 8 years, Belnadinshumu 1 year 6 months, Kadashmankharbe 1 year 6 months, Rammannadinshumu 6 years, Rammanshumusur 30 years, or 9 years between the end of the reign of Bibeiashu and the beginning of that of Rammanshumusur, instead of the 7 years given us by the Pinches Chronicle for the length of the reign of Tukulti- ninip at Babylon. If we reckon, as the only documents known require us to do, seven years from the beginning of the reign of Rammanshumusur to the date of the taking of Babylon, we are forced to admit that this took place in the reign of Kadashmankharbe IL, and, consequently, that the passage in the Synchronous History, in which mention is made of Bibeiashu, must be interpreted as I have done in the text, by the hypothesis of a war prior to that in which Babylon fell, which was followed by a treaty between this prince and the King of Assyria.

The peace thus concluded might have lasted longer but for an unforeseen catastrophe which placed Babylon almost at the mercy of her rival. The Blamites had never abandoned their efforts to press in every conceivable way their claim to the Sebbeneh-su, the supremacy, which, prior to Kbammurabi, had been exercised by their ancestors over the whole of Mesopotamia; they swooped down on Karduniash with an impetuosity like that of the Assyrians, and probably with the same alternations of success and defeat. Their king, Kidinkhutrutash, unexpectedly attacked Belnadinshumu, son of Bibeiashu, appeared suddenly under the walls of Nipur and forced the defences of Durilu and Etimgarka-lamma: Belnadinshumu disappeared in the struggle after a reign of eighteen months. Tukulti-ninip left Belna-dinshumu's successor, Kadashmankharbe II., no time to recover from this disaster; he attacked him in turn, carried Babylon by main force, and put a number of the inhabitants to the sword. He looted the palace and the temples, dragged the statue of Merodach from its sanctuary and carried it off into Assyria, together with the badges of supreme power; then, after appointing governors of his own in the various towns, he returned to Kalakh, laden with booty; he led captive with him several members of the royal family—among others, Bammanshumusur, the lawful successor of Bibeiashu.

This first conquest of Chaldaea did not, however, produce any lasting results. The fall of Babylon did not necessarily involve the subjection of the whole country, and the cities of the south showed a bold front to the foreign intruder, and remained faithful to Kadashmankharbe; on the death of the latter, some months after his defeat, they hailed as king a certain Bammanshumnadin, who by some means or other had made his escape from captivity. Bammanshumnadin proved himself a better man than his predecessors; when Kidinkhutrutash, never dreaming, apparently, that he would meet with any serious resistance, came to claim his share of the spoil, he defeated him near Ishin, drove him out of the districts recently occupied by the Elamites, and so effectually retrieved his fortunes in this direction, that he was able to concentrate his whole attention on what was going on in the north. The effects of his victory soon became apparent: the nobles of Akkad and Karduniash declined to pay homage to their Assyrian governors, and, ousting them from the offices to which they had been appointed, restored Babylon to the independence which it had lost seven years previously. Tukulti-ninip paid dearly for his incapacity to retain his conquests: his son Assurnazirpal I. conspired with the principal officers, deposed him from the throne, and confined him in the fortified palace of Kar-Tukulti-ninip, which he had built not far from Kalakh, where he soon after contrived his assassination. About this time Rammanshumnadin disappears, and we can only suppose that the disasters of these last years had practically annihilated the Cossaean dynasty, for Rammanshu-musur, who was a prisoner in Assyria, was chosen as his successor. The monuments tell us nothing definite of the troubles which next befell the two kingdoms: we seem to gather, however, that Assyria became the scene of civil wars, and that the sons of Tukulti-ninip fought for the crown among themselves. Tukultiassurbel, who gained the upper hand at the end of six years, set Raminan-shumusur at liberty, probably with the view of purchasing the support of the Chaldaeans, but he did not succeed in restoring his country to the position it had held under Shalmaneser and Tukulti-ninip I. The history of Assyria presents a greater number of violent contrasts and extreme vicissitudes than that of any other Eastern people in the earliest times. No sooner had the Assyrians arrived, thanks to the ceaseless efforts of five or six generations, at the very summit of their ambition, than some incompetent, or perhaps merely unfortunate, king appeared on the scene, and lost in a few years all the ground which had been gained at the cost of such tremendous exertions: then the subject races would rebel, the neighbouring peoples would pluck up courage and reconquer the provinces which they had surrendered, till the dismembered empire gradually shrank back to its original dimensions. As the fortunes of Babylon rose, those of Nineveh suffered a corresponding depression: Babylon soon became so powerful that Eammanshumusur was able to adopt a patronising tone in his relations with Assur-nirari I. and Nabodainani, the descendants of Tukultiassurbel, who at one time shared the throne together.*

* All that we know of these two kings is contained in the copy, executed in the time of Assurbanipal, of a letter addressed to them by Eammanshumusur. They have been placed, at one time or another, either at the beginning of Assyrian history before Assurbelnishishu, or after Tigiath-pileser I., about the XIth or Xth, or even the VIIIth century before our era. It has since been discovered that the Rammanshumusur who wrote this letter was the successor of Tukulti-ninip I. in Chaldaea.

