WHEN the city of Nineveh fell, and when Babylon was finally given over to the destroyer, a deep darkness of ignorance settled over their ruins. The very site of Nineveh was forgotten, and, though a tradition lived on which located the spot where Babylon had stood, there was almost as little known of that great capital as of its northern neighbor. In the Middle Age the world forgot many things, and then with wonderful vigor began to learn them all over again. In the general spell of forgetfulness it cast away all remembrance of these two great cities. Even the monk in his cell, to whose industry as a copyist the world owes a debt that can never be paid, reeked little of barbarous cities, whose sins had destroyed them. He knew of Jerusalem and of Bethlehem, for these had imperishable fragrance in his nostrils. They were sacred cities in a sacred land, and he sighed as he thought that they were now in the hands of infidels. But Nineveh and Babylon, they were mentioned, it is true, in the prophets; but then Nahum had cursed the one and Isaiah predicted the destruction of the other, and they had received their deserts. Where they might be he knew not, nor cared. But after a time came the period when Europe began to relearn, and that with wonderful avidity. The Crusades roused all Europe to a passionate interest in the Orient. Palestine, Syria, and Egypt were traversed by one after another of travelers who visited sacred scenes and came home to tell wonderful stories in Europe. Of these almost all were Christians, who knew in greater or less degree the New Testament, but were for the more part hopelessly ignorant of the Old Testament. They would fain see the land of the Lord, but cared little for associations with Old Testament prophets, heroes, or kings.

But at last there appeared a man who had wider interests than even those that concerned the land of Palestine. He was a Jewish rabbi of Tudela, in the kingdom of Navarre. The Rabbi Benjamin, son of Jonah, set out from home about 1160 A.D., and journeyed overland across Spain and France, and thence into Italy. As he went he made the most careful notes of all that he saw, and gave much attention to the learned and pious men of his own faith whom he met. From Italy he passed over to Greece, and then on to Constantinople, with which he was profoundly impressed. After he had visited the sacred spots in Palestine he went over the desert by way of Tadmor, and crossed the Euphrates, and then journeyed on eastward to the Tigris, where he visited the Jews of Mosul. Of Mosul and its surroundings he has this to relate :

 “This city, situated on the confines of Persia, is of great extent and very ancient; it stands on the banks of the Tigris, and is joined by a bridge to Nineveh. Although the latter lies in ruins, there are numerous inhabited villages and small towns on its site. Nineveh is on the Tigris distant one parasang from the town of Arbil”.

From Nineveh Benjamin of Tudela passed on down the river and visited Baghdad, then a great center of culture both Mohammedan and Jewish, and this was more to him than even its wealth, and it is as to a climax that his last sentence concerning this city comes:

"The city of Baghdad is three miles in circumference, the country in which it is situated is rich in palm trees, gardens, and orchards, so that nothing equals it in Mesopotamia. Merchants of all countries resort thither for purposes of trade, and it contains many wise philosophers, well skilled in sciences, and magicians proficient in all sorts of enchantment."

From Baghdad Benjamin went on to Gihiagin or Ras-al-Ain, which he mistakenly identified with Resen (Gen. x, 12), and then continues his narrative thus:

"From hence it is one day to Babylon. This is the ancient Babel, and now lies in ruins; but the streets still extend thirty miles. The ruins of the palace of Nebuchadnezzar are still to be seen, but people are afraid to venture among them on account of the serpents and scorpions with which they are infested. Twenty thousand Jews live about twenty miles from this pace, and perform their worship in the synagogue of Daniel, who rests in peace. This synagogue is of remote antiquity, having been built by Daniel himself; it is constructed of solid stones and bricks. Here the traveler may also behold the palace of Nebuchadnezzar, with the burning fiery furnace into which were thrown Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah; it is a valley well known to everyone. Hillah, which is at a distance of five miles, contains about ten thousand Jews and four synagogues ... Four miles from hence is the tower built by the dispersed Generation. It is constructed of bricks called al-ajurr; the base measures two miles, the breadth two hundred and forty yards, and the height about one hundred canna. A spiral passage, built into the tower (in stages of ten yards each), leads up to the summit, from which we have a prospect of twenty miles, the country being one wide plain and quite level. The heavenly fire, which struck the tower, split it to its very foundation."'

That Benjamin of Tudela actually did visit Mosul, and that he there saw across the river the great mounds which marked the ruins of Nineveh there is no reason to doubt, but it is not so clear that he also saw the ruins of Babylon. He did make the visit to Baghdad, for that city is described in the terms of an eyewitness. It is, however, not certain that he had really seen the ruins of Babylon, for his description lacks the little touches which accompanied the former narrative. He is here probably reproducing simply what he had heard from others concerning these ruins.

Benjamin of Tudela wrote his narrative in Hebrew. It was known to the learned during the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth centuries, but was not printed until 1543, when it appeared at Constantinople in the rabbinic character. In 1633 it appeared, with a Latin translation, at Leyden. It later appeared in English and French, and thus became known over a large part of Europe. Though thus well known, the book of Benjamin appears to have attracted no attention to the buried cities of Nineveh and Babylon.

Like the first scant notices of Persepolis given by the earlier travelers, these notes of Benjamin of Tudela would bear fruit in a later day, for they would incite other travelers to visit the same mysterious ruins.

The next word of information concerning the ancient sites was brought to Europe by another Jew, the Rabbi Pethachiah of Ratisbon, whose recollections were set down by one of his disciples, after the scanty notes which he had made by the way.

The time was now hastening on toward the period when men of Europe began to travel extensively in the Orient, and of these many visited both Mosul and Baghdad. Most of them, however, did not pay any attention to the ruins which lay near these cities. Many, like Sir John Mandeville (1322-56), made no journey to these sites, but were contented to report what they had heard concerning them. Marco Polo appears to have cared nothing for the ruins, and, though he visited both Mosul and Baghdad, never refers to them. Others confounded Baghdad with Babylon, and really believed that the Mohammedan capital was the same city as that which Nebuchadrezzar had made powerful.

In 1583 the Orient was visited by John Eldred, an English traveler and merchant, whose quaint notice of Babylon and of Nineveh was among the very first hints which came directly to England concerning these great cities. His account is as follows:

"We landed at Felugia the 8th and 20th of June, where we made our abode seven days, for lack of camels to carry our goods to Babylon. The heat at that time of the year is such in those parts that men are loath to let out their camels to travel. This Felugia is a village of some hundred houses, and a place appointed for discharging of such goods as come down the river: the inhabitants are Arabians. Not finding camels here, we were constrained to unlade our goods, and hired an hundred asses to carry our English merchandizes only to New Babylon over a short desert; in crossing whereof we spent eighteen hours, travelling by night and part of the morning, to avoid the great heat.

"In this place which we crossed over stood the old mighty city of Babylon, many old mines whereof are easily to be seen by daylight, which I John Eldred have often beheld at my good leisure, having made three voyages between the New city of Babylon and Aleppo over this desert. Here also are yet standing the mines of the old tower of Babel, which being upon a plain ground seems a far off very great, but the nearer you  come to it, the lesser and lesser it appears: sundry times I have gone thither to see it, and found the remnants yet standing about a quarter of a mile in compass, and almost as high as the stone worked of Paul’s steeple in London, but it showed much bigger. The bricks remaining in this most ancient monument be half a yard thick and three quarters of a yard long, being dried in the Sun only, and between every course of bricks there lays a course of mattes made of canes, which remained sound and not perished, as though they had been laid within one year. The city of New Babylon jointed upon the aforesaid desert where the Old city was, and the river of Tigris runs close under the wall, and they may if they will open a sluce, and let the water of the same run round about the town. It is about two English miles in compass, and the inhabitants generally speak three languages, to wit, the Persian, Arabian, and Turkish tongues: the people are of the Spaniards complexion: and the women generally wear in one of the gristles of their noses a ring like a wedding ring, but somewhat greater, with a pearl and a Turkish stone set therein, and this they doe be they never so poor."

The old confusion between Baghdad and Babylon plainly exists in the mind of Eldred, but apart from that error his words have a magical ring in them, and might well induce others to set out to see such sights. He appears not to have seen the ruins of Nineveh at all, but another Englishman, who sailed from Venice in 1599, was more fortunate and also more romantic.

There is more of eloquence in Anthony Shirley (or Sherley), who thus wrote of both cities:

"I will speak-"of Babylon; not to the intent to tell stories, either of the huge mines of the first Towne or the splendor of the second, but —because nothing doth impose anything in man's nature more than example—to show the truth of God's word, whose vengeances, threatened by His Prophets, are truly succeeded in all those parts. . .

"All the ground on which Babylon was spread is left now desolate; nothing standing in that Peninsula between the Euphrates and the Tigris, but only part, and that a small part, of the great Tower, which God hath suffered to stand (if man may speak so confidently of His great impenetrable counsels) for an eternal testimony of His work in the confusion of Man's pride, and that Ark of Nebuchadnezzar for as perpetual a memory of his great idolatry and condign punishment!

"Nineveh, that which God Himself called That great City, hath not one stone standing which may give memory of the being of a town. One English mile from it is a place called Mosul, a small thing, rather to be a witness of the other's mightiness and God's judgment than of any fashion of magnificence in it self."

In these words is sounded for the first time the note which would bring eager explorers to these mounds. The former travelers had looked curiously upon these mounds and then passed on; this man saw in them facts which illustrated the Hebrew prophets. In a later day expeditions would go out from England for the very purpose of seeking in them books which might confirm or illustrate the history and the prophecy of the Hebrew people. The real force behind the large contributions of money for these explorations was this desire to know anything that had any possible bearing on the scriptures of the Old Testament. Anthony Shirley did not see that day, but he belonged to it in spirit.

In all these notices of passing travelers ignorance was mingled with credulity, and definite knowledge was wanting. The most that had been accomplished was the perpetuation and the stimulation of interest in these cities. The very small amount of progress that had been made is indicated by the publication in 1596, at Antwerp, of the great Geographical Treasury of Ortelius, an alphabetic list of places, with such descriptive geographical facts added as were then known. Ortelius states that certain writers identified Nineveh with Mosul, but as he had no definite information, he had to let the matter rest at that. Of Babylon even less was known. All the authorities quoted by Ortelius, except Benjamin of Tudela, identify Babylon with Baghdad, and that position he accepts. It is clear from this that there was need for more travelers who should see, and understand as well what they saw.

A beginning is made by an English traveler, John Cartwright, whose tone is very similar to that of Sherley, though he makes more of a contribution to the knowledge of the subject:

"Having passed over this river [the Choaspes] we set forward toward Mosul, a very ancient town in this country, some days journey from Valdac, and so pitched on the banks of the river Tigris. Here in these Plaines of Assyria, and on the banks of the Tigris, and in the region of Eden, was Nineveh built by Nimrod, but finished by Ninus. It is agreed by all prophane writers, and confirmed by the Scriptures that this city exceeded all other cities in circuit, and answerable magnificence. For it seems by the ruinous foundation (which I thoroughly viewed) that it was built with four sides, but not equal or square; for the two longer sides had each of them (as we guess) an hundredth and fifty furlongs, the two shorter sides, ninety furlongs, which amounts to four hundred and eighty furlongs of ground, which makes three score miles, accounting eight furlongs to an Italian mile. The walls whereof were an hundredth foot upright, and had such a breadth, as three Chariots might pass on the rampage in front: these walls were garnished with a thousand and five hundredth towers, which gave exceeding beauty to the rest, and a strength no less admirable for the nature of those times."

After these descriptions of the past and present of Nineveh, Cartwright supplied some extracts from its history and then concluded thus:

"Finally, that this city was farer greater than Babylon, being the Lady of the East, the Queen of Nations, and the riches of the world, having more people within her walls, than are now in some one Kingdome: but now it is destroyed (as God foretold it should be by the Chaldeans) being nothing else, then (sic) a sepulture of herself, a little town of small trade, where the Patriarch of the Nestorians keeps his seat, at the devotion of the Turks. Sundry times had we conference with this Patriarch: and among many other speeches which past from him, he wished us that before we departed, to see the hand of Eden, but twelve miles up the river, which, he affirmed was 'undoubtedly a part of Paradise."

Keen as Cartwright was after historical and legendary material, he continued the error of confusion of Baghdad and Babylon. His descriptions, however, contained some new matter:

"Two places of great antiquity did we thoroughly view in the country: the one was the ruins of the old tower of Babel, (as the inhabitants hold unto this day) built by Nimrod, the nephew of Cham, Noah’s sons ...

"And now at this day that which remained, is called, the remnant of the tower of Babel: there standing as much, as is a quarter of mile in corapasse, and as high as the stone-worke of Paules steeple in London. It was built of burnt brick cimented and joined with bituminous mortar, to the end, that it should not receive any cleft in the same. The bricks are three quarters of a yard in length, and a quarter in thicknesses, and between every course of bricks, there laid a course of mats made of Canes and Palme-tree leaves, so fresh, as if they had been laid within one year.

"The other place remarkable is, the ruins of old Babylon, because it was the first city, which was built after the Flood ... This city was built upon the river Euphrates, as we found by experience, spending two days journey and better, on the ruins thereof.

"Amongst the other stately buildings was the temple of Bel, erected by Semiramis in the middle of this city ... Some do think, that the ruins of Nimrods tower, is but the foundation of this temple of Bel, & that therefore many travelers have bin deceived, who suppose they have seen a part of that tower which Nimrod builded. But who can tell whether it be the one or the other? It may be that confused Chaos which we saw was the ruins of both, the Temple of Bel being founded on that of Nimrod."

There are not wanting indications in this narrative that Cartwright knew the description of Sherley, whom he almost seems to quote in the comparison with St. Paul's Cathedral.

The visiting of Babylon and Nineveh was now becoming as much of an international matter as was the observing of the ruins of Persepolis at a slightly later time. Gasparo Balbi, a Venetian, Alexander Hamilton, an Englishman, and Don Garcia de Silva y Figueroa, a Spaniard, followed soon after Cartwright, but made no advance in their investigations beyond that which had been seen by their predecessors. Following these came the great traveler, Pietro della Valle, who has received so much attention already in a former narrative concerning Persepolis. He made the same mistake of confusing Baghdad with ancient Babylon, but he visited Hillah, which probably few of his predecessors had done. He also visited the great mound near Hillah, called Babil by the natives. This, Pietro della Valle believed, was the ruin of the Tower of Babel. This mound he had sketched by an artist, and from it he collected some bricks, which he afterward took back to Rome. One of these was presented to Athanasius Kircher, the Jesuit, who wrote a learned treatise on the Tower of Babel. Kircher believed that this brick had formed part of the original Tower of Babel, wrecked by the hand of God, a silent monitor from the great age of the dispersion of tongues. He placed it in his museum, and it is still preserved. This is probably the very first Babylonian antiquity which came into Europe, and must always have a great interest on that account. Though it was not what Pietro della Valle and Kircher supposed, it was, nevertheless, a brick from the glorious period of Babylonian history, and to the world of letters had a meaning of tremendous import. It was the harbinger of great stores of tablets and of building bricks which were soon to flow from that land. Far beyond the dreams of the medieval student of the Tower of Babel were this first brick and those which were to follow, to carry the thoughts of men.

After these men of the world, others bent on errands of religion passed up and down the valley—Augustinians, Jesuits, Carmelites, and Franciscans—some of whom visited the sites covered with ruins, while others were content to report what they had heard. They were generally impressed with the thought that they were in lands where God had signally manifested his displeasure with the sons of men, but none of them appear to have felt any quickening of imagination at the thought of the great deeds of human history which had there been enacted. They naturally knew no more of the meaning of the mounds than did those who had preceded them.

So the end of the seventeenth century had come, and no man knew more of the history of Babylon or of Nineveh than could be gathered out of the pages of the Greeks or the Latins, or from the stirring words of the Old Testament. The day of the traveler who went and saw, and no more, was now nearly over, and the day of the scientific explorer was rapidly hastening on. Before men should be led to dig up these great mounds they must be roused to interest in them, and that the traveler had done in some measure. The age of the explorer and of the decipherer had come, and the intellectual quickening of the times manifested itself in a thorough study of the mounds of Nineveh and Babylon.

THE man who began the new age of exploration was not himself an explorer, nor were several of his immediate successors. He was, however, a man of scientific spirit, and in that differed from the men who had gone before him. He was not seeking marvels, nor anxiously inquiring for evidences of strange dealings in dark days. He was a student of geography and history, and went into the Orient specially charged to study them. Jean Otter, member of the French Academy of Inscriptions and Belles-Lettres, and afterward professor of Arabic at the College de France, spent ten years in western Asia, being sent thither for the purpose of study by the Comte de Maurepas. His notice of the city of Nineveh is very different indeed from all that preceded it. Its tone of criticism, of sifting out the false from the true, is the tone of the new age that had now begun:

"Abulfeda [the Arabian Geographer] says that Nineveh was on the eastern bank of the Tigris, opposite the modern Mosul; either he must have been mistaken, or the inhabitants of the district are greatly in error, for the latter place Nineveh on the western bank of the Tigris, on the spot which they call Eski-Mosul. If we attempt to conciliate the two opinions by supposing that Nineveh was built on both sides of the river, nothing is gained, for Eski-Mosul is seven or eight leagues higher up the stream. One point seems to favor the belief of Abulfeda, and that is, that opposite Mosul there is a place called Tell-i-Tou­bah—that is to say, the Hill of Repentance—where, they say, the Ninevites put on sackcloth and ashes to turn away the wrath of God."

Otter also visited the mounds at Hillah, and, with a better knowledge of the Arabian geographers than any of his predecessors, located the ancient city of Babylon near Hillah. The true location of the city even he did not make out, but the site was almost determined. A scientifically trained scholar, as Otter was, had not found it, but the thoughts of men were at least pointed away from the identification with Baghdad.

After Otter the land of Babylonia was visited by a Carmelite missionary, Father Emmanuel de Saint Albert. He saw the ruins at Hillah and made a very important report upon them to the Duke of Orleans. His account was not published, but in manuscript form came into the hands of D'Anville, who presented to the Academy of Inscriptions at Paris a paper on the site of Babylon. This paper was based, in its conclusive portions, upon the description of southern Babylonia given by Pietro della Valle, and especially that now offered by the Carmelite missionary. The words of the latter differ in important respects from the descriptions of any travelers who had preceded him. He says:

"Before reaching Hillah a hill is visible which has been formed by the ruins of some great building. It may be between two and three miles in circumference. I brought away from it some square bricks, on which were writing in certain unknown characters. Opposite this hill, and distant two leagues, another similar hill is visible, between two reaches of the river at an equal distance ... We went to the opposite hill, which I have already mentioned; this one is in Arabia, about an hour's distance from the Euphrates, and the other is in Mesopotamia, at the same distance from the Euphrates, and both exactly opposite to each other. I found it very like the other, and I brought away some square bricks, which had the same impressions as the first-mentioned ones. I remarked upon this hill a fragment of thick wall, still standing on the summit, which, from a distance, looked like a large tower. A similar mass was lying overturned beside it; and the cement was so solid that it was quite impossible to detach one brick whole. Both masses seemed as if they had been vitrified, which made me conclude that these ruins were of the highest antiquity. Many people insist that this latter hill is the remains of the real Babylon; but I know not what they will make of the other, which is opposite and exactly like this one. The people of the country related to me a thousand foolish stories about these two mounds; and the Jews call the latter the prison of Nebuchadnezzar."

Unlike the travelers who had preceded him, this missionary cared nothing for the marvelous, and would have none of the stories of the natives. He had, however, so completely and accurately described these ruins that the work of D'Anville was comparatively easy. He decided that this was really Babylon, and that Baghdad was not its modern representative. The final word of D'Anville is interesting, and opens up the new era of study of this part of the Orient:

"The written characters which, as Father Emmanuel says in his report, are impressed upon the bricks which remain of buildings so ancient that they may have formed part of the original Babylon would be for scholars who wish to penetrate into the most remote antiquity an entirely new matter of meditation and study."

These words were written in 1755, in the very middle of the eighteenth century. They show how the study of the city of Babylon lagged behind the investigation of the cities of Persia. At this very time, as we have already seen, Europe was stirring with interest in the great Achaemenian dynasty, and not only was the site of Persepolis well known, its inscriptions had been several times copied, and men were eagerly trying to decipher them. It was not yet time to turn from the study of Persepolis to the study of Babylon, but the hour was rapidly hastening on. Father Emmanuel and his skillful interpreter before the Academy had done much to bring the hour nearer.

In December, 1765, Carsten Niebuhr, whose name has already filled a large place in this story in connection with the ruins of Persepolis, visited Hillah. He was absolutely certain in his own mind that these ruins belonged to the city of Babylon. He was deeply impressed by their vast size, but still more by the evidences of a high state of civilization which they indicated. He found lying upon the ground and about the great mounds numerous bricks covered with inscriptions. Niebuhr could not read a line upon them, and no man living could have done so; but that they existed, and that the writing was the writing of the ancient Babylonians, was now well known in Europe. Europe had, however, entirely failed to grasp the meaning of these important facts. Europe believed that a people who could only write upon clay must have been a people in a low state of civilization indeed, and must have possessed but a small literature. Niebuhr quotes from Bryant these words, and they were fairly representative of the general opinion entertained in Europe: "I cannot help forming a judgment of the learning of a people from the materials with which it is expedited and carried on, and I should think that literature must have been very scanty, or none at all, where the means above mentioned were applied". To Niebuhr such reasoning appeared to be folly. To his mind the presence of these inscribed bricks was evidence of a very high state of civilization. He lamented that he could not remain longer at the site, the more thoroughly to study its ruins, and calls earnestly for others to continue the work which he had to leave unfinished.

