CHAPTER I

 

THE MESOPOTAMIAN PERIOD

 

WE have already seen that the rise of Assyria took place in a time upon which the full light of history falls, or which can be illuminated without difficulty by the excavations. It has been further pointed out that its natural extension in the first place was toward Mesopotamia. This became a part of its undisputed territory, and the possession of it raised Assyria to a sovereign power as large and as important as Babylonia. Before we enter upon the history of Assyria it is, therefore, necessary to get a clear idea of the state of affairs in Mesopotamia.

 

We have assumed, and results, so far as they can be traced historically, confirm it, that the great Semitic immigrations within Babylonia followed, in the main, the direction from north to south. Mesopotamia was consequently exposed to them at a still earlier time. The first Semites that we meet with in Southern Babylonia, as representatives of historical times, must at one time have been dwellers of Mesopotamia. What preceded them is yet still more a prehistoric question than life in Babylonia, inasmuch as no excavations whatever have been conducted there.

 

We have a large collection of omens which relate to conditions about 3000 BC, the time of Sargon and Naram Sin (although they also take account of later times and received their present form at a much later period). Their geographical boundary indicates clearly the extent of Babylonian influence and culture. This collection, beside mentioning the king of South Babylonia, and the one of North Babylonia, knows also of another king who bore the title Shar Kishshati, that is, "king of the World", ("king of the Four Quarters of the World"). His kingdom can have had its centre only in Mesopotamia, at least northward from Babylonia. However that may be, we are certain not only that Mesopotamia stood under the influence of Babylonian culture, but also that it formed an integral part of it, and that it had its share in shaping the development of the Euphratean. lands. That this was so is attested by the fact of the importance and honor ascribed to the chief sanctuary there, that of Sin, the moon-god of Harran. It is no accident when one of the biblical narratives makes Ur and the other Harran the scene of Abraham's early life. Both of them were in the eyes of all Oriental peoples the places par excellence of moon-worship, and Sin, on the other hand, was the most important god of Babylonia. We meet also with the worship of Baal-Harran, the god of Harran, in Sendjirli in Northern Syria. A relief from there consecrated to him is now in the Berlin Museum.

 

In political history we can form a fair estimate of the role which this country played. A development similar to that which we have traced in the South must have taken place there. The kingdom which grew up must have fought the like wars with its rivals, as we find later to have been waged by Assyria, who fell heir to it. "Kings of the World" must have entered into rivalry with the kings of Babylon for the dominion of Babylonia, and, in turn, have fallen subject to them. As we have already seen, Mesopotamia was, in ancient times as now, the connecting link between Babylonia and the West. Our inscriptions furnish us with no information of these wars in the time prior to 1500 BC, but the following period aids us sufficiently in forming a general picture of the times until the spade shall have won its honors in these fields also. Sir Austen H. Layard once began to dig in Arban, in the Khabur valley, and secured antiquities from a palace of one of the patesis (or priest-kings) by the name of Mushesh­Ninib. These monuments indubitably belong to the pre-Assyrian Mesopotamian period. In addition to these, antiquities have been found of a Hittite type, and of a crude age, similar to those found at Senjirli in Syria, at the ruin Tel-Halaf, near Ras-al-cain at the source of the Khabur. Moreover, the site of Bit-Adini, the outpost of the Mesopotamian Aramman kingdom, and known to Ashur-natsir-pal and Shalmaneser II, has been fixed. Some remains exposed at Harran probably belong to Assyrian times, as Shalmaneser II and Ashurbanipal both wrought on the temple of the moon-god.

 

We must assume that a kingdom that had its capital in Harran, or somewhere else northward from Babylonia, not only cast eager eyes toward the latter, but also, and at first, tried to acquire territory from less civilized peoples. As Mesopotamia was the intervening link in the connection between Babylonia and Syria and Palestine, so Mesopotamia, as an independent power was the natural conqueror of these lands, whether by peaceful methods or by force of arms. As an indication of the first side of this extension reference has already been made to the notices of Abraham's cult at Hebron and that of the moon-god in Sendjirli. We shall see later how in historical times the successors of these Mesopotamian kings possessed the regions on the right bank of the Euphrates and the district of Malatia as far as Cappadocia and very probably as far as Cilicia beyond the Taurus. Harran furthermore ruled the roads which in the North led into Armenia. From this point we find the Assyrians at an early period under Adad-nirari I and Shalmaneser I pushing up between the two rivers, while still expanding toward Babylonia, and this immediately after they had taken possession of Mesopotamia. Clay tablets written in Babylonian very similar to the Tel-Amarna tablets, have been found in Cappadocia. They reveal the influence of Assyrian colonization in these regions, and consequently belong to the first period of Assyria's appearance there under Shalmaneser I, cir. 1300 BC. The character of the language and writing show that they were not novelties in that region, but, on the contrary, that long practice in the art of writing antedated them.

 

 

CHAPTER II. THE KINGS OF MITANI

 

 

  THE first records which we have show us Mesopotamia under foreign rule. Our sources are the Tel-Amarna Letters of King Dushratta of Mitani to Amenophis III and Amenophis IV. The picture which they afford us of the intercourse between the two lands holds good also for the predecessors of the two Pharaohs, in so far as they advanced into Asia. Naharina is the name by which they generally speak of Mesopotamia. In this connection it is a matter of comparative indifference how much gold Dushratta begged for himself from Egypt, or how many letters he wrote to get the best of a bargain with his "brother" and son-in-law there. That which is of prime interest is to recognize that these Mitani princes are the representatives of a barbarian immigration which took possession of Mesopotamia. The god Teshub, whom they worship, was also sacred to the Hittite people in the north of Asia Minor along the river Halys. This would seem to establish a relationship between them and the latter. The only letter in the native language, one from Dushratta to Amenophis III, is, therefore, a monument of "Hittite," or an allied language. Names similar to the Hittite and the Mitanian of this period we meet with again later in the people of Kummnizh and their kindred under Tiglath-Pileser I. They belong then to the same family group. The deporting of Marduk's statue to the land of Khani as reported by Aga­Kakrime, might lend support to the hypothesis of an earlier stage of this Hittite conquest. The Kassite occupation of Babylonia is a case in point, as it parallels the appearance of these Hittites or Mitani in the northern regions.

 

The residence of the Mitani kings is not disclosed by their letters; but the country known by them as Mitani must have lain approximately to the north of Harran, where at all events their national centre was. As we have already noted, it fell as an inheritance to the last old Mesopotamian kingdom and its extent can, therefore, be computed. In the direction of Babylonia it included Nineveh, which, accordingly, in the time of Dushratta, cir. 1430 BC, had not become Assyrian as it must formerly have been Mesopotamian. As a matter of course the whole of Mesopotamia belonged to it, and Melitene (Khanigalbat) on the right bank of the Euphrates, and the adjoining part of Cappadocia as far as the Taurus, and possibly beyond as far as Cilicia. To this part of Cappadocia the Assyrians gave the name Mutsri, the Egyptians Sanqara. (In one of the Tel Amama letters from Alashia it is called Shankhar.) To the west and north of this portion of the kingdom were the Kheta (Hittites), the opponents of the Mitani but related by race to them. With them they waged wars and one of them is referred to in a letter of Dushratta to Amenophis III. The Kheta must either have pressed through the region of the Mitani when they got into Syria, or they only skirted the territory of Mitani and entered Cilicia through the Cilician gates.

 

Upon their profuse asseverations of friendship with Egypt there rests the same suspicion as upon those of the Babylonians. The kings of Mitani are also declared by Egyptian vassals in Phoenicia to be the natural enemies of a faithful servant of Pharaoh.

 

This kingdom must have existed a long time; for Dushratta, the writer of the letters, names his father, Sutarna, who sent his daughter, Gilrathipa, to the harem of Amenophis III. This is also attested by an Egyptian document. He also mentions his grandfather, Artatama, who had dealings with Thothmes I, the predecessor of Amenophis III, and had concluded the same sort of a bargain with him. It usually turns on the question of dowry. The writer of the letter was himself at the court of Amenophis III; he may have grown up there as a sort of hostage when his father died. In one of his letters to Pharaoh he informs him of an insurrection which broke out to which his brother fell a victim, and how upon his return he quelled it. In the same letter he tells of the war with the Kheta, who wished to make use of the opportunity against him.

 

In the midst of all the parley and pother about presents there is one letter which contains an important historical statement. Dushratta writes to Amenophis III that he would like to have him return the statue of the goddess Ishtar of Nineveh, which shortly before had been sent down to Egypt, as she had been sent back with honor during the days of his father when she had been there. It is not quite clear what this journey of Ishtar meant. One can hardly explain it otherwise than that Dushratta, as his father also, had conquered Nineveh and did not dare to take the goddess, the sign of victory, home with them, but—presumably because of her anger, which decided her to go into a strange land—sent her to the Egyptian king whose over-lordship was thereby acknowledged. With this the tribute spoken of in the Egyptian inscriptions would well agree. The question arises then: From whom did Dushratta take Nineveh? Hardly from Assyria, but rather from Babylonia; but the answer cannot be given decisively. For us the most important thing is the fact here attested that Dushratta actually was lord of Nineveh, for this fact furnishes us with an assured starting-point from which to determine the advance of Assyria. Dushratta's date corresponds almost with the close of the brilliant period of his people. The next eighty or one hundred years saw Assyria mistress of Mesopotamia, and her kings take the title "king of the World" after they have driven out the Mitani, a title which they have to defend against Babylonia.

 

The rule of the kings of Mitani who are known to us coincides with the end of the epoch introduced with the advance of this group of peoples beyond the Euphrates. It may have passed in its first strength as far as Babylonia, where at the time of the First Dynasty of Babylon, cir. 2000 BC, it appears to have made itself felt. When during the Tel-Amarna period the Kassites of Babylonia and the Mitani of Mesopotamia appear as rivals, the most probable supposition would be that the Mitani or their predecessors were driven back.

 

CHAPTER III. THE RISE OF THE LAND OF ASHUR

 

As was the case with "the kingdom of Babylon," the "land of Ashur" was originally limited. It comprised the territory belonging to the city of Ashur, the modern Kalah Shergat. In later times this lay almost outside of the limits of Assyria proper, that is to say, without the boundary formed by a line running from Nineveh to the mountain range, the Tigris, and the Lower Zab. It is certain, from the position of Ashur in the South, and at the same time on the east bank of the Tigris, that it could not be the capital of the later land of Ashur. It inclined rather in the direction of the south, toward Babylonia, than toward the north and west, in which direction it first began to expand. When we assume, therefore, that Ashur was once a city like so many in the Euphrates valley we are inclined to the opinion that its patesis ruled under the protection of Babylonia, at times under that of Mesopotamia. The territory between the Upper and Lower Zab formed almost a province by itself. It had its own capital, Arbela (Arbail), which, in the time of Assyrian greatness, had an importance on the cultural side such as Ashur had in the more limited Assyria, or Harran in Mesopotamia. After the fall of Assyria this part of the country became again the real seat of administrative power, or paramount in the formation of states. Arbela must, therefore, also have played the part of a capital in pre-Assyrian times. The central point of the numerous forms of states which must have existed in pre-Assyrian centuries and millenniums was also at times to be found here, and excavations would probably bring to light documents which would reveal such a condition. On the east this region was bounded by the mountain territory of the Lulubi, one of whose kings, Anu-banini, left an inscription in the Zagros mountains. It belongs apparently to the period of Naram-Sin. In the plain was the capital of the province, whose king, Bukhia, son of Asiri, had his palace near Kerkuk, east of the Lower Zab, and called himself "king of the Land Khurshiti". The inscription is pre-Assyrian and is written in ancient style. It was the only one found, but, with a few more clay-tablets from the same region and possibly from the same place, and also pre-Assyrian, it suggests what results might be anticipated if excavations were made.

 

Nineveh must have played in prehistoric times a similar role to that which we have assumed for Arbela. Nineveh and Assyria are almost identical names for us, but the city first rose to greatness under Sennacherib when it became the royal seat. But on the other hand, as the result of the rise of Assyria, it lost its original importance, a fact which is attested, as at Arbela, by the respect for its cult of Ishtar of Nineveh. In the period of the Tel-Amarna Letters it belonged as we saw to the Mitani. Naturally, as the former centre of worship in the country, it always maintained its influence under Assyrian rule—just as Arbela did—and the Assyrian kings shared in the building and restoring of its temples. But it was not until Sennacherib that it became the seat of government.

 

The city of Ashur was not the capital of a large kingdom in historical times, but was ruled by patesis. Sufficient evidence of this is at hand and also of the approximate time when the new power arose. Tiglath-Pileser I lived about 1100 BC. In one of his inscriptions he states that he restored a temple in Ashur and that this temple had been built six hundred and forty-one years before the time of his grandfather, who had repaired it sixty years previously. The original builder was Shamshi-Adad, patesi of Ashur, son of Ishmi-Dagan, patesi of Ashur.