This period of subjection and humiliation did not last long. Belkudurusur, who appears on the throne not long after Assurnirari and his partner, resumed military operations against the Cossaeans, but cautiously at first; and though he fell in the decisive engagement, yet Bamman-shumusur perished with him, and the two states were thus simultaneously left rulerless. Milishikhu succeeded Bammanshumusur, and Ninipahalesharra filled the place of Belkudurusur; the disastrous invasion of Assyria by the Chaldaeans, and their subsequent retreat, at length led to an armistice, which, while it afforded evidence of the indisputable superiority of Milishikhu, proved no less plainly the independence of his rival. Mero-dachabaliddina I. replaced Milishikhu, Zamaniashu-middin followed Merodachabaliddina: Assurdan I., son of Ninipahalesharra, broke the treaty, captured the towns of Zaban, Irria, and Akarsallu, and succeeded in retaining them. The advantage thus gained was but a slight one, for these provinces lying between the two Zabs had long been subject to Assyria, and had been wrested from her since the days of Tukulti-ninip: however, it broke the run of ill luck which seemed to have pursued her so relentlessly, and opened the way for more important victories. This was the last Cossaean war; at any rate, the last of which we find any mention in history: Bel-nadinshumu II. reigned three years after Zamamashu-middin, but when he died there was no man of his family whom the priests could invite to lay hold of the hand of Merodach, and his dynasty ended with him. It included thirty-six kings, and had lasted five hundred and seventy-six years and six months.*

* The following is a list of some of the kings of this dynasty according to the canon discovered by Pinches.



It had enjoyed its moments of triumph, and at one time had almost seemed destined to conquer the whole of Asia; but it appears to have invariably failed just as it was on the point of reaching the goal, and it became completely exhausted by its victories at the end of every two or three generations. It had triumphed over Elam, and yet Elam remained a constant peril on its right. It had triumphed over Assyria, yet Assyria, after driving it back to the regions of the Upper Tigris, threatened to bar the road to the Mediterranean by means of its Masian colonies: were they once to succeed in this attempt, what hope would there be left to those who ruled in Babylon of ever after re-establishing the traditional empire of the ancient Sargon and Khammurabi? The new dynasty sprang from a town in Pashe, the geographical position of which is not known. It was of Babylonian origin, and its members placed, at the be ginning of their protocols, formula which were intended to indicate, in the clearest possible manner, the source from which they sprang: they declared themselves to be scions of Babylon, its vicegerents, and supreme masters. The names of the first two we do not know: the third, Nebuchadrezzar, shows himself to have been one of the most remarkable men of all those who flourished during this troubled era. At no time, perhaps, had Chaldaea been in a more abject state, or assailed by more active foes. The Elamite had just succeeded in wresting from her Namar, the region from whence the bulk of her chariot-horses were obtained, and this success had laid the provinces on the left bank of the Tigris open to their attacks. They had even crossed the river, pillaged Babylon, and carried away the statue of Bel and that of a goddess named Eria, the patroness of Khussi: "Merodach, sore angered, held himself aloof from the country of Akkad;" the kings could no longer "take his hands" on their coming to the throne, and were obliged to reign without proper investiture in consequence of their failure to fulfil the rite required by religious laws.*

* The Donation to Shamud and Shamai informs us that Nebuchadrezzar "took the hands of Bel" as soon as he regained possession of the statue. The copy we possess of the Royal Canon. Nebuchadrezzar I.'s place in the series has, therefore, been the subject of much controversy. Several Assyriologists were from the first inclined to place him in the first or second rank, some being in favour of the first, others preferring the second; Dolitzsch put him into the fifth place, and Winckler, without pronouncing definitely on the position to be assigned him, thought he must come in about half-way down the dynasty. Hilprecht, on taking up the questions, adduced reasons for supposing him to have been the founder of the dynasty, and his conclusions have been adopted by Oppert; they have been disputed by Tiele, who wishes to put the king back to fourth or fifth in order, and by Winckler, who places him fourth or fifth. It is difficult, however, to accept Hilprecht's hypothesis, plausible though it is, so long as Assyriologists who have seen the original tablet agree in declaring that the name of the first king began with the sign of Merodach and not with that of Nebo, as it ought to do, were this prince really our Nebuchadrezzar.

Nebuchadrezzar arose "in Babylon,—roaring like a lion, even as Bamman roareth,—and his chosen nobles, roared like lions with him.—To Merodach, lord of Babylon, rose his prayer:—'How long, for me, shall there be sighing and groaning?—How long, for my land, weeping and mourning?—How long, for my countries, cries of grief and tears? Till what time, O lord of Babylon, wilt thou remain in hostile regions?—Let thy heart be softened, and make Babylon joyful,—and let thy face be turned toward Eshaggil which thou lovest!'" Merodach gave ear to the plaint of his servant: he answered him graciously and promised his aid. Namar, united as it had been with Chaldaea for centuries, did not readily become accustomed to its new masters. The greater part of the land belonged to a Semitic and Cossaean feudality, the heads of which, while admitting their suzerain's right to exact military service from them, refused to acknowledge any further duty towards him. The kings of Susa declined to recognise their privileges: they subjected them to a poll-tax, levied the usual imposts on their estates, and forced them to maintain at their own expense the troops quartered on them for the purpose of guaranteeing their obedience.*

* Shamua and Shamai "fled in like manner towards Karduniash, before the King of Elam;" it would seem that Rittimerodach had entered into secret negotiations with Nebuchadrezzar, though this is nowhere explicitly stated in the text.

Several of the nobles abandoned everything rather than submit to such tyranny, and took refuge with Nebuchadrezzar: others entered into secret negotiations with him, and promised to support him if he came to their help with an armed force. He took them at their word, and invaded Namar without warning in the month of Tamuz, while the summer was at its height, at a season in which the Elamites never even dreamt he would take the field. The heat was intense, water was not to be got, and the army suffered terribly from thirst during its forced march of over a hundred miles across a parched-up country. One of the malcontents, Eittimerodach, lord of Bitkarziabku, joined Nebuchadrezzar with all the men he could assemble, and together they penetrated as far as Ulai. The King of Elam, taken by surprise, made no attempt to check their progress, but collected his vassals and awaited their attack on the banks of the river in front of Susa. Once "the fire of the combat had been lighted between the opposing forces, the face of the sun grew dark, the tempest broke forth, the whirlwind raged, and in this whirlwind of the struggle none of the characters could distinguish the face of his neighbour." Nebuchadrezzar, cut off from his own men, was about to surrender or be killed, when Eittimerodach flew to his rescue and brought him off safely. In the end the Chaldaeans gained the upper hand.*

* Donation to Rittimerodach, col. i. 11. 12-43. The description of the battle as given in this document is generally taken to be merely symbolical, and I have followed the current usage. But if we bear in mind that the text lays emphasis on the drought and severity of the season, we are tempted to agree with Pinches and Budge that its statements should be taken literally. The affair may have been begun in a cloud of dust, and have ended in a downpour of rain so heavy as to partly blind the combatants. The king was probably drawn away from his men in the confusion; it was probably then that he was in danger of being made prisoner, and that Rittimerodach, suddenly coming up, delivered him from the foes who surrounded him.