Niebuhr also visited the mounds near the Tigris and opposite the city of Mosul. Here also he was as clear and cogent in his reasoning as he had been at Hillah. The site of Nineveh he identified without difficulty, but it appears to have impressed him much less than the more ancient, and the greater, mother city of Babylon.

The hope and wish of Niebuhr that others would soon follow him to carry on researches at Babylon were soon gratified. In 1781, on July 6, M. de Beauchamp sailed away from Marseilles to carry on astronomical observations at Baghdad and to make historical and geographical studies in the neighborhood. He visited Hillah, and contributed further to its exact localization. His knowledge of the languages and the archeology both of the past and the present of the Orient was not equal to that of Niebuhr, and he therefore made curious mistakes concerning the names which the Arabs had given to certain portions of the mounds, but withal he marks a fresh step of progress. The mound which had now long been known to travelers as the mound of Babel he now designates under the name of Makloube. For the first time he directs attention to a second mound close by the first, which he considers the site of Babylon; it is the mound called El-Kasr by the Arabs.

Of the mound at Hillah he says: "Here are found those large and thick bricks, imprinted with unknown characters, specimens of which I have presented to Abbé Bartholomy ... I was informed by the master mason employed to dig for bricks that the places from which he procured them were large, thick walls, and sometimes chambers. He has frequently found earthen vessels, engraved marbles, and, about eight years ago, a statue as large as life, which he threw amongst the rubbish. On one wall of a chamber he found the figures of a cow and of the sun and moon formed of varnished bricks. Some idols of clay are found representing human figures. I found one brick on which was a lion, and on others a half moon in relief. The bricks are cemented with bitumen, except in one place, which is well preserved, where they are united by a very thin stratum of white cement, which appears to be made of lime and sand."

"Most of the bricks found at Makloube have writing on them; but it does not appear that it was meant to be read, for it is as common on bricks buried in the walls as on those on the outside ...

"The master mason led me along a valley which he dug out a long while ago to get at the bricks of a wall, that, from the marks he showed me, I guess to have been sixty feet thick. It ran perpendicularly to the bed of the river, and was probably the wall of the city. I found in it a subterranean canal, which, instead of being arched over, is covered with pieces of sandstone six or seven feet long by three feet wide. These ruins extend several leagues to the north of Hella, and incontestably mark the situation of ancient Babylon ...

"Besides the bricks with inscriptions, which I have mentioned, there are solid cylinders, three inches in diameter, of a white substance, covered with very small writing, resembling the inscriptions of Persepolis mentioned by Chardin. Four years ago I saw one; but I was not eager to procure it, as I was assured that they were very common. I mentioned them to the master mason, who told me that he sometimes found such, but left them among the rubbish as useless. Black stones which have inscriptions engraved on them are also met with."

In these descriptions and narratives of the learned and inquiring abbé are found the first notices of excavations and the first accounts of the finding of inscriptions beyond the mere building bricks stamped with names and titles of kings. These had been seen often before and several had been taken to Europe. The period of description of mounds has now come to an end and the period of excavation has fully come. These little inscriptions which at first awakened so slight an interest in Abbé Beauchamp would soon be eagerly sought with pick and shovel. Then would come the effort to read them, and later the full knowledge of the past history of the great valley. One observation of the abbé is of great importance in this story. The cylinders, he says, were "covered with very small writing, resembling the inscriptions of Persepolis mentioned by Chardin". That showed, as by prophetic instinct, the very line which would be pursued for the decipherment of the literature of Babylon.

As definite knowledge of the site of Nineveh, as Abbé Beauchamp had achieved of the site of Babylon, was now soon secured by a French physician, Guillaume A. Olivier, who was sent into the East for the purpose chiefly of scientific study. He had no such knowledge of the ancient world as the abbé, and therefore failed to make any independent contribution to the progress of knowledge respecting Nineveh. His references to the city are scanty enough, and he does not appear to have seen any inscriptions. At this time the knowledge of ancient Babylon very far exceeded the knowledge of Nineveh. It is, however, proper to say that both sites had been found, and excavations on a very small scale had been begun at Babylon. These excavations, it is true, were primarily made to obtain building material which was to be used in the construction of dwellings for the people about the neighboring country. Incidentally, however, inscriptions were found, and these were recognized as being pieces of writing from the ancient people of Babylon. The words of Beauchamp produced an uncommon impression in Europe, and were the subject of much discussion. In England especially were men aroused by them to a sense of eager thirst for a sight of these inscriptions—the books of the Babylonians—and for an effort to read them. So soon as this desire should crystallize it was certain to result in an attempt to secure some of them for an English museum. The first move in this direction was made by the East India Company of London, which forwarded, on October 18, 1797, a letter to the governor of Bombay instructing him to give orders to the company's resident at Bussorah to have search made for some of these inscribed bricks. He was then to have them carefully packed and sent as soon as possible to London. Early in 1801 the first case arrived at the East India House in London. These inscriptions were the first that had reached London. It was true, indeed, that no man could read them. They stood, however, as silent monuments of the past, and their very position in London called upon men to attempt their decipherment. Their resemblance to the inscriptions of Persepolis had also been pointed out, and of that there was now no doubt. At this time the work was in progress which resulted in the reading of ancient Persian. Here were now inscriptions in ancient Babylonian, and they must also be read.

There were at last enthusiasm and real interest in Babylon. This general interest was focused by a remarkable book by Joseph Hager, which was the direct result of his inspection of the Babylonian inscriptions that were now in the East India House. Hager's small book was epoch-making both in its suggestions and in its conclusions. In a few pages he reviewed the history of the observations made at Babylon, and then connected the inscribed stones there found with the Persepolitan inscriptions. His statements on these points well deserve repetition:

"It is well known that for more than a century past, about which time the Persepolitan inscriptions were first discovered by European travellers, the opinions have been much divided respecting these characters. Some have believed them to be talismans, and others the characters of the Guebres, or ancient inhabitants of Persia; others held them for mere hieroglyphics, and others for alphabetic characters, like ours. KAEMPFER supposed them to express whole ideas, like the Chinese characters, but that they had been appropriated solely for the palace of Istakhar ...

"By the Babylonian bricks here exhibited, the whole difficulty in regard to their origin is removed; as it is evident that Babylon, in point of cultivation, was much earlier than Persepolis, and that the Chaldean were a celebrated people, when the name of the Persians was scarcely known."

It must be remembered that this little book of Hager was written before the Persepolis inscriptions had been deciphered at all, and this makes all the more remarkable the generalizations of this gifted man, who seemed to foresee the very conclusions to which men would come when both the inscriptions of Persepolis and these new texts were finally deciphered. Even beyond these deductions was Hager led to go, when he summed up his conclusions at the end of his volume, for there he claimed that even the Assyrians must have used the same method of writing—and this before he had even so much as seen an Assyrian inscription of any kind.

Hager's little book had an influence out of all proportion to its size. The great tomes of many travelers had utterly failed to excite more than a passing interest. His book was soon translated into German and made a distinct impression upon Grotefend, then deeply absorbed in his efforts to decipher the records of the Achaemenian kings. In its English form it became known in France, there to inspire the archaeologist, A. L. Millin, to publish in facsimile a small inscribed stone brought several years before from the neighborhood of Baghdad to Paris by the botanist Michaux. The article of Millin called this little inscription a "Persepolitan monument", though his own statements show that it came not from Persepolis, but from Babylonia. His copy of this beautiful little inscription was another added to the increasing list of objects which awakened in men the belief that beneath the mounds at and about Hillah must lie buried great stores of monuments of the past of Babylonia.

While these publications were appearing, and while men were still curiously examining the East India House inscriptions, a man was preparing for a work which would demonstrate the truth of these hopes and astonish the world with unsuspected discoveries.

Claudius James Rich, who had been born at Dijon, France, in 1787, but spent his childhood at Bristol, England, and there secured his earliest education, went early in life to Bombay in the service of the East India Company. Gifted extraordinarily with a love for languages and with a readiness in their acquiring, he there made himself acquainted with Latin and Greek, and especially with Hebrew, Aramean, Persian, Arabic, and even somewhat with Chinese. Later, by fortunate accidents, he had found opportunity to continue his oriental studies at Constantinople and at Smyrna, and then in Egypt; while a sojourn in Italy put the language of that people at his service. Before he was twenty-four years of age he had been appointed the resident of the East India Company at Baghdad. Though he had not probably been consciously preparing for this particular post, all that he had learned and much that he had experienced now became of the greatest service to him. In the beginning of his residence at Baghdad he appears to have been most interested by the city itself and its immediately surrounding country, and began the collection of materials for a history of its Pashalic. In 1811, however, he was in some way led to visit the ruins of ancient Babylon, and at once there was awakened in him a new passion. On December 10, 1811, he saw for the first time the great mounds, to which he was now to devote so much energy and enthusiasm. His first impressions were distinctly disappointing. When he could secure the first opportunity to write them down he said:

"From the accounts of modern travelers I had expected to have found on the site of Babylon more, and less, than I actually did. Less, because I could have formed no conception of the prodigious extent of the whole ruins, or of the size, solidity, and perfect state of some of the particular parts of them; and more, because I thought that I should have distinguished some traces, however imperfect, of many of the principal structures of Babylon. I imagined, I should have said: Here were the walls, and such must have been the extent of the area. There stood the palace, and this most assuredly was the tower of Belus. I was completely deceived; instead of a few insulated mounds, I found the whole face of the country covered with the vestiges of building; in some places consisting of brick walls surprisingly fresh, in others merely of a vast succession of mounds of rubbish of such indeterminate figures, variety, and extent as to involve the person who should have formed any theory in inextricable confusion and contradiction."

This first visit of Rich to Babylon was brief, for he was back again in Baghdad on December 21. In that short time, however, he had planned all the mounds, and had correctly located them by astronomical observations. He also tested the mounds by digging into them in several places, of which the following words may serve as a sufficient description:

"I went with ten men with pickaxes and shovels to make experiments on the Mujelibe; they dug into the heaps on the top, and found layers of burnt bricks, with inscriptions laid in mortar. A kind of parapet of unburnt bricks appears to have surrounded the whole. On the western face the mud bricks were not only laid on reeds, but mixed up with them. In the northern face, where a part is also still standing, the bricks are not mixed up with reeds, but only laid on layers of them; here I found some beams of the date tree, specimens of which I brought away. The part of the mud wall standing on the west front is not thick; that on the northern side is more so, but none of them are of any considerable thickness. On the north front the height of the whole pile to the top of the parapet is 132 feet. The southeast angle is higher."

From these walls he took specimens of the inscribed building bricks, and likewise, when possible, purchased from the inhabitants various smaller inscriptions, which were later to form a part of the treasures of the British Museum. Rich's work at that time seemed small in amount, but it was the first serious survey of all the mounds, and has formed from that day to this the basis for every subsequent examination of them. So carefully had his work been done that he required, upon later acquaintance, to change his conclusions but slightly. His first account was, strangely enough, published in Vienna, but it was eagerly read and discussed in London. Free as it had been from theorizing, it, nevertheless, called forth a review and criticism from Major Rennell, who argued that Rich had not properly considered the allusions of classical historians and geographers, and had therefore improperly identified some ruins. Rennell's paper determined Rich to visit the ruins again, to verify or to correct his first statements. In his second visit he did find some things to correct, but in the main confirmed and established his former conclusions. The results of this visit were written out at Baghdad in the month of July, 1817, and, like the first publication of Rich, carried forward very distinctly the investigation of the ancient city.

Rich had already achieved enough to gain fame, but he was to do still more for oriental study, not, indeed, at Babylon, but at the other chief center, the city of Nineveh. In April, 1820, he set out from Baghdad to escape its heat by a journey in Kurdistan, and this was productive of valuable results in the geography of a land then but little visited by Europeans. In this journey Mr. Rich reached Mosul on October 31, 1820, and there spent four months. The experience which had been gained in his work at Babylon was now splendidly used. He visited and sketched with plans every one of the great mounds which might be considered as forming a part of the ancient city of Nineveh. The first of these mounds to be explored was that known among the natives as Neby Yunus, because it was supposed to contain the tomb of the prophet Jonah. Here he learned that even a cursory examination by means of the spade would uncover inscriptions, and some that had been found by the natives were shown to him. They were written in cuneiform characters, which Rich of course could not read, but some were secured for the British Museum, where their influence would soon be felt. From Neby Yunus Rich transferred his investigations to Kuyunjik, where he surveyed the mound, drafted a plan of it, and conversed with the natives, learning from them little more than that most of the inscriptions were found at Neby Yunus.

After the investigations at these two mounds Rich went down the river and studied the mound of Nimroud, where, as the natives said, Nimrod is buried. In every Arab village which he visited Rich found inscriptions in the cuneiform character. Some which were small enough to be easily transported he purchased for his collection. Many were, however, monumental in character, being cut into stones, which the Arabs had used in the erection of their miserable hovels. Rich appears to have found no opposition among the natives to his study of the mounds, but he did find various suspicions of himself and of his motives among the more ignorant of them. In one of his tours about Mosul the remark was overheard that he was probably seeking a suitable place to plant guns and take the city. The cupidity and fear which rendered miserable the lives of later explorers did not trouble him, partly because he knew by long association the temper of the natives, and so did not unnecessarily wound their sensibilities, and partly because he did not dig up the ground, as was necessary in the work of his successors.

The inscriptions which Rich had secured soon came to London, and there formed the nucleus of the great Assyrian and Babylonian collections of the British Museum. They showed at the very first glance that the daring guess of Hager was correct. They were indeed written in the same kind of characters as those which had been sent home to London from the ruins of Babylon. That fact alone was of so great moment as to make distinguished all the work of Rich at Nineveh. He had laid the basis for all future work in that city, as he had previously done in Babylon. His plans and drawings must be used by whoever should next take up the work.

To all this work at Babylon and at Nineveh Rich was to add useful labor at Persepolis, which he visited in August, 1821. His approach to the city was graphically described in these words:

"It was dark when we left the bridge of the Araxes. My expectation was greatly excited. Chardin, when I was a mere child, had inspired me with a great desire to see these ruins, and the desires excited in us in childhood are too vivid ever to be effaced. Their gratification has a relish which motives suggested by reason and judgment are unable afterward to equal. My late antiquarian researches had, however, also added their interest to my other inducements; and as I rode over the plain by the beautiful starlight, reflections innumerable on the great events that had happened there crowded on my memory. I was in the moment of enjoying what I had long waited for; and what a delightful moment that is! At last the pointed summit began to detach itself from the line of the mountains to which we were advancing. Mr. Tod pointed it out: 'Under that lie the ruins'. At that moment the moon rose with uncommon beauty behind it. Ages seemed at once to present themselves to my fancy."

Here at Persepolis he made more exact copies of the inscriptions to which already so much discussion had been given in Europe, and his copies proved to be of great value to those who were to engage in the criticism and the perfecting of the work of Grotefend. On the way back to Baghdad from this visit to Persepolis Rich died of cholera, at Shiraz, while bravely serving others who were suffering from the disease. The man who had wrought so wonderfully for the study of the ancient world now died a hero in the humblest service for the poorest of humanity.

The impulse which Claudius James Rich gave to Babylonian and Assyrian study has never yet lost its effect. Others had done much, indeed, in awakening interest, and Rich's own testimony, quoted above, shows that Chardin had done this for him; still others had made observations of lasting value, while a very few had accurately determined ancient sites, and so had made possible his work. All these things, and more, Rich had accomplished. None who preceded him had excelled him in inspirational power, for even his Journal, intended only as the basis of future careful writing, possessed it, and none had equaled him in the collecting of definite information concerning the ruins both of Nineveh and of Babylon.

His quickening and informing influence worked wonders in his immediate successors.

While Rich was still living in Baghdad, surrounded by a great retinue of servants and soldiers, in the almost regal state which was then deemed necessary in order to overawe the impressible natives, he received a visit from a fellow-countrymen, Sir Robert Ker Porter. This was October 14, 1818, and Rich had, as we have seen, made his investigations at Babylon, and published them in Europe. It was natural that he should discuss them with this newcomer. Porter had already visited Persepolis, and by the copying of inscriptions had added his name to the long and worthy line of those who had made the work of Grotefend possible. Of all those who had yet been in Babylonia none were endowed in the same manner as this new visitor. Others had possessed greater experience in travel, though even in this his experience was not small. Others had had better scientific equipment in knowledge of surveying and in acquaintance with oriental languages. In these matters Porter was far behind Rich and the former wanderers. But Porter was an artist, an artist who had made his name famous in England by many a canvas depicting the glory of England in war, and the history of her people in Church and State. To this he added the unique distinction of having been court painter at St. Petersburg. A man of talent, if not even a man of genius, a man of great social following in Great Britain and in Russia, where he had entered the highest circles and even married a Russian princess— such was Sir Robert Ker Porter. His skill as a painter qualified him admirably to sketch the ruins of Babylon, and his trained eye was ready to observe the lay of land and the external conditions of the modern surroundings of ancient sites. He had had experience in the copying of texts at Persepolis, and could now copy at Babylon with additional sureness. He had a gift for striking description in words, and his brush added vividness to his pen. Rich gave him willing assistance, and Rich's admirably trained secretary, Bellino, accompanied him to the ruins at Hillah. Though Porter was lacking in many things, his observations were useful and served well in directing later workers bent on definite work. Upon his return the account of his travels was published in sumptuous style, beautifully illustrated by his own brush. The big book was received with acclaim in England, and apparently also on the continent. A man with greater scientific equipment but with less social following might have written a work more valuable scientifically, which would, nevertheless, have completely failed in influence on the age. Porter's work, however, offered the needed supplement to the work of Rich. Rich had written very little indeed, and that was concerned with details, and at times was very dry indeed. It was, besides this, not published in a complete form until after the author's death. Porter saw his own book published, and heard the popular plaudits. Here was at last a description of Babylon as it now was, duly intermingled with quotations from previous observers, and fortified by the word of Mr. Rich and Mr. Bellino. Here were pictures of mounds and ruined walls and inscribed bricks, and here was the expressed opinion that they had not yet been fully explored. What better thing could have been done for the recovery of Babylon at this time than the publication of just such a book as this of Sir Robert Ker Porter! It was impossible that its publication should not be followed by a rekindling of zeal in the pursuit of oriental learning; or that its glowing and pictured pages should fail to excite the wonder of even the ordinary reader, who may tomorrow become an explorer himself or a patron of such pursuits in others. Just as the book of Chardin had roused the boyish enthusiasm of Rich and sent him in his early manhood to the scenes which it described, so would this new book exert a similar influence upon others. Though its scientific contributions are not to be named with those of Rich, its popular influence was great, and it is to be ranked with the greatest of all the influences which contributed to the recovery of Nineveh and Babylon.

With the work of Sir Robert Ker Porter another period of exploration in Babylonia and in Assyria closes. The progress had been indeed very slow. The whole story is a narrative of description, rising at times to measurement and survey, and very rarely to the summit of actually recovering inscribed monuments. But all this was absolutely indispensable work. It was foundation work, preparatory and perhaps little more. But it represented a clear step forward beyond that of the days of the credulous seeker for marvels. It was, further, an era of popularization, and before governments or peoples, in monarchies or democracies, would join heartily in costly excavations, the people must get some promise of interesting result, some zeal for the learning of the past history of humanity, and some taste for the color of the Orient. In the greatest of the democracies, also, it was well that the people should come to believe that a study of the mounds of Babylon and Nineveh might give results of value to the study of their Bible, for the English people were then willing to give much if there were promise of any such result. Of that issue assurance was given in many a word from Shirley to Rich, and that the people had heard it was soon clearly shown. In France there was probably less diffusion of popular biblical knowledge; yet from France was to come the first real step which should prove that England's hesitation had been unwise. In France that which failed in the popular interest and enthusiasm was supplied by the love of learning in the few and by the great liberality of the government, in a land where governments have always done marvels for the pursuit of learning. But the story of this great work belongs to the new era, that now follows the period closed by two Englishmen whose names belong high up on the record—Claudius James Rich and Sir Robert Ker Porter.

THE period of exploration in Babylonia was succeeded by the era of excavation, but the succession was not so rapid as might have been expected. The whole history of the progress was slow, and there was now a pause before the really culminating work was begun. But this pause was full of preparation.

In 1823 Julius Mohl came from Tubingen, where he had taken in the previous year the doctor's degree, to Paris, to become the pupil of the greatest Arabist of the day, Silvestre de Sacy, whose name has already appeared in the story of decipherment. In 1840 Mohl became one of the secretaries of the Societe Asiatique, and thus became permanently attached to the French capital. Though his masters had taught him the Arabic classics rather than the learning of the older Orient, he was, nevertheless, full of a desire to know of its history, language, and literature. At about the time of the pause in the progress of Babylonian exploration Mohl visited London, and there saw the inscribed Babylonian bricks which the East India Company had brought together. He was filled with an overmastering belief that these little bricks were the promise of an immense literature which lay buried, awaiting the excavator's spade. He returned to Paris to read of mounds in Babylonia and Assyria, and to reflect upon the untold treasures which must come to light if properly sought. There was no opportunity found for Mohl himself to go to Assyria or Babylonia to seek these long-lost monuments, but there soon came a time when he could arouse another to this call.