 

About 1800 BC, at the time of the Second Dynasty of Babylon, there were accordingly patesis of Ashur who were dependent either upon Babylonia or Mesopotamia, more likely upon the former. The same situation may without hesitation be assumed for the time when the city of Ashur is first clearly mentioned. This occurs in a letter of the time of Hammurabi, when apparently it lay within his dominion. The names of four other patesis are known to us from their own inscriptions, viz., Shamshi-Adad and his father, Igur-Kappapu, Irishu and his father.

 

The first king of Assyria whose date can be approximately fixed is Ashur-rim-nishi-shu, the contemporary of Kara-indash of Babylon. Between 1800 and 1500 BC. Ashur was, therefore, independent; its patesis call themselves kings, and, possibly under the influence of a new immigration, have begun to extend their borders. The cause and the conditions under which this was possible were akin to those which made the Kassites masters of Babylonia and gave Mesopotamia to the Mitani. Tumultuous times offered to vigorous rulers a favorable opportunity to found a kingdom for themselves. On the other hand, the separation which resulted between the two parts of the formerly united land, through the rule of two foreign peoples, made it possible for the intervening portion to found a state by itself. Before we enter upon the history of this new kingdom it will be of advantage to ask what it was in the general breakdown of Semitism at this time that secured the stability and power of the Semites of Ashur which from that time forward gave success to its arms, and what was the character of this future ruler of the Orient?

 

The Assyrian type is markedly differentiated from the Babylonian, which as we have seen is the result of a mixture of races. The numerous Assyrian representations show us a sharply defined physiognomy, exactly that which it is customary to regard as Semitic; it is the type we call "Jewish." Our designation is erroneous in so far as this type is wholly different from the Arabic in which we would naturally look for the purest Semitic type, if, indeed, we are at all justified in speaking of pure Semites. On the other hand, it corresponds essentially to the modern Armenian, whose language is Indo-Germanic. The explanation of this does not fall to the task of the historian; he has to do with the history of peoples and takes language as a useful mark of differentiation. The recognition of physical peculiarities as a determining principle in matters of race is quite a different thing, for racial connections and linguistic divisions are matters entirely distinct. How the Assyrians developed their type, and to what larger group it is to be referred does not concern us greatly here, and the answer is difficult owing to the lack of sufficient data. Starting with physical anthropological traits, it has been suggested that a Mesopotamian Canaanite-Armenian group may be differentiated, and this is supported by facts of history. It is to be observed that Assyria was as much affected by Canaanite immigration as Babylonia was, if not more. The fusion of races consequent thereon may, therefore, appear in the Assyrian type. Thus Canaanite ideas persisted longer in Assyria, which was, moreover, in closer proximity to countries of Canaanite population. The god Dagon, for exam­ple, was worshipped by the later Assyrians. It is, however, sufficient for us to note the readily recog­nized Assyrian type.

 

The question then arises: Whence came the remarkable superiority of this people over the other nations of Western Asia? It must have been due chiefly to two facts; national organization and social conditions. Assyria must have possessed until the time of Shalmaneser II and Adad-nirari III, when it outrivalled Babylonia, a free class of agriculturalists of its own, whereas the more economically developed country, with the oldest civilization, was under a feudal, ecclesiastical system on which its population was wholly dependent. Hence the weakness of Babylonia. She had no army of her own, but depended for her defence upon allies whose intentions were often doubtful. Assyria, on the other hand, as late as Shalmaneser II, called out the militia when important occasions arose. Tiglath-Pileser III attempted, as we shall see, to deliver the agricultural class from the chains of serfdom, which, in the interim, had developed in Assyria, and the reaction followed under Sargon. In the meantime Assyria had indeed attained to the height of her power, the way for which had been prepared by Tiglath-Pileser; but she failed to reach a true development. The brief success which followed was without lasting influence and is attributable to the other side of her national organization whose foundation was laid in freedom.

 

The growth of a patesidom into a kingdom, as happened in the case of Assyria, was possible only at a time when the city rulers could command a force fit for combat. To what extent it may have been connected with the entrance of a new population into Ashur and Assyria we know not. We are, however, inclined to assume some connection. Just as David with a trustworthy band was able in B period of general disorganization to make himself king over a state made up of several tribes, so, to a greater extent did the patesis of Ashur. Assyria's strength as opposed to the industrially developed region of the lower Euphrates valley rested, in the first place, upon an army. This was the necessary condition of its rise and rule. It was thus possible for the land to produce a peasant or agricultural class. When at a later period this class was jeopardized, and the efforts of Tiglathpileser III to save it proved fruitless, mercenaries from every land, subjugated and barbarian, were recruited, and with these Sargon and his successors waged their wars. With these it was possible to hold the Orient in subjection so long as money and booty were abundant; but after a heavy blow, and with the war chest exhausted, it was impossible to recover. Assyria's power, therefore, lay in her army and her people. When these changed her whole basis was changed. Whereas formerly she was always able to rise again after defeat, when she became Babylonianized and was ruled over by a military and priestly caste supported by mercenary troops, and without  a national population, she was doomed to disappear.

 

The first accounts which we have of the kingdom of Assyria, which arose by conquest in the seventeenth or sixteenth century BC, reveal the new state. A king of Babylon, whose name is not preserved, utters his maledictions in an inscription upon all of his successors who should not show a proper regard for the work of restoration he had performed upon a certain building, as follows: "That prince shall be accursed, never shall he be glad of heart, so long as he reigns war and battle shall not cease, during his reign brother shall devour brother, the husband shall forsake his wife, and the wife her husband, and the mother shall bar the door against her daughter". Then as a mark of the time lie adds: "The treasures of Babylon shall come to Suri and Assyria. The king of Babylon shall bring [to the city of Ashur] to the prince of Ashur the treasures of his palace." Here we find Suri and Assyria mentioned together. Suri lay about the centre of Mesopotamia. Ashur has as yet no king; it is a "prince" who appears as rival, and the evil which is here predicted found frequent fulfillment in later times.

 

From another source which dates also from that time we learn that Assyria was dependent upon Babylonia. We have a remarkable letter from an unnamed Babylonian king, perhaps Merodach-baladan I, to a patesi whose territory must have lain in the neighborhood of Assyria, and who was a natural opponent of the Assyrian king. He had made all manner of proposals to the king of Babylonia, all of which were designed to aid him in getting possession of Assyria. But the latter discovered his intentions and declined, refusing to extend to him recognition as king, and declaring himself to be thoroughly satisfied with things as they were. The condition of affairs was then as follows: During the life of the writer's father (Melishikhu?) the king of Assyria, Ninib­tukulti-Ashur, had fled to Babylon and found refuge there. He was "sent back to his own land," which means that the insurrection was quelled, and the major domo, who had fled with him, was appointed regent. The king was retained in Babylon, of course, only in accordance "with his own wish." Assyria appears here as a vassal state of Babylonia, and completely under her domination.

 

The original dependence of Ashur upon Babylon is further expressly declared in the claim of Burna-buriash. It is further supported by an inscription which the royal scribe Marduk-nadin­akhi, either a Babylonian or of Babylonian descent, inscribed in the reign of Ashur-uballit. He worshipped Marduk, the god of Babylon, as his lord and built his house under the protection of the temple of Marduk. The god of Babylon must, accordingly, have been regarded at this time as the patron god of Ashur, that is, Babylon must shortly before have held Assyria as a province. The relation was recognized down to the latest times in the cult. Again and again the god of Babylon is mentioned with the god of Ashur, and the efforts of Sargon, who delights to emphasize this relation between Marduk and Ashur, are clearly connected with such ancient traditions.

 

CHAPTER IV. THE OLD ASSYRIAN EMPIRE

A. ITS RISE

 

THE severance of the relation of dependence upon Babylonia was naturally the aim of the first period of Assyrian development. We are fortunately able to follow the progress of her relations to Babylon almost from the beginning by means of an important document. Under Adad-nirari III all the compacts and wars between the two countries were tabulated in connection with a brief presentation of their mutual relationships. This document is commonly known by the somewhat inappropriate title "Synchronous History". It gives in brief the important contemporaneous events in the two kingdoms. The beginning of the clay tablet on which this history is preserved is broken off, and the first event which appears relates to the agreement between Karaindash and A shur-rim-nishi-shu of the fifteenth century. The details of the compact are not given. It merely records that the two states concluded an agreement with reference to the delimitation of their respective territories. It is more than probable that the details of the compact were no longer discoverable by the keepers of Adad-nirari's archives, nothing more being known than was found in the royal inscriptions. The same is true of a compact between the next named king of Assyria, Buzur-Ashur, and Burna-buriash (I.?) which brings us down to the time immediately preceding the Tel-Amarna period.

 

ASHUR-UBALLIT, from whom we have a letter that was sent to Amenophis IV of Egypt, lived in the Tel-Amarna age. By the help of this letter and other aids we can follow his career. In this letter he complains of preferences shown to the king of Mitani, and, as we have already seen, it was exactly this territory which, in the eyes of Assyria, was the first to be coveted. He mentions also letters which had been written by his "father", Ashur-nadin­akhi, to Amenophis III. A letter of Burna-buriash to Amenophis IV demands, at the same time, a refusal of the Assyrian request for support on the ground that Assyria was his vassal. And Ashur-uballit's great-grandson, Adad-nirari, calls attention to the fact that the royal salutation of his great-grandfather was recognized in distant lands, which means that Ashur-uballit's diplomatic efforts to secure alliances had met with success despite all the letters of the Babylonian advising against it, and he was recognized by Egypt as independent king. He was also successful against the kings of Mitani. We have an account of a victory which he won over them, in which Nineveh, then, as we have seen, in the possession of Dushratta, must have fallen to Ashur­uballit. He there undertook the restoration of the temple of the goddess Ishtar who was at one time carried down to Egypt. He appears to have been the first Assyrian who took the title "king of the World". This, however, may have been only temporarily. With respect to Babylonia under Burna-buriash, or his successor, Kara­indash II, he married his daughter and to them was born Kadashman-Kharbe, whose policy and relation to Assyria we have already learned. We have also seen that the murder of Kadashman­Kharbe offered a welcome opportunity to Ashur­uballit to interpose in Babylonian affairs. It is highly probable that during the remainder of his long life he was the power behind the throne of his great-grandson, Kurigalzu, who was still in his minority.

 

This relation of guardianship, however, necessarily gave rise to friction as soon as the young king reached his majority and was able to follow his own policy of state. It is recorded that a war was waged between Bel-nirari, Ashur-uballit's successor and Kurigalzu which resulted in the defeat of the Babylonians. The delimitation referred to was connected with the territory "from the border of Mitani (Shubari) as far as Babylonia."

 

Arak-den-il, the next king of Assyria, came into conflict only with Northern peoples: he held in check the Suti, the Bedouins of the steppe, and the Aramaean hordes who sprang up. His son was

 

ADAD-NIRARI I, CIR. 1300-1270.

 

Under him Assyria reaped the fruit of previous wars. He overthrew the kingdom of Mitani and became "king of the World" by the possession of Mesopotamia. This Babylon naturally enough could not view with equanimity. She was willing enough to leave the war with Mitani to Assyria—but the possession of the country, in view of its important position on the line of communication with the North and West she coveted for herself. War broke out under Nazi-Maruttash, the son of Kurigalzu. Assyria was victorious, and a boundary line between the territories was fixed which ran from the Sindjar range eastward across the Tigris to the mountains of the Lulumi. Assyria thus maintained the upper part of the territory between the rivers, the lower portion fell to Babylonia.

 

SHALMANESER I, CIR. 1270.

 

Completed the work of his father. He conquered the provinces of Mitani on the west of the Euphrates, viz., Khanigalbat and Mutsri, and secured Mesopotamia by subduing the Aramaeans, who were constantly reaching out in this direction, and by pushing forward between the rivers in the direction of Armenia where he planned for the settlement of Assyrian colonies. Assyria, it is evident, had a superfluous and vigorous population which needed an outlet—it was still a land of agriculturalists. Shalmaneser's colonies demonstrated their power to live. Notwithstanding the lack of support from the motherland after they were founded they still existed after these regions had been twice wrested from Assyria, once after the reign of Tukulti-ninib I, and again after that of Tiglath-Pileser I. When Ashur-natsir-pal marched into Armenia about 860 BC, he found these colonies still in existence through the Assyrian settlers had suffered greatly. Assyria's power of expansion is further attested by the cuneiform inscriptions from Cappadocia with their numerous Assyrian names. Their appearance there must also be connected with the successes of this period.

 

The old city, Ashur, was no longer suitable as a capital for the newly expanded empire. Shalmaneser, therefore, to meet the demands of the new conditions, moved his residence farther to the north, on the left bank of the Tigris. The name of the new capital was Kalkhi, on the site of the modern Nimrod, between the Tigris and the Upper Zab. The importance of this city to Assyria when in control of Mesopotamia is proved by the fact that when her power declined Ashur again became the capital, but when she rose again under Ashur-natsir-pal Kalkhi was chosen anew.