The Elamites renounced their claims to the possession of Namar, and restored the statues of the gods: Nebuchadrezzar "at once laid hold of the hands of Bel," and thus legalised his accession to the throne. Other expeditions against the peoples of Lulurne and against the Cossaeans restored his supremacy in the regions of the north-east, and a campaign along the banks of the Euphrates opened out the road to Syria. He rewarded generously those who had accompanied him on his raid against Elam. After issuing regulations intended to maintain the purity of the breed of horses for which Namar was celebrated, he reinstated in their possessions Shamua and his son Shamai, the descendants of one of the priestly families of the province, granting them in addition certain domains near Upi, at the mouth of the Turnat. He confirmed Rittimerodach in possession of all his property, and reinvested him with all the privileges of which the King of Elam had deprived him. From that time forward the domain of Bitkarziabku was free of the tithe on corn, oxen, and sheep; it was no longer liable to provide horses and mares for the exchequer, or to afford free passage to troops in time of peace; the royal jurisdiction ceased on the boundary of the fief, the seignorial jurisdiction alone extended over the inhabitants and their property. Chaldaean prefects ruled in Namar, at Khalman, and at the foot of the Zagros, and Nebuchadrezzar no longer found any to oppose him save the King of Assyria.

The long reign of Assurdan in Assyria does not seem to have been distinguished by any event of importance either good or bad: it is true he won several towns on the south-east from the Babylonians, but then he lost several others on the north-west to the Mushku,* and the loss on the one side fully balanced the advantage gained on the other.

* Hommel has proved, by a very simple calculation, that Assurdan must have been the king in whose reign the Mushku made the inroad into the basin of the Upper Tigris and of the Balikh, which is mentioned in the Annals of Tiglath- pileser I. These Annals are our authority for stating that Assurdan was on the throne for a long period, though the exact length of his reign is not known.

His son Mutakkilnusku lived in Assur at peace,* but his grandson, Assurishishi, was a mighty king, conqueror of a score of countries, and the terror of all rebels: he scattered the hordes of the Akhlame and broke up their forces; then Ninip, the champion of the gods, permitted him to crush the Lulume and the G-uti in their valleys and on their mountains covered with forests. He made his way up to the frontiers of Elam,** and his encroachments on territories claimed by Babylon stirred up the anger of the Chaldaeans against him; Nebuchadrezzar made ready to dispute their ownership with him.

* Annals of Tiglath-pileser I. Mutakkilnusku himself has only left us one inscription, in which he declares that he had built a palace in the city of Assyria.

** Smith discovered certain fragments of Annals, which he attributed to Assurishishi. The longest of these tell of a campaign against Elam. Lotz attributed them to Tiglath- pileser I., and is supported in this by most Assyriologists of the day.

The earlier engagements went against the Assyrians; they were driven back in disorder, but the victor lost time before one of their strongholds, and, winter coming on before he could take it, he burnt his engines of war, set fire to his camp, and returned home. Next year, a rapid march carried him right under the walls of Assur; then Assurishishi came to the rescue, totally routed his opponent, captured forty of his chariots, and drove him flying across the frontier. The war died out of itself, its end being marked by no treaty: each side kept its traditional position and supremacy over the tribes inhabiting the basins of the Turnat and Eadanu. The same names reappear in line after line of these mutilated Annals, and the same definite enumerations of rebellious tribes who have been humbled or punished. These kings of the plain, both Ninevite and Babylonian, were continually raiding the country up and down for centuries without ever arriving at any decisive result, and a detailed account of their various campaigns would be as tedious reading as that of the ceaseless struggle between the Latins and Sabines which fills the opening pages of Roman history. Posterity soon grew weary of them, and, misled by the splendid position which Assyria attained when at the zenith of its glory, set itself to fabricate splendid antecedents for the majestic empire established by the latter dynasties. The legend ran that, at the dawn of time, a chief named Ninos had reduced to subjection one after the other—Babylonia, Media, Armenia, and all the provinces between the Indies and the Mediterranean. He built a capital for himself on the banks of the Tigris, in the form of a parallelogram, measuring a hundred and fifty stadia in length, ninety stadia in width; altogether, the walls were four hundred and eighty stadia in circumference. In addition to the Assyrians who formed the bulk of the population, he attracted many foreigners to Nineveh, so that in a few years it became the most flourishing town in the whole world. An inroad of the tribes of the Oxus interrupted his labours; Ninos repulsed the invasion, and, driving the barbarians back into Bactria, laid siege to it; here, in the tent of one of his captains, he came upon Semiramis, a woman whose past was shrouded in mystery. She was said to be the daughter of an ordinary mortal by a goddess, the Ascalonian Derketo. Exposed immediately after her birth, she was found and adopted by a shepherd named Simas, and later on her beauty aroused the passion of Oannes, governor of Syria. Ninos, amazed at the courage displayed by her on more than one occasion, carried her off, made her his favourite wife, and finally met his death at her hands. No sooner did she become queen, than she founded Babylon on a far more extensive scale than that of Nineveh. Its walls were three hundred and sixty stadia in length, with two hundred and fifty lofty towers, placed here and there on its circuit, the roadway round the top of the ramparts being wide enough for six chariots to drive abreast. She made a kind of harbour in the Euphrates, threw a bridge across it, and built quays one hundred and sixty stadia in length along its course; in the midst of the town she raised a temple to Bel. This great work was scarcely finished when disturbances broke out in Media; these she promptly repressed, and set out on a tour of inspection through the whole of her provinces, with a view to preventing the recurrence of similar outbreaks by her presence. Wherever she went she left records of her passage behind her, cutting her way through mountains, quarrying a pathway through the solid rock, making broad highways for herself, bringing rebellious tribes beneath her yoke, and raising tumuli to mark the tombs of such of her satraps as fell beneath the blows of the enemy. She built Ecbatana in Media, Semiramocarta on Lake Van in Armenia, and Tarsus in Cilicia; then, having reached the confines of Syria, she crossed the isthmus, and conquered Egypt and Ethiopia. The far-famed wealth of India recalled her from the banks of the Nile to those of the Euphrates, en route for the remote east, but at this point her good fortune forsook her: she was defeated by King Stratobates, and returned to her own dominions, never again to leave them. She had set up triumphal stelae on the boundaries of the habitable globe, in the very midst of Scythia, not far from the Iaxartes, where, centuries afterwards, Alexander of Macedon read the panegyric of herself which she had caused to be engraved there. "Nature," she writes, "gave me the body of a woman, but my deeds have put me on a level with the greatest of men. I ruled over the dominion of Ninos, which extends eastwards to the river Hinaman, southwards to the countries of Incense and Myrrh, and northwards as far as the Sacaa and Sogdiani. Before my time no Assyrian had ever set eyes on the sea: I have seen four oceans to which no mariner has ever sailed, so far remote are they. I have made rivers to flow where I would have them, in the places where they were needed; thus did I render fertile the barren soil by watering it with my rivers. I raised up impregnable fortresses, and cut roadways through the solid rock with the pick. I opened a way for the wheels of my chariots in places to which even the feet of wild beasts had never penetrated. And, amidst all these labours, I yet found time for my pleasures and for the society of my friends." On discovering that her son Ninyas was plotting her assassination, she at once abdicated in his favour, in order to save him from committing a crime, and then transformed herself into a dove; this last incident betrays the goddess to us. Ninos and Semiramis are purely mythical, and their mighty deeds, like those ascribed to Ishtar and Gilgames, must be placed in the same category as those other fables with which the Babylonian legends strive to fill up the blank of the prehistoric period.*