In 1842 the French government created at Mosul a vice consulate. French commerce with the district did not warrant or demand this, and the new departure was really made in the interest of archaeological study-to establish at this happily chosen place a French archaeological mission. The man selected to fill the new post was admirably suited to it. Paul Emil Botta was now but thirty-seven years of age, with the full ardor of youth and the steadying influence of experience of the world. He had had service as the French consul at Alexandria, and must there have learned of the methods of archaeological study in which the French had already met with distinguished success. Before Botta departed from Paris for his new post MOM had impressed strongly upon his mind that a great opportunity was now his to dig, and not merely to describe, explore, and plot the mounds opposite Mosul. The preliminary work of plotting and examining these mounds had been well done, and no more of it was needed. Rich had made it entirely unnecessary for any follower of his to repeat more of that work. It was now Botta's duty to dig beneath the surface of the oft-described mounds, and determine finally whether they covered any remains of the ancient city of Nineveh. Botta was persuaded, and went out to Mosul to occupy his consulate on May 25, 1842. That was an historic clay in the annals of Assyrian study.

The French diplomat and archaeologist, whose face bore the fine lines of the scholar rather than the marks of a man of the world, found himself in a place little suited to one who had lived in Paris, or even in the comparative comfort of Alexandria. Mosul was a mean little city, built more of mud than of stone, lying upon the right or western bank of the Tigris. It had once possessed an extensive commerce with the East, of which it still retained the remnants. Botta seems to have cared little for the town or its fanatical inhabitants, and were it not for the comments of Layard, we should know little of what it was at this time. Botta's own letters give it scarcely more than a passing reference. When he stood by the banks of the river Tigris he could see the river Choser discharging its sluggish and muddy waters into the great river. The eye could follow the little river back over a plain which melted away into the mountains of Kurdistan upon the east and northeast. Upon this plain there were a few squalid villages, the homes of a peasantry more fearful of the taxgatherer than of death. Over these the pasha of Mosul exercised a sway, patriarchal only in its severe authority. The land had once supported a vast population; of that the history left by Greeks, Romans, and Hebrews made no doubt possible. Besides these wretched villages the most noticeable objects were several vast mounds. They had been often described before, and Botta knew just what they were supposed to be. As he swept his eyes over them, the first that was noticeable was south of the Choser, on his right hand as he looked across the river. It might seem to the untrained eye at first glance merely a hill, a bit of nature's own handiwork, but the top was too flat, the sides unnaturally regular and steep. Upon its top rose a mosque, and grouped round this were several poor houses forming a little village. The mound was called Neby Yunus-that is, Prophet Jonah-and to his honor and memory the mosque was dedicated. Beneath, in. the mound, lay the prophet's bones, according to the tradition of the natives. As he looked farther north on the opposite side of the Choser lay a larger mound called Kuyunjik, where also there were some human habitations. This mound was larger than the other, and beyond them was a raised line which seemed to unite these two mounds, and might mark the remains of an ancient line of wall which inclosed them both. Farther back from the Tigris, upon the rising ground along the upper Choser and distant about fourteen miles north-northeast from Mosul, was another mound with a village called Khorsabad. Other lesser mounds were either in sight or were known from the descriptions of travelers or from native residents. Botta looked the field over and doubted where to begin. His first discouraging experience resulted from a careful survey of the town of Mosul itself. He had been led to believe that as the towns about the ruins of Babylon had been built of brick dug from the remains of the ancient city, so he would find in Mosul huts erected of bricks taken from the ancient city. His plan, therefore, was to go over Mosul and seek for signs of ancient-looking bricks, and especially for any that were inscribed with cuneiform characters. He would then ascertain from what mound these had come. To his great surprise and discomfiture he found no such memorials of the past, and was therefore left without this hint as to the proper place to begin excavations. The mounds were so large as to discourage aimless seeking, and he began a process of questioning the natives concerning any finds that might be known. Gradually some pieces of inscribed stone were brought forth from hiding places, and these he bought from their owners. This surprising news that a man had come to Mosul who would buy old stones became noised about the whole country, and he had numerous offers of bits of stone and clay. But even with all this advertising of his wishes the number of antiquities offered was much less than that which the passing traveler reported at Baghdad or at Hillah. Furthermore, it was difficult to ascertain where the natives had secured what was offered him, for they naturally desired to work these mines for their own gain and not permit the Frank to learn of their exact whereabouts. Botta's own mind swerved gradually round to the notion that the most promising mound was Neby Yunus, and he carefully considered the possibility of digging there. From this purpose he was finally dissuaded by the awkward fact that a village occupied the better part of the top of the mound, which would make digging almost impossible without the utter collapse and ruin of the miserable hovels. Besides this there were Mohammedan graves in the mound, and, above all, was not Jonah himself buried beneath its surface? To disturb a spot thus sacred would mean a revolution among the natives which might set the whole region ablaze with fanaticism. This plan was therefore abandoned and the mound by Kuyunjik was selected for the first efforts. At the western edge of this mound near the southern extremity a few large bricks could be seen which were joined with bitumen. These seemed to offer a hope that they belonged to some ancient building. Here, therefore, Botta began to dig in December, 1842. His funds were very limited and he could employ but a few workmen, whose slow movements promised little results. The workmen, however, discovered some fragments of bas-reliefs and broken bits of clay inscriptions. For three months the work went on and nothing large or valuable or beautiful came out of the little ditches or wells. What was found was interesting indeed, for it offered proof positive that this mound really did cover some ancient building or buildings. It was, however, discouraging to find only broken pieces, and not complete monuments.

While this work was in progress the inhabitants gathered round the ditches and watched curiously the slow and careful work. They did not know what it all meant, but it was perfectly clear that this man was seeking inscriptions, whatever they might be. Every little fragment found which contained any of these strange little wedge-shaped marks was carefully numbered and laid aside. One of the bystanders whose home was at Khorsabad observed this proceeding, and within the first month of the excavations brought down from Khorsabad two large bricks with inscriptions, which he offered to sell to Botta. This gave him the hint that perhaps Khorsabad might be a more profitable mound for excavations. He was, however, still hopeful of success at Kuyunjik, and continued to work on. At last, on March 20, 1843, his faith in this mound gave out, and he determined to send a few men to Khorsabad to try the mound there. It was a fortunate resolve. In three days word was brought to him at Mosul that antiquities and inscriptions had already been found. He was, however, skeptical, fearing lest the records might be some late Arabic graffiti, and was there., fore unwilling to go himself lest those which had been found should prove valuless. He sent a servant with instructions to copy a few of the inscriptions and then report. The reply showed beyond a doubt that the antiquities were really Assyrian. Thereupon Botta went to the scene, to behold a sight that thrilled him.

His workmen had lighted upon a very well-preserved ancient wall, not of a city, but of a building. This they had followed round and so uncovered a large room, in which were lying fragments of sculptures, calcined by fire, together with a number of well-preserved inscriptions. The full meaning of this new room was not ascertained until long after, but some appreciation of it was Botta's own, as he looked down into the rude excavation. He believed at once that this was but one room, perhaps of a great palace, and proved the supposition at once by causing wells to be driven nearby in several places, out of which came other bas-reliefs, almost perfectly preserved. In these his eyes looked upon a sight which no man had seen since the great royal city fell before its enemies more than two thousand four hundred years before. Only one day could Botta remain at Khorsabad, and then had to return to Mosul for other duties. Thence he wrote on April 5,1843, a quiet, dignified letter to the author of his first enthusiasm, AI. Mohl. There is scarcely a word of enthusiasm in the letter, but it roused Mohl to contribute of his own small purse and also sent him to the Academy of Inscriptions with Botta's letter and the accompanying diagrams. Meanwhile the excavations went slowly on, though with some opposition on the part of the pasha. A month later a second and more important letter moved the French government to its old line of generous assistance to archaeological research, and three thousand francs were placed at Botta's disposal for further researches.

Thus supported by France, and cheered on by the ever-active Mohl, Botta's course seemed clear and his success certain. He was, however, sorely pressed by great difficulties. The climate was dangerous, and he almost fell a victim. The natives were suspicious beyond measure, and hampered his work at every turn. Some supposed that he was digging for buried treasure, and that these inscriptions which he copied were talismanic guardians from which he would learn its exact location. Yet others supposed that he was searching for old title deeds by which to prove that all this land had belonged to Europeans, who thus might claim its restoration. These and similar stories came to the ears of Mohammed Pasha, then governing the pashalic of Mosul, and he entered gradually upon a policy of oppression. He first set guards over Botta's workmen, whose business it was to seize any piece of metal that might be found and dispatch it to him, that it might be carefully examined to determine whether it was gold. This caused so little inconvenience to Botta that it was scarcely worth the trouble, and he soon felt compelled to resort to more strenuous measures. He had given permission to Botta to erect for himself a small hut where he might find a resting place when he came up on visits from Mosul. The wily pasha now pretended that this was in reality a fortress and that the trenches were its defenses. It was evidently Botta's intention to overawe the country by force of arms and detach it from the sultan's dominions. Upon these representations the Sublime Porte ordered that all the excavations should at once cease. Botta was equal to the painful emergency. On October 15, 1843, he dispatched a courier to the French ambassador at Constantinople, begging him to make such representation to the Porte as might secure permission for the continuance of the excavations.

While these petitions were pending amid the usual delays at Constantinople the wily pasha was pretending to Botta that all his difficulties were due to the people of Khorsabad, and not to his own machinations. "I told him one day," says Botta, "that the first rains of the season had caused a portion of the house erected at Khorsabad to fall down. ` Can you imagine,' said he, laughing in the most natural manner, and turning to the numerous officers by whom he was surrounded, 'anything like the impudence of the inhabitants of Khorsabad? They pretend that the French consul has constructed a redoubtable fortress, and a little rain is sufficient to destroy it. I can assure you, sir, that, were I not afraid of hurting your feelings, I would have them all bastinadoed till they were dead; they would richly deserve it, for having dared to accuse you.' It was in this manner that he spoke, while he himself was the author of the lie, and his menaces alone were the obstacles which prevented the inhabitants from exposing it."

At Constantinople difficulties innumerable and delays uncounted were found, and not until May 4, 1844, did the firmans allowing the work to proceed reach Botta at Mosul. They were brought from Constantinople by M. E. Flandin, who had been sent from Paris to copy and sketch all the antiquities which were too bulky or heavy to be removed. It was already decided in Paris that everything else should be carried thither.

When Botta attempted to begin excavations again he found that it would be necessary to raze the little village and thus be free to dig over the whole mound. This was accomplished by paying the inhabitants to remove to the level ground at the foot of the mound and then entering into an agreement to restore the mound's surface as it was for their rebuilding. The work now went on apace. Botta copied the inscriptions, while Flandin planned all the rooms and buildings that were found, and three hundred native laborers worked lustily with pick and shovel to lay bare this portion of the ruined city. Scores of inscriptions, chiefly upon stone and monumental in character, were now found. Great winged bulls that once had guarded palace doors came to light. Bas-reliefs of much beauty portraying scenes of peace and war arose out of dust and dirt. The success of the work passed all the hopes of Botta and all the enthusiastic predictions of Mohl, and almost exceeded the belief of the learned world in Paris. In October, 1844, Botta stopped the work and soon began to arrange for the transportation of the antiquities to Paris. The difficulties were great and the delays annoying, but at last, in December, 1846, the entire mass of material was successfully landed at Havre, thence to be transported to Paris and deposited in the Louvre.

To crown the work the French government published all the drawings of Flandin, all the copies of inscriptions, and all the descriptive matter of Botta in five magnificent folio volumes, in a style worthy of French traditions and of French liberality to archaeological research.

So ended in a worthy publicity the first great expedition to Assyria which had succeeded in bringing to Europe the first Assyrian monuments which the Occident had ever seen. It was a noble work of Botta, of Flandin, of Mohl, and of France.

Botta would probably have gone back to Khorsabad or to some other mound in the district of Nineveh after the publication of his discoveries had he not been sent into government service elsewhere. His work might well call him to return, but another would soon continue it.

On March 5, 1817, there was born in Paris an English boy of Huguenot descent, whose early training, gathered here and there in England, France, and Italy, awakened in him a love for the fine arts, an interest in archaeology, and a passion for travel. In the boyish days of Austen Henry Layard his eager reading of the Arabian Nights was mixed with study of Fellowe's travels in Asia Minor and with the perusal of Rich's accounts of discovery at Babylon and Nineveh. Rich's journal filled him with desire to see these great mounds beneath which lay ancient memorials of untold interest. Herein again, as often before, is seen the continuity of research in these lands, the influence of enthusiasm carried over from man to man.

Fortunately for science Layard's education had been too uneven to fit him for the pursuit of a profession, and the law, for which he was destined, did not awake in him an enthusiasm sufficient to overcome the early defects. The restless fever was in his blood, and the quiet ways of England were too tame for the almost Gallic spirit within him. He determined, therefore, to seek a career in Ceylon, and in 1839, when a mere boy in appearance and but twenty-two years of age, he set out to make the journey overland in company with Edward Ledwich Mitford. who was bent upon the same business. Mitford was nearly ten years older than Layard and had had experience in Morocco, where he had learned the Arabic dialect there in use. Before setting out upon this journey Layard had learned a little Arabic and Persian, and had tried to make other hasty preparations for the dangerous voyage over lands almost unknown, amid savage animals and even more savage men. Upon reaching Hamadan, Persia, Layard abandoned the plan of seeking his fortune in Ceylon, and therein archaeology triumphed over commerce. Mitford pursued his way on to Ceylon, and Layard returned into western Asia.

It was upon May 10, 1840, that Layard and Mitford first saw Mosul and examined somewhat curiously the mounds on the opposite bank, which Layard had learned from Rich to consider the remains of Nineveh. The mounds of Kuyunjik and Neby Yunus did not make so great an impression upon Layard as did the great mound of Nimroud, farther south. But all aroused in him a deep longing to learn their secrets. Even then he could say, "These huge mounds of Assyria made a deeper impression upon me, gave rise to more serious thought and more earnest reflection, than the temples of Baalbec or the theaters of Ionia." This spell deepened as he saw more of Nimroud by rafting down the Tigris toward Baghdad. His words are a promise of the work that was to follow:

 

"It was evening as five approached the spot. The spring rains had clothed the mounds with the richest verdure, and the fertile meadows, which stretched around it, were covered with flowers of every hue. Amidst this luxuriant vegetation were partly concealed a few fragments of bricks, pottery, and alabaster, upon which might be traced the well-defined wedges of the cuneiform character. Did not these remains mark the nature of the ruin, it might have been confounded with a natural eminence. A long line of consecutive narrow mounds, still retaining the appearance of walls or ramparts, stretched from its base, and formed a vast quadrangle. The river flowed at some distance from them, its waters, swollen by the melting of the snows on the Armenian hills, were broken into a thousand foaming whirlpools by an artificial barrier built across the stream. On the eastern bank the soil had been washed away by the current, but a solid mass of masonry still withstood its impetuosity. The Arab who guided my small raft gave himself up to religious ejaculations as we approached this formidable cataract, over which we were carried with some violence. Once safely through the danger, my companion explained to me that this unusual change in the quiet face of the river was caused by a great dam which had been built by Nimrod, and that in the autumn, before the winter rains, the huge stones of which it was constructed, squared, and united by clamps of iron, were frequently visible above the surface of the stream. It was, in fact, one of those monuments of a great people to be found in all the rivers of Mesopotamia, which were undertaken to insure a constant supply of water to the innumerable canals, spreading like network over the surrounding country, and which, even in the days of Alexander, were looked upon as the works of an ancient nation. No wonder that the traditions of the present inhabitants of the land should assign them to one of the founders of the human race! The Arab was telling me of the connection between the dam and the city built by Athur, the lieutenant of Nimrod, the vast ruins of which were now before us-of its purpose as a causeway for the mighty hunter to cross to the opposite palace, now represented by the mound of Hammum Ali -and of the histories and fate of kings of a primitive race still the favorite theme of the inhabitants of the plain of Shinar, when the last glow of twilight faded away, and I fell asleep as we glided onward to Baghdad.

"My curiosity had been greatly excited, and from that time I formed the design of thoroughly examining; whenever it might be in my power, these singular ruins."

The resolve expressed in this last sentence is very striking when one remembers that it was taken in April, 1840. This was more than two years before Botta had even seen the mounds. At least in the thought of excavation Layard anticipated Botta, though the good fortune of the latter gave him the precedence in the field.

In May, 1842, Layard passed through Mosul on his way to Constantinople, and found Botta established as consular agent and already engaged in carrying on excavations at Kuyunjik. Layard was too much a man of dignity, even in his youth, to feel any envy of the fortunate Frenchman, who was now doing what he had been dreaming. In the two years which had passed Layard had attempted to secure aid to enable him to undertake just such work as this, but in vain. His own government was not as easily induced to aid archaeologists as the government of France, whether monarchical or republican, has always been. Layard then formed terms of friendship with Botta, and entered upon a correspondence. When Botta was discouraged at his small success it was Layard who wrote urging him to persevere.

At the time of this second visit, to Mosul, Layard was on his way home to England. At Constantinople, however, he was detained and sent thence to Salonica upon service for the British embassy. The British ambassador at Constantinople was now Sir Stratford Canning, afterward Lord Stratford de Redcliffe, who had secured for the British Museum the marbles of Halicarnassus. The skill, patience, and ardor with which he had pursued the efforts required to obtain these had increased his own interest in the monuments of the past. To him Layard told the story of the mounds, and described his eagerness to try excavations in them. At last he had found the right man, and Sir Stratford gave him £60, to which Layard was to add an equal amount collected among friends. With this small sum Layard left Constantinople October, 1845, and traveled with all haste to Mosul. Mohammed Pasha was now governor of the province, and from him Layard could expect no help, but every possible interference. He therefore concealed the object of his mission, but after a few days gave out that he was going to hunt wild boars, and then left Mosul by a raft to float down to Nimroud, where he had determined to begin excavations. Here an Arab tent sheltered him, and hearts more tender than the pasha's watched over him. His record of the night before the first spade was struck into the ground reveals the enthusiasm of the man, and gives some clue to his great success:

"I had slept little during the night. The hovel in which we had taken shelter, and its inmates, did not invite slumber; but such scenes and companions were not new to me; they could have been forgotten had my brain been less excited. Hopes long cherished were now to be realized or were to end in disappointment. Visions of palaces underground, of gigantic monsters, of sculptured figures, and endless inscriptions floated before me. After forming plan after plan for removing the earth and extricating these treasures, I fancied myself wandering in a maze of chambers from which I could find no outlet. Then, again, all was reburied and I was standing on the grass. covered mound. Exhausted, I was at length sinking into sleep when, hearing the voice of Awad [his Arab host], I rose from my carpet and joined him outside the hovel. The day had already dawned; he had returned with six Arabs, who agreed for a small sum to work under my direction."

The excavations thus begun were carried on until December amid constant difficulties set on foot by the pasha. The plans pursued were exactly the same as were followed against Botta. When the excavations were resumed, after a visit to Baghdad, they were again interrupted by the fanaticism of the Arabs, operating upon the new governor of the province, Ismail Pasha. When they were again resumed, in February, 1846, Layard left the mound to visit a neighboring sheikh, and was returning to the mound when he observed two Arabs hastening to meet him with excited faces. The narrative of what followed is best told by Layard himself:

 

"On approaching me they stopped. Hasten, O Bey, exclaimed one of them; hasten to the diggers, for they have found Nimrod himself. Wallah, it is wonderful, but it is true! we have seen him with our eyes. There is no God but God; and both joining in this pious exclamation, they galloped off, without further words, in the direction of their tents.

"On reaching the ruins I descended into the new trench, and found the workmen, who had already seen me as I approached, standing near a heap of baskets and cloaks. Whilst Awad advanced and asked for a present to celebrate the occasion, the Arabs withdrew the screen they had hastily constructed and disclosed an enormous human head sculptured in full out of the alabaster of the country. They had uncovered the upper part of a figure, the remainder of which was still buried in the earth. I saw at once that the head must belong to a winged lion or bull, similar to those of Khorsabad and Persepolis. It was in admirable preservation. The expression was calm, yet majestic, and the outline of the features showed a freedom and knowledge of art scarcely to be looked for in the works of so remote a period. The cap had three horns, and, unlike that of the human-headed bulls hitherto found in Assyria, was rounded and without ornament at the top.

"I was not surprised that the Arabs had been amazed and terrified at this apparition. It required no stretch of imagination to conjure up the most strange fancies. This gigantic head, blanched with age, thus rising from the bowels of the earth, might well have belonged to one of those fearful beings which are pictured in the traditions of the country as appearing to mortals, slowly ascending from the regions below. One of the workmen, on catching the first glimpse of the monster, had thrown down his basket and run off toward Mosul as fast as his legs could carry him. I learned this with regret, as I anticipated the consequences.