 

When Mitani was disposed of and the possession of Mesopotamia was assured the only question was whether Assyria should await attack by Babylonia or take the initiative herself. The latter policy had always prevailed in her previous history. War had already been waged under Shalmaneser I with Kadashman-Buriash, and it was continued under his successor. During the reign of Kadashman-Kharbe, the second successor of Bit-u-ashu, with whom he fought several engagements,

 

TUKULTI-NINIB

 

conquered Babylon, which at the time was seriously pressed by Elam. He thus made himself master of the whole of Babylonia. This was accomplished as the result of two expeditions. On the first one Bit-ili-ashu was conquered and taken prisoner. The second one had evidently as its object the suppression of a revolt under Adad­nadin-shum or Kadashman-Kharbe II. We have a copy of one of Tukulti-Ninib 's seals that was made by Sennacherib from the original found during his reign in which the titles run: "Tukulti­Ninib, king of the World, son of Shalmaneser, conquerer of the land of Karduniash". A note adds that the original was made "600 years before Sennacherib"—a welcome remark which enables us to fix the time approximately at 1275 BC. Tukulti-Ninib did not assume the title "king of Babylon," but appointed Adad-shum-iddin to rule under his protection. This relation lasted for seven years, and during the rule of Adad-shum­iddin and his followers the statue of Marduk remained in Ashur whither it had been taken by Tukulti-Ninib. Then the Babylonian nobility arose, drove out the Assyrians and placed Adad­shum-utsur upon the throne. When we compare the similar situation at the death of Sennacherib, and the uprising at the close of Esarhaddon's reign, we get the key to the understanding of that which the chronicle, from which these facts are gleaned, says in this connection: "Ashurnatsirpal, his son, and the chiefs of Assyria revolted and deposed him from the throne. In Kar-Tukulti-Ninib they imprisoned him in a house and smote him with their weapons." From this we must conclude that Tukulti-Ninib, like later Assyrian kings similarly situated, allowed his politics to be shaped too much by Babylonian influence. This would naturally excite discontent in Assyria owing to her fear lest the superiority of the more highly developed Babylonians should deprive her of supremacy. The insurrection was, therefore, an Assyrian-military one called forth by the danger which threatened from the preponderance of Babylonian influence. It is possible that the Assyrian revolutionists acted in concert with the Babylonians.

 

One inscription records the building of "Kar­Tukulti-Ninib". From this it appears that it was a sort of new city added on to the old city of Ashur. It must have been here that the king had his palace within which he met his death. Apparently the construction of the city was connected with political plans which aroused opposition to him. Our suspicions are here aroused for the first time of the presence of Babylon's imperial politics in Assyria which was the natural consequence of its possession of Babylon and its claim to world-sovereignty.

 

If it was the aim of the insurrectionists to break away from Babylonia it was effectively attained, for now the war might begin afresh and Mesopotamia, especially, be defended against the enemy which had of late grown in strength. Of Ashur­natsirpal I nothing more is known. Assyria under him and his successors, the two brothers, Ashur-nirari I and Nabu-[dayan], who ruled together, appears to have been reduced to the position she occupied prior to her expansion under Ashur-uballit. The political schisms which ensued upon the insurrection, and the later occupancy of the throne by the two brothers was doubtless largely responsible for the decline. The tone assumed by the Babylonian king in a letter addressed to them is in marked contrast to the usual courteous manner of speech. They are no longer addressed as "brothers," but sharply reprimanded as inferiors. In consonance with this change of tone the Babylonian assumes the title "king of the World." Assyria was evidently reduced again to the "land of Ashur," and was as before a feudality of Babylonia.

 

From this point the connection of events is difficult to follow on account of the fragmentary state of the tablets. But it is most probable that this condition continued and that an effort was made in Ashur to throw off the Babylonian yoke, which resulted in placing Bel-kudur-utsur on the throne. He fell in battle with the king of Babylon, who, it is to be supposed, was Merodach-baladan from whom the account comes. Ninib-apal-ekur succeeded him and the length of his rule did not exceed the twelve remaining years of Merodach­baladan, inasmuch as it was Ashur-dan who was involved in war with his successor, Zamama-shum­iddin, who reigned only one year. The details are uncertain, but it is apparent that Ashur and Babylon were both actuated in these wars by a desire of predominance.

 

B. THE SECOND ADVANCE OF ASSYRIA

 

Babylonia continued to assert her superior strength under Marduk-bal-iddin I, for he boasts of a victory over Assyria, under Ninib-apal-ekur, or his son Ashurdan, and calls himself "king of the World." But under his successor, Zamama­shum-iddin, a victory on Babylonian territory east of the Lower Zab, was won by Assyria under

 

ASHURDAN, CIR. 1200 B.C.

 

This victory, however, did not mean the reconquest of Mesopotamia. We have already seen that even the first kings of the Pashe dynasty still held it: Nebuchadrezzar I advanced again as far as Palestine. Ashurdan was succeeded by Mutakkil-Nusku. His son was

 

ASHUR-RISH-ISHI,

 

the contemporary and rival of Nebuchadrezzar I. According to the "Synchronous History" the Assyrian came off triumphant in repeated battles. He reconquered Mesopotamia, and one of his inscriptions speaks also of his chastisement of the Aramaean hordes, and of successful undertakings against the Lulumi in the Western Zagros range, and of others against the Gutians in the North. The work which he accomplished for Assyria in this renewed extension of her power resembled that which had formerly been done by Adad-nirari I. But in the reign of his successor,

 

TIGLATHPILESER I (cir. 1100 BC)

 

there was a repetition of the successes and subsequent collapse of Assyria under Shalmaneser I and Tukulti-Ninib. The first step was to secure Mesopotamia again by renewed expeditions to the North and by the reconquest of Khanigalbat and Mutsri on the west of the Euphrates. At this time there was in this region another of those great migrations taking place which can be followed so instructively especially in the Orient. It was that of the peoples of Kummukh, Muski, and Kaska, who, as we have already seen, were connected with the Hittites. When our information from Egyptian sources ceases we hear almost nothing of the Hittite kingdom in Asia Minor. In the Tel-Amarna period it exists beside the kingdom of Mitani, to which it is ethnically related and with which it is at war. In the succeeding period, when the Egyptian power was on the decline, it extended itself over Syria and almost all of Northern Palestine, into which Hittite bands may have entered in earlier times. In the twelfth century Egyptian kings fought with the Hittites for the possession of Canaan, and Ramses II concluded a defensive alliance with the Hittite king, Khetasar. The dominating force in this treaty was clearly the Hittite, and notwithstanding the pretentious claims of the Egyptian king lie virtually played the role of a dependent although formally recognized as an ally on equal terms. It was an alliance common enough everywhere in the Orient and in antiquity, and such as must always result where unequal powers combine. The actual relation appears also very clearly in the delimitation of their provincial boundaries. Egypt acknowledged as Hittite territory everything to the north of Nahr-el-Kelb (Dog River) near Beirut, if not also all the country to the north of Mount Carmel, that is, all of Northern Phoenicia and Syria.

 

The migrations of the people of Kummukh and Muski thus show that the Hittite territory along the river Halys must have been overrun by new peoples in the time of Tiglath-Pileser I. As was usually the case, these peoples soon established homes for themselves in the land. If then a powerful state continued to exist on the Halys it must of necessity come into conflict with Tiglath-Pileser. For, on the one hand, the latter, through his victories along the Euphrates, had become neighbor to the Hittites and, on the other, he had taken possession of territory in Khanigalbat and Mutsri which the Hittites were bound to contest, and which separated them from the southern part of Asia Minor and Phoenicia. As in the case of Dushratta, it was necessary for him as ruler of Mesopotamia to repel the Hittites before he could take the next step and crown his ambition by an advance to the Phoenician coast. The account which tells of his victory over the Hittite king, Teshub, is only fragmentarily, preserved.

 

We have a large inscription of Tiglath-Pileser which recounts his wars in this region during his first five years. He began by purging the territory to the north of Mesopotamia, by repelling the tribes that had forced their way in, or by compelling their submission, and he advanced in the direction of Armenia. He sought to establish Assyrian control over the same region that Shalmaneser had formerly settled with Assyrian colonists. He further subjugated the Nairi Lands, the mountainous country to the south of Lake Van which separates Armenia from Mesopotamia. On one of these expeditions he erected at the source of the Subnat, the fountain head of the Tigris, his image which is still preserved with a brief inscription that tells of three such expeditions to the Nairi Lands. He also, like Shalmaneser, checked the Aramaean hordes who had spread out over the Mesopotamian steppes, and drove a portion of them across the Euphrates into the territory about Carchemish. He crossed the river himself and took six of their fortified towns "in the region of Mount Bishri." This region corresponds to that part of Bit-Adini on the right of the Euphrates, which in the time of Shalmaneser II appears with Til-Basheri. During the Crusades it was the feudal-tenure of Joscelin of Tell-Bashir, who held it in fief from the District of Edessa. He also occupied Pitru at the junction of the Euphrates and Sagur, the Pethor of the Old Testament (erroneously said to have been the home of Balaam), and peopled it with colonists from Assyria. Following further in the path of Shalmaneser I he subjugated Melitene (Khanigalbat) and further extended his conquests over Mutsri, which was then in possession of the Kumani. He thus restored the boundaries of the old Mesopotamian kingdom.

 

Nothing now stood in the way of his occupation of Northern Phoenicia, and we read consequently of his setting sail at Arvad upon an ocean trip as a mighty huntsman of the denizens of the deep. As landlubbers the Assyrians always regarded themselves as heroes whenever they ventured upon the mysteries of the high seas. Tiglath-Pileser mentions on this occasion an exchange of presents with the king of Egypt who, among other gifts, presented him with a crocodile. Who this king of Egypt was we are not informed. We see, however, from this notice that the intercourse between the civilized countries was always the same as it appears from the detailed information of the Tel-Amarna Letters, and that the Egyptian kings, though they exerted little influence in Palestine at this time, when the kingdoms of Saul and David were shaping, had, nevertheless, not allowed it to drop wholly out of sight. The correspondence between the kings has not been preserved for us. When, however, we remember that shortly prior to this time Nebuchadrezzar asserted his authority over Northern Phoenicia the inference is natural that weightier matters were discussed in connection with this courteous exchange of royal gifts and that an understanding was arrived at as to the boundaries of their respective spheres of influence or interest in Palestine. The sending of presents to the new ruler of the region which Ramses acknowledged as Hittite indicates the formal recognition of Assyria as the rightful successor to Hittite claims. If formerly Burna-buriash complained of Pharaoh's too great willingness to recognize Assyrian claims, Tiglath-Pileser, now that he held equal title, perhaps assumed the same attitude toward the Egyptian king as Khetasar had toward Ramses.

 

When now the West had been secured attention was naturally next given to the East. With this we come to that part of Tiglath-Pileser's reign which corresponds to the role of Tukulti-Ninib. The Synchronous History speaks of two successful wars against Marduk-nadin-akhe of Babylon in which the North Babylonian cities and Babylon were taken, and a fragment of Tiglath-Pileser's annuals tells of his entrance into the capital itself. This rapid advance, however, was followed by an equally rapid turn of fortune. When Sennacherib conquered Babylon in 689 he found statues of gods which had been carried away from the city of Ekallati, by Marduk-nadin-akhi, "418 years before, in the time of Tiglathpileser." Marduk­nadin-akhi in one of his inscriptions bears the titles "king of Sumer and Akkad," and "king of the World." He, therefore, not only ruled the whole of Babylonia but had also re-established Babylonian rule in Mesopotamia. Consequently, Tiglath-Pileser must at one stroke have lost all which he had previously won. Assyria then stood exactly where it did after the overthrow of Tukulti-Ninib.

 

ASHUR-BEL-KALA AND SHAMSHI-ADAD I,

 

Tiglath-Pileser's sons, occupied the throne after him. During this period Mesopotamia must have been chiefly under Babylonian influence. The spread of the Aramaeans nevertheless proves that Babylon did not vigorously assert her authority. Assyria was reduced again to the "Land of Ashur" and was, therefore, compelled to begin anew. But Babylonia was not now a formidable opponent, and peace existed between the two states. Ashur-bel-kala and Marduk-shapik-zer­mati of Babylon, who held the title "king of the World," and, therefore, like his predecessor, was in possession of Mesopotamia, entered into terms of peace. When the latter died and Adad-aplu­iddin ascended the throne the Assyrian king married his daughter, and, according to the Synchronous History, received with her "a large dowry". Thereafter the two peoples lived peaceably with one another. Nothing is known to us of Ashur-bel-kala's brother, Shamshi-Adad. And of his son, Ashur-natsir-pal II, we know only the name from a hymn that has been preserved. Tradition is now practically silent for one hundred years, during which we hear little or nothing of either Assyria or Babylonia.

 

We learn from the later records of Shalmaneser II that Ashur-irbi must have been king of Assyria at this time. He seems to have taken the initial step toward the recovery of the lost territory, for Shalmaneser discovered a statue of his son on the shore of the sea. This can only have been Lake Van or the Mediterranean Sea, and from the connection the latter is more probable. Ashur-irbi then, like Tiglath-Pileser I, advanced as far as the Phoenician coast. Whether his image was found among those to the north of Beirut on the Nahr-el-kelb, or still farther to the north, cannot be determined. At all events the statue seems to have been alone, for Shalmaneser says: "My statue with his statue I set up." As we learn from another source during his reign Pitru, which had been taken by Tiglath-Pileser I, fell into the hands of the Aramaeans. This brings us to the most important movement of these times.