* The legend of Ninos and Semiramis is taken from Diodorus Siculus, who reproduces, often word for word, the version of Ctesias.



Drawn by Boudier, from the sketch published in Longperier.

The real facts were, as we know, far less brilliant and less extravagant than those supplied by popular imagination. It would be a mistake, however, to neglect or despise them on account of their tedious monotony and the insignificance of the characters who appear on the stage. It was by dint of fighting her neighbours again and again, without a single day's respite, that Rome succeeded in forging the weapons with which she was to conquer the world; and any one who, repelled by their tedious sameness, neglected to follow the history of her early struggles, would find great difficulty in understanding how it came about that a city which had taken centuries to subjugate her immediate neighbours should afterwards overcome all the states on the Mediterranean seaboard with such magnificent ease. In much the same way the ceaseless struggles of Assyria with the Chaldaeans, and with the mountain tribes of the Zagros Chain, were unconsciously preparing her for those lightning-like campaigns in which she afterwards overthrew all the civilized nations of the Bast one after another. It was only at the cost of unparalleled exertions that she succeeded in solidly welding together the various provinces within her borders, and in kneading (so to speak) the many and diverse elements of her vast population into one compact mass, containing in itself all that was needful for its support, and able to bear the strain of war for several years at time without giving way, and rich enough in men and horses to provide the material for an effective army without excessive impoverishment of her trade or agriculture.



Drawn by Boudier, from a painted bas-relief given in Layard.

The race came of an old Semitic strain, somewhat crude as yet, and almost entirely free from that repeated admixture of foreign elements which had marred the purity of the Babylonian stock. The monuments show us a type similar in many respects to that which we find to-day on the slopes of Singar, or in the valleys to the east of Mossul.

The figures on the monuments are tall and straight, broad-shouldered and wide in the hips, the arms well developed, the legs robust, with good substantial feet. The swell of the muscles on the naked limbs is perhaps exaggerated, but this very exaggeration of the modelling suggests the vigour of the model; it is a heavier, more rustic type than the Egyptian, promising greater strength and power of resistance, and in so far an indisputable superiority in the great game of war. The head is somewhat small, the forehead low and flat, the eyebrows heavy, the eye of a bold almond shape, with heavy lids, the nose aquiline, and full at the tip, with wide nostrils terminating in a hard, well-defined curve; the lips are thick and full, the chin bony, while the face is framed by the coarse dark wavy hair and beard, which fell in curly masses over the nape of the neck and the breast. The expression of the face is rarely of an amiable and smiling type, such as we find in the statues of the Theban period or in those of the Memphite empire, nor, as a matter of fact, did the Assyrian pride himself on the gentleness of his manners: he did not overflow with love for his fellow-man, as the Egyptian made a pretence of doing; on the contrary, he was stiff-necked and proud, without pity for others or for himself, hot-tempered and quarrelsome like his cousins of Chaldaea, but less turbulent and more capable of strict discipline. It mattered not whether he had come into the world in one of the wretched cabins of a fellah village, or in the palace of one of the great nobles; he was a born soldier, and his whole education tended to develop in him the first qualities of the soldier—temperance, patience, energy, and unquestioning obedience: he was enrolled in an army which was always on a war footing, commanded by the god Assur, and under Assur, by the king, the vicegerent and representative of the god. His life was shut in by the same network of legal restrictions which confined that of the Babylonians, and all its more important events had to be recorded on tablets of clay; the wording of contracts, the formalities of marriage or adoption, the status of bond and free, the rites of the dead and funeral ceremonies, had either remained identical with those in use during the earliest years of the cities of the Lower Euphrates, or differed from them only in their less important details. The royal and municipal governments levied the same taxes, used the same procedure, employed the same magistrates, and the grades of their hierarchy were the same, with one exception. After the king, the highest office was filled by a soldier, the tartan who saw to the recruiting of the troops, and led them in time of war, or took command of the staff-corps whenever the sovereign himself deigned to appear on the scene of action.*

* We can determine the rank occupied, by the tartanu at court by the positions they occupy in the lists of eponymous limmu: they invariably come next after the king—a fact which was noticed many years ago.