"While I was superintending the removal of the earth, which still clung to the sculpture, and giving directions for the continuation of the work, a noise of horsemen was heard, and presently Abd-ur-rahmar, followed by half his tribe, appeared on the edge of the trench. As soon as the two Arabs had reached the tents and published the wonders they had seen everyone mounted his mare and rode to the mound, to satisfy himself of the truth of these inconceivable reports. When they beheld the head they all cried together: There is no God but God, and Mohammed is his prophet! It was some time before the sheikh could be prevailed upon to descend into the pit and convince himself that the image he saw was of stone. This is not the work of men's hands, exclaimed he, but of those infidel giants of whom the prophet, peace be with him! has said that they were higher than the tallest date tree; this is one of the idols which Noah, peace be with him! cursed before the flood. In this opinion, the result of a careful examination, all the bystanders concurred.

"I now ordered a trench to be dug due south from the head, in the expectation of finding a corresponding figure, and before nightfall reached the object of my search, about twelve feet distant. Engaging two or three men to sleep near the sculptures, I returned to the village and celebrated the day's discovery by a slaughter of sheep, of which all the Arabs near partook. As some wandering musicians chanced to be at Selamiyah, I sent for them, and dances were kept up during the greater part of the night. On the following morning Arabs from the other side of the Tigris and the inhabitants of the surrounding villages congregated on the mound. Even the women could not repress their curiosity, and came in crowds, with their children, from afar. My cawass was stationed during the day in the trench, into which I would not allow the multitude to descend.

"As I had expected, the report of the discovery of the gigantic head, carried by the terrified Arab to Mosul, had thrown the town into commotion. He had scarcely checked his speed before reaching the bridge. Entering breathless into the bazaars, he announced to everyone he met that Nimrod had appeared. The news soon got to the ears of the cadi, who, anxious for a fresh opportunity to annoy me, called the mufti and the ulema together to consult upon this unexpected occurrence. Their deliberations ended in a procession to the governor, and a formal protest on the part of the Mussulmans of the town against proceedings so directly contrary to the laws of the Koran. The cadi had no distinct idea whether the bones of the mighty hunter had been uncovered or only his image; nor did Ismail Pasha very clearly remember whether Nimrod was a true believing prophet or an infidel. I consequently received a somewhat unintelligible message from his excellency to the effect that the remains should be treated with respect, and be by no means further disturbed, and that he wished the excavations to be stopped at once, and desired to confer with me on the subject.

"I called upon him accordingly, and had some difficulty in making him understand the nature of my discovery. As he requested me to discontinue my operations until the sensation in the town had somewhat subsided, I returned to Nimroud and dismissed the workmen, retaining only two men to dig leisurely along the walls without giving cause for further interference. I ascertained by the end of March the existence of a second pair of winged human-headed lions, differing from those previously discovered in form, the human shape being continued to the waist and finished with arms. In one hand each figure carried a goat or stag, and in the other, which hung down by the side, a branch with three flowers. They formed a northern entrance into the chamber of which the lions previously described were the southern portal. I completely uncovered the latter, and found them to be entire. They were about twelve feet in height, and the same number in length. The body and limbs were admirably portrayed; the muscles and bones, though strongly developed to display the strength of the animal, showed at the same time a correct knowledge of its anatomy and form. Expanded wings sprung from the shoulder and spread over the back; a knotted girdle, ending in tassels, encircled the loins. These sculptures, forming an entrance, were partly in full and partly in relief. The head and fore part, facing the chamber, were in full; but only one side of the rest of the slab was sculptured, the back being placed against the wall of sun-dried bricks. That the spectator might have both a perfect front and side view of the figures they were furnished with five legs; two were carved on the end of the slab to face the chamber, and three on the side. The relief of the body and three limbs was high and bold, and the slab was covered in all parts not occupied by the image with inscriptions in the cuneiform character. These magnificent specimens of Assyrian art were in perfect preservation; the most minute lines in the details of the wings and in the ornaments had been retained with their original freshness. Not a character was wanting in the inscriptions.

"I used to contemplate for hours these mysterious emblems, and muse over their intent and history. What more noble forms could have ushered the people into the temple of their gods? What more sublime images could have been borrowed from nature by men who sought, unaided by the light of revealed religion, to embody their conception of the wisdom, power, and ubiquity of a Supreme Being? They could find no better type of intellect and knowledge than the head of the man; of strength, than the body of the lion; of rapidity of motion, than the wings of the bird. These winged human-headed lions were not idle creations, the offspring of mere fancy; their meaning was written upon them. They had awed and instructed races which flourished three thousand years ago. Through the portals which they guarded kings, priests, and warriors had borne sacrifices to their altars long before the wisdom of the East had penetrated to Greece, and had furnished its mythology with symbols long recognized by the Assyrian votaries. They may have been buried, and their existence may have been unknown, before the foundation of the Eternal City. For twenty five centuries they had been hidden from the eye of man, and they now stood forth once more in their ancient majesty. But how changed was the scene around them! The luxury and civilization of a mighty nation had given place to the wretchedness and ignorance of a few half barbarous tribes. The wealth of temples and the riches of great cities had been succeeded by ruins and shapeless heaps of earth. Above the spacious hall in which they stood the plow had passed and the corn now waved. Egypt has monuments no less ancient and no less wonderful, but they have stood forth for ages to testify her early power and renown, while those before me had but now appeared to bear witness, in the words of the prophet, that once “the Assyrian was a cedar in Lebanon with fair branches, and with a shadowing shroud of an high stature; and his top was among the thick boughs... his height was exalted above all the trees of the field, and his boughs were multiplied, and his branches became long, because of the multitude of waters when he shot forth. All the fowls of heaven made their nests in his boughs, and under his branches did all the beasts of the field bring forth their young, and under his shadow dwelt all great nations”; for now is “Nineveh a desolation and dry like a wilderness, and flocks lie down in the midst of her: all the beasts of the nations, both the cormorant and bittern, lodge in the upper lintels of it; their voice sings in the windows; and desolation is in the thresholds”.

 

In one respect this narrative of Layard's far excels all that had been written by the men who before his day had seen or measured or worked in these mounds. None before had ever told the story of their experiences or of their discoveries in words so full of color, life, and movement; none had ever displayed so much of enthusiasm and so great a power of description. In another respect Layard becomes a successor of one of the earliest of English travelers and explorers. Like Shirley, he knew how to make all that he saw bear upon the words of the Bible. He could quote the very words out of the Scriptures and make the dust covered monument reflect a bright light upon them. These two powers - the power of description in color and the power of biblical comparison - ranged all England at his back. They who cared nothing for the Bible were moved by the fire and the beauty of his description; they who loved the Bible saw in him a man who was making discoveries which promised to illustrate or confirm records to them most dear. In due time, also, these influences became so potent that the British government was moved to lend a hand to this work, and so that which had been begun upon slender private means became a great national enterprise.

The colossal figures which so deeply moved Layard were indeed a noble sight, but they were not so important as the smaller inscriptions which were later to be dug out of their resting places. Layard had supposed that the winged lions had guarded the entrance of some great temple, the spade was later to show that they had stood at the portals of the palace of Shalmaneser II.

The work which revealed these monuments had been carried on under many difficulties and with a constant dread of interruption from the suspicious natives or their rulers. It was therefore a great relief to Lay aid's anxieties when he received from Constantinople a "vizirial letter, procured by Sir Stratford Canning, authorizing the continuation of the excavations and the removal of such objects as might be discovered." This put another face upon Lay aid's work, and enabled him to do openly work which had hitherto been carried on with as much concealment as possible. He now made some small attempts upon the mound of Kuyunjik, but his funds were extremely limited and the results were not encouraging. He therefore resumed with fresh vigor the work at Nimroud, from which he was shortly able to send a large consignment of monuments on a raft to Baghdad and thence to Bassorah, for transportation to England. Soon after which his health, already undermined by the enervating climate, compelled him to cease work and make a mountain journey for recuperation.

Upon his return to Mosul he found letters from England advising him that Sir Stratford Canning had presented to the British Museum the antiquities which had been found, and that furthermore the Museum had received from the government a grant of funds for continuing the work. This was good news indeed, though Layard had to lament that it was so much smaller than Botta had enjoyed, and that therefore he must stint and economize and strive to utilize every penny.

With such resources as he had the work was resumed in October, 1846, and a winter campaign was carefully planned. Huts were erected for shelter from the storms; wandering Arabs were induced to pitch their tents nearby, and instead of living by plunder draw wages for labor in the trenches. Many a new plan of dealing with troublesome natives was tried and the better adopted. In all this Layard had the valuable assistance of Mr. Hormuzd Rassam, whose brother, Charles Rassam, was British vice consul at Mosul. Hormuzd Rassam was native born and understood the people as no European could hope to do. He conducted most of the dealings with them, and kept the peace without use of force.

The excavations carried on under these auspices, and with the powers which Layard then possessed, were successful beyond his wildest dreams. As the trenches followed round the walls of room after room they uncovered great slabs of alabaster, with which the chamber walls were wainscoted, and these were found to be richly carved in relief with scenes of hunting, of war, and of solemn ceremony. The very life of palace, camp, and field in Assyrian days came back again before the astonished eyes of the explorer, while these received an addition to their verisimilitude by the discovery in some of the ruins of pieces of iron which had once formed parts of the same kind of armor as that portrayed on the reliefs, together with iron and bronze helmets, while in others were found vases and ornamentally carved pieces of ivory. Here were the pictures and there were the objects which they represented. As the trenches were dug deeper or longer monuments carved or inscribed were found daily. One trench ten feet beneath the surface uncovered the edge of a piece of black marble. It was the corner of "an obelisk about seven feet high, lying on its side". It was covered on three sides with inscriptions and with twenty small bas-reliefs. The inscriptions recorded and the bas-reliefs illustrated various forms of gift and tribute which had been received by Shalmaneser II, though when found these facts were of course unknown. No inscription equal in beauty and in the promise of valuable historical material had yet been found in Assyria. Layard was therefore particularly anxious to get it away from the place lest some mishap should befall it. He therefore set Arabs to sleep and watch by it overnight and had it speedily packed for shipment. Day after day the work went on with the regular and constant discovery of stone slabs similar to those which had been found before, and with the finding of inscribed bricks which, though not so beautiful as the stone, contained much more historical material.

When the trenches began to yield less material Layard determined to try elsewhere. Had his funds not been so severely limited, he would have continued still further the excavations at Nimroud, even though they did not appear to be immediately productive. This would have been the best method of procedure, but the means would not permit it, and Layard had to seek fresh soil.

For his next adventure he chose the mound of Kalah Shergat, where he bad before desired to make excavations. Out of these ruins were taken an interesting sitting figure and many small bricks with inscriptions, some of which belong to the earliest of the great Assyrian conquerors, Tiglathpileser I. But what ancient city this might be Layard was unable to ascertain. That it was none other than the city of Asshur, first capital of the kingdom, was a discovery made afterward.

A few days were also given to excavation in the mound of Kuyunjik with similar good fortune, and then the work had to cease because of the consumption of the means for its carrying on. On June 24, 1847, Layard left Mosul for the land journey to Constantinople, after having sent the last of his discoveries down the Tigris.

After a few months' rest in England, devoted in considerable measure to the preparation of the narrative of his expedition and of the copies of the monuments which he had found, Layard was ordered to Constantinople to service with the British embassy. He had not been able to finish for the press the work which he had written, and went out to his duty not knowing whether his story would awaken any interest or not. He does not appear even to have dreamed that any special call would come to him to resume the excavations again. But the books were published after his departure, and at once all England rang with his praise and with an eager expression that this work must go on further. The British Museum secured more funds for the work and he was directed to set out for Assyria again. From England Hormuzd Rassam, Mr. F. Cooper, an artist, and Dr. Sandwith, a physician, were induced to accompany him. They set sail from the Bosphorus on August 28, 1849, for Trebizond, and landed there on the thirty-first day and began the journey to Mosul.

In this expedition he laid the chief emphasis upon the mound of Kuyunjik and Neby Yunus. In the former he discovered the great palace of Sennacherib, and so keen was be now become in the examination of inscriptions and tables of genealogy that he recognized the fact that this edifice belonged to the king whose son was the builder of the palace at Nimroud and whose father built the palace discovered by Botta at Khorsabad. It is to be remembered that he made this conjecture without being able to read Assyrian at all. Later study has determined that he had correctly ascertained the facts. Sargon built the palace at Khorsabad; his son Sennacherib built the palace at Kuyunjik, while his son Esarhaddon erected the palace at Nimroud. Even greater than in the first expedition were his discoveries at Kuyunjik both for the history, the literature, and the art of ancient Assyria. But he also conducted excavations at Kalah Shergat, Nimroud, and Khorsabad. From Mosul he made excursions to various sites in northern and southern Babylonia. Upon these excursions he visited and for the first time described the great mound of Niffer, where a later expedition was to achieve unparalleled successes. At Hillah he made some excavations, but met with little success.

After another season he returned in April, 1852, to England. His first work was the writing of his narrative and the preparing of his inscriptions for publication. He found that his previous books had made him famous, while the new discoveries would be certain to add much to his reputation. This secured for him honored diplomatic posts, notably at Constantinople, where he was able to serve Assyrian study by dealing with the Turkish government in the interest of explorers, as he had once served it by his own labors.

Layard's two expeditions to Assyria had been fruitful indeed beyond those of Botta, and their influence lived far beyond even Layard's own life. His books had, as we have already seen, touched the popular heart in many points, and, though he laid the work down to take up diplomatic service, in which he appears not to have been so happy, others were found to continue it.

Even while Layard was still at work in Nineveh the French government sent Victor Place, an architect of great skill, to hold the post of consular agent at Mosul and continue Botta's work. He had not accomplished much when Layard's work ended, but remained and made important discoveries in the department of Assyrian art, cooperating afterward with a French expedition, to which attention must later be paid.

Meanwhile in England interest in the whole of Babylonia and Assyria grew apace, manifesting itself in many ways. The government had been moved to assist Layard's investigations, and it now joined in the work in still another way. For a long time the frontier between Turkey and Persia had been a bone of contention, each land gaining or losing as the fortune of war might be, while predatory bands belonging neither to the one nor the other made reprisals upon both. In 1839 and 1840 war almost ensued between the two nations, whereupon England and Russia intervened, and a commission was appointed to sit at Erzerum to conduct negotiations for a peaceful settlement of difficulties. This commission, after a session lasting four years, agreed upon a treaty, the basis of which lay in a survey of the doubtful territory between the two states, and a proper delimitation of the border. This work was carried on by representatives of England, Russia, Turkey, and Persia. The most prominent of these was Colonel W. F. Williams. In January, 1849, Mr. William Kennett Loftus was sent out from England to serve as geologist upon his staff Loftus found time amid other duties to visit large numbers of mounds in Babylonia, and the very sight of them filled him with enthusiasm. Of one, the mound of Hammam, he says:

"I know of nothing more exciting or impressive than the first sight of one of these great Chaldean piles looming in solitary grandeur from the surrounding plains and marshes. A thousand thoughts and surmises concerning its past eventful history and origin - its gradual rise and rapid fall - naturally present themselves to the mind of the spectator. The hazy atmosphere of early morning is peculiarly favorable to considerations and impressions of this character, and the gray mist intervening between the gazer and the object of his reflections imparts to it a dreamy existence. This fairylike effect is further heightened by mirage, which strangely and fantastically magnifies its form, elevating it from the ground, and causing it to dance and quiver in the rarefied air. No wonder, therefore, that the beholder is lost in pleasing doubt as to the actual reality of the apparition before him."

In the spring of 1850 Loftus carried on small excavations at Warka, the ancient city of Erech, but, though many interesting antiquities were found, they were not to be compared with the results of Layard's work. This was due in chief measure to the exceedingly meager means at the disposal of Loftus, and further to the great difficulties of excavating in Babylonia. Upon this first expedition Loftus rendered distinguished services by his long, and often dangerous, travels over southern Babylonia. Upon these trips he visited Niffer, Mukayyar (Mugbeir), and a number of lesser sites, most of which had never before been visited by Europeans. These he carefully described, and minutely located, rendering thereby access easy for others. Even to this present some of Loftus's work remains useful. He had also a keen eye for the peculiarities of mounds, and expressed a longing to dig in some spots which have since proved exceedingly productive. An opportunity to do some of the work he had planned was soon to come to him through private enterprise in England.

While travelers and explorers were busy among almost savage peoples English interest in the mounds continued, and finally eventuated in the organization of an Assyrian Excavation Fund, which undertook to gather popular subscriptions and to direct excavations in Assyria and Babylonia with the means thus acquired. At this time Sir Henry C. Rawlinson was British resident and consul general at Baghdad, and to him was intrusted the general oversight of such excavations as might be planned and carried on. This direction could hardly have been placed in better hands. His extensive travels, and long residence in the East and his remarkable attainments in the decipherment of ancient Persian had fitted him in the fullest degree to take charge of efforts intended to make the buried records of the great valley accessible to the world.

Loftus was sent by the fund to conduct excavations and carry on explorations in the southern part of the country. His work was successful in bringing to London considerable numbers of inscribed tablets, with many vases, and a considerable mass of mortuary remains. It attracted, however, little popular attention, not that it was unimportant, though less in amount than Layard's, but chiefly because Loftus did not possess Layard's popular gifts, and was unable to set forth his discoveries in such attractive fashion. Had it not been for the notes which Rawlinson sent home, he would have remained almost unknown.

Rawlinson's next move was to send J. E. Taylor, British vice consul at Bassorah, to Mugheir, probably the ancient Babylonian city of Ur. Taylor dug straight into the center of the mound, finding almost nothing as a reward for his pains. It was rather at the southwestern corner that his great discovery was to be made. Of it he has this story to tell:

"I began excavating the southwest corner, clearing away large masses of rubbish formed of the remains of burnt, mingled with sun-dried, bricks. I worked along at a depth of 10 feet and a breadth of 6 without finding anything. I then returned, and worked a few feet north along the brick casing of the western wall; here, 6 feet below the surface, I found a perfect inscribed cylinder. This relic was in the solid masonry; it had been placed in a niche formed by the omission of one of the bricks in the layer, and was found standing on one end. I excavated some little distance further without any success, and then relinquished this corner for the northwest one. Here, also, I found a second cylinder similar to the one above mentioned, but at 12 feet from the surface. At this corner I sank a shaft 21 feet deep by 12 broad. The sun-dried bricks, composing this solid mass within were here of an amazing thickness; their size was 16 inches square and 7 inches thick. Just below the cylinder were two rough logs of wood,, apparently teak, which ran across the whole breadth of the shaftà.

"Having thus found two cylinders in the solid masonry in two corners, I naturally concluded the same objects would be found in the two corners still remaining. I sank a shaft in each, and found two other cylinders precisely in the same position, and in the same kind of structure, one at 6 and the other at 2 feet from the surface. This is easily accounted for when looking at the irregular surface of the ruin, which, at the southeast corner and south side generally, has been subject to greater ravages from rain than the other sides, owing to the greater depression of the surface toward these points."

Taylor also conducted excavations at Abu Sharein and Tel-el-Lahm, but without important results.

At this time expeditions were so numerous and the work of different men in various places so constantly in progress that it is impossible to follow them in detail and almost impossible to arrange them in chronological order.

While yet Loftus was still at work and Taylor had not even begun his labors the French government was taking steps to resume excavations upon large scale. It was the indefatigable Mohl who kept government and people in France ever incited to good works in this matter. At last he moved M. Leon Faucher, the minister of the interior, to ask the assembly for a credit of 70,000 francs, and on October 9, 1851, an expedition set out from Marseilles for Hillah, which was reached July 7, 1852. The members of this expedition were MM. Fulgence Fresnel, formerly consul at Jeddah, Jules Oppert, professor of German at the Lycee, Reims, and F. Thomas, an architect.

Oppert had already done important work upon old Persian and was a trained orientalist. He made important researches at Babylon and visited a large number of mounds, some of which Loftus had already seen. This expedition excavated at Birs Nimroud and found rich treasures of art and of inscriptions. At the same time Place was continuing excavations at Khorsabad. The materials found both by Place and by the expedition at Birs Nimroud were loaded on rafts to be floated down the river to Bassorah. Unhappily, and as it is stated by "sheer carelessness and mismanagement," the rafts were overturned and the whole collection was lost in the river. Though this sore mishap had occurred, Oppert brought back to Europe much fresh knowledge, and the published results of the expedition were notable.

In the same year that the French expedition, which ended so unhappily, was being planned the trustees of the British Museum secured a grant from Parliament to begin anew the work at Nineveh. Layard was now absorbed in the diplomatic service, and would not go out to take up the work again. His former assistant was, however, now studying at Oxford, and to him the authorities appealed. To his lasting honor Mr. Hormuzd Rassam accepted the post, and set out at the end of 1852 to begin excavations at Kuyunjik, under the general direction of Sir Henry Rawlinson. Rassam was fitted for the work of excavator as few who had ever dug in these mounds. He knew land and people from his birth up; he had served a long and useful apprenticeship to Layard; he was devoted to the business he had in hand, and eager to give every energy to its successful accomplishment. In one respect he was unfortunately not so well equipped as the brilliant Oppert, who was now busy among the mounds of Babylon. Oppert knew all that was then known of the cuneiform writing, while Rassam knew nothing of the language in which the ancient records of his country were written.