 

C. THE ARAMAEAN IMMIGRATION

 

  In addition to the immigrations of the Kassites from the east, and the Hittites (Mitani) from the northwest, the third Semitic immigration poured into Mesopotamia and Babylonia at this time. This was the Aramaean. We have already frequently noted that the Assyrian kings (Arak­den-il, Shalmaneser I, Ashur-rish-ishi, Tiglath­pileser I), when they entered Mesopotamia, sought to hold in cheek, or repel beyond the Euphrates, the "Aramaean hordes" who were in possession. These nomadic Aramaeans, as they are expressly called by Tiglath-Pileser I, had, therefore, overrun the country, as early as 1300 BC, in the same manner as the other two great immigrations had previously.

 

Invited by the great steppes of Mesopotamia this was at first their natural halting place, and thence they moved southward toward Babylonia which, like the "Canaanites" and "Babylonian Semites" who moved in the same direction, they later occupied. And here we meet them frequently as Aramaean tribes when Babylon was under Assyrian domination, that is, under Tiglath-Pileser III and his successors. There they met with opposition in their movements from the Chaldeans who were pressing upward from the South. They were still further hindered from spreading over the country by the tribes which had preceded them and which were most closely related to them, the relation between them being exactly similar to that between the Hebrews and Canaanites. These advance tribes were those known as the Suti, who, as we have already seen, were in possession of the Syrian desert during the reigns of Ashur-uballit and Kadashman-Kharbe. They were driven thence by the Aramaeans into Babylonia, and, in the twelfth century, they were described by the kings of the Sea-Lands as a destructive race. They were finally forced into the mountainous region on the east of the Tigris, and were still resident in Yamutbal in the time of Sargon II. At the close of the eighth century we can thus clearly see in Babylonia, as the result of these migrations, the successive layers of population which rose from the Suti and Aram Bans. As these tribes first entered the land when the Kassites, owing to the weakness of Babylonia, were able to establish their power, so they were able to spread out undisturbed after 1100, when neither Assyria nor Babylonia was in a position to offer an effective resistance. It is to this time then that we must refer the recorded devastation of Babylonia by the Suti, who were driven forward by the Aramaean tribes that were then entering into possession of Northern Babylonia and later settled in the South.

 

At the same time also they took possession of Mesopotamia which lay more exposed, and there events developed as usual in the course of all these immigrations. While in Babylonia they were prevented by the Chaldeans from entering the cities and were confined to the country regions, it was otherwise in Mesopotamia. There they took possession of the entire land. When the silence of Assyrian records is again broken we find Aramean cities and an Aramaean population in full control. Now the language of the Land of Suri has changed to Aramaean, and the words Syrians and Aramaeans, which originally connoted wholly different ideas, began to be synonymous. A clear instance of this is observable in the occupation of Pitru. Numerous similar occurrences must have been witnessed in Mesopotamia in the century following Tiglath-Pileser. But how did the Assyrian kings regard all this? Evidently they did not remain inactive, and we have already tried to show that a movement was directed against them under Ashur-irbi. The war which was waged was doubtless one of varying fortunes, and perhaps we can best picture the progress of events by recalling the course of the Chaldeans in Babylonia.

 

CHAPTER V. THE MIDDLE ASSYRIAN KINGDOM

 

ALTHOUGH Babylon and Assyria were powerless to protect Mesopotamia against the Aramaean migration they were able to dispute its possession with one another. We have already seen that Babylon was superior to Assyria after the reign of Tiglath-Pileser, and this state of affairs appears to have continued until the beginning of the "Chaldean dynasty." But as soon as the Assyrian records speak again the question of relative strength is settled beyond dispute. Henceforward all the kings of Assyria until the fall of the kingdom call themselves "kings of the World."

The first of these kings whose succession we can now follow uninterruptedly are :

 

ASHUR-RISH-ISHI, cir. 970.

 

TIGLATH-PILESER II, cir. 950.

 

ASHURDAN II, cir. 930.

 

ADAD-NIRARI II

 

Of these the first is known to us only from a genealogy of his grandson in which Ashurdan's name is also given. Of the last we have a brief inscription, and it is with his reign that the Eponym Canon begins which enumerates the Assyrian Eponyms in whose names the successive years were dated. From this point on to the end of the kingdom each year of Assyrian history can at least be determined by its limmu, or archon.

 

Each of these three kings bore the titles "king of the world, king of Ashur," which henceforth were constantly assumed. Harran and Ashur are the chief cities of the two parts of the land. But the one part is held entirely by an Aramaean population who in the old cities caused the old population the same troubles that the Chaldeans prepared for the Babylonians, and it contained beside a number of Aramaean cities whose princes seized every opportunity to strike for independence or even the reins of government. Near to Harran there stood an Aramman state, Bit-Adini, a counterpart to the dukedom Edessa during the Crusades, just as the Chaldean Bit-Dakuri existed near Babylon. Others still we shall have to note in the time of Ashur-natsir-pal.

 

The subjugation of these states and tribes was, therefore, the first aim of Assyria, which refused to be made the sport of their desire for conquest as Babylonia was by the Chaldeans.

 

TUKULTI-NINIB II, 890-885,

 

succeeded Adad-nirari II. On one of his expeditions to the "Nairi-Lands" he cut an inscription by the side of one of Tiglathpileser I. in the rock at the source of the Subnat. His son, Ashur­natsir-pal, and his grandson, Shalmaneser II, followed his example in this respect. The object of these expeditions of Tukulti-Ninib to the north was to secure the regions of Assyria that had been colonized by Shalmaneser I and retaken by Tiglath-pileser. Their possession is, therefore, also presupposed under his son,

 

ASHUR-NATSIR-PAL, 885-860,

 

with whom our sources begin again to be more abundant. Detailed accounts of his expeditions have come down to us in several lengthy inscriptions. He is the most conspicuous figure in the work of establishing order in Mesopotamia and putting an end to the independence of the Aramaean princes. He did away with the feudal system and established the country on a provincial basis. In the narrative of his deeds we gain considerable knowledge of the conditions which pre­vailed. In the very first year of his reign, 884, an insurrection broke out in the Aramean state, Bit-Khadippi, on the lower Khabur. The rebels put to death their prince who had previously been subjugated to Assyria and was loyal to his oath of allegiance, and placed in his stead a prince from the neighboring Bit-Adini near Harran, one of the arch-enemies of Assyria. Ashur-natsir-pal was in Kummukh on the Euphrates at the time and he advanced in all haste to Bit-Khadippi. The Aranawan princes of Shadikanna (or Gardi­kanna) and Shuna hastened to meet him on the way with their tribute as assurance of their submission. Sura, the chief city of Bit-Khadippi, submitted on his arrival and delivered over their prince, Akhi-Yababa, but were made to pay the penalty of their temerity in the destruction of the city. Azil, a native sheikh, was appointed governor.

 

The course of this revolt is typical of the most of the wars Assyria was forced to wage against the Aramaeans as well as with all other tribes similarly situated. Whenever a favorable opportunity arose they sought to effect a union with others and then refused the allotted tribute, but offered little resistance to the Assyrian army. On the right bank of the Euphrates and lying between Syria and Babylonia, as the result of the Aramaean influx, Ashur-natsir-pal found three of these half-nomadic states, via, Laki, Khindanu (at the mouth of the Khabur), and Sukhi. These were subjugated as the result of several expeditions. We have previously seen in the history of Babylonia that she also played a part in the war with the Sukhi. Generally speaking, all such insurrections sprang up not as a chance venture but with the encouragement of larger powers, in other words, Babylonia. In this way Babylon tried to regain her influence over Mesopotamia and abandoned the effort only when Assyria had established over it a provincial government.

 

The worst enemy of Assyria was Akhuni, the prince of Bit-Adini, the Aramaean state adjoining the region of Harran and dominating Northern Mesopotamia. He was the prime mover of most of the revolts among the small states on the river Khabur. As soon, therefore, as Ashur-natsir-pal had brought the peoples along the Khabur and Euphrates to submission he turned against this fomenter of trouble. Akhuni, and also one of his allies, Khabini of Tel-abnaya, promptly sub­mitted. On his expedition against Syria in the following year, 877, these regions were again traversed and tribute collected. Akhuni was even compelled to join the Assyrian army. Aramman tribes in the northernmost part of Syria, beyond the Euphrates, were likewise forced to pay tribute. These invasions of the Arammans were more of the nature of military skirmishes than of serious wars; the restless Bedouins had already become settled in the land and readily submitted on the approach of a large army.

 

The most of Ashur-natsir-pal's expeditions were to the Nairi-Lands of the North, which either had to be reconquered or Assyrian authority reinforced within them. The Assyrians who had been settled in the regions to the west and south of Mount Masius had been severely dealt with by the surrounding population and forced to fly for refuge to the mountains. These were restored to their place, and the province with its capital, Tuslcha, in which Ashur-natsir-pal erected a palace, was established anew. At the same time, Tela, another rebel stronghold guarded by a triple wall and settled with Assyrians, was razed to the ground. Three thousand of its warriors fell in its defence, many were taken alive and mutilated and young women were burnt in the flames. A similar lot overtook the rebellious city of Kinabu whose governor, Khulai, was flayed and his skin nailed upon the walls of Damdamusa which he had attempted to take. In other expeditions Ashur­natsir-pal crossed the Tigris and penetrated farther into the Nairi-Lands. He likewise crossed over beyond Arbela and up to the Urumia Sea where, among other conquests, he reduced Khu­buskia, Zamua and Gilzan.

 

When this work in the North was accomplished Ashur-natsir-pal, like Tiglathpileser I, marched toward Phoenicia. Setting out from the conquered state, Bit-Adini, he crossed the Euphrates by means of rafts buoyed up by inflated sheep­skins—a means still in vogue—and advanced along the left bank to Carchemish, the Hittite capital. Sangara, the king of the "land of Khatti," paid tribute and added his contingent to the Assyrian army. The Syrian state Patin, now in the hands of the Aramaeans, lay to the west of the territory of Carchemish and beyond the Sagur and included the region north of the sea of Antiochia, known as the Amq, and extended southward as far as the Orontes. Azaz was first conquered; and when the Assyrian army had crossed the Afrin and stood before the capital, Kunalua, King Lubarna (or Liburna) paid tribute and joined his troops to the Assyrian army. Gusi, the prince of the Aramaean state Yalrham, near Arpad, found it expedient to do likewise.

 

Leaving Kunalua the army marched across the Kara-su, in the western portion of the Amq, and then turned southward and crossed the Orontes to the south of the lake of Antioch. Here in the northernmost highlands of the Phoenician coast, which had belonged to Patin and was named by Ashur-natsir-pal "Lukhuti," he founded an Assyrian colony, Aribua, thus following the example of Shalmaneser I in Nairi. The march was continued southward along the Mediterranean, where offerings were made to the gods. The place where this occurred must have been on the Nahr-el-Kelb, where one of the weather-beaten Assyrian reliefs probably represents the monument of victory which the king caused to be sculptured in the rock. The cities of Arvad, Gebal, Sidon, Tyre and several in the highlands, sent their tribute. Another detachment of the army was sent northward to Mount Amanus to cut cedars for the buildings in Nineveh. Tyre is the most southerly of the Phoenician cities that is mentioned in his narrative. The dynasty of Omri was then ruling over Israel, and there the movements of the Assyrian army must have been followed with some anxiety. Ashur-natsir-pal did not, however, venture the march farther southward, for the southern regions were tributary to or even under the protection of Damascus, which at that time controlled Syria. With her Ashur-natsir-pal ventured nothing. In fact this state of which he was in dread is not once referred to in his inscriptions. He exacted tribute of those states only which were not under the influence of Damascus. In other respects the expedition of Ashur-natsir-pal was almost a repetition of the one by Tiglath-Pileser I. The latter seems to have been his great exemplar. His undertakings seem to have followed in the same course and to have had similar results. In one of his inscriptions he follows closely the deeds of Tiglath-Pileser and repeats a large section of one of his inscriptions. The events of the last years of his reign and his less successful undertakings are wanting also in his inscriptions. If, as we have previously seen, the success of Tiglath-Pileser's expeditions to the West was to be judged by his victory over the Hittite king it is interesting to note what attitude this great power of Asia Minor now maintained toward the advancing Assyrians. In the eighth century it reappears again as Muski (Phrygia). In the annals of Ashur-natsir-pal a brief account is given of successes won over the Muski. Apparently he felt the necessity of putting on record some statements which would imply a success there corresponding to that of his great predecessor. Although we must assume that his victories were unimportant this reference to the Asia Minor power is nevertheless significant for the larger connection of the history of Asia Minor.