The more influential of these functionaries bore, in addition to their other titles, one of a special nature, which, for the space of one year, made its holder the most conspicuous man in the country; they became limmu, and throughout their term of office their names appeared on all official documents. The Chaldaeans distinguished the various years of each reign by a reference to some event which had taken place in each; the Assyrians named them after the limmu.* The king was the ex-officio limmu for the year following that of his accession, then after him the tartan, then the ministers and governors of provinces and cities in an order which varied little from reign to reign. The names of the limmu, entered in registers and tabulated—just as, later on, were those of the Greek archons and Roman consuls—furnished the annalists with a rigid chronological system, under which the facts of history might be arranged with certainty.**

* According to Delitzsch, the term limu, or limmu, meant at first any given period, then later more especially the year during which a magistrate filled his office; in the opinion of most other Assyriologists it referred to the magistrate himself as eponymous archon.

** The first list of limmu was discovered by H. Rawlinson. The portions which have been preserved extend from the year 893 to the year 666 B.C. without a break. In the periods previous and subsequent to this we have only names scattered here and there which it has not been possible to classify: the earliest limmu known at present flourished under Ramman-nirari I., and was named Mukhurilani. Three different versions of the canon have como down to us. In the most important one the names of the eponymous officials are written one after another without titles or any mention of important events; in the other two, the titles of each personage, and any important occurrences which took place during his year of office, are entered after the name.

The king still retained the sacerdotal attributes with which Cossaean monarchs had been invested from the earliest times, but contact with the Egyptians had modified the popular conception of his personality. His subjects were no longer satisfied to regard him merely as a man superior to his fellow-men; they had come to discover something of the divine nature in him, and sometimes identified him—not with Assur, the master of all things, who occupied a position too high above the pale of ordinary humanity—but with one of the demi-gods of the second rank, Shamash, the Sun, the deity whom the Pharaohs pretended to represent in flesh and blood here below. His courtiers, therefore, went as far as to call him "Sun" when they addressed him, and he himself adopted this title in his inscriptions.*

* Nebuchadrezzar I. of Babylon assumes the title of Shamash mati-shu, the "Sun of his country," and Hilprecht rightly sees in this expression a trace of Egyptian influences; later on, Assurnazirpal, King of Assyria similarly describes himself as Shamshu kishshat nishi, the "Sun of all mankind." Tiele is of opinion that these expressions do not necessarily point to any theory of the actual incarnation of the god, as was the case in Egypt, but that they may be mere rhetorical figures.

Formerly he had only attained this apotheosis after death, later on he was permitted to aspire to it during his lifetime. The Chaldaeans adopted the same attitude, and in both countries the royal authority shone with the borrowed lustre of divine omnipotence. With these exceptions life at court remained very much the same as it had been; at Nineveh, as at Babylon, we find harems filled with foreign princesses, who had either been carried off as hostages from the country of a defeated enemy, or amicably obtained from their parents. In time of war, the command of the troops and the dangers of the battle-field; in time of peace, a host of religious ceremonies and judicial or administrative duties, left but little leisure to the sovereign who desired to perform conscientiously all that was required of him. His chief amusement lay in the hunting of wild beasts: the majority of the princes who reigned over Assyria had a better right than even Amenothes III. himself to boast of the hundreds of lions which they had slain. They set out on these hunting expeditions with quite a small army of charioteers and infantry, and were often away several days at a time, provided urgent business did not require their presence in the palace. They started their quarry with the help of large dogs, and followed it over hill and dale till they got within bowshot: if it was but slightly wounded and turned on them, they gave it the finishing stroke with their lances without dismounting.



Drawn by Boudier, from a bas-relief in the British Museum.

Occasionally, however, they were obliged to follow their prey into places where horses could not easily penetrate; then a hand-to-hand conflict was inevitable. The lion would rise on its hind quarters and endeavour to lay its pursuer low with a stroke of its mighty paw, but only to fall pierced to the heart by his lance or sword.



Drawn by Boudier, from a bas-relief in the British Museum.

This kind of encounter demanded great presence of mind and steadiness of hand; the Assyrians were, therefore, trained to it from their youth up, and no hunter was permitted to engage in these terrible encounters without long preliminary practice. Seeing the lion as they did so frequently, and at such close quarters, they came to know it quite as well as the Egyptians, and their sculptors reproduce it with a realism and technical skill which have been rarely equalled in modern times. But while the Theban artist generally represents it in an attitude of repose, the Assyrians prefer to show it in violent action in all the various attitudes which it assumes during a struggle, either crouching as it prepares to spring, or fully extended in the act of leaping; sometimes it rears into an upright position, with arched back, gaping jaws, and claws protruded, ready to bite or strike its foe; at others it writhes under a spear-thrust, or rolls over and over in its dying agonies. In one instance, an arrow has pierced the skull of a male lion, crashing through the frontal bone a little above the left eyebrow, and protrudes obliquely to the right between his teeth: under the shock of the blow he has risen on his hind legs, with contorted spine, and beats the air with his fore paws, his head thrown back as though to free himself of the fatal shaft. Not far from him the lioness lies stretched out upon its back in the rigidity of death.