When he reached Mosul he found that Sir Henry Rawlinson had drawn a line across the mound at Kuyunjik, assigning the northern half of the mound to the French and retaining the remainder for the "English sphere of influence." Place had, however, not yet dug at all in this mound, but was busy with the continuing of excavations at Khorsabad. Rassam was endowed beyond Place in a feeling for archaeological investigations, and believed that the northern part of the mound was by far the most promising. From the very beginning he desired most to try excavations there, but felt himself prevented by the arrangement which Sir Henry Rawlinson had made. He concealed from Place his feelings and went sturdily to work upon other parts of the mound. For nearly a year and a half his work continued, and from his trenches and wells there were constantly brought out inscribed records of the past, now fragments of tablets, now obelisks, now clay cylinders, and now beautifully preserved tablets, with the fine, neat writing of the ancient Assyrians. During all this time M. Place made no move toward even the beginnings of excavation at Kuyunjik, and Rassam finally concluded that, after all, Sir Henry Rawlinson had exceeded his authority in setting off a part of the mound to the French, and therefore determined, "come what might", to move over to the top of the mound and see what might be found. His first essays were to be made at night so as to prevent any possible interference by Place if it should be attempted. The story is romantic, and Rassam's own laconic sentences best describe it:

 

"After having waited a few days for a bright moonlight night, I selected a number of my old and faithful Arab workmen who could be depended on for secrecy, with a trustworthy overseer, and gave them orders to assemble at a certain spot on the mound about two hours after sunset. When everything was ready I went and marked them three different spots on which to dig. There had been already a number of trenches dug there on a former occasion, but at this time I directed the workmen to dig across them and go deeper down; and having superintended the work myself till midnight, I left them at work (after telling them to stop work at dawn) and went to bed.

"The next morning I examined the trenches, and on seeing some good signs of Assyrian remains I doubled the number of workmen the second night and made them work hard all night. As usual, I superintended the work till midnight, and then went to bed, but had not been asleep two hours before my faithful Albanian overseer came running to give me the good tidings of the discovery of some broken sculptures. I hurried immediately to the spot, and on descending one of the trenches I could just see in the moonlight the lower part of two bas-reliefs, the upper portion having been destroyed by the Sassanians or other barbarous nations who occupied the mound after the destruction of the Assyrian empire. I could only find out this from experience, by examining the foundation and the brick wall which supported the bas-reliefs; so I directed the workmen to clear the lower part of the sculptures, which clearly showed that the slabs belonged to a new palace; but on digging around them we came upon bones, ashes, and other rubbish, and no trace whatever was left of any other sculptures. On the third day the fact of my digging at night oozed out in the town of Mosul, which did not surprise me, seeing that all the families of the workmen who were employed in the nocturnal work knew that they were digging clandestinely somewhere; and, moreover, the workmen who were not employed at night must have seen their fellow laborers leaving their tents and not coming to work the next day. Not only did I fear the French consul hearing and coming to prevent me from digging in what he would call his own ground, but, worse than all, that it should be thought I was digging for treasure by the Turkish authorities and the people of Mosul, who had always imagined that we were enriching ourselves by the discovery of fabulous treasures; consequently, on the third night, I increased the workmen, and resolved to remain in the trenches till the morning, superintending the work. It can be well imagined how I longed for the close of the day, as there was no doubt in my mind that some Assyrian structure was in existence near those broken slabs which had been found the night before. I was not disappointed in my surmises, for the men had not been at work three hours on the third night before a bank under which they were digging fell and exposed a most perfect and beautiful bas-relief, on which was represented an Assyrian king (which proved afterward to be Assurbanipal or Sardanapalus) in his chariot hunting lions. The delight of the workmen was past all bounds; they all collected and began to dance and sing from their inmost heart, and no entreaty or threat of mine had any effect upon them. Indeed, I did not know which was most pleasing, the discovery of this new palace or to witness the joy of my faithful and grateful workmen. We kept on working till morning, and seeing that by this time three perfect sculptures had been uncovered, I had no doubt in my mind that this was quite a new palace. The night workmen were changed, and new hands put to work in the daytime, as I had now no more fear of being thwarted by my rivals, because, according to all rules, I had secured this palace for the British nation. During the day we cleared out all the lion-hunt room of Assurbanipal, which is now in the basement room of the British Museum. In the center of this long room or passage there were heaps of inscribed terra cottas, among which I believe was discovered the famous Deluge Tablet. Undoubtedly this was the record chamber of Assurbanipal."

 

The discovery thus made was the greatest which had yet been made either in Assyria or Babylonia. Rassam, by the exercise of a skilled judgment and the fortunate combination of circumstances, had actually uncovered the long-buried library of the royal city of Nineveh - the library which Assurbanipal had gathered or caused to be copied for the learning of his sages. Here was a royal storehouse of literature, science, history, and religion brought to light, ready to be studied in the West, when the method of its reading was fully made out. Well might Rawlinson join with Layard in applause over this happy and fortunate discovery, which had linked Rassam's name forever with the history of Assyrian research.

In March, 1854, Rassam returned to England, and Loftus, who had finished his researches in the south, was sent to Kuyunjik to complete Rassam's work. This task he fulfilled with complete success, recovering many more tablets, to be sent, as Rassam's were, to the British Museum.

While these works were in progress the East India Company again took part, in a most valuable manner, in the work of Assyrian study. On the request of the trustees of the British Museum the company dispatched Commander Felix Jones, assisted by Dr. J. M. Hyslop, from Baghdad to Mosul to survey the whole Nineveh district. This was accomplished in a masterly fashion during the month of March, 1862, and three great maps were published, which remain the standard records until today.

And now the long and brilliant series of excavations was drawing near to another period of rest. But at the very end Sir Henry Rawlinson was the author of a remarkable discovery. During the months of August and September, 1854, he had placed "an intelligent young man, M. Joseph Tonetti by name", in charge of excavations at Birs Nimroud, where the ill-fated French expedition had carried on its work. For two months the work was not very successful, and then Sir Henry Rawlinson visited the works in person, and after some examination determined to break into the walls at the corners, in the hope of finding commemorative cylinders, such as Taylor had found at Mugheir. He first directed the removal of bricks down to the tenth layer above the plinth at the base, and while this was being done busied himself elsewhere. When this had been finished he was summoned back, and thus describes the happy fortune which ensued:

"On reaching the spot I was first occupied for a few minutes in adjusting a prismatic compass on the lowest brick now remaining of the original angle, which fortunately projected a little, so as to afford a good point for obtaining the exact magnetic bearing of the two sides, and I then ordered the work to be resumed. No sooner had the next layer of bricks been removed than the workmen called out there was a Ahazeneh, or 'treasure hole'-that is, in the corner at the distance of two bricks from the exterior surface there was a vacant space filled up with loose reddish sand. 'Clear away the sand,' I said, 'and bring out the cylinder;' and as I spoke the words the Arab, groping with his hand among the debris in the hole, seized and held up in triumph a fine cylinder of baked clay, in as perfect a condition as when it was deposited in the artificial cavity above twenty-four centuries ago. The workmen were perfectly bewildered. They could be heard whispering to each other that it was sihr, or 'magic,' while the graybeard of the party significantly observed to his companion that the compass, which, as I have mentioned, I had just before been using, and had accidentally placed immediately above the cylinder, was certainly 'a wonderful instrument.'

The cylinder thus recovered was one of four originally set in four corners of the building, and a little later a second was found. The remaining two were not recovered, as the corners in which they had presumably been placed had long before been broken down. Nebuchadrezzar had taken great pains to preserve the records of his great works of building and restoration.

And now the long series of excavations was ended. Men of learning in the history of the ancient Orient had been overwhelmed by the mass no less than by the startling character of the great discoveries. The spade and the pick might now be suffered to lie idle and rust for several years. There was great work to do in the reading of these long-lost books. Europe waited for the results before beginning new excavations.

WHEN the masters of decipherment, Grotefend, Rawlinson, and Hincks, had brought to happy conclusion the reading of the ancient Persian inscriptions which had been copied at Persepolis, Behistun, and other less important sites, they were still confronted by a great series of problems.

Many of these inscriptions were threefold in form, and, as has already been shown, it was now generally believed that they represented three separate languages. The first was now read, and it was ancient Persian. The second called for attempts at its decipherment. None knew what people these were whose language appeared side by side with ancient Persian, and opinion now called them Scythians, and now Medes. But whatever their language might be named, someone must essay its decipherment. In reality a number of men in different places were at work simultaneously upon the fascinating problem. It was to be expected that Grotefend would attempt the task, and this he did, but, unfortunately, without complete success. He was, indeed, hardly fitted by his training for work of this kind. The great achievement of really beginning this decipherment was reserved for Niels Louis Westergaard, whose very first paper laid the foundations for the successful reading of the second class of Persepolitan writing. His method was very similar to that used by Grotefend in the decipherment of Persian. He selected the names for Darius, for Hystaspes, for the Persians, and for other nationalities, and compared them with their equivalents in the Persian texts. By this means he learned a number of the signs and sought by their use in other words to spell out syllables or words, whose meanings were then ascertained by conjecture and by comparison. He estimated the number of separate characters at eighty-two or eighty-seven, and judged the writing to be partly alphabetical and partly syllabic. The language he called Median, and classified it in the "Scythian," rather than the "Japhetic," family. But Westergaard's results were tentative at the best, and needed the severe criticism of another mind. These they obtained in two papers by Dr. Hincks, read before the Royal Irish Academy. Hincks clearly advanced upon Westergaard, and again, as before, showed himself a master of all the processes of cuneiform decipherment.

After Westergaard and Hincks the work was taken up by a French scholar, F. de Saulcy, who was able to see farther than either. De Saulcy looked back upon the decipherment of ancient Persian and compared the signs of the Median language, for so he also named this second language. He observed that they were similar, then he looked ahead and saw that they appeared almost identical with the characters in the third language, to which he gave the name Assyrian. De Saulcy was not the first to give this title to the third form of writing found at Persepolis - that designation was now becoming common -but he was the first to point out the remarkable resemblance between the signs or characters in the second and third groups of the texts. It was now clearer than ever that if the second language, whatever it was, whether Median or Scythian, could be deciphered, the way would be open to the reading of Assyrian. To this great end de Saulcy contributed by his increased success in the study of Median.

All three, Westergaard, Hincks, and de Saulcy, had done their work with very defective materials. It was very improbable that the study of the Median or Scythian would get beyond de Saulcy's attempts without the publication of fresh material. This was soon forthcoming, through the generosity of Sir Henry Rawlinson. At great personal cost of money, time, and dangerous labor he had completed the copy of the inscription at Behistun. The first column was in ancient Persian, and in the decipherment of this he had won imperishable fame. The second column he had not time to publish at once himself, and therefore gave it over to Mr. Edwin Norris, with full permission to use it as he wished. Norris, leaning in the beginning strongly upon Westergaard, succeeded in deciphering almost all of it. His paper, read before the Royal Asiatic Society of London on July 3,1852, was almost epoch-making in the history of the study, and it was long before it was superseded.

The work of Norris drew Westergaard once more into the arena with criticism, with fresh conjectures, and with several marked improvements. Mordtmann followed him in a paper too little leaning upon the work of predecessors, and therefore containing useless combinations and repetitions, but, nevertheless, making a few gains upon the problems. He named the language Susian - and the name was happily chosen. A. H. Sayce attacked the problem next in two brilliant papers, the first of which even went so far as to present a transcription and partial translation of two small inscriptions. The translation was necessarily fragmentary, but none of the former workers had equaled it. He argued learnedly for the name Amardian for the language, and returned again to this matter in a second paper, which likewise registered progress in the decipherment. Oppert, who gave most of his great skill to other questions, also studied these texts shortly after Sayce, and made contributions of importance to the problem. The problem of the second form of writing at Persepolis and at Behistun was solved, and in 1890 Weissbach was able to gather up all the loose threads and present clear and convincing translations of the long-puzzling inscriptions.

If now we pause for a moment and look back, we cannot fail to be moved by the patience, skill, and learning that had been employed in the unraveling of these tangled threads of ancient writing. It was a long and a hard hill, and many a weary traveler had toiled up its slope. Persian and Susian at last were read. The progress, slow at first, had at last become very rapid. As yet, however, the historical results had been comparatively meager. The inscriptions were not numerous, and their words were few. But how different this would be if only the third language could be deciphered. That third language at Persepolis and at Behistun was undoubtedly Assyrian or Babylonian. Here in Susian and in Persian were the clews for its deciphering. If it could be read, men would have before them all the literatures of Assyria and Babylonia. What that meant was even now daily becoming more clear. While Norris was working quietly in England Botta and Layard were unearthing inscriptions by the score in Assyria, and the first fruits of Babylonian discovery were likewise finding their way to Europe. With such a treasure. trove it was not surprising that men almost jostled each other in their passionate eagerness to learn the meanings of the strange complicated signs. which stood third at Persepolis and at Behistun.

Grotefend had picked out among the Assyrian transcripts of the Persepolis inscriptions the names of the kings, just as he had in the old Persian texts, but was able to go but little further. More material was imperatively necessary before much progress could possibly be made. As soon as the letters from Botta to Mohl were published announcing the discoveries at Khorsabad a man was found who plunged boldly into the attempt at deciphering Assyrian. Isidore de Loewenstein made his chief point of departure in a comparison of the Assyrian and Egyptian inscriptions on the Caylus vase. It was hardly a good place to begin, and it is therefore surprising that his success was so great as it really was. Loewenstein made the exceedingly happy stroke of suggesting that the Assyrian language belonged to the Semitic family of speech, and was therefore sister to Hebrew, Arabic, and Aramaean. This suggestion would alone dignify his work, for it became exceedingly fruitful in the hands of later workers. He was, however, not very successful in determining the values of the signs, and in that there was the greatest need for success. In the second memoir Loewenstein was much more successful, for his point of departure was more happily chosen. He now chose for comparison the proper names of Persians, which were transliterated in the Assyrian texts. With such comparisons a beginning might well be made, and this beginning Loewenstein made in happy fashion. To him, however, it was not given to read an Assyrian text; that proved to be a task much more difficult than anyone had imagined.

But workers were increasing in numbers, and all had hope that at last the way out to the light must be found.

Of all these none was gifted with such marvelous skill in decipherment as Edward Hincks. He had already had a goodly share in the decipherment of the first form of the Persepolis inscriptions, and, as we have just seen, his work upon the second was exceedingly important. Both these services he was now to surpass, and apparently with ease. Upon November 30, and again upon December 14, 1846, he read before the Royal Irish Academy two papers, afterward printed as one, in which he plunged boldly into the decipherment of the Babylonian. In a third paper, read on January 11, 1847, he modified somewhat the views expressed in the two former papers, and advanced a step farther. In the preparation of these papers it seems quite clear that Hincks had received no help from any other worker. Loewenstein's first paper he had not seen, and the second paper was not yet published. The work of Hincks was independent in every way. What he accomplished in those three papers it would be difficult to exaggerate. A number of Babylonian signs were definitely determined in meaning, and the meanings then assigned remain the standard to this day. He even succeeded at this time in determining correctly a large part of the numerals. He was on the clear high road to a reading of the texts, but he was too careful to venture to translate. His method, even under the pressure of the enthusiasm that must have tingled in his veins, remained rigidly scientific.

And now the inscriptions which Botta had unearthed at Khorsabad began to come to Paris. From the heavy wooden cases came slabs of stone, covered with dust, but bearing strange wedge-shaped characters. Henri Adrien de Longperier was now to arrange them in the same order in the Museum of the Louvre. He could not do this work without a longing to read these unknown characters, and so, like others elsewhere, he began to ponder over the hard problem. He was familiar with Loewenstein's work, and so began his own efforts standing upon Loewenstein's shoulders. It is true that Loewenstein could not give him much help with individual signs, but he had at least selected a group of signs, after comparison with old Persian, which he believed represented the word "great," and was probably to be pronounced rabou. Loewenstein had learned this from the Persepolis inscriptions. Longperier found the same group in the inscriptions from Khorsabad. He assumed its correctness and pushed on a bit further. In these texts of Botta a little inscription was often repeated, and after long comparison A. de Longperier translated the whole inscription in this way:

"Glorious is Sargon, the great king, the [... ] king, king of kings, king of the land of Assyria." But the strange thing about this translation was this, that he could not name or pronounce a single word in it all except the one word, rabou "great." Yet the researches that were to follow showed that the translation was almost a full and correct representation of the original. If de Longperier had had before him the list of signs and meanings which Hincks had already proposed, he might have gone further. As it was, he made out the name of Sargon, and there paused. When one looks back upon all this work in France, England, and Ireland, and sees the little gain here and another there, he cannot but think that the slow progress was chiefly due to lack of communication. If, by some means, each worker might have known at once the move of his friendly rival, the progress must inevitably have been more rapid. It is indeed true that the men who worked in France managed through published paper or letter or society meeting to keep fairly well in touch. But the much more brilliant Irishman beyond two stormy channels found no way of learning promptly what they were thinking, and, still worse, was not readily able to make known his work to them. So much was this latter fact painfully true that the keen Frenchmen worked steadily on without his invaluable aid. This lack of ready communication of hypotheses and of results still continues in a measure, in spite of all improvements in printing and in dissemination of documents, and appears to be increased rather than diminished by the vast number of societies and of journals devoted to the pursuit of science.

Botta was now back again in Paris and was publishing in parts a memoir upon the language of the inscriptions which he had brought back to the world. He made but little effort to decipher or to translate, but he collated all the inscriptions which he had found, and made elaborate lists of the signs which he found upon them. He differentiated no less than 642 separate signs - enough to make the stoutest heart of the decipherers quail. For every one of these signs a value, or a meaning, or both, must be found. This at once and forever settled all dispute about an alphabet. If there were 642 characters, some of them certainly must represent syllables. But how could there possibly be so many syllables? Botta looked over the Persepolis inscriptions, comparing inscription No. 1, that is Persian, with inscription No. 3, that is Babylonian. In No. 1 he sometimes found the name of a country represented by several signs, whereas in No. 3, in the proper place, he found the same country represented by only one sign. It now became clear that this Babylonian language was partly at least written in ideograms. Here was another added difficulty, for even if one should learn the meaning of these ideograms, how would it ever be possible to learn the word itself, or, to speak loosely for the moment, its pronunciation? That was a problem, surely, and the means for its solution did not appear at that time, nor for many days. Botta's work went on, however, without this most desirable knowledge, and he finally picked out the words for king, land, people, and a few others of less importance, but still could not spell the words out in Roman characters. He could set down a sign and say: "There, that means 'land', but I absolutely do not know how the Assyrians read it." With knowledge so defective as this Botta naturally did not attempt any complete translations. He had, however, made a useful contribution in positive directions, and a still more useful one negatively by showing how untenable were some of the old alphabetic theories.

Meantime de Saulcy went on with his struggles over the Persepolis and other inscriptions of the Achaemenian kings. He published some papers which unhappily reached no successful result. This has brought him somewhat under the ban of the unthinking, who themselves never dare make a mistake, and hence never accomplish anything. De Saulcy made the mistakes, soon perceived them, and went on cheerfully to repair them. He had also been working at Egyptian, and had learned much in that school of the processes of decipherment. In this he was like Hincks, and de Longperier seems also to have gained useful hints in the same school. Now de Saulcy was ready to take the daring step of attempting to decipher and translate an entire inscription. This was the first publication of an entire Assyrian inscription, with a commentary justifying and explaining the method word by word. In this paper de Saulcy set down one hundred and twenty signs the meaning of which he thought he knew, but the uncertainty was great, and even he could hardly claim that he had resolved fairly the difficulties which hung around the repetition of signs for the same consonant.

What de Saulcy could not accomplish was achieved by Hincks. In a remarkable paper on the Khorsabad inscriptions, read June 25, 1849, Hincks showed how vowels were expressed along with their consonants in the same sign. There was, for example, a sign for RA, and another for RI, and still another for RU. Then there was a sign for AR, and presumably also for UR and IR, though he did not fully and perfectly define the last two. Here was an enormous gain, for to all these separate signs de Saulcy had assigned the meaning R. This paper was not fully completed until January 19, 1850, up to which time Hincks continued to make additions and corrections to it. At its very end he added a few lines of translation from Assyrian. This was indeed a translation in a sense attained by no other interpreter. It gave first the Assyrian characters, then an attempted transcription into Roman characters, and finally the almost complete and very nearly correct translation. It is impossible to read this paper at this late date without astonishment at its grasp of fundamental principles, its keen insight into linguistic form and life, and its amazing display of powers of combination.

The year 1849 had ended well, and the year 1850 had begun with every sign of hope. Now were even greater things in store. Layard's discoveries at Nineveh had begun to reach London, where they could not fail to rouse afresh Assyrian study, just as Botta's had done in France. It was natural that the first man to avail himself of the fresh material thus made accessible should be Sir Henry Rawlinson. No man had suffered so much in his efforts to secure copies of inscriptions, and now that he was again in London it is not surprising that he should at once seize upon the beautiful obelisk which Layard had brought from the mound of Nimroud. In two papers read January 19 and February 16 Rawlinson gave an elaborate and an acute handling of this great inscription, concluding with a tentative translation of those parts of it which appeared to his study to give a reasonable sense. If we compare this work of Rawlinson with the work of Hincks, it suffers considerably by the comparison. Rawlinson, it is true, has often hit the true sense of a passage, more often he has even presented a smooth translation which late study has gone far to justify. On the other hand, he did not give text, transcription, and translation together, as Hincks had done, and it was therefore impossible for students who could not examine the original to criticize, verify, or disprove the values he assigned to the characters. It is clear that without this there can never be definite, determined progress in any work of interpretation. Nevertheless, though the means for this had not been given by Rawlinson in his translation, he had discussed a number of words, printing the sign with its transcription and translation, and thereby supplying full material for the use of later workers.