 

The most important work of Ashur-natsir-pal's reign was the establishment of Assyrian supremacy in Mesopotamia. As Shalmaneser I had previously done, he moved the capital from Ashur to Kalkhi as better suited to the new requirements of government. It was here that Layard unearthed the "North-West" palace of this king. Evidence of his efforts to improve the city is found in his laying a conduit which connected the city with the river Zab. His successor was

 

SHALMANESER II, 860-825 BC,

 

who carried on the work of his father from the point where he was obliged to lay it down. We have already learned of his success in Babylonia. In Mesopotamia he brought the subjugated Aramaean vassal princes under Assyrian rule. The regions to the north which his father had reduced he held in subjection and added others to the realm. He completed the work which had been left undone by his predecessor in Syria and waged a successful war against Damascus.

 

During the first years of his reign Shalmaneser II devoted his attention to Mesopotamia. In three expeditions, 859, 858, 857, Akhuni of Bit­Adini, who had again revolted, was compelled to submit, and his territory finally annexed as an Assyrian province and in part settled by Assyrians. In 854 the same fate overtook another Aramaean prince, Giammu, in the valley of the Balikh. Gradually Aramaean independence in Mesopotamia was crushed and the inhabitants forced to become citizens of Assyria.

 

Syria and Palestine were the next in order, as in the case of Ashur-natsir-pal, to invite the conquering ambition of Shalmaneser. Patin, the northern part of Syria, had yielded to his father, and now that it was out of the way it remained to subdue the state that ruled over the whole of Coele-Syria and Palestine. In the year 854 he crossed the Euphrates near Til-Barsip, which not long before was Akhuni's capital but was now under an Assyrian governor. He descended to Pitru, which also had been taken from the Aramaeans and was now under Assyrian rule. At this point he received the tribute of the Syrian princes, who willingly submitted or had previously been subjected. These were Sangar of Carchemish, who in 877 had bowed before Ashur-natsir-pal, Kundaspi of Kummukh, Arame of Gusi, Lalli of Melitene, who also had paid tribute to Ashur­natsir-pal, Khayna of Gabar (Sam'al), Kaparunda of Patin, and Gurgum. The last two ruled over parts of the former kingdom of Pathn in the region of Senjirli. From this point he marched toward Khalman (Aleppo), which immediately yielded, and Shalmaneser offered up a sacrifice to the god of the city, Adad or Ramman.

 

Proceeding southward he came to the regions bordering on Hamath that stood under the influence of Damascus. Irkhulini, the prince of Hamath, was either an ally of, or under tribute to Bir-idri of Damascus. The latter advanced against the Assyrians and the opposing armies met at Karkar near Hamath. Shalmaneser mentions the following vassal kings and princes of Syria who were compelled to join her ranks, viz., Irkhulina of Hamath, Ahab of Israel, the princes of Sue (Southeastern Cilicia), Mutsri, Irciana, Matinbaal of Arvad, the North Phoenician princes of Usana and Siana, Gindibu the Arabian (this is the first mention of Arabians) and Basa (Baasha) of Ammon. Shalmaneser claims a great victory over the allied forces. But when he returned to Assyria Damascus remained in all its extent as before. Owing to the developments in Babylonia in 852 and 851 it was not until 849 that he again crossed to the west and then with no more decisive results. The same is true of his descent upon Hamath from Mount Amanus, in the tributary state of Patin, in the following year, 848. Victory is recorded in the monuments but results prove that in this, as in many another case ancient and modern, the scribe was mightier than the Tartan. Thus it appears that Damascus proved her ability to defend herself successfully. The Assyrian army found itself confronted by well organized troops, not by a militia force of uncivilized tribes. Shalmaneser felt, therefore, that the necessity was all the greater that this foe who blocked his way to the control of Syria and Palestine should be conquered. Three years later, in 845, he collected the army "of the land" and set out on another expedition. Again his opponent took the field with an unusually strong army, and Shalmaneser won the same kind of a "victory" as before.

 

It was not until 842, when a change of rulers took place in Damascus, that he achieved success by winning over some of the vassals. Bir-idri died and Hazael ascended the throne of Damascus. An insurrection in Israel placed Jehu upon the throne and he sought aid from Assyria. The Old Testament narratives indicate that the prophets of Israel (Elisha) had an important hand in this crisis and in the overthrow of the family of Ahab, which was allied to Tyre. Elisha was also apparently connected with the elevation of Hazael to the throne (2 Ki. 8.), and we must assume that a similar state of things existed in Damascus, for Hazael was not the son of his predecessor. The same movement which overthrew the dynasty of Omri in Israel must have, as is hinted in the Old Testament, been opposed to the throne of Damascus. Assyria, doubtless, incited the opposition or, at least, covertly abetted it, although the new king of Damascus disappointed the hopes of the diplomats at Kalkhi. We have often previously seen how vassals were wont to throw off their allegiance on the death of the king, and so it happened now. Damascus was deserted by her former allies and Hazael stood alone. Shalmaneser marched from the north along the coast, and then past Beirut, where he sculptured an image of himself on the rocks of the Nahr-el-Kelb, toward Damascus. Hazael attempted to block his way between Mount Hermon and Anti-Lebanon and failing in this he was compelled to fall back behind the walls of Damascus. Shalmaneser laid siege to the city for a time, but this proved ineffectual. His battering rams met more serious hindrance than the clay walls of provincial towns. He was consequently compelled to satisfy himself with the devastation of the land as far as the Hauran, and, after receiving from Tyre and Sidon the price they always paid for peace, and exacting of Jehu of Israel the oath of allegiance, he returned to Nineveh. A sixth attempt was made in 839 with no better results.

 

Damascus asserted its independence. Thus the state that proved the barrier to Assyria's advance on Palestine remained. The whole course of Israelitish history was determined by this fact. The next one hundred years Israel and Judah stood under the influence of Damascus, and it was not until she had fallen (731) that the fate of Israel was sealed.

 

After 839 Shalmaneser desisted from further attacks on Damascus. Israel and the rest of Palestine were left free to manage their own affairs with Damascus. If for the present Coele-Syria and Palestine had evaded the grasp of Assyria nothing remained for the latter but a further subjugation of Northern Syria and further expansion in the direction of Asia Minor. Melitene (Khanigalbat), Patin, and the Amq had acknowledged Assyrian sovereignty. Shalmaneser had, therefore, driven northward the old Hittite state, or as it was then called, Muski, to its own territory on the river Halys. Now he reached out from the south over the Amanus and into the region of the Taurus. Kue at the beginning was tributary to Damascus, but now in the years 840, 835 and 834 it was conquered and Kirri was appointed king in Tarsus instead of his brother Kate. On the north of the Taurus Tabal, with its independent chiefs, was put under tribute. Thus the work of establishing a series of Assyrian vassal states from Cilicia across the Taurus as far as Mitylene was completed.

 

The region of Malatia (Melitene, Khanigalbat) belonged to the Armenian highlands and was naturally the next to be overrun by a conquering army sent in that direction. It was assured to Assyria in the reigns of Shalmaneser I, Tiglath-Pileser, and Ashur-natsir-pal, who conducted expeditions as far as Lake Van. Inasmuch as there were evident signs of a united, independent state springing up here in the North in Urartu, with its centre on Lake Van, Shalmaneser waged war on its kings. In 857 he had traversed the regions on the south of the Upper Euphrates, viz., Alzi, Zamani, Anzitene, and beyond the Arsanias those of the Sukhme and Dayaeni who had been subjugated by Shalmaneser I and Tiglath-Pileser. From this point he penetrated Urartu and King Arame fled to the interior. Shalmaneser set up his image on Lake Van and then continued his march through the eastern passes into Gilzan and Khupushkia to Arbael. Fresh expeditions set out again in 850 and 845, and probably during the last he carved his inscription on the Subnat.

 

In the meantime a change must have taken place in the ruling power in Armenia which had placed on the throne the strong dynasty that had its seat in Thuruspa, on Lake Van, whence it founded the powerful kingdom of Urartu. In later times it was a source of much trouble to Assyria and disputed with her the sovereignty over Syria. A trace of the ambitious designs of these kings is probably to be sought in the revolt of Lallas of Malatia in the year 837. Four years later, in 833, an Assyrian army was despatched to the Arsanias apparently to retake Sukhmi and Dayaeni, which lay on its right bank. Sarduri I, the new king of Urartu, was, therefore, apparently advancing. In 829 another expedition set out from the other side through the passes of Gilzan and Khupushkia. Mutsatsir, a state lying south of Lake Van, was plundered, and a part of Urartu was also spoiled. But no permanent results were effected here by the Assyrians.On the contrary, the strength of the new state continually grew, and from the time of Adad-nirari onward Assyria was more and more driven out of these regions. The kings of Urartu reached out toward Mesopotamia and Syria until under Tiglathpileser III they were forced back to their highlands.

 

While on the south and southeast the Zab formed the boundary under Ashur-natsir-pal, Shalmaneser advanced against the countries lying between the Urumia Sea and the valley of the Tigris. These had frequently before been under Assyrian supremacy, as the Lulumi, but now, as often happened in other cases, they had fallen under Babylonian influence. In 860 an expedition was made into the passes of Holvan, in 844 another into the land of Namri, Southwestern Media, and in 836 Shalmaneser marched against the princes which had been raised to rule there in Bit-Khamban. Thence the army moved northward toward Parsua to the east of the Urumia Sea. Median chiefs, which now first appear in the role of Assyrian history, brought their tribute and then the march continued southward to Kharkhar to the east of Holvan. Kirkhi and Khupushkia south of Lake Van and the Urumia Sea, which Ashur-natsir-pal had overrun, were again subjected. Man, which lay on the west shore of the Urumia Sea, and Gilzan to the north of it were likewise scourged.

 

Shalmaneser's successes in Babylon have already been discussed in the history of Babylonia. The close connection with Babylonia and the influence which it exerted doubtless occasioned the revolt which arose toward the close of Shalmaneser's reign. The agricultural class of Assyria must have suffered by the wars—Babylonia was the seat of the hierarchy: in this insurrection these antitheses must have had their effect. Almost all of Assyria and her provinces, and first among them the former capital, Ashur, which had greatly suffered by the change of residence, withdrew. The capital Kalkhi and the Mesopotamian royal seat, Harran, in which Shalmaneser had rebuilt the temple of the sun-god, were the only important cities which remained steadfast. Shalmaneser, as it appears, found refuge himself in North Babylonia which then belonged to him. The leader of the insurrection was Shaltaaneser's son,

 

 

ASHUR-DANIN-PAL, 829-824,

 

who held the throne for at least six years, and certainly bore the title "king of Ashur," as the old capital was in his possession. In 825 Shalmaneser died, and his son,

 

SHAMSHI-ADAD, 825-812,

 

although at first in possession of Mesopotamia only, and, therefore, only "king of the World," reconquered Assyria. The only inscription of his that we have brings us to his fourth expedition, which was directed against Babylonia. The first one was to the Nairi-Lands, and connected therewith he secured obeisance from the entire Assyrian kingdom from its northermost to its southern boundary and from its eastern line to the Euphrates. As yet there were no Assyrian provinces in Syria. The second of his expeditions was also toward the Nairi-Lands, and this time he passed through the region between Lake Van and the Urumia Sea, and devastated also a part of Urartu, whose king, Ispuinis, the son of Sarduris I, Shamshi-Adad calls Ushpina. Thither the third expedition went also, and, advancing as far as Man, circled the Urumia Sea and reached Parsua. Thence proceeding toward the southeast through Media it arrived probably at Holvan. Numerous Median districts are enumerated which he placed under tribute. In the stronghold Sibara, of the land of Gizilbunda, he set up a monolith statues of himself on which he inscribed an account of his victories in the Nairi-Lands. His fourth expedition was the one against Babylon and the narrative of it ends with his victory over Marduk-balatsu-iqbi.

 

From the reign of Shamshi-Adad onward we have another document which is an invaluable guide for the later period. One fragment of it refers to the beginning and end of the reign of Shalmaneser II. This is the Eponym Canon, a limmu-list, with a brief statement of some important event or events, generally with an expedition of each year added. It is especially valuable for the period following Tiglath-Pileser III, of which we possess few inscriptions. We have short inscriptions of

 

ADAD-NIRARI III, 812-783,

 

which give a brief general survey of his enterprises, and those we can supplement with the aid of the Eponym Canon. In general the work undertaken was a continuation of the conquests of his predecessors or the restoration of disaffected territories. It seems improbable that he made any important conquests. In the East he subjugated Ellipi, bordering on Elam, and Khar­khar and Araziash as far as Parsua, which are known to us from Shalmaneser's wars. Andia, on the northeast of Parsua, he conquered for the first time. Median chiefs were also compelled to pay tribute. Three expeditions were made to Khupuskia and the Nairi-Lands and two to Man. Urartu, however, continued to grow in power and he did not venture an attack upon her territory. In Syria, on the other hand, he won successes. In 806 and 805 he marched against Arpad and Azaz, and in 797 against the Syrian city Manzuate. It was probably in connection with this that Mari of Damascus paid tribute—possibly the result of a change of rulers. Tyre, Sidon, and Israel are also named among the tributary states, and Edom and Philistia were added by him to the number. This gives evidence of a dominant Assyrian influence and a consequent loss of prestige and power by Damascus in Palestine. But so long as she retained her independence she remained a bulwark of defence for the southern countries. Adad-nirari's relations to Babylonia have already been discussed under Babylonia.