The "rimu," or urus, was, perhaps, even a more formidable animal to encounter than any of the felido, owing to the irresistible fury of his attack. No one would dare, except in a case of dire necessity, to meet him on foot. The loose flowing robes which the king and the nobles never put aside—not even in such perilous pastimes as these—were ill fitted for the quick movements required to avoid the attack of such an animal, and those who were unlucky enough to quit their chariot ran a terrible risk of being gored or trodden underfoot in the encounter. It was the custom, therefore, to attack the beast by arrows, and to keep it at a distance. If the animal were able to come up with its pursuer, the latter endeavoured to seize it by the horn at the moment when it lowered its head, and to drive his dagger into its neck. If the blow were adroitly given it severed the spinal cord, and the beast fell in a heap as if struck by lightning. A victory over such animals was an occasion for rejoicing, and solemn thanks were offered to Assur and Ishtar, the patrons of the chase, at the usual evening sacrifice.



Drawn by Boudier, from a bas-relief in the British Museum.

The slain beasts, whether lion or urus, were arranged in a row before the altar, while the king, accompanied by his flabella, and umbrella-bearers, stood alongside them, holding his bow in his left hand. While the singers intoned the hymn of thanksgiving to the accompaniment of the harp, the monarch took the bowl of sacred wine, touched his lips with it, and then poured a portion of the contents on the heads of the victims. A detailed account of each hunting exploit was preserved for posterity either in inscriptions or on bas-reliefs.*

* In the Annals of Tiglath-pileser I. the king counts the number of his victims: 4 urus, 10 male elephants, 120 lions slain in single combat on foot, 800 lions killed by arrows let fly from his chariot. In the Annals of Assurnazirpal, the king boasts of having slain 30 elephants, 250 urus, and 370 lions.

The chase was in those days of great service to the rural population; the kings also considered it to be one of the duties attached to their office, and on a level with their obligation to make war on neighbouring nations devoted by the will of Assur to defeat and destruction.



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

The army charged to carry out the will of the god had not yet acquired the homogeneity and efficiency which it afterwards attained, yet it had been for some time one of the most formidable in the world, and even the Egyptians themselves, in spite of their long experience in military matters, could not put into the field such a proud array of effective troops. We do not know how this army was recruited, but the bulk of it was made up of native levies, to which foreign auxiliaries were added in numbers varying with the times.* A permanent nucleus of troops was always in garrison in the capital under the "tartan," or placed in the principal towns at the disposal of the governors.**

* We have no bas-relief representing the armies of Tiglath- pileser I. Everything in the description which follows is taken from the monuments of Assurnazirpal and Shalmaneser II., revised as far as possible by the inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser; the armament of both infantry and chariotry must have been practically the same in the two periods.

** This is based on the account given in the Obelisk of Shalmaneser, where the king, for example, after having gathered his soldiers together at Kalakh [Calah], put at their head Dainassur the artan, "the master of his innumerable troops."



Drawn by Faucher-Gudin.

The contingents which came to be enrolled at these centres on the first rumour of war may have been taken from among the feudal militia, as was the custom in the Nile valley, or the whole population may have had to render personal military service, each receiving while with the colours a certain daily pay. The nobles and feudal lords were accustomed to call their own people together, and either placed themselves at their head or commissioned an officer to act in their behalf.*

* The assembling of foot-soldiers and chariots is often described at the beginning of each campaign; the Donation of Bittimerodach brings before us a great feudal lord, who leads his contingent to the King of Chaldaea, and anything which took place among the Babylonians had its counterpart among the Assyrians. Sometimes the king had need of all the contingents, and then it was said he "assembled the country." Auxiliaries are mentioned, for example, in the Annals of Assurnazirpal, col. iii. 11. 58-77, where the king, in his passage, rallies one after the other the troops of Bit-Bakhiani, of Azalli, of Bit-Adini, of Garganish, and of the Patinu.



Drawn by Boudier, from a photograph by Mansell.

These recruits were subjected to the training necessary for their calling by exercises similar to those of the Egyptians, but of a rougher sort and better adapted to the cumbrous character of their equipment. The blacksmith's art had made such progress among the Assyrians since the times of Thutmosis III. and Ramses IL, that both the character and the materials of the armour were entirely changed.



Drawn by Faucher-Gudin, from G. Rawlinson.



While the Egyptian of old entered into the contest almost naked, and without other defence than a padded cap, a light shield, and a leather apron, the Assyrian of the new age set out for war almost cased in metal. The pikemen and archers of whom the infantry of the line was composed wore a copper or iron helmet, conical in form, and having cheek-pieces covering the ears; they were clad in a sort of leathern shirt covered with plates or imbricated scales of metal, which protected the body and the upper part of the arm; a quilted and padded loin-cloth came over the haunches, while close-fitting trousers, and buskins laced up in the front, completed their attire. The pikemen were armed with a lance six feet long, a cutlass or short sword passed through the girdle, and an enormous shield, sometimes round and convex, sometimes arched at the top and square at the bottom. The bowmen did not encumber themselves with a buckler, but carried, in addition to the bow and quiver, a poignard or mace. The light infantry consisted of pikemen and archers—each of whom wore a crested helmet and a round shield of wicker-work—of slingers and club-bearers, as well as of men armed with the two-bladed battle-axe. The chariots were heavier and larger than those of the Egyptians. They had high, strongly made wheels with eight spokes, and the body of the vehicle rested directly on the axle; the panels were of solid wood, sometimes covered with embossed or carved metal, but frequently painted; they were further decorated sometimes with gold, silver, or ivory mountings, and with precious stones. The pole, which was long and heavy, ended in a boss of carved wood or incised metal, representing a flower, a rosette, the muzzle of a lion, or a horse's head. It was attached to the axle under the floor of the vehicle, and as it had to bear a great strain, it was not only fixed to this point by leather thongs such as were employed in Egypt, but also bound to the front of the chariot by a crossbar shaped like a spindle, and covered with embroidered stuff—an arrangement which prevented its becoming detached when driving at full speed. A pair of horses were harnessed to it, and a third was attached to them on the right side for the use of a supplementary warrior, who could take the place of his comrade in case of accident, or if he were wounded. The trappings were very simple; but sometimes there was added to these a thickly padded caparison, of which the various parts were fitted to the horse by tags so as to cover the upper part of his head, his neck, back, and breast. The usual complement of charioteers was two to each vehicle, as in Egypt, but sometimes, as among the Khati, there were three—one on the left to direct the horses, a warrior, and an attendant who protected the other two with his shield; on some occasions a fourth was added as an extra assistant. The equipment of the charioteers was like that of the infantry, and consisted of a jacket with imbricated scales of metal, bow and arrows, and a lance or javelin. A standard which served as a rallying-point for the chariots in the battle was set up on the front part of each vehicle, between the driver and the warrior; it bore at the top a disk supported on the heads of two bulls, or by two complete representations of these animals, and a standing figure of Assur letting fly his arrows. The chariotry formed, as in most countries of that time, the picked troops of the service, in which the princes and great lords were proud to be enrolled. Upon it depended for the most part the issue of the conflict, and the position assigned to it was in the van, the king or commander-in-chief reserving to himself the privilege of conducting the charge in person. It was already, however, in a state of decadence, both as regards the number of units composing it and its methods of manoeuvring; the infantry, on the other hand, had increased in numbers, and under the guidance of abler generals tended to become the most trustworthy force in Assyrian campaigns.*