But even after this Rawlinson's great contribution to the decipherment was still to be given. While scholars in Europe had been struggling over the Persepolis inscriptions he was living alone in Baghdad, seeking every opportunity to study the rocks at Behistun, and so obtain a complete copy of the great trilingual inscription of Darius. He had already published the Persian part of this text; and Edwin Norris, with his permission, had issued the second (then called Median) part. The most important part was the Babylonian, and the copy of this Rawlinson still held in his own possession, laboriously working it over, and trying to wring the last secret from the complex signs before he ventured upon its issue to the world. For the length of this delay Rawlinson has been most unjustly blamed and criticized. That he was jealous of his fame is made clear enough by the controversial letters of later years, but in this he was well enough justified. Others were at work in the effort to decipher these long lost records of old world peoples. They were eager for the phantom of fame for themselves, and few would be likely to take pains to conserve to Rawlinson the fame which was justly due his achievements, as some little compensation for the loss of ease and for the privations and toils which he had endured.

At last in 1851 appeared the long-expected, eagerly-awaited Memoir. Rawlinson published one hundred and twelve lines of inscription in cuneiform type, accompanied with an interlinear transcription into Roman characters and a translation into Latin. To this was added a body of notes in which many principles of grammar and of interpretation were discussed, together with brief lists of signs.

This Memoir of Rawlinson is justly to be considered an epoch-making production. Here at last was a long and difficult inscription almost completely translated, and here was the subject of the Assyrian language carried even to the point of close disputing about grammatical niceties. It was indeed the completion of a gigantic task pursued amid great difficulties, with a single eye. Science and society have too little honored the man who dared and executed this great task.

But great as was the result of Rawlinson's work there was a sense in which it brought new difficulties and trials to the patient interpreters of the texts. It became perfectly clear from his studies that in Assyrian or Babylonian the same sign did not always possess the same meaning. Such signs as these Rawlinson called polyphones. This was added difficulty upon difficulty. Here, for example, was a sign which had the syllabic values Kal, Rib, Dan, etc. This principle seemed to some of Rawlinson's critics perfectly absurd. In the popular mind, also, it did very much to destroy all faith in the proposed interpretation of the Babylonian inscriptions. "How," one man would say, "do you know when this sign is to be read Kal, or when Rib, or how do you know that it does not mean Dan?" "Yes," adds another, " how do you expect us to believe that a great people like the Assyrians and Babylonians ever could have kept record with such a language, or with such a system of writing as that? The whole thing is impossible on the face of it." Of course such criticism could make no impression upon Rawlinson himself; his knowledge had come to him by painful steps and slow, and was not thus easy to overthrow. It did, however, have weight in popular estimation, and the popular estimate cannot be despised or cast aside even by scholars. It had to be reckoned with, as Rawlinson knew well enough. It would be easy after a while to prove that his interpretation was correct - for that day he could wait patiently. It was, however, unfortunate that Rawlinson could not have set forth all his reasons and all his processes, together with all the critical apparatus. In this particular one must feel some disappointment over the great Memoir - in this at least it was not equal to the papers of Hincks.

While Rawlinson was now thought by many to have solved the problem in the main points, Hincks never relaxed for a moment his energetic pursuit of interpretation.

In July and August, 1850, he appears to have attended the meeting of the British Association at Edinburgh, where he circulated among the members a lithographed plate containing a number of signs registering forms of verbs. This paper, of which only a brief sketch was published, has been almost overlooked in the history of the progress in Assyrian research. It is, however, of great importance. It shows that Hincks had gone beyond the point of mere guessing at the meanings of sentences, and had reached the point of studying the grammar of the language which was in his hands. In this field he was soon to excel all others, and lay deep and solid foundations of Assyrian grammar.

During the year 1851 Hincks appears to have published nothing, and was then probably engaged in a study of all the material that was accessible. In the next year he published a list of two hundred and fifty-two Assyrian characters, the rules of which he discussed separately. This paper marks an extraordinary advance over all that had gone before. He now applies no longer the old methods of decipherment alone, but adds to this method a new and far more delicate one. He analyzes grammatical forms, and shows how a root appears in different forms according to its use in different conjugations. By this means he is able to test the values proposed and to verify them. In this paper, also, he showed that Assyrian possessed a most elaborate system of writing. There were first signs for single vowels, such as a, i, u. Secondly there were simple syllabic characters, such as ab, ib, ub, ba, bi, bu; thirdly there were complex syllabic characters, such as bar, ban, rab, etc.

Meantime Jules Oppert had returned from Babylonia and soon after visited England to see the British Museum collections. He was present at the meeting of the British Association at Glasgow in 1855, and there heard Sir Henry Rawlinson's account of the excavations at Birs Nimroud, and himself spoke upon the results of his own work in Babylonia.

The workers were now increasing in numbers, for Oppert was a great accession in Paris, after his two years of absence, and in England there was a new accession in the person of Fox Talbot, a remarkably gifted man. But with all the new workers in Ireland, France, and England, who gave in their adhesion to the principles and the results of decipherment, there were many who derided or who doubted the whole matter. Often before had doubts been expressed about the translations, and the investigators passed quietly on and paid no attention. H. Fox Talbot was, however, in the fresh enthusiasm of his scholastic life, unwilling longer to hear these doubts without some effort to dissipate them. He therefore devised a novel and striking plan. Rawlinson was now about to publish for the trustees of the British Museum lithographic copies of selected Assyrian inscriptions. He had already copied and had lithographed the contents of a cylinder, which he asserted contained the name Tiglathpileser. An advance copy of this lithograph was sent to Fox Talbot, who at once made a translation of the parts which he could readily make out. This translation he put in a packet, carefully sealed, and sent to the Royal Asiatic Society, accompanied by a letter the purpose of which appears clearly in the following extracts

"Having been favored with an early copy of the lithograph of this inscription by the liberality of the trustees of the British Museum and of Sir H. Rawlinson, I have made from it the translation which I now offer to the society. A few words will explain my object in doing so:

"Many persons have hitherto refused to believe in the truth of the system by which Dr. Hincks and Sir H. Rawlinson have interpreted the Assyrian writings, because it contains many things entirely contrary to their preconceived opinions. For example, each cuneiform group represents a syllable, but not always the same syllable; sometimes one and sometimes another. To which it is replied that such a license would open the door to all manner of uncertainty; that the ancient Assyrians themselves, the natives of the country, could never have read such a kind of writing, and that, therefore, the system cannot be true, and the interpretations based upon it must be fallacious."

This was the situation as Talbot apprehended it, and he suggested that his translation be kept sealed until Sir Henry Rawlinson's should be published, and then that the two versions be compared. If then the two were found in substantial agreement, it would go far to convince the doubting, as each translation would have been made entirely independently of the other. When this communication was read before the Society Sir Henry Rawlinson moved that measures be taken to carry out Mr. Talbot's plan upon even a greater scale than he had purposed. It was determined to request Sir Henry Rawlinson, Edward Hincks, and Jules Oppert to send to the society, under sealed covers, translations of this same inscription. These translations were then to be opened and compared in the presence of the following committee: The Very Rev. the Dean of St. Paul's (Dr. Milman), Dr. Whewell, Sir Gardner Wilkinson, Mr. Grote, the Rev. W. Cureton, and Prof. H. H. Wilson.

Sir Henry Rawlinson furnished an almost complete version, but neither Dr. Hincks nor Dr. Oppert bad had time to complete theirs. They sent in, however, enough for effective comparison. The versions were found indeed to be in closest correspondence, and the committee reported that:

"The coincidences between the translations, both as to the general sense and verbal rendering, were very remarkable. In most parts there was a strong correspondence in the meaning assigned, and occasionally a curious identity of expression as to particular words. Where the versions differed very materially each translator had in many cases marked the passage as one of doubtful or unascertained signification. In the interpretation of numbers there was throughout a singular correspondence."

The examiners then drew up tables of coincidences and of variations, and the Royal Asiatic Society published all four translations side by side.

The effect in Great Britain of this demonstration was great and widespread. It gradually became clear to the popular mind that the Assyrian inscriptions had really been read, and the popular mind in Great Britain is a force in science as in politics. The results of its influence would soon appear.

With this popular demonstration the task of interpreting the Assyrian and Babylonian inscriptions may properly be regarded as having reached an assured position. It was indeed necessary that all the work from the very beginning of Grotefend's first attempts at decipherment of the Persepolis inscriptions should be tested by fresh minds. This testing it secured as man after man came to the fore as a student of Assyriology. The ground was, however, fully gained and completely held. Assyrian study was able to take its place by the side of older sisters in the universities of the world. The material which Botta had sent to Paris was being quickly read, and papers dealing with its historic results were appearing almost weekly. In England the inscriptions which had been sent home from the excavations of Layard, Loftus, Taylor, and especially Rassam, were yielding up their secrets. It could not be long until popular opinion would demand that the excavations be resumed. At this time, however, workers were busy securing the results of previous expeditions.

In the midst of all these efforts at decipherment there began a movement destined to influence greatly the progress of Assyrian studies in England. On the 18th of November, 1870, there met in the rooms of Mr. Joseph Bonomi, Lincoln's Inn Fields, a company of men summoned by him and by Dr. Samuel Birch, of the British Museum. They were bidden "to take into consideration the present state of archaeological research, and, if it appeared desirable, to institute an association for directing the course of future investigations, and to preserve a record of materials already obtained, an association whose special objects should be to collect from the fast-perishing monuments of the Semitic and cognate races illustrations of their history and peculiarities; to investigate and systematize the antiquities of the ancient and mighty empires and primeval peoples, whose records are centered around the venerable pages of the Bible." As the result of this preliminary conference a public meeting was convened at the rooms of the Royal Society of Literature on the 9th of December, 1870, at which time the Society of Biblical Archaeology was formed. Dr. Samuel Birch was chosen president, and Mr. W. R. Cooper, secretary, while Sir Henry Rawlinson, the Right Hon. W. E. Gladstone, and Dean R. Payne Smith were vice presidents. Among the earliest list of members were found Edwin Norris, Hormuzd Rassam, W. H. Fox. Talbot, Rev. A. H. Sayce, and George Smith. The society was successful from the very beginning of its existence, its influence upon Assyrian and Babylonian study being particularly noticeable. The first volume of Transactions was issued in December, 1871, and in it Fox Talbot wrote on "An Ancient Eclipse" (in Assyria), and George Smith contributed an elaborate paper on "The Early History of Babylonia." In a short time the society's publications became the chief depository of investigations made by English scholars in the books of the Assyrians and Babylonians.

THE first students who attempted to decipher the ancient Persian inscriptions made much of the difficulty of the cuneiform characters. They were so totally unlike any other form of writing that even while men were busy in the effort to find out their meaning disputes began as to their origin. If the signs had looked like rude pictures of objects, as did Egyptian hieroglyphics, there would have been some clue to their origin, but during the decipherment process no one could discern any such resemblance. When the decipherment of Assyrian began men wondered still more as to the inventors or discoverers of the strangely complicated signs. When Assyrian was finally read it became clear to several investigators almost simultaneously that it belonged to the Semitic family of languages. That discovery intensified the difficulty concerning its method of writing. In 1850 Edward Hincks called attention to the fact that, though Assyrian was a Semitic tongue, yet was its script totally unlike that used by any of the related languages. He suggested that the script was related to the Egyptian, and put forth the hypothesis that it was invented by an Indo-European people, who had been in contact with Egyptians and had borrowed something from their method of writing.

Shortly afterward (1853) Rawlinson wrote to the Royal Asiatic Society announcing the discovery of a number of inscriptions "in the Scythian language", which he thought were related to the Median texts of the Persepolis inscriptions. He pronounced these new inscriptions to be older than the Persepolis inscriptions, and also older than the dynasty of Nebuchadrezzar, and argued that the Scythians were in possession of the western country before the Semites appeared. He was clearly of the opinion that lie had found inscriptions written in cuneiform characters, but in a non-Semitic language. He seems, in a word, to be moving toward the idea that these Scythians had invented the cuneiform method of writing. This view was propounded in the very next year by Oppert, who attempted to show how this assumed Scythian script had passed over into the hands of the Assyrians.

Rawlinson was now busily engaged in the investigation of the new problem, and on December 1, 1855, was able to report substantial progress to the Royal Asiatic Society. He had been studying so-called "Scythian" inscriptions as old as the thirteenth century B.C., and he found the same language in the left columns of the Assyrian syllabaries. These syllabaries be explained as consisting of comparative alphabets, grammars, and vocabularies of the Scythian and Assyrian languages. His theory now was that these Babylonian Scythians were known as Accadians. They were the people who had built the cities and founded the civilization of Babylonia. The Semites had merely entered into their labors, and had adopted from them the cuneiform system of writing. The language of the Accadians he thought more closely related to the Mongolian and Manchu type than to any others of the Turanian languages.

Hincks had meantime been studying some small bilingual texts and was prepared to state some of the peculiarities of the newly found Accadian language. He observed, in the first place, that verbs were entirely unchanged in all persons and numbers, while the substantives formed a plural by the addition of ua or wa. He found also postpositions where we should use prepositions, and this was a resemblance to the Turanian languages, though he would not go so far as Rawlinson in saying to which one of them Accadian seemed most nearly related. A year later Hincks abandoned the name Accadian, preferring to call it by some such name as Old Chaldean. This was his last contribution to the investigation of the inscriptions and the languages which they expressed. On December 3, 1866, he died, leaving behind an imperishable record of painstaking labor, accurate scholarship, and amazing fertility and resourcefulness of mind. To the new science of Assyriology he had made more contributions of permanent value than perhaps any other among the early decipherers. The death of Hincks left Jules Oppert as the leader in the work of unraveling the tangled threads of the new language.

In 1869 Oppert read a learned paper on the origin of the Chaldeans, in which he gave the name Chaldean or Sumerian as the name of the language which Rawlinson had called Accadian. The name Sumerian was judged by many to be more suitable and gradually came into use, though Accadian is even yet used by some scholars, while for a short time the phrase Sumero-Accadian was in vogue.

Up to this time the study of Accadian or Sumerian had been carried on very largely along historical and geographical lines. No single text had been studied, expounded, and translated until 1870, when Professor A. H. Sayce devoted to a small inscription of Dungi the most elaborate philological exegesis. The words in Accadian were here compared one by one with words of similar phonetic value in more than a score of languages and dialects, and for the first time Accadian loan words were recognized in Assyrian. This paper marked a distinct advance in the study of Sumerian, at the same time that it indicated the position attained by his predecessors in the new study. Sayce had proved a worthy successor of Hincks in philological insight, and had contributed much to the grammatical study of Sumerian. He was speedily followed in this by Oppert, who contributed more grammatical material in two excellent papers.

Up to this time none had dared to compile a Sumerian grammar, though material was rapidly accumulating. But in 1873 Lenormant began to issue the second series of his Lemires assyriologigues, the first part of which contained a complete and systematic grammar of Sumerian. In the section relating to phonetics Lenormant noted the correspondence between ng and m, and identified Sumer (= Sungiri) with Sennar, Shinar (Gen. x, 10), Samarrah (Abu 'l-farag, Hist. dyn., ed. Pococke, p. 18), Sumere (Amm. Marc. 25, 6). The second part of this book was wholly given up to paradigms, while the third contained an extensive list of cuneiform signs. The fourth and last part was given over to a long discussion of the name of the language, in which Lenormant learnedly opposed Oppert's name of Sumerian, and contended for the older name Accadian. The whole book would in itself make a considerable scholarly reputation, and it was followed by another in an astonishing brief space of time. In this Lenormant was not directly concerned with the Sumerian language, but in two chapters, entitled "The People of Accad" and "The Turanians in Chaldea and in Western Asia," he again entered upon the difficult subject. He had now advanced to the view that the Accadian language, as he still insisted upon calling it, must be classified in the Ural-altaic family and considered as the type of a special group. In certain particulars he judged it to have most affinity with the Ugro-finnic, in others with the Turkish languages.

In spite of all that has been achieved by the English and French investigators the subject was still filled with difficulty, and when Eberhard Schrader, later justly called "the father of Assyriology in Germany," wrote his important book on the Assyro-Babylonian inscriptions he almost avoided it. In this book he must needs refer to the language which appeared in the left column of the syllabaries, but he did not enter into the vexed questions in dispute between Lenormant and Oppert. Two years later, however, in a review of Lenormant he definitely took sides with him against Oppert and adopted Accadian instead of Sumerian. In this he was followed by his distinguished pupil, Friedrich Delitzsch, who contributed some further explanations of the syllabaries.

When the year 1873 drew to its close scholars had reason to feel that the question which bad puzzled Hincks in 1850 was settled. They were able to say that all scholars were agreed upon two propositions, namely, 1. The cuneiform method of writing was not invented by the Semitic Babylonians or Assyrians. 2. It was invented by a people who spoke a language which belonged to the agglutinative forms of human speech. There was indeed still a dispute about the name of the new language whether it should be called Accadian or Sumerian, and there were numerous questions concerning its character, age, literature, and history which might occupy the skill and patience of investigators for a long time, but the main question was settled.

But alas for the danger of overassurance! While Oppert and Lenormant were disputing concerning the name of this ancient language, there lived in Paris an orientalist, Joseph Halevy, who held distinguished rank as a scholar in the difficult field of Semitic epigraphy. Halevy was not known as an Assyriologist at all, but he had followed every detail of the process of deciphering Sumerian, had watched every discussion of its grammatical peculiarities, and had never from the beginning believed in its existence! On July 10, 1874, the Academie des Inscriptions listened to the first of a series of papers on the Sumerian question from him. Other papers followed on July 24 and August 14. In these Halevy discussed three questions: 1. Granting its existence, does the Accadian language belong to the Turanian family? 2. May the existence of a Turanian people in Babylonia be conceded? 3. Do these so-called Accadian texts present a real language distinct from Assyrian, or merely an ideographic system of writing invented by the Assyrians? As Weissbach has pointed out, the order of these questions is strange and unmethodical. Halevy should have begun with the third question, and then passed on to the other two. But, whatever may be said of the method, there cannot be two opinions as to the consummate ability of the discussion. Halevy's mind was stored with learning philological, historical, and ethnological; he was a dialectician superior to Lenormant or Oppert; he had the keenness of a ready debater in searching out the weakest places in the arguments of his opponents and the skill of an expert swordsman in puncturing them. It was a most daring act for a man not yet known as an Assyriologist to oppose single-handed the united forces of scholarship in the department. Halevy had sought to prove no less a thesis than that all scholars from the beginning of the investigation by Hincks and Rawlinson had been deceived. The signs which they had supposed represented the syllables or words of a language spoken in Babylonia in the very beginning of recorded time were to him but the fanciful product of the fertile minds of Assyrian priests. The cuneiform writing was the invention of Semites, long used by Semites, and the Sumerian words so called were only cryptic signs, invented for mystification and especially used in incantations or religious formulae.

When Halevy's papers were published not a single Assyriologist was convinced by them, and only one anonymous writer ventured to accept his conclusions. On the other hand, every Assyriologist of note who had had any share in the previous discussions was soon in the field with papers attacking Halevy's positions or defending the ground which but a short time before had seemed so sure as to need no defense. In a few months Lenormant had written a large volume in opposition, while Schrader was content with an able and much briefer paper. Delitzsch, in a review of Lenormant's book, also ranged himself with them, while Oppert, opposing Halevy with all his learning and acuteness, nevertheless continued to argue for his own peculiar tenets against Lenormant, Schrader, and Delitzsch.

The issue was now squarely joined, and earnest and able though the replies to Halevy had undoubtedly been, nevertheless, it must be said in justice that they had not driven him from the field. To Lenormant Halevy had replied promptly, and had done much to diminish the effect of that scholar's attack upon his position. The defenders of the existence of the Sumerian language did not agree among themselves on many points, and wherever they differed Halevy skillfully opposed the one to the other in his argument. In 1876 he read before the Academie des Inscriptions, and afterward published, a paper on the Assyrian origin of the cuneiform writing, in which he modified his views somewhat, yet strenuously insisting that the entire system was Semitic. This paper was then reprinted, along with the former publication of 1874, in book form, and with this he began to win some adherents to his views, the earliest being W. Deecke and Moritz Grunwald. That was at least a slight gain, and he was encouraged to press on with fresh arguments.