 

We are but meagerly informed as to the inner movements of Oriental states, especially where we draw our information from royal, that is, official reports. In these the king does everything, even when he is no more than a puppet in the hands of his officials. The insurrections show clearly enough that other forces as well as the will and wisdom of the ruler determine the popular life, and that occasionally they culminate in volcanic eruptions. Tukulti-Ninib I and Shalmaneser II illustrate this fact instructively.

 

Besides the army, the leading role is played in the Orient by the priesthood, which often controls not only the minds of the people, but also a large part, often the largest part, of the landed property, and appears especially, in the role of the modern citizen, in trade and industry. Great movements from within whose deeper causes lead to social conflicts are, consequently, constantly bound up with similar ones in the priesthood. Every revolution receives a religious expression, for all thought and all law is religious; every party fights for the law, that is, for the true and uncorrupted will of the deity. The best known, and also the most instructive example up to the present is the reform, or revolution, of Amenophis IV, which rested on the worship of the sun-god as the only form in which the deity was revealed, and which sought to establish accordingly a monotheistic religion. Every inner movement must express itself in corresponding forms, and when we shall have gained a clearer view of the historical development of ancient Oriental civilizations these facts will be everywhere discoverable.

 

We can now point to only one such case in Assyria during the reign of Adad-nirari. We have a remarkable inscription upon statues of the god Nebo. These statues and the inscriptions, strange to say, were not dedicated by the king, but by one of his governors, Bel-tartsi-ilu-ma, whose authority extended over many provinces. He presented them "for the life of the king." With the king he also mentions his spouse, Sammuramat. Ever since this inscription was discovered efforts have been made to identify it with the legendary Semiramis. It may be that story has to do with a woman who played a leading part in a political revolution and, therefore, her name became adorned with legendary material—that is all that can be said of it. Of vastly more importance is the fact that Bel-tartsi-ilu-ma, who acts here the part of a major domus, plainly preaches in this text a religion quite different from the prevailing state religion, and a monotheistic one in the same sense as that of Amenophis IV. "Put thy trust in Nebo; trust not in another God" is the "essential" truth with which he closes his inscription, just as the Protestant reformers declared their fundamental position: "The word of God endureth forever." But this is a complete break with the old religion, and when Nebo is regarded as the only true manifestation of deity we appear to have a development of doctrine from the Assyrian point of view which corresponds to the theological position reached in the West—in Palestine. As the reform of Amenophis IV found its echo in Palestine—in Jerusalem and Tyre—so also in name at least, if not in effectiveness, did this one undertaken during the reign of Adad-nirari. Adad-nirari was the king who rescued Israel from her oppressor, Damascus, and whom Jonah found at Nineveh when he went there and found royal sympathy with his teaching.

 

We have no inscriptions of the following period and are consequently compelled to draw entirely from the Eponym Canon. The absence of inscriptions is evidence in itself of a time of weakness, and this is confirmed by the few established facts. In general, it may be said that the next forty years were spent in maintaining that which had been won previously, and this effort was not always crowned with success. We shall see when we come to the rise of power under Tiglath-Pileser that much had been lost and had to be regained. This was particularly true of the regions that lay within the sphere of interest of the new kingdom of Urartu. When Assyria ceased to attack she was herself attacked. This was the case from now on in Armenia, whose kings extended their sway southward and deprived Assyria of the Nairi­Lands and her control in North Syria. The successor of Adad-nirari III,

 

SHALMANESER III, 783-773,

 

was principally engaged in defensive wars against Urartu. Six out of his ten expeditions were against this new and advancing power. On the East, in the lands along the Median frontier, less loss seems to have been sustained; but there the states were in the main semi-barbarian and defectively organized. Two expeditions were sent hither to the land of Namri, in 749 and 748, and One advanced against the Medes in 766.

 

The next king was

 

ASHUR-DAN III, 773-764.

 

He marched several times into Syria, the first time against Damascus, and the second against Khatarikka to the north of it. Twice he advanced into Babylonia, in 771 and 767, where he sought to oppose the Chaldeans. The second half of his reign witnessed a weakening of his kingdom which compelled concentration of effort upon the maintenance of that which had been slowly accomplished in the tributary states. In 763 an insurrection broke out which, in the years that followed, was repeated in different quarters until by degrees a large part of the kingdom was involved. The Eponym Canon puts a division line before this year (the year which it tells us the eclipse of the sun occurred—a valuable notice for the determination of the old chronology) as it does before the beginning of a new reign; for, since the insurrection took place in Ashur, a rival king must have been called forth. What the deeper underlying cause may have been we are not informed, but it is not difficult to discover it, for the insurrec­tion originated in the old capital. When we consider that Tiglath-Pileser then chose Kalkhi again, and, on the other hand, that Sargon II restored to Ashur its privileges, we may infer that it way connected with a movement of the injured pries' hood of Babylon who suffered by a removal royal residence. The Eponym Canon does not name the king who was raised to the throne by the insurrection, but from various statements it is clear that he was recognized as king. He was

 

ADAD-NIRARI IV, 763-755,

 

whose filial relation to his predecessor did not necessarily prevent opposition to his father. He in turn experienced the same treatment from his son, who rebelled against him. According to the view of the Eponym Canon, which is that of the capital Ashur, the latter, it is true, is only a repression of the insurrection by

 

ASHUR-NIRARI II, 754-746,

 

who was clearly influenced by the ancient capital, for the first act of his reign was to make Ashur his residence. This means that the hierarchy triumphed over the army on which Assyria's strength rested. Therewith, the kingdom, in giving up its only support, acted fatally for itself. Ashur-nirari ruled eight years, during which, with one exception, according to the Eponym Canon, he was "in the land," that is, there was no war. But from the same source we learn that in 746 there was an "insurrection in Kalkhi," and the following year Tiglath-Pileser III ascended the throne. We know from his inscriptions that he resided in Kalkhi and that he was not of the royal line. It thus appears that he ascended the throne as the result of a military insurrection. Ashur-nirari II, who ruled in Ashur under the influence of the priests, was the last of his house. As in the case of his predecessors none of his inscriptions have been discovered. But we have a valuable document which presents an agreement made between him and Mati-il of Arpad (Arvad), wherein the latter acknowledges Assyrian sovereignty. It was probably drawn up during the expedition to the West in 754. The wars of Tiglathpileser III show how much value this agreement had. It is one of the numerous examples of prevailing conditions at this and other times in Western Asia, and is an instructive illustration of Palestinian conditions ten years later.

 

From sources not yet authentically published it seems, nevertheless, that Tiglath-Pileser may have been the son of Adad-nirari IV. That would harmonize perfectly with the view of Assyria's internal politics presented above.

 

CHAPTER VI. THE NEW ASSYRIAN KINGDOM : ASSYRIA THE PARAMOUNT POWER IN WESTERN ASIA

 

 

A NEW period of Assyrian history begins with

 

TIGLATHPILESER III, 745-728.

 

With him there came an advance in power which made Assyria the ruling power of Western Asia. It was he who laid the foundations of Assyria's fame. This is the period when Assyria subjugated Damascus and Palestine. Thus she entered into the history of that little people whose literary remains were for so long the best known of antiquity, and which for two thousand years preserved the name of Assyria while her own monumental records lay beneath the earth and no man knew what language she had spoken.

 

Tiglathpileser's wars fall under three geographical heads: viz., in Babylonia, the North, and Syria-Palestine with Damascus. His successes in Babylonia have already been described. In the North he had to fight against Urartu, now vigorous grown. In the West tribute was withheld since the last war, 773, and, owing to the weakness of Assyria, Damascus had risen again to strength.

 

After the Babylonian expedition during the first year, 745, and one against Western Media in the second year, war broke out two years later, in 742, with Sarduris II of Armenia. The latter had in the meantime gone forth to conquer without reserve. Melitene, Commagene (Kummukh), the northern part of Patin, and Gurgum, he subjugated and compelled their kings to pay tribute to him instead of to Assyria. Then he entered into an agreement with Mati-il of Agusi who resided in Arpad, the centre of his little kingdom. On the advance of Sarduri Mati-il joined forces with him, whether voluntarily, with the hope of winning advantages, or under compulsion, it matters not—it is the old story of the small state ground between the upper and the nether millstones of the larger powers. According to the Eponym Chronicle Tiglath-Pileser appeared in 743 before Arpad, doubtless against Mati-il, when an Armenian army led by Sarduris fell upon Mesopotamia. Sarduris was worsted in the region of Kummukh and pursued to the "Bridge of the Euphrates, the boundary of his land," and thus an end was put to his inroads into Mesopotamia. Further measures against him had to be postponed. The following three years were spent in expeditions "against Arpad." Mati-il must, therefore, have offered an energetic resistance. After his fall the majority of the Syrian princes paid tribute, among them Kustaspi of Kummukh, and Tarkhulara of Gurgum which, there­fore, seceded from Urartu, further Rezon of Damascus, Hiram of Tyre, the prince of Kue, and Pisiris of Carchemish. Assyria's rule in Syria was consequently restored during these three years and Urartu driven out. Only a part of Patin, Unqi (that is, the Amq) joined the capital city Kinalia, or Kunalua, in opposition for which its prince Tutammu lost his throne and this part of the land was made into an Assyrian province.

 

In the following year, 739, Ulluba, one of the Nairi-Lands, was brought under Assyrian rule. This was, of course, a blow at Armenia, from which this region was taken. It was fortified so that it might be able to withstand her attacks and bore the name "Fortress-land." It formed, therefore, a kind of military borderland, and the Assyrian precaution in constructing a line of forts shows what a dangerous enemy Urartu had become. Azriyau I the prince of Yaudi, bordering on Samal-Sendjirli revolted and his city, Kullani, was conquered. This event cast its shadow down to Israel and Judah, and Isaiah, the prophet, pointed to Calno as an example of warning. A number of North Phoenician districts—where Ashur-natsir-pal had founded his Assyrian colony, Aribua, and which now belonged to Hamath­also joined Azriyau and shared his fate. Out of these the Assyrian province Tsimirra, stretching from the Orontes to Gebal, was formed, but it did not include Gebal or Arvad which remained independent. This new Phoenician province, which was enlarged in 733, was given by Tiglath-Pileser to his son Shalmaneser as governor. Thus a part of the frontier lands of Damascus passed over to Assyria. Damascus itself as well as the other Syrian and Phoenician states, Kummukh, Carchemish, Samal, and Gurgum in the Amq, Hamath, Rue, Gebal, Tyre, and Menahem of Israel paid tribute, and from the biblical account it appears that the latter paid only when part of his territory had been taken. So, too, the larger circle of states which once had been subject to Shalmaneser again paid tribute: Melitene, Kasku, Tabal, and principalities in Cappadocia and Cilicia. Now that the Assyrian king was feudal lord of Damascus he received presents also from the Arab king, Zabibi.

 

Expeditions were sent against Media and Nairi in 737 and 736, the principal object being to break the power of Urartu in these quarters. The following year the war was carried into the enemy's country; Urartu was traversed and Tiglathpileser besieged the citadel Thuruspa (Van), but in vain. He was obliged to withdraw after setting up his royal image before the eyes of the besieged. He, however, incorporated the southern part of Urartu with the province of Nairi, and this was a serious blow to the kingdom. The border provinces were also fortified and the possibilities of advance were thereby lessened. This put an end to the rule of Urartu over Syria and Nairi, but her plans for conquest were not abandoned until her strength was broken by Sargon and the Gimmirail (Cimmerians) appeared a threatening foe on the western side.

 

Up to this time Damascus had paid its tribute; but nothing was so certain as the uncertainty of the tributary states to Assyria. On the one hand the demands were so high that the tribute could only be wrung out of them by feudal princes; on the other, this state of affairs was a constant temptation to revolt whenever there was the slightest hope. Moreover, tributary states may have been provoked to revolt in order to furnish an excuse for incorporating them as provinces (compare the dealings of the Romans with their Socii). In 734 an expedition was made to Philistia and Askalon was put under Assyrian control. It was evident that all Palestine must yield with Damascus. But soon afterward Damascus broke loose. Rezon and his vassal, Pekah of Israel, had shut up Ahaz of Judah in Jerusalem in order to compel him to join with them and Tyre in a coalition against Assyria in which help was expected from Egypt. Ahaz appealed for help, and in 733 Tiglathpileser's troops stood before Damascus? On the approach of the Assyrian army the pro-Assyrian party of Israel revolted and deposed Pekah and appointed Hosea, their own leader, king in his stead. This well-timed revolt robbed Tiglath-Pileser of a pretext for interference. A brief respite of ten to twelve years was thus purchased, but Israel's fate was only postponed. As previously, Damascus offered successful resistance; but at last, in the year 732, she became an Assyrian province. Israel, already weakened by loss of territory, stood now in immediate contact with an Assyrian province: the state which had before dominated her politically and was her guide in cultural development was now under the rule of an Assyrian governor I Tyre also, the rich mercantile city, which could most easily pay its tribute, made her peace on the approach of the Assyrian army.