* Tiglath-pileser is seen, for instance, setting out on a campaign in a mountainous country with only thirty chariots.

Notwithstanding the weight of his equipment, the Assyrian foot-soldier was as agile as the Egyptian, but he had to fight usually in a much more difficult region than that in which the Pharaoh's troops were accustomed to manouvre.



Drawn by Faucher-Gudin, from Layard.

The theatre of war was not like Syria, with its fertile and almost unbroken plains furrowed by streams which offered little obstruction to troops throughout the year, but a land of marshes, arid and rocky deserts, mighty rivers, capable, in one of their sudden floods, of arresting progress for days, and of jeopardising the success of a campaign;* violent and ice-cold torrents, rugged mountains whose summits rose into "points like daggers," and whose passes could be held against a host of invaders by a handful of resolute men.**

* Sennacherib was obliged to arrest his march against Elam, owing to his inability to cross the torrents swollen by the rain; a similar contretemps must have met Assurbanipal on the banks of the Ididi.

** The Assyrian monarchs dwell with pleasure on the difficulties of the country which they have to overcome.

Bands of daring skirmishers, consisting of archers, slingers, and pikemen, cleared the way for the mass of infantry marching in columns, and for the chariots, in the midst of which the king and his household took up their station; the baggage followed, together with the prisoners and their escorts.*

* Assurbanipal relates, for instance, that he put under his escort a tribe which had surrendered themselves as prisoners.

If they came to a river where there was neither ford nor bridge, they were not long in effecting a passage.



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

Each soldier was provided with a skin, which, having inflated it by the strength of his lungs and closed the aperture, he embraced in his arms and cast himself into the stream. Partly by floating and partly by swimming, a whole regiment could soon reach the other side. The chariots could not be carried over so easily.



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

If the bed of the river was not very wide, and the current not too violent, a narrow bridge was constructed, or rather an improvised dyke of large stones and rude gabions filled with clay, over which was spread a layer of branches and earth, supplying a sufficiently broad passage for a single chariot, of which the horses were led across at walking pace.*

* Flying bridges, titurati, were mentioned as far back as the time of Tiglath-pileser I.

But when the distance between the banks was too great, and the stream too violent to allow of this mode of procedure, boats were requisitioned from the neighbourhood, on which men and chariots were embarked, while the horses, attended by grooms, or attached by their bridles to the flotilla, swam across the river.* If the troops had to pass through a mountainous district intersected by ravines and covered by forests, and thus impracticable on ordinary occasions for a large body of men, the advance-guard were employed in cutting a passage through the trees with the axe, and, if necessary, in making with the pick pathways or rough-hewn steps similar to those met with in the Lebanon on the Phoenician coast.**

* It was in this manner that Tiglath-pileser I. crossed the Euphrates on his way to the attack of Carchemish.

** Tiglath-pileser I. speaks on several occasions, and not without pride, of the roads that he had made for himself with bronze hatchets through the forests and over the mountains.



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

The troops advanced in narrow columns, sometimes even in single file, along these improvised roads, always on the alert lest they should be taken at a disadvantage by an enemy concealed in the thickets. In case of attack, the foot-soldiers had each to think of himself, and endeavour to give as many blows as he received; but the charioteers, encumbered by their vehicles and the horses, found it no easy matter to extricate themselves from the danger. Once the chariots had entered into the forest region, the driver descended from his vehicle, and led the horses by the head, while the warrior and his assistant were not slow to follow his example, in order to give some relief to the animals by tugging at the wheels. The king alone did not dismount, more out of respect for his dignity than from indifference to the strain upon the animals; for, in spite of careful leading, he had to submit to a rough shaking from the inequalities of this rugged soil; sometimes he had too much of this, and it is related of him in his annals that he had crossed the mountains on foot like an ordinary mortal.*

* The same fact is found in the accounts of every expedition, but more importance is attached to it as we approach the end of the Ninevite empire, when the kings were not so well able to endure hardship. Sennacherib mentions it on several occasions, with a certain amount of self-pity for the fatigue he had undergone, but with a real pride in his own endurance.

A halt was made every evening, either at some village, whose inhabitants were obliged to provide food and lodging, or, in default of this, on some site which they could fortify by a hastily thrown up rampart of earth. If they were obliged to remain in any place for a length of time, a regular encircling wall was constructed, not square or rectangular like those of the Egyptians, but round or oval.*

* The oval inclines towards a square form, with rounded corners, on the bas-reliefs of the bronze gates of Shalmaneser II. at Balawat.