Meanwhile the lines of those who still believed in the existence of the ancient tongue were closing up. Gradually Oppert's name, Sumerian, was accepted by scholars, foremost among whom were the pupils of Delitzsch, Fritz Hommel, and Paul Haupt, while Lenormant conceded a point and called it the language of Sumer and Accad. In 1879 there appeared a small book by Paul Haupt which may truly be said to open a new era in the whole discussion. Haupt was then a young man of extraordinary gifts, and his handling of the Sumerian family laws showed how to treat a bilingual text in a thoroughly scientific manner. There can be no doubt that Haupt had done much to stem the tide which was threatening to set toward Halevy's position. Nevertheless, in 1880, Stanislas Guyard came over to Halevy, and in 1884 Henri Pognon, these being the first Assyriologists to embrace his views. Between these two dates De Sarzec had been carrying on his excavations at Tello, in southern Babylonia, and had been sending to the Louvre most interesting specimens of his discoveries. In 1884 the first part of his book containing copies of the newly found inscriptions appeared. To Sumerian scholars there seemed no doubt whatever that these inscriptions were written in the Sumerian language. Halevy at once began to explain their strangely sounding words as in reality Semitic, and in 1883, at the International Congress of Orientalists in Leiden, presented a most elaborate paper in which he presented his theory in its fullest and most scientific form. Halevy was not convinced that his views were incorrect by any of the arguments already advanced, neither did the appearance of the De Sarzec monuments and inscriptions move him. His efforts became more earnest, and Guyard's support was likewise full of vigor. Nevertheless, the cause was not gaining, but in the larger view really losing. It was significant that the younger school of Assyriologists were strongly supporting the Sumerian view. Jensen, who was later to be known as one of the most eminent Assyriologists of his time, opposed Halevy's view in his very first work, as did also Henrich Zimmern whose first paper was of even greater importance. Carl Bezold likewise joined with the older school. But encouragement of the very highest kind was even now almost in Halevy's hands. In some notes added to Zimmern's first book Delitzsch took occasion to speak in warm terms of Halevy's very important contributions to the subject, and while not yet ranging himself at his side, declared that his view deserved very close examination. Well might the great French orientalist rejoice over such a promised accession. When the first part of Delitzsch's Assyrian dictionary appeared every page contained proof that in his case Halevy's long and courageous fight had won. Delitzsch had joined the still slender ranks of the anti-Accadians, and when his Assyrian grammar appeared a whole paragraph was devoted to a most incisive attack upon the Sumerian theory. The accession of Delitzsch is the high-water mark of Halevy's theory. The morrow would bring a great change.

Delitzsch's grammar was received with enthusiasm, as it well deserved to be, but the anti-Sumerian paragraph was severely handled by its critics. In like manner the anti-Sumerian position of the dictionary met with a criticism which indicated that even the great name of Delitzsch was not sufficient to increase confidence in Halevy's cause. Sayce, in a review no less remarkable for the range of its learning than for its scientific spirit, protested against Delitzsch's method. Lehmann, in a big book devoted to the inscriptions of a late Assyrian king devoted an entire chapter to the Sumerian question. In it the whole subject was treated with a freshness and an ability that left little to be desired. Though some minor criticism was passed upon it, none but Halevy dared deny that it marked a step forward in the process of tearing down his elaborate theories.

In the very same year in which Delitzsch's grammar appeared Bezold made a brilliant discovery in finding upon an Assyrian tablet the Sumerian language mentioned. In his announcement of this new fact Bezold writes banteringly, asking Halevy to permit the language to live, as the Assyrians had mentioned it by name. Beneath this humorous phrase there lies, however, a quiet note of recognition that the mention was important, though not conclusive as to the main question.

Almost every month after the year 1892 brought some new material to be considered and related to the ever-debated question. The newer discoveries of De Sarzec, the wonderful results of the American expedition to Nippur, the editing of texts found by previous explorers - all these had some link with the Sumerian question. In 1897 Professor Delitzsch, borne down by the weight of fresh evidence, abandoned Halevy's side and once more allied himself to the Sumeriologists. As he had been a great gain, so was he now even a greater loss. Halevy indeed gained others to his side, but none bore so famous a name. The school which he had founded was waning. Though the debate still continues, it has no longer the same intensity. Year by year the question is less and less: "Was there a Sumerian language--were there Sumerians?" and is more and more, "What was the Sumerian language--who were the Sumerians?" Every year seems to justify Hincks, Rawlinson, and Oppert, the great masters who laid the foundations in this increasingly fruitful field.

The history of the study of cuneiform inscriptions is complicated by the number of different languages which used the wedge-shaped characters. We have already shown that the cuneiform inscriptions at Persepolis and Behistun were in the Persian, Susian, and Assyrian languages, and we have also set forth at length the long discussion over the question of Sumerian, another language likewise written in the cuneiform characters. The use by four different peoples of wedge-shaped characters may well dispose the mind to accept the statement that still another people wrote their language in similar fashion.

The Armenians have preserved for us among their traditions of Semiramis the statement that she had at one time determined to build a new city in Armenia as the place of summer residence. “When she had seen the beauty of the country, the pureness of the air, the clearness of the fountains of water, and the murmuring of the swift-flowing rivers, she said: In such a balmy air, amid such beauty of water and of land, we must build a city and a royal residence that we may spend the one quarter of the year, which is summer, in the comfort of Armenia, and the other three quarters, during the cold weather, in Assyria.” Even so late as this present century scholars found the name Semiramis full of mystery and attraction, and were anxious to learn more about her great deeds. About the end of June, 1827 Fr. Ed. Schulz departed from Erzorum determined to suffer any loss in the effort to find the summer city of Semiramis. There is no need to say that he did not find it, but, like many another searcher, found something far more important. As he went along the borders of Lake Van, then almost unknown to Europeans, he turned in at the gates of the fascinating city of Van and began a search through the remains of its former greatness. Beneath the great citadel of Van was found a small chamber approached by a flight of twenty steps. Above these steps he found inscriptions in the cuneiform character carved in the face of the solid rock. When these had been carefully copied he sought elsewhere and - was rewarded with the discovery of still others. In other places in the neighborhood he found more, until he had copied no less than forty-two inscriptions. Schulz was murdered, and when his papers were recovered and brought to Paris the inscriptions were splendidly reproduced by lithography, and published in 1840. At this time the Persian decipherment had indeed been well begun, as had also Assyrian, but none were able to read the new inscriptions for which Schulz had given his life. They were exceedingly well copied, when the difficulties are considered, but so soon as an attempt was made to decipher them doubts arose as to their accuracy. It was soon found that three of the inscriptions were written by Xerxes, and were in Persian, Susian, and Babylonian, but the remaining thirty-nine were in some unknown language. In 1840 an inscription in this same language was found by Captain von Muhlbach near Isoglu, on the Euphrates, two hundred and fifty miles west of Van. The copies by Schulz as well as this new text came before the eyes of Grotefend in due course, and he was quick to discern that they did not belong to Assyrian kings. This negative conclusion was of some importance as a guidepost, but Grotefend was able to go no further. In 1847 Sir A. H. Layard found another inscription of the same kind at Palu, on the eastern bank of the Euphrates about one hundred and eighty miles from Van. It was now clear enough that this new language belonged to a people of some importance in the ancient world, whose civilization or dominion extended over a considerable territory.

There was in these facts an urgent call for some man able to decipher and translate the records and construct a grammar of the language in which they were written. Who should attempt this new problem but that marvelous decipherer of strange tongues, Dr. Edward Hincks? And two papers by him were read before the Royal Asiatic Society, December 4, 1847, and March 4, 1848.

In these papers Hincks determined correctly the meaning of a large number of the characters; found the meaning of such ideographs as "people," "city," and the signification of several words. He further was able to show that the termination of the nominative singular and plural of substantives was "s," while the accusative ended in "n." He had thus perceived that the language was inflectional, and went on to argue erroneously that it was Indo-European, or Aryan, as he called it. He read the names of the kings as Niriduris, Skuina, Kinuas, and Arrasnis, but very shortly corrected them into Milidduris, Ishpuinish, Minuas, and Argistis, in which the error, chiefly in the first name, is very slight. It is difficult to exaggerate the importance of this work, but we may gain some idea of its value by comparing with it Rawlinson's note on the subject published two years later. "There are," says Rawlinson, "it is well known, a series of inscriptions found at Van and in the vicinity. These inscriptions I name Armenian. They are written in the same alphabet that was used in Assyria, but are composed in a different language--a language, indeed, which, although it has adopted numerous words from the Assyrian, I believe to belong radically to another family, the Scythic. There are six kings of the Armenian line following in a line of direct descent. I read their names as: 1. Alti-bari; 2. Ari-mena; 3. Isbuin; 4. Manua; 5. Artsen; 6. Ariduri (?)." In the reading of these names Rawlinson is distinctly behind Hincks, as he was always less keen in the treatment of philological niceties.

For a long series of years Hincks had no successor in the work of decipherment. But every few years new inscriptions were found written in the same language, and each one naturally increased the probability of a successful outcome of the efforts after decipherment.

In 1871 Lenormant took up the task where Hincks and Rawlinson had laid it down. His method was scientific, and, like all his work, learned and searching. He first sketched the early history of Armenia, as he had learned its outlines from the Assyrian inscriptions. That was to be the historical basis of his work, and from it he hoped to extract useful geographical material which might help in the securing of names in the Vannic inscriptions. He proposed to call the language Alarodian (Herodotus, III, 94; VII, 79), and argued that it was non-Aryan, and that its closest modern representative was Georgian. He pointed out that "bi" was the termination of the first person singular of the verb, and that parubi signified "I carried away."

In the next year Dr. A. D. Mordtmann attacked the question and five years later returned to it again. He determined the meaning of twelve new words, and supplied a most valuable analysis of all the inscriptions, but did not succeed in the translation of a single one of them. Nevertheless, he had made a gain.

The next decipherer was Dr. Louis de Robert (1876), who deliberately cast away all that had been gained by Hincks, Rawlinson, Lenormant, and Mordtmann, and set out afresh upon a totally wrong road. He tried to show that the inscriptions were written in the language of Assyria. The result was nothing, and the next worker must return to the methods of the old masters.

Meantime new inscriptions were constantly coming to light. Bronze shields with the name of Rusas were found by Sir A. H. Layard, and excavations near Lake Van by Hormuzd Rassam unearthed still more inscribed objects in bronze. Layard also laid a firmer foundation for future work by recopying more accurately all the inscriptions for which Schulz had given his life.

On the 9th of April, 1880, M. Stanislas Guyard presented to the Societe Asiatique in Paris "some observations upon the cuneiform inscriptions of Van." He had noticed at the end of a good many of the inscriptions a phrase in which occurred the word "tablet." He remembered that Assyrian inscriptions frequently ended with an imprecatory formula, heaping curses upon whomsoever should destroy this tablet, and he suggested that here was a formula exactly the same. When he had tested this new clew he found that the words thus secured seemed to fit exceedingly well into other passages, and his guess seemed thereby confirmed.

It is curious that the very same clew as that followed by Guyard had also independently been discovered by Professor A. H. Sayce, who had been working for several years upon these texts. He had fortunately found out a few more words than Guyard and was able to push on farther as well as more rapidly. The words in which he began to explain his method to the Royal Asiatic Society were strong, but everyone was justified by the issue. He says: "The ideographs so freely employed by the Vannic scribes had already showed me that not only the characters but the style and phraseology of the inscriptions were those of the Assyrian texts of the time of Asshur-natsir-pal and Shalmaneser II. I believe, therefore, that I have at last solved the problem of the Vannic inscriptions and succeeded in deciphering them, thereby compiling both a grammar and vocabulary of the language in which they are written. Owing to the number of the texts, their close adherence to their Assyrian models, and the plentiful use of ideographs, it will be found that the passages and words which still resist translation are but few, and that in some instances their obscurity really results from the untrustworthiness of the copies of them which we possess."

The long paper which followed these swords began with a survey of the geography, history, and theology of the Vannic people, derived very largely from Assyrian sources, but tested and expanded from the native sources which he had just deciphered. After this followed an account of the method of writing, an outline of the grammar, an analysis, and a translation of the inscriptions. It was a most remarkable piece of work, as surprising because of its learning as because of its proof of a perfect genius for linguistic combination. It reminds the reader continually of Hincks at his best. The effect of its publication was instantaneous. Guyard reviewed it at length, offering corrections and additions, yet showing plainly enough that the work was successful. Further contributions to the subject were made by Professor D. H. Miller, of Vienna, who had been studying the texts independently both of Sayce and Guyard. More inscriptions also came to light, and in 1888 Professor Sayce was able to review the whole subject, accepting heartily some of the many emendations of his work which had been proposed, rejecting others, and so putting the cap. stone upon his work. The mystery of the inscriptions at Van was solved. When new texts in the same language should appear men might indeed dispute as to the name of the language whether to call it Vannic or Alarodian or Urartian or Chaldian, but they would at least be able to read it.

So rested the matter of the language of Van until 1892, when Dr. C. F. Lehmann began a series of studies in the inscriptions which Sayce had deciphered, seeking to determine more closely a host of historical and geographical questions which grew out of them. He first demonstrated that the people who had written many of these texts were the same as the Chaldians, not Chaldeans, who are of the Greeks. The language was therefore to be called Chaldian, and another difficulty was cleared up. Beginning in 1895, Dr. Waldemar Belck and Dr. C. F. Lehmann published a series of papers of great acuteness, working out the life history of this old people, who had thus been restored to present knowledge, clearing up many points previously obscurely or incorrectly set forth by Sayce.

In further pursuit of the studies thus begun Drs. Belck and Lehmann departed from Berlin in the summer of 1898 for a journey through Persian and Russian Armenia. They visited Van and carefully collated all the inscriptions previously found by Schulz and others, and found new texts which had been overlooked by all their predecessors. New inscriptions of Assyrian kings, especially of Tiglathpileser I and Shalmaneser II, were found, and by these, also, our knowledge of Chaldian history was increased. The results of this valuable expedition are now being made known, and it may be regarded as the concluding event in the history of the decipherment of the Vannic inscriptions.

THE first impulse to excavations in Assyria was given by a German scholar who had established himself in Paris. Julius Mohl cheered on Botta to the work of excavation, and kept him encouraged while it dragged along. During all the time that Layard, Loftus, and their coadjutors worked in the field Mohl watched them from afar, and carefully noted their successes. He was now secretary of the Societe Asiatique of Paris, and in his annual reports be told the society of all that had gone on in the great valley amid the graves of ancient cities. In his report for the year 1855 his note was distinctively sad. He recorded the fact that every single expedition which had been sent out to dig had laid down the work or bad been recalled. That seemed to him a lamentable circumstance, for to his discerning eye the soil was underlaid with monuments recording the whole life of the vast empires which had held sway in Nineveh or in Babylon. He was impatient to have the excavations resumed, and he called on the governments to take steps to this end.

The future was to confirm Mohl's view fully, and even more than confirm it, of the vast treasures that lay buried. The time, however, for their excavation had not come in the year 1855. Neither governments nor free peoples would carry on excavations for antiquities that were mere unmeaning curiosities when they were found. That work must wait until the decipherment had reached a sure result, and until the work of translation had been so far popularized that the results should be generally known. As a former chapter has shown, the period of doubtful translations ended and the period of surely known results began in 1857. It was only necessary that these matters should be popularized, and that would require some time. This popularization was, fortunately, carried on chiefly, at least in England, by the great masters themselves. Rawlinson, Hincks, Talbot, Norris - a remarkable list of names, surely these were the men who made known in popular papers or by lectures and addresses the great discoveries in Assyria. Some of these papers struck the old note of Shirley, and revealed the importance of Assyrian studies for the light they were sure to shed upon the Bible. That would be certain to arouse interest in Great Britain and, as before, might result in the beginning of more excavations. The sequel will show how wonderfully this very zeal for biblical study operated in the stimulating of Assyrian research.

A boy, George Smith by name, destined for the work of an engraver, read in the short spaces of his crowded days the magic words of Rawlinson and the other pioneers, and was moved to begin the study of Assyrian himself. As he himself witnessess, he was first roused to definite study by the interest of biblical history, and with the purpose of doing something for it, he applied in 1866 to Sir Henry Rawlinson for permission to study the original copies, casts, or fragments of inscriptions belonging to the reign of Tiglathpileser. Rawlinson gladly gave the permission, and Smith went earnestly to work. His success was not great with these, but his industry was rewarded by the discovery of a new inscription of Shalmaneser with the name of Jehu upon it, by which he ascertained the year of Shalmaneser's reign in which Jehu had paid his tribute. In this discovery, the first original work which Smith had done, there was one little hint of use to the Old Testament student. Smith had begun as he was to go on. After this discovery Sir Henry Rawlinson was so struck by the young man's success that he suggested his employment by the British Museum for work in the new Assyrian department. There he was established in the beginning of 1867, and his success was immediate. In his own survey of his work in the museum Smith remembered most vividly the biblical discoveries, and these were they which gave him his first popular reputation and the opportunities of his life. He found on the texts names and notices of Azariah, king of Judah, Pekah, king of Israel, and Hoshea, king of Israel. These stirred his pulses and drove him on even at the peril of his health. The depletion of vital force through constant and difficult work was probably the ultimate cause of his early death, after the brilliant series of discoveries and explorations which were now before him. Smith possessed in unusual degree a gift for decipherment. While still feeling his way along the intricate mazes of cuneiform decipherment there came to the British Museum some copies of the then undeciphered Cypriote texts. Dr. Birch called his attention to them, and soon he was engaged in an attempt to read them. On November 7, 1871, he read a paper before the Society of Biblical Archaeology "On the Reading of Cypriote Inscriptions." The method which he used was similar to the plan of Grotefend, and it was applied with wonderful skill and with surprising results. He had picked out the word for king, though he knew no Greek with which to make comparisons, and had identified forty out of fifty odd characters. A man possessing genius of such order was sure to win fame in the new field of Assyriology.

From 1867 to 1871 discovery followed discovery until Smith's edition of the Asshurbanapal inscriptions appeared. This volume made clear the immense gain to history from the discovery and decipherment of the Assyrian inscriptions, for it contained the accounts of the campaigns and of the building operations of Asshurbanapal. Yet, great as all this was, its influence fell far short, of that of a discovery which Smith made in 1872. In that year, while working among some fragments brought home by Rassam, Smith picked out a broken clay tablet, upon which he soon read unmistakable parallels to the biblical account of the deluge. The piece thus found was soon followed by three duplicates and other lesser fragments. From these he ascertained that the part first found was the eleventh in a series of twelve tablets, and that it gave the history of a great hero whom Smith called Izdubar. He published the announcement of his discovery, and Asshurbanapal was forgotten, few probably thinking of the great king who had made the library out of which these newly found tablets had come. But England did not know how to be calm in the presence of such a discovery as this. When Smith had translated enough of the tablets to make a somewhat connected story of the deluge, as the Babylonians told it, he read a paper on the subject before the Society of Biblical Archaeology on December 3, 1872. The meeting was large and enthusiastic. Sir Henry C. Rawlinson presided, Smith presented his translation, and then enthusiasm had sway when it was pointed out by Dr. Birch that this had immense importance for the study of the Bible. Again was struck the old note of Shirley, and again that audience responded. Then Mr. Gladstone spoke, showing how valuable all these discoveries were for the study of the origins of Greek culture, which he said had come from the East by way of Phoenicia. This was appreciated, but it was not exactly what the company most desired to hear, and to that phase Mr. Gladstone's last sentence returned, concluding with the magic word "religion". The cheers broke forth then with a good will, and at a late hour the company went away to spread abroad this marvelous story of the discovery of an early narrative which all thought illustrated, and many believed confirmed and corroborated, the biblical story in Genesis.

The government was urged at once to resume excavations on the site of Nineveh to find more material which might illustrate or confirm the biblical narrative. It did not or could not move instantly, and the public would not wait. The proprietors of the Daily Telegraph, a widely circulated journal, moved by the editor, Edwin Arnold, perceived the opportunity and seized it. They offered a thousand guineas to pay the expenses of an expedition to Nineveh on condition that Smith should lead it, and send letters to the paper describing his experience and discoveries. On January 20, 1873, a month after Norris's death, Smith set out upon his enterprise, and on March 2 he reached Mosul, ready to begin excavations. He soon found that delays were the order of the day, and that the firman had not arrived. He therefore made a trip to Babylon, and on his return began small excavations at Nimroud, April 9. The discoveries made were few, and comparatively unimportant, and this mound was therefore abandoned, and excavations undertaken at Kuyunjik on May 7. On May 14 Smith secured from the same room in which Rassam had found Asshurbanapal's library a new fragment of the Deluge story which fitted into the ones previously found. This fact was considered of sufficient moment to be telegraphed to London for publication in the paper. Smith was naturally much pleased with the discovery, but was also in the highest degree gratified by the finding of inscriptions of Esarhaddon, Asshurbanapal, and Sennacherib. Two more fragments of the Deluge tablet were shortly afterward found, and then on June 9 the excavations were stopped, as the proprietors of the Daily Telegraph were satisfied with the discovery of the Deluge fragments and did not wish to continue farther the work. Smith was much disappointed at this decision, and reluctantly left for England at once with his treasures.

He was, however, sent out again from London on November 25, 1873, by the trustees of the British Museum, who had set apart one thousand pounds for further excavations at Nineveh. Smith reached Mosul on January 1, 1874, and immediately began excavations at Kuyunjik. These were productive of many inscriptions and of interesting archaeological materials, but nothing of startling importance as regards the Bible was found. Smith ceased work and left Mosul on April 4.