 

The next years were devoted to the conquest of Babylonia and Babylon. For two years Tiglath-Pileser ruled as king of Babylon, and in 728 he died. He was succeeded by his son,

 

 SHALMANESER IV, 727-722.

 

His reign is only an appendage to that of his father's, whose policy he appears to have closely followed. None of his own inscriptions have come down to us. During his reign Samaria was again forced to withhold her tribute, but the help that was hoped for from Egypt failed, and, after a siege of three years, the city was taken and an Assyrian governor appointed. Thus the Assyrian boundary was extended southward almost to Jerusalem. Before the fall of Samaria Shalmaneser died, and the conquest is, therefore, attributed to

 

SARGON II, 722-705.

 

This Sargon, like Tiglath-Pileser, was the founder of a new dynasty, and he became king as the result of a reaction against the same movement which placed Tiglath-Pileser upon the throne. His statements about his predecessor's acts which he nullified reveal the nature of this inner movement that had already manifested itself in the insurrections of Ashur-danin-apli and of the year 763.

 

Tiglath-Pileser, therefore, strove to limit the powerful influence of the priesthood and the larger cities' privileges which were also of priestly origin. They were in possession of unlimited rights and exempt from almost every burden. When we consider that the largest part of the landed property also belonged to them it is clear the income of the state grew constantly less, and clear also why the Assyrian kingdom became at the last so powerless—it was priest-ridden. This also determined the attitude of Assyrian kings toward Babylon. Tiglath-Pileser, Shalmaneser, Sennacherib, Ashurbanipal, all took energetic measures against her, Sargon and Esar­haddon favored her. It was here that the freedom enjoyed by the priesthood and the cities and that induced the national weakness was most insisted upon. Tiglath-Pileser and Shalmaneser sought to put an end to the system, and in their effort must have looked to the agricultural class, such as still existed, for support, not because the kings were particularly interested in the plight of the "poor man," but rather with a view to conditions that would yield more taxes and provide subjects more fit for service. They were aware, however, that a kingdom which depended upon the cities and the, hierarchy could maintain itself only so long as it had advantages to offer them.

 

From this point on we are able to follow the active opposition of the two contending parties in Assyria—the violent changes of rulers reveal it clearly. It is self-evident that a drawing together of the privileged cities and temples resulted in no good to the country population, which at best only furnished the masses for a movement. In reality, indeed, it turned on the antithesis between land and city, but the land was actually represented by the nobility who partly controlled the army. Consequently, Tiglath-Pileser and Shalmaneser were under their influence. Sargon, who was raised to the throne by the opposite party, favored the cities and temples and restored to them their former privileges. Sennacherib again represented the nobility and army as is clear even in his conduct toward Babylon. He was murdered, and with Esarhaddon the Babylonian hierarchical party triumphed. Then when he tried to secure the throne for his son Shamash-shum-ukin, who was similarly disposed, an insurrection broke out, and, by the enthrone­ment of Ashurbanipal, the Assyrian nobility was victorious. These are the two political factors which from now on determine Assyrian history. When Tiglath-Pileser ascended the throne a well defined and conscious opposition between them was developed.

 

Thus in the year 722 when Shalmaneser IV died Sargon, who was not of royal descent, was suddenly placed upon the throne, but despite his descent he became the head of the royal house under which Assyria witnessed the climax of its power and its rapid fall. His reign, which in internal affairs was the opposite of Tiglathpileser's, was externally a continuation and completion of that which had been begun by the latter. That he effected it with other means than his predecessor we have already seen. From now on the Assyrian army was composed of mercenary troops, gathered from all lands and provinces, wholly at command of the king so long as he was able to provide them with money and plunder, but instantly recalcitrant when these failed. Henceforth it was the "royal" army that held the Orient in check. Assyrian rule thereby devolved upon a government (according to Oriental custom—plundering) by the nobility and hierarchy. An Assyrian people, to whom Shalmaneser I and Ashur-natsir-pal had assigned land in conquered provinces, no longer existed. Now when the king wishes to settle a conquered region with new settlers he must resort to an exchange of peoples from different quarters of his kingdom. The agricultural class in Assyria was destroyed: there remained only large estates of the nobility or the temple cultivated by slaves or homeless hirelings.

 

The wars of Sargon are, in the main, only a continuation of his predecessors on the old battlegrounds—in Babylonia with the Chaldeans and Elam, in the North with Urartu, and in Palestine where he sought further conquests.

 

His successes in Babylonia we know already. In Palestine, as we have just mentioned, Samaria was incorporated and "the ten tribes carried into captivity," a fact which gives importance to the name of Sargon for the student of the Old Testament, though it was clearly the result of the siege by Shalmaneser IV. Up to this time Hamath, north of Damascus in Syria, had warded off the blow by prompt payment of tribute, but it had evidence in 738 of Assyria's altruism in the way of "benevolent assimilation" when the rebellious Hamathite cities were taken and incorporated in the province of Tsimirra. Hamath's hopes must have been quickened by a change of rulers in Assyria, and so in 720 we find the subservient king, Eni-il, dethroned and a "rustic" Yaubidi in his stead in open opposition to Assyria. Hanno of Gaza, who was compelled to submit to Tiglath-pileser, united with him. Evidently both of them had put their trust in Egypt. They were also supported by the peoples of North Arabia whose marts were in Gaza, and who consequently paid tribute to Assyria. The newly established provinces of Arpad, Tsimmirra, Damascus, and Samaria also joined them, incited thereto by Yaubidi. Thus the greater part of Syria and Palestine tried to rid itself of Assyrian dominion or tribute. But the effort of the allies failed to bring about concerted action—a common defect of petty states in such undertakings. Hamath was conquered and placed under tribute and Yaubidi flayed. Hanno, who with the help of an Arabian force was trying to conquer Gaza, not as yet in his hands apparently, was repulsed at Raphia, on the southern border of Gaza's territory. The rebellious provinces were easily subdued. Peace reigned again in Syria and Palestine.

 

Sargon was now at liberty to confront his third enemy, Urartu. There Rusas I had again sought to bring North Syria and the bordering Median states on the east under his influence, and apparently his project found approval. Sargon saw the immediate necessity, as Tiglath-Pileser did during his reign, of subjecting this faithless vassal. In 719 two cities of Man (on the west coast of the Urumia Sea), whose king held to Assyria despite the influence of Urartu, were overrun and plundered because they had gone over to the Indo-Germanic tribe, Zigirtu, which favored Urartu. The same fate befell a couple more cities that revolted to Urartu. In 718 Kiakki, one of the princes of Tabal in Cappadocia, who had thrown off the Assyrian yoke, was carried captive with 7,350 of his troops and his capital delivered over to a neighboring loyalist, Matti of Atun. The inhabitants of these regions were separated in the main by the Taurus, from Syria the particular field of interest to Assyria. They naturally belonged to Asia Minor. They entered their territory during the last Hittite immigration which, as we have seen, occurred in the time of Tiglath-Pileser I. The relation they occupied to the old Hittite kingdom on the Halys and to the west of it corresponded to that sustained to Assyria by the petty Syrian states which she was forced to subdue in the period following Shalmaneser II. One of these peoples which meets us most frequently at that time is the Muski. They had taken possession of the land of the Khatti, the old Kheta kingdom, and there played a part similar to that played, as we have often seen, in the countries of the Euphrates by the different immigrants, the Kassites, Chaldeans, etc. Just as the Old Testament spoke of the Babylon of Nebuchadrezzar and its rulers as Chaldean, so the people who occupied the seat of the old kingdom of Khatti could be designated Muski. After the eleventh century new immigrations arrived in these regions; and after Sargon's time, in the seventh century, we witness the intrusion of the Indo-Germanic tribes. A new population arose, or the old was greatly modified by the new, and thus a new name might be given to the regions as happened in the case of the Muski.

 

A glance at the historical development of these peoples and states readily explains why a well known figure of classical tradition comes before us under a different name in the inscriptions of Sargon. The ruler in Asia Minor who attempted to oppose the advance of Sargon in the direction of Armenia and in Cilicia (Kue), and who represented the strongest of the powers of Asia Minor is Mita of Muski, that is, Midas, king of Phrygia, with whom the earliest Greek traditions of Asia Minor begin. In his opposition to Sargon he shows that the mantle of the old kings of Khatti had fallen upon him.

 

Karchemish, that had paid tribute from the time of Ashur-natsir-pal, fell in 717. Assyrian oppressions had exhausted the patience even of this wealthy city and goaded her to hopeless war. Here again the consciousness of the old historical connection appears to view. Karchemish had always been the advance post of the Khatti power in Syria; her kings were sometimes briefly called kings of Khatti. Now again she turned for support against Assyria to the master of the old Khatti kingdom on the Halys. But the Asiatic power of Muski-Phrygia was no match for Assyria. The protection of Midas (Mita) availed no more in bringing help to the vassal against Assyria than Egypt, or earlier Mutsri, did in warding off Sennacherib from Judah. Pisiris was the last king of Karchemish—and the last. remnant of the Khatti kingdom in Syria now became an Assyrian province.

 

In 716 and 715 war was again waged in the east of Urartu where Rusas, having abandoned Syria and turned eastward, had attempted in the meantime to take Man by force. By exciting certain tribes to insurrection and regicide he succeeded in placing on the throne Ullusunu, son of the murdered king. But before the party friendly to Urartu had time to establish themselves Sargon appeared with his troops and forced their appointee to do homage. His little kingdom had been overrun, fifty-five of Rusas' walled cities had been burned, and he had sought refuge in the mountains; but a timely supplication to the conqueror saved him his life and with it his partly ruined kingdom and capital. In his palace Sargon set up his stele with his royal image and " the might of Ashur" engraved thereon as a reminder for future days. The prince of Nairi and other chiefs of these regions followed Ullusunu's example.

 

In 714 the war was continued in Urartu. Proceeding from Man through Mutsatsir, whose conquest he represented in the sculptures of his palace, Sargon advanced toward Lake Van, devastating the land. Rusas, when he heard of the havoc wrought in Mutsatsir and of the capture of the prince's family and gods, ended his life with his girdle dagger, although Sargon failed to effect a complete conquest of his land. From now on, however, the power of Urartu as a rival of Assyria was broken. It was now compelled to contend for its existence with the Kimmerians, the new enemy already mentioned, upon its northern border. But, while Assyria had disposed of an enemy she had thereby weakened the natural barrier against the imminent danger of being overrun by the Indo-Germanic hordes. She had already come into conflict with the van of this movement in the above mentioned Zigirtu. The Assyrian army officers in the border provinces of the North were thereafter compelled to keep a close watch upon the struggles between Urartu and the Kimmerians and other related tribes. In the reign of Esarhaddon, the latter, as we shall see, have already begun to threaten Assyrian territory.

 

Of the earlier land of Patin many districts were already incorporated in Syria. Under Sargon the remainder, viz., Gurgum, with its capital Marqasi (Marash), was included. Kue and other Cappadocian districts, among which was Kam­manu, which represented the earlier Mutsri in Anti-Taurus, Melitene, and Kummukh, were reduced to Assyrian provinces as the result of futile attempts to win their liberty. Therewith the limit of Assyria's extension on her northwest border was attained. Near the close of Sargon's reign the governor of Kue attempted to push across beyond the Taurus to curb the predatory desires of Mita of Muski, who was trying to advance there as well as against the northwest of Assyria.

 

When the occupation of Babylon was effected by Sargon he received presents from seven Greek "kings." This is the earliest attested contact with "Ionians." The princes who offered their homage were on the west of the island, and they sought assistance from Assyria in their efforts to dislodge the Phoenicians of Tyre from the East. Here again, as in the case of Midas; we see connections with Greek history long before there is any connected Greek tradition.

 

Ashdod alone, in Southern Palestine, relying upon Arab support, refused her tribute. It is noteworthy because of the mention of Ashdod's capture in Isaiah XX. This revolt in the immediate neighborhood must have been followed with hope and anxiety in Judah. According to Sargon Judah was also plotting with Moab and Ammon against Assyria, though it never came to open revolt, when an Assyrian army fell upon Ashdod and there founded an Assyrian colony.

 

In the East Elam was unable to accomplish anything in Babylonia after the expulsion of Merodach-baladan. But the opposition of the two rivals found expression over a struggle for the throne of the borderland Ellipi. There two brothers contested each other's claims, the one seeking the support of Elam, the other that of Sargon. Nibe, the protégé of Elam, won at first in the conflict over his brother Ispabara, but the latter finally triumphed with the help of Sargon.

 

Near the end of Sargon's rule the great palace which he had been building at Khorsabad, north of Nineveh, at the foot of the mountain, was completed, and in 707 it was entered with all the pomp of religion and magnificence of state. The capital was thus removed from Kalkhi, although Sargon ascended the throne by the aid of the party which there found its chief support. But, on account of its location, it was no longer suitable as the seat of government. Therefore the new capital was founded, to which Sargon gave the name Dur­Sharrukin (Sargon's City), following the example of his somewhat legendary ideal whose name he assumed at the time of his accession. "Sargon II" was the name given him by his faithful scribes who were prepared to furnish scientific evidence—always on hand for the successful conqueror—that he, by divine decree and the natural course of events, was the one ordained to introduce a new era and fulfil the expectations of the nation.

 

The inscriptions and the sculptures of the palace of Dur-Sharrukin, the first of all to be excavated, are the main source for the history of his reign. He died in 705. The details of his death are wanting. According to a statement of Sennacherib he met with a violent death and "was not buried in his house," that is, he did not receive a customary burial. The only explanation of this is that he fell in battle with barbarians as Cyrus did. These were to be found almost alone on the northern border of Assyria in the Indo-Germanic tribes, the Kimmerians, and "Scythians." We naturally think first of the Scythians. The exultant paean of Isa. 14, 4-21, was composed, in all probability, on the occasion of the unexpected death of Sargon and afterward applied to a king of Babylon. The hopes which it aimed to arouse were not wanting: Palestine and Phoenicia attempted a widespread revolt.

 

SENNACHERIB, 704-681.

 

Sennacherib was at first engaged in Babylonia, and his second expedition was directed toward the Zagros, where he chastised the Kashshu, a remnant of the old Kassites, and also the Yasu­bigalli. Then, in 701, he turned toward Palestine.

 

Here the moving spirits in the insurrection were Luli of Tyre, and Hezekiah of Judah. Luli was "king of the Sidonians." He possessed Tyre and Sidon and a territory that reached from the south of Beirut to Philistia. Moreover, the eastern part of Cyprus was his with the most important city, Kition, or Carthage. We have already seen. the western part was held by the "Ionians" and friendly to Assyria because of its opposition to the Phoenicians. Hope of help from Merodach-baladan was also entertained, but he was quickly driven off. Promises had come likewise from the Arab princes, and later on Arabian auxiliaries arrived. That Hezekiah was the leader of the insurrection is clear from the fact that the party opposed to Assyria in Ekron delivered into his hands Padi, its king, who favored Assyria. This was the development of events between 705 and 702.

 

When in 701 Sennacherib set out and marched along the coast of Phoenicia, leaving behind a rock-hewn image of himself on the Nahr-el-Kelb, it was again evident that each power expected the others to destroy the much feared tyrant—concerted action was wanting. The Phoenician cities, Arvad and Gebal, the southern kingdoms, those of Philistia, and Judah's neighbors, Ammon, Moab and Edom paid tribute. Luli abandoned Sidon and fled to Cyprus where he soon afterward died. Tyre alone resisted and held out against the siege of Sennacherib. In Sidon a new king, Ithobal, was appointed, thus rending the "kingdom of Sidon" in twain. He then advanced southward against Judah, where Hezekiah held out, trusting to the help coming from Arabia. He conquered Ekron, beat the relief army made up of Arab troops belonging to the princes of Mutsri and the king of Melukha, and gradually reduced 46 fortified cities. He then besieged the capital on all sides. The defenders held out, trusting that disturbances would break out in Babylon, and, in fact, Sennacherib was compelled to withdraw without the surrender of Jerusalem. Judah's independence—for the present—was saved. Hezekiah had, it is true, lost the greater part of his territory, for the conquered cities were apportioned to his neighbors, and he made haste to regain them.

 

After the destruction of Babylon in 689, Sennacherib was again free to act in the West. Meantime some minor wars were waged in Cappadocia (Khilakku), and in Kammanu, the province founded by Sargon. Attempts of the "Ionians" to land in Cilicia were also frustrated. No more great conquests were made here and the territorial limits were not enlarged by the erection of new provinces.    In 701 Tyre had successfully defended herself against siege and maintained her independence. The Arabs who came to the help of Hezekiah were repulsed, but Sennacherib was unable to mete out chastisement upon them. It appears as if he now undertook an expedition into Northwestern Arabia (Melukha) and Egypt. Jerusalem also anticipated attack, but fortune was again favorable. The Assyrian army did not even touch the land. Possibly on the march to Egypt it may have been overtaken in Arabia by plague or have succumbed to the unfavorable climate. Sennacherib was compelled with the loss of his army to return to Nineveh. There the fate of so many Oriental kings overtook him; in an insurrection he was put to death by one of his sons.

 

 

CHAPTER VII. THE DECLINE

 

 

SENNACHERIB's reign was nowhere successful. He made an energetic attempt to solve the Babylonian problem, and, apparently, not without success. But even in Babylonia he got as many blows from Elam as he gave. In 694, while his army was plundering Elam, the Elamites laid waste Northern Babylonia and took captive his son, Ashur-nadin-shum. Compared with Tiglath­Pileser and Sargon he failed in the West, being powerless to take either Tyre or Jerusalem. Neither in the East toward Media, nor in the West in Asia Minor, where his predecessors had made important conquests, did he succeed in making any noteworthy additions to the provincial territory. When we look to the North we discover no evidences that he made any effort to check the threatened danger from that quarter, where, both in Urartu and Man, the Indo-Germanic tribes were constantly spreading.

 

His failures explain his end. He owed his ascent to the throne to the military party, and, when he lost his army, he fell a victim of the rival faction, the "Babylonian." Within the latter there must, nevertheless, have been different tendencies. The actual and natural leader was clearly

 

ESARHADDON, 680-669,

 

under whose administrative authority Babylonia was at the time. But one of his brothers must have attempted to anticipate Esarhaddon's accession to the throne of Assyria, and it was, doubtless, he who instigated the insurrection in which Sennacherib was murdered while "he was worshipping in the house of Nisroch, his god." Esarhaddon advanced against his foe and defeated the insurrectionists in Melitene, whither they had fled in hope of help from Armenia, the implacable enemy of Assyria. Therewith, Esarhaddon became king of Assyria and Babylonia.

 

In internal affairs Esarhaddon's policy was opposed to that of his predecessors, his most abiding work being the rebuilding of Babylon. The natural results followed: Babylonian culture revived, and the dominion over Western Asia was assured. For Assyria herself, the master of the hour, it proved fatal. In other respects Esarhaddon appeals to us as one of the most sympathetic figures in Assyrian history. He showed unwonted clemency to political offenders. Above all, his court must have been the centre of literary activities which evidently drew their inspiration from the monarch whose inclinations were strongly Babylonian. Ashurbanipal, his son, boasts of the literary education he received and to it we owe the priceless collection of his library.

 

Apart from the useless conquest of Egypt the Assyrian kingdom was not materially enlarged under Esarhaddon, as it had not been under his father, and was not later. His military undertakings resulted in general only in the maintenance and defence of the conquered territory. This, it is true, is in noteworthy contradiction to the idea, due to the influence of old Babylonian traditions, of a Babylonian world-power realized by him. At the very beginning of his reign, as the result of the expeditions against Arabia by Sennacherib, Esarhaddon proclaims himself master of a territory which corresponds to that of Naram­Sin. Even the old Babylonian designations are used in order to make his time appear as a renaissance of that age of Babylonia's highest achievements—"king of Suri (Mesopotamia and Western Asia Minor), Gutium, Amurru, Khatti-land, king of the kings of Dilmun, Magan and Melukha."

 

These are the titles he assumes even prior to his expeditions against Arabia and the one connected therewith in which Egypt was conquered. His rule was to re-establish the old Babylonian world-power and Babylon was to be the capital. Attempts at revolt by the Chaldeans were not wanting in Babylonia, but they never resulted in the recognition of a prince.

 

In the "Sea-Land," Nabu-zer-kitti-lishir, a grandson of Merodach­Baladan's, attempted the conquest of South Babylonia, advancing as far as Ur, but was compelled by an Assyrian army to flee to Elam. There, contrary to precedent, instead of meeting with a friendly reception, he was put to death. His brother, Naid-Marduk, concluded that refuge in Elam was more dangerous than to be in the den of the lion, and, returning to Nineveh, received both pardon and the premiership of the Sea-Land.

 

The conditions that resulted from the destruction of Babylon and the character of the Chaldeans are alike illustrated by the treatment of Bit-Dakuri. This tribe had quickly taken possession of the exposed territory of Babylon and that of the neighboring Borsippa. The restoration of Babylon made it necessary to deprive them by force of their unlawfully seized possessions. Their "king," Shamash-ibni, was deposed, the lands returned, and Nabiasallim of another family was appointed to rule. At a later period, under Shamash-shum-ukin, he appears again, in a transaction relating to the property and legal rights of certain towns in the territory of Bit-Dakari.

 

Khumba-khaldash of Elam, as we have seen, offered no refuge to the grandson of Merodach-Baladan. But, in the year 674, he wrought serious havoc in Northern Babylonia, which he plundered as far as Sippar. Esarhaddon was no more able than Sargon and Sennacherib to carry the war into the inaccessible territory of this dangerous enemy. On the contrary, he limited his efforts to securing the obedience of the Gambuli, on the Elamite border at the mouth of the Tigris, whose chief, Shapi-Bel, he intrusted with the protection of the boundary after he had strengthened his stronghold for that purpose. In this he followed an age-long policy of Oriental states. With the successor of Khumba-kbaldash, his brother Urtaki, the relations with Esarhaddon became more friendly. The gods which had been carried off from Sippar in the spring he sent back and received aid in return from Esarhaddon in view of a famine that had in the meantime broken out in Elam. The famine made for friendship.

 

In the West Tyre had maintained her resistance from 701 on; and, moreover, from about 694 she was backed by Egypt under the ambitious Kushite, Taharqu. Sidon, too, that was separated from Tyre by Sennacherib, revolted in 678 under the new king, Abd-milkot, Ithobal's successor. She was conquered and the old city that was situated, like Tyre and Arvad, upon an island was destroyed with the national sanctuary of all the "Sidonians." A new city was built upon the mainland, which the conqueror named Kar-Esarhaeldon and an Assyrian governor was stationed within it. Sidon thereafter remained a province and, probably, was not ruled by her own kings until the Persian period. Esarhaddonburg, which probably bore the name of Sidon also, formed the nucleus of the later city. A Cilician prince, Sanduarri of Kundil and Sizu, were in alliance with Abd-milkot. After three years' opposition their citadels fell before the Assyrians, and the heads of Sanduarri and Sizu were carried to Nineveh almost at the same time as that of Abd-milkot.

 

The resistance of Tyre was more stubbornly maintained. The "island" Sidon must have lain close to land, but the island Tyre offered greater difficulty to the besieger, and was first taken by Alexander by means of his famous dam which thereafter united it with the mainland. On his way to Egypt Esarhaddon attempted the reduction of Tyre, and besieged it on the land side by taking possession of Usu, that lay close by, and cutting off the islanders' access to the water by the erection of earthworks. But the island being open to the sea held out, until the news arrived from Egypt in 670 that Taharqu was defeated. Baral, the king, then concluded that further resistance would be fruitless and submitted to tribute, accepting, at the same time, the condition usually imposed, namely, that the territorial status quo should remain unchanged. In other words, he was to hold the island-city, Tyre, while the territory on the mainland that had been seized by the Assyrians was made into an Assyrian. province.

 

In the same year, 670, the monolith of Esarhaddon which represents Taharqu and Baral kneeling as captives at his feet was erected at Senjirli, in Northern Syria. The royal images had been sculptured and all that remained to do was to add the inscription. Suddenly, however, Taharqu returned to Egypt, and Baral, who had nothing more to lose, again revolted. It is better, therefore, to ignore the close of the inscription, which goes on to tell of Baral's subjection.

 

When, however, in 668 Taharqu was driven back the second time, and Tyre had endured the siege five years, from 673 to 678, probably without interruption, Baral again submitted. Tyre, since she was not conquered, kept her independence though reduced to the island. But her possessions on the mainland remained under Assyrian control.

 

The possession of all the trading towns on the Syrian coast, and especially of Gaza, the terminus of the caravan road, as well as of Edona, through which this road passed, connecting Syria and Yemen, brought Assyria into close touch with the Arab tribes who conducted the overland trade. They had previously offered their homage to Tiglath-Pileser and Sargon. Sennacherib afterward attempted the subjugation of the Arabs of the steppes. On one expedition which ended in the destruction of his arm' he reduced the "kingdom" of Aribi, took its capital and deported its queen and gods to Assyria. The latter were returned by Esarhaddon after he had bound the land by an oath of fealty. His army further went on exploiting expeditions, which are recounted with certain embellishments, far into West Arabia (Melukha)  as well as toward the East, into Yemama. Probably they penetrated farther into the interior of Arabia than any other armies except possibly those of Sargon I and Naram-Sin in their conquests in Magan and Melukba.

 

The murmurs of discontent were naturally always to be heard on the borders of Cilicia and Cappadocia. Esarhaddon tells of an excursion he made into the region of Dua, in the Taurus range adjoining Tabal. Melid (that is, Malatia) was conquered by Mukallu, who was possibly a chief of Tabal, or of some related tribe, and he with Ishkallu of Tabal threatened the Assyrian possessions. But concerning this the scribes of Esarhaddon remained silent. We know of it only from the questions addressed to the oracle of Shamash, the sun-god, questions which show that Assyrian possessions in Asia Minor were on the wane. What contributed to this change in the former Khatti-land we know not. The Kimmerians no doubt even then participated in the disturbances. The death