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

It was made of dried brick, and provided with towers like an ancient city; indeed, many of these entrenched camps survived the occasion of their formation, and became small fortified towns or castles, whence a permanent garrison could command the neighbouring country. The interior was divided into four equal parts by two roads, intersecting each other at right angles. The royal tents, with their walls of felt or brown linen, resembled an actual palace, which could be moved from place to place; they were surrounded with less pretentious buildings reserved for the king's household, and the stables.



Drawn by Boudier, from Layard.

The tent-poles at the angles of these habitations were plated with metal, and terminated at their upper extremities in figures of goats and other animals made of the same material. The tents of the soldiers, were conical in form, and each was maintained in its position by a forked pole placed inside. They contained the ordinary requirements of the peasant—-bed and head-rest, table with legs like those of a gazelle, stools and folding-chairs; the household utensils and the provisions hung from the forks of the support. The monuments, which usually give few details of humble life, are remarkable for their complete reproductions of the daily scenes in the camp. We see on them, the soldier making his bed, grinding corn, dressing the carcase of a sheep, which he had just killed, or pouring out wine; the pot boiling on the fire is watched by the vigilant eye of a trooper or of a woman, while those not actively employed are grouped together in twos and threes, eating, drinking, and chatting. A certain number of priests and soothsayers accompanied the army, but they did not bring the statues of their gods with them, the only emblems of the divinities seen in battle being the two royal ensigns, one representing Assur as lord of the territory, borne on a single bull and bending his bow, while the other depicted him standing on two bulls as King of Assyria.* An altar smoked before the chariot on which these two standards were planted, and every night and morning the prince and his nobles laid offerings upon it, and recited prayers before it for the well-being of the army.

Military tactics had not made much progress since the time of the great Egyptian invasions. The Assyrian generals set out in haste from Nineveh or Assur in the hope of surprising their enemy, and they often succeeded in penetrating into the very heart of his country before he had time to mobilise or concentrate his forces. The work of subduing him was performed piecemeal; they devastated his fields, robbed his orchards, and, marching all through the night,** they would arrive with such suddenness before one or other of his towns, that he would have no time to organise a defence. Most of their campaigns were mere forced marches across plains and mountains, without regular sieges or pitched battles.

* It is possible that each of these standards corresponded to some dignity of the sovereign; the first belonged to him, inasmuch as he was shar kishshati, "king of the regions," and the other, by virtue of his office, of shar Ashshur, "King of Assyria."

** Assurnazirpal mentions several night marches, which enabled him to reach the heart of the enemy's country.



Drawn by Faucher-Gudin, from a photograph by Mansell. The inhabitants of the town who have been taken prisoners, are leaving it with their cattle under the conduct of Assyrian soldiers.

Should the enemy, however, seek an engagement, and the men be drawn up in line to meet him, the action would be opened by archers and light troops armed with slings, who would be followed by the chariotry and heavy infantry for close attack; a reserve of veterans would await around the commanding-general the crucial moment of the engagement, when they would charge in a body among the combatants, and decide the victory by sheer strength of arm.*

* Tiglath-pileser I. mentions a pitched battle against the Muskhu, who numbered 20,000 men; and another against Kiliteshub, King of Kummukh, in his first campaign. In one of the following campaigns he overcame the people of Saraush and those of Maruttash, and also 6000 Sugi; later on he defeated 23 allied kings of Nairi, and took from them 120 chariots and 20,000 people of Kumanu. The other wars are little more than raids, during which he encountered merely those who were incapable of offering him any resistance.

The pursuit of the enemy was never carried to any considerable distance, for the men were needed to collect the spoil, despatch the wounded, and carry off the trophies of war. Such of the prisoners as it was deemed useful or politic to spare were stationed in a safe place under a guard of sentries. The remainder were condemned to death as they were brought in, and their execution took place without delay; they were made to kneel down, with their backs to the soldiery, their heads bowed, and their hands resting on a flat stone or a billet of wood, in which position they were despatched with clubs. The scribes, standing before their tent doors, registered the number of heads cut off; each soldier, bringing his quota and throwing it upon the heap, gave in his name and the number of his company, and then withdrew in the hope of receiving a reward proportionate to the number of his victims.*

* The details of this bringing of heads are known to us by representations of a later period. The allusions contained in the Annals of Tiglath-pileser I. show that the custom was in full force under the early Assyrian conquerors.

When the king happened to accompany the army, he always presided at this scene, and distributed largesse to those who had shown most bravery; in his absence he required that the heads of the enemy's chiefs should be sent to him, in order that they might be exposed to his subjects on the gates of his capital. Sieges were lengthy and arduous undertakings. In the case of towns situated on the plain, the site was usually chosen so as to be protected by canals, or an arm of a river on two or three sides, thus leaving one side only without a natural defence, which the inhabitants endeavoured to make up for by means of double or treble ramparts.*

* The town of Tela had three containing walls, that of Shingisha had four, and that of Pitura two.



Drawn by Faucher-Gudin, from Layard.

These fortifications must have resembled those of the Syrian towns; the walls were broad at the base, and, to prevent scaling, rose to a height of some thirty or forty feet: there were towers at intervals of a bowshot, from which the archers could seriously disconcert parties making attacks against any intervening points in the curtain wall; the massive gates were covered with raw hides, or were plated with metal to resist assaults by fire and axe, while, as soon as hostilities commenced, the defence was further completed by wooden scaffolding. Places thus fortified, however, at times fell almost without an attempt at resistance; the inhabitants, having descended into the lowlands to rescue their crops from the Assyrians, would be disbanded, and, while endeavouring to take refuge within their ramparts, would be pursued by the enemy, who would gain admittance with them in the general disorder. If the town did not fall into their hands by some stroke of good fortune, they would at once attempt, by an immediate assault, to terrify the garrison into laying down their arms.*