When compared with the explorations of Lay and Rassam the work of Smith was comparatively small in amount, but it was valuable in the recovery of much historical material, and its influence upon public feeling and opinion in England was very great. Men were moved by his spirit, no less than by his words and works, to desire that new excavations should be undertaken. Without such inspiration, it is well to remember, the work might have ceased altogether. The British Museum again determined to avail itself of Smith's services, and in October, 1875, he set out for Constantinople to seek to obtain a firman which should permit the resumption of his excavations. He was harried with petty annoyances by Turkish officialdom, but at last secured the coveted permission and returned to England to prepare for his third expedition. In March, 1876, he again set out for the East, and proceeded to Baghdad to inspect some antiquities which were offered for sale. It was then his purpose to begin excavations, but the plague had appeared, the country was unsettled, and there was every possible interference made by natives and by Turkish officials. In previous expeditions he had not learned how to deal with orientals, and alienated their sympathies without impressing them by his power. He was also disturbed more or less by a quarrel with Rassam and his family. Ignorant of the laws of health, by which Europeans are so closely bound in the Orient, he worked too much, rested too little, and was careless in the providing of good food suitable for the climate. At times he rode for days eating only crusts of bread. Beset behind and before with difficulties, and not permitted to excavate, he had to content himself with visits to numerous mounds, which he sketched or planned. On his way back he fell ill of fever, and died at Aleppo, August 19, 1876. Smith's death came to the little world of Assyrian students as a thunderclap out of a clear sky. In England he was looked upon by scholars and people alike almost as a prophet; in Germany, where a new and vigorous school of Assyriologists bad begun its work, men were thrown into confusion by the severity of the loss which they felt. It was indeed a sore blow to the new study; but science dare not linger. The ranks closed up at the British Museum by the appointment of Mr. W. St. Chad Boscawen, and the trustees sought a man to begin again the excavations which Smith had laid down.

It was natural that they should turn at once to Rassam. It was indeed a long time since he had worked in the field, for he had been absorbed in diplomatic service. He was now living in retirement in England, but responded immediately to the call for service in the same field as that in which his earliest fame had been won.

In November, 1876, Rassam set out for Constantinople to seek a firman--the same errand which had cost Smith so many pangs. After a fruitless wait of four months he returned to England, but went out again when Sir Austen Henry Layard became British ambassador at Constantinople. This was indeed a fortunate appointment for Assyrian studies. Layard would be justly expected to exert himself to secure opportunities for further excavation if that was possible. His representations to the Porte were successful, and in November, 1877, Rassam was back in Mosul, where he received by telegraph the news that the firman was granted. His choice of a site for excavations was most happy. The natives had been finding at the hitherto unexplored mound of Balawat, about fifteen miles east of Mosul, fragments of bronze plates, some specimens of which had been sent to him in England. These he had shown to Professor Sayce, who found the name of Shalmaneser upon them, discovered their importance, and advised Rassam to begin diggings at that site. Sayce had thus come into a relation to Rassam similar to that held by Mohl in earlier days to Botta. The result was most successful. Rassam discovered in this mound, from which the fragments had come, the beautifully inscribed and adorned bronze plates which had covered at one time the palace gates of Shalmaneser.

He also, however, began excavations at Kuyunjik and at Nimroud, where small numbers of interesting inscriptions were found. Rassam further made extensive journeys over portions of Babylonia, and among other results identified the site of Sippara. He visited Babylon and made some small excavations there, returning then by way of Van to England. Though not so rich in results as his former expedition, this last venture of Rassam helped on the national collections of the British Museum, and thereby added to the knowledge of ancient history.

While Rassam was busy a new discoverer appeared in the East and very quietly began his work. M. Ernest de Sarzec was appointed French consul at Bassorah, on the Persian Gulf, and entered upon his duties in January, 1877. He had been in Abyssinia and had served in Egypt. He knew the desert and its people, and he carried to his new post strong enthusiasm for archaeological work. Two months after he entered Bassorah de Sarzec had begun excavations at Telloha mound four miles in length, lying in the great alluvial plain of southern Babylonia, about five miles from the banks of the Schatt-el-Hai, and sixty miles north of Mugheir. On this mound de Sarzec worked from March 5 to June 11, 1877, and again from February 18 to June 9, 1878. In July, 1878, he returned to Paris and found himself famous. He went again and worked in the mound from January to March, 1880, and also November 12, 1880, to March 15, 1881. His work was thus prolonged over a considerable period, and instead of merely running trenches hither and thither, he dug systematically over a large part of the mound. The results were full of surprises to the guild of Assyrian students, and were indeed almost revolutionary. He uncovered a fine temple, whose outer walls were one hundred and seventy-five feet long and one hundred feet broad, erected upon a vast mound from sixteen to twenty feet high. The outer wall was five feet thick, built of great baked bricks one foot square, bearing the name Goudea. These bricks were tightly fastened together by bitumen. In the interior he found thirty-six rooms, chiefly small in size, though one was fifty-five by sixty-five feet. In almost every room there were found objects of interest or of instruction for the study of the history of early Babylonia. In one room alone there were found no less than eight diorite statues, from an early period of Babylonian art, which had been unfortunately mutilated by some later barbarians, for all were headless. The valuable inscriptions were, however, in perfect preservation. In another part of the mound during the very first season there were found two beautiful terra cotta cylinders, each twenty-four inches in length by twelve in diameter. Each of these contained no less than two thousand lines of inscription, forming thus the longest inscriptions from an early period then known. De Sarzec's work was done in masterly fashion, and when the inscriptions and objects of art were brought to Paris and deposited in the Louvre, it was felt that indeed a new era had opened for French archaeological study. Quarters were fitted up in the Louvre, and these objects found a place beneath the great roof, together with the discoveries of Botta, the pioneer. They did not receive the same acclaim as Botta's discoveries had done in France, or Layard's in England, but they were even of greater value scientifically. From the inscriptions the early language of the Sumerians was more perfectly learned, and from the statues and reliefs some faint idea was first conceived of the appearance of the great people who had laid the foundations of civilization in southern Babylonia. That was a distinguished service which de Sarzec had rendered. It alone was sufficient to give him high place on the roll of those who had made Babylonia live again.

Again and again since 1881 has de Sarzec resumed his work at Telloh, and every year has he brought forth from the same mounds fresh discoveries of moving interest. In 1894 the spades of his workmen struck into a chamber from which were taken no less than thirty thousand tablets, a vast hoard of archives mostly of a business character and relating to trade, commerce, agriculture, and industry, with a goodly number of temple documents and religious notices. The mass of tablets was so great that it was not possible to protect them from the thieving propensities of the natives, and many thousands were stolen, to be sold and scattered all over the world both in public museums and in private hands. While this is to be deplored, it is perhaps safe to expect that in the end very few of them will be lost to science. With this exception de Sarzec has been successful in securing for the Louvre an important part of the brilliant results of his explorations, and the end of his work is not yet.

During all this long period of exploration and excavation, carried on by almost all the nations of Europe, there have been developing in America schools of students of the languages, history, and religions of the ancient Orient. It was natural that in America, also, men should begin to talk of efforts to assist in the great work of recovering the remains of Babylonian and Assyrian civilization. In 1884, at meetings of the American Oriental Society and of the Society of Biblical Literature and Exegesis, conferences were held upon this subject in which Professor John P. Peters, of Philadelphia, the Rev. Dr. William Hayes Ward, Professor Francis Brown, and Professor Isaac H. Hall, of New York, and Professors C. H. Toy and D. G, Lyon, of Harvard University, were participants. These and other gentlemen finally formed an organization, afterward connected with the Archaeological Institute of America, for the purpose of raising funds to send out to Babylonia an expedition to explore the country and see where excavations might profitably be undertaken. Miss Catherine Lorillard Wolfe, of New York, gave five thousand dollars to defray the expenses of this preliminary exploration, and on September 6, 1884, the Wolfe expedition to Babylonia departed from New York. The personnel of this expedition consisted of Dr. William Hayes Ward, Mr. J. H. Haynes, then an instructor in Robert College, Constantinople, and Dr. J. R. S. Sterrett. They traveled over much of the land of Babylonia, visiting sites where excavations had previously been made, as well as scores of mounds that had not yet been examined by archaeologists. Upon his return, in June, 1885, Dr. Ward earnestly recommended that an expedition be placed in the field to engage in the actual work of excavation. He advised that Anbar be the site chosen for this purpose, but spoke with enthusiasm of the opportunities in other places, among them at Niffer, then erroneously identified with ancient Calneh, of which he said: "There nothing has been done; it is a most promising site of a most famous city."

The report of Dr. Ward bore no immediate fruit, but the leaven was steadily working, and efforts were proceeding in several directions to secure funds to undertake excavations. The labors of Dr. John P. Peters at last bore fruit, and an expedition was sent out by the University of Pennsylvania which departed from New York June 23, 1888. Of this company Dr. Peters was director, and Professors Hermann V. Hilprecht, of the University of Pennsylvania, and Robert F. Harper, of the University of Chicago, were Assyriologists, Mr. Perez Hastings Field, architect, and J. H. Haynes, business manager, commissary, and photographer. It was, however, long ere the expedition could come to its work. There were the usual delays in securing permission from the Imperial Ottoman government; there were difficulties in the gathering of equipment and in the assembling of the staff; there was a shipwreck of part of the expedition on the island of Samos, and perils of health and of life during the long journey overland to southern Babylonia.

At last, on February 6, 1889, excavations were begun on the mount of Nuffar, or Niffer, the site of ancient Nippur, and continued until April 15, with a maximum force of two hundred Arabs. The difficulties were enormous, for there were constant struggles with some of the native tribes, with many individuals among them, and with sundry Turkish officials. But in spite of all this the expedition made a trigonometrical survey of all the mounds and won from them more than "two thousand cuneiform tablets and fragments (among them three dated in the reign of King Ashuretililani of Assyria), a number of inscribed bricks, terra cotta brick stamp of Naram-Sin, fragment of a barrel cylinder of Sargon of Assyria, inscribed stone tablet, several fragments of inscribed vases (among them two of King Lugalzaggisi of Erech), door socket of Kurigalzu, about twenty-five Hebrew bowls, a large number of stone and terra cotta vases of various sizes and shapes, terra cotta images of gods and their ancient moulds, reliefs, figurines, and toys in terra cotta, weapons and utensils in stone and metal, jewelry in gold, silver, copper, bronze, and various precious stones, a number of weights, seals, and seal cylinders." It is an excellent record, yet to Dr. Peters it seemed that the first year's work "was more or less of a failure, so far at least as Nippur was concerned." This judgment is probably influenced by the great difficulties with the Arabs which embittered the last days of the work. It was successful, though far surpassed in importance by that which was to follow.

From January 14 to May 3, 1890, the University of Pennsylvania expedition was again at work at Nippur, with Dr. Peters as director, and Mr. Haynes as business manager, and with a maximum force of four hundred Arabs. During this season about eight thousand inscribed tablets were taken from the ruins as well as antiquities of other kinds in large numbers. It was a brilliantly successful year in every particular, being also less disturbed by troubles with the Arabs than the former. All these antiquities were sent to Constantinople for the Imperial Museum, though later considerable portions of them were presented to the museum of the University of Pennsylvania as a personal gift of the sultan. This gracious act arose directly out of the dignified and generous course pursued by the authorities of the University of Pennsylvania. They had honestly handed over the antiquities to the Constantinople authorities, as indeed they had promised to do, but had gone much further than this. Professor Hilprecht was sent to Constantinople to catalogue these same collections for the Imperial Museum. This work was done with great skill, but also with such tact as to call forth expressions of gratitude from all who were connected with the museum. By gifts of antiquities to the museum in Philadelphia, of which Professor Hilprecht was himself a curator, the sultan aimed to repay the University of Pennsylvania for this free gift of his services.

For a time excavations at Nippur were intermitted, but on April 11, 1893, the University of Pennsylvania had another expedition in the field under the directorship of Mr. J. H. Haynes. Then began one of the most important of all the long series of expeditions in Babylonia or in Assyria. Haynes remained steadily on the ground at work until February 15, 1896, with a short break from April 4 to June 4, 1894. Never before had a European ventured to carry on excavations through a hot season. Professor Hilprecht has not spoken too cordially in saying that "the crowning success was reserved for the unselfish devotion and untiring efforts of Haynes, the ideal Babylonian explorer. Before he accomplished his memorable task, even such men as were entitled to an independent opinion, and who themselves had exhibited unusual courage and energy, had regarded it as practically impossible to excavate continuously in the lower regions of Mesopotamia. On the very same ruins of Nippur, situated in the neighborhood of extensive malarial marshes, and among the most wild and ignorant Arabs that can be found in this part of Asia, where Layard himself nearly sacrificed his life in excavating several weeks without success, Haynes has spent almost three years continuously, isolated from all civilized men, and most of the time without the comfort of a single companion. It was indeed no easy task for any European or American to dwell thirty-four months near these insect-breeding and pestiferous Affej swamps, where the temperature in perfect shade rises to the enormous height of 120° Fahrenheit (=39°C), where the stifling sandstorms from the desert rob the tent of its shadow and parch the human skin with the heat of a furnace; while the ever-present insects bite and sting and buzz through day and night; while cholera is lurking at the threshold of the camp and treacherous Arabs are planning robbery and murder, and yet during all these wearisome hours to fulfill the duties of three ordinary men. Truly a splendid victory, achieved at innumerable sacrifices, and under a burden of labors enough for a giant; in the full significance of the word a “monumentum aere perennius”.

During the third campaign of the University of Pennsylvania about twenty-one thousand cuneiform tablets and fragments were taken out of the mound, and besides these there were found large numbers of antiquities of other kinds, all of great importance in the reconstruction of the past history of Babylonia. Among these were large numbers of vases and fragments of vases from the very earliest period of history, drain tiles, water cocks, brick stamps, beautiful clay coffins glazed in tile fashion and finely preserved, and diorite statues and fragments.

After a brief and necessary interruption, the Philadelphia expedition began work again in February, 1899, with Dr. J. H. Haynes as manager and Messrs. Geere and Fisher as architects. In January, 1900, Professor Hilprecht reached Nippur and took charge as scientific director. Under his direction "an extensive group of hills to the southwest of the temple of Bel" were systematically excavated. From the same location about twenty-five hundred tablets were taken in the first campaign, and later excavations had increased the number to about fifteen thousand. Within six weeks "a series of rooms was exposed which furnished not less than sixteen thousand cuneiform documents, forming part of the temple library during the latter half of the third millennium B. C."

From these four campaigns had come a vast store of literature of all kinds; here were letters and dispatches, chronological lists, historical fragments, syllabaries, building and business inscriptions, astronomical and religious texts, votive tablets, inventories, tax lists, and plans of estates. No expedition had ever been more successful and none had ever been more warmly supported at home. Fortunate in its directors at home, rich in the scientific directorate of Professor Hilprecht, the results attained have been worthy of all the expenditure of energy, life, and treasure.

Alone among the greatest of the modern nations: Germany had done very little in the field of exploration while other peoples had been so busy. German scholarship had made the highest contributions to decipherment and to the scientific treatment of texts unearthed by the patient explorers sent out by others. It were strange if Germany should not also seek to find new tablets as well as to read them. Professor Friedrich Delitzsch, long an exponent of the science of Assyriology and one of the most eminent scholars of modern times, urged the formation of the German Orient Society, which was finally constituted early in 1898.

Even before the proposed society was organized a "commission for the archaeological investigation of the lands of the Euphrates and Tigris" prepared to secure direct information concerning the various sites which seemed to promise the best results when excavated. To this end Professor Eduard Sachau, of the University of Berlin, accompanied by Dr. Robert Koldewey, departed for the East October 23, 1897. They thoroughly explored Babylonia and Assyria, and brought back abundant information for the use of the new society, which was now fairly started. To it scholars gave their aid, the German Emperor made a grant of funds, and in the end of the year an expedition was sent to the East with Dr. Koldewey as director and Dr. Bruno Meissner, of Halle, as Assyriologist. The latter, after very useful service, retired and was succeeded by Dr. E. Lindl, of Munich. In the spring of 1899 work was commenced in the great mound of El-Kasr, Babylon, beneath which were the remains of the palace of Nebuchadrezzar. Success was had in a measurable degree from the very beginning in the discovery of a new Hittite inscription and of many tablets of the neo-Babylonian period. The future work, which must continue for a number of years, is in good hands, for German patience and persistence will be certain to continue it to the end.

In 1888 there was made in Egypt a most surprising discovery of letters and dispatches written for the most part in the Babylonian script and language. A peasant woman, living in the wretched little mud village of Tell-el-Amarna, on the Nile, about one hundred and eighty miles south of Memphis, was searching for antiquities among the sand and stones by the mountain side some distance back from the river. Little did she know that beneath this rubbish lay all that remained of the temple and palace of the great heretic king of Egypt, Amenophis IV, or, as he called himself, Akh-en-Aten. Her concern was only to find some bits of anteeka, which might be sold to those strange people from Europe and America, who buy things simply because they are old. Out of the mound she took over three hundred pieces of inscribed tablets, some of them only 2x1/8 inches by 1x11/16 inches, while others are 8x3/4 inches by 4x7/8 inches and even larger. One hundred and sixty of these, many of them fragments, were acquired by Herr Theodore Graf, of Vienna, and were purchased from him by Herr J. Simon, of Berlin, and presented to the Royal Museum in the latter city. Eighty-two were bought for the trustees of the British Museum by Dr. E. A. Wallis Budge; sixty came into the possession of the Gizeh Museum in Cairo, and a few into private hands.

The documents thus restored to the world are to be reckoned with the most important of cuneiform discoveries. They consist of letters and dispatches which passed between Amenophis III and Amenophis IV on the one hand, and on the other various monarchs, princes, and governors of western Asia, among whom were Kadashman-Bel of Babylonia, Asshur-uballit of Assyria, Dushratta of Mitanni, Rib-Adds of Byblos, Abimilki of Tyre, Abdi-Kheba of Jerusalem, and many others. Their historical value is great not only because of the chronological material deducible from them, but also because they give a note worthy side light upon the entire social relations of the time.

During the long series of years that excavation had been carried on in the East by Europe and America but little interest in the subject was aroused in Turkey, in whose great empire all these finds were made. But during the latter part of the period there came a great revival of enthusiasm for antiquity in Turkey itself, due almost entirely to the wisdom, patience, and learning of one man. Trained in Europe, a man of fine natural taste and of great personal enthusiasm, Hamdy Bey was admirably fitted for the post of director-general of the Imperial Ottoman Museum. He has transformed it and all its arrangements and made certain a great future for it. Ably seconded by his brother, Halil Bey, he gave great and continued help to the Philadelphia expedition, and magnificently has his museum profited thereby. It remained only that this museum, the best situated in all the world to gain thereby, should itself undertake excavations. Hamdy Bey succeeded in interesting the sultan himself in the matter and inducing him to provide a sum of money from his private purse to undertake excavations at Abu-Habba, the site of ancient Sippar. The director of the expedition was the French Dominican, Father Scheil, a distinguished Assyriologist, who was accompanied by Bedry Bey, who had been Turkish commissioner to the Philadelphia expedition, and therefore knew by experience the best method of exploration. The expedition was completely successful, and in the short space of two months, at a cost of only three thousand francs, gathered a fine store of over six hundred and seventy-nine tablets and fragments, mostly letters and contracts dated in the reign of Samsuiluna, the son and successor of Hammurabi, as well as many vases and other objects similar to those found by the expedition at Nippur. Scheil was naturally supported by all government officials in the most loyal fashion, and his success is an interesting promise for the future. The Turkish government is able to control its own representatives in the neighborhood of the mounds, and if it is once thoroughly aroused to the interest and importance of excavating its untold buried treasures of art, science, and literature, scarcely any limits may be set to the great results that may be expected for our knowledge of ancient Babylonia.

Besides these great expeditions other smaller and less conspicuous undertakings have frequently been made to secure the archaeological treasures of Babylonia and Assyria. The most successful among these are doubtless the repeated oriental visits of Dr. E. A. Wallis Budge, of the British Museum. He has gone quietly into various parts of the East and, with a thorough understanding of the natives, has been able year by year to increase the collections of the museum. No public account of his work has been made, and no narrative of his labors can therefore be given here.

Here rests for a time the story of expeditions to uncover the buried cities of Babylonia and Assyria. For a short time only in all probability, for the gain has been so large, the rewards so great, that new expeditions must ever seek an opportunity to labor in the same fields.

While great expeditions have their periods of labor and their periods of rest one form of exploration goes on all the time in spite of many efforts to prevent it. The natives of the district have learned that antiquities may be sold to Europeans and Americans for gold. The traffic in them in Turkey is forbidden by law, and their export from the country is interdicted. But the native digs on surreptitiously and smuggles the results into the hands of merchants, who market them in Baghdad, London, and elsewhere. This practice brings into the possession of museums and so into the hands of scholars hundreds of tablets that otherwise might long remain hidden. Yet it is greatly to be deplored, for much is thus broken by careless and ignorant handling, and the source or origin, a point of great importance, is unknown or concealed from fear of the government. It is therefore on many accounts to be hoped that the Turkish government may ultimately succeed in preventing it, and may secure for its own rapidly growing museum more of the objects that are found by chance.

All that has been found yet is but a small part of that which doubtless lies buried beneath the mounds. Therein is an urgent call to men of wealth, to learned societies, and to governments to continue the work that has already been so marvelously successful. The gaps that yet remain in our knowledge of ancient Assyria and Babylonia may in large measure be easily filled up by the same methods that have given us our present acquaintance with that mighty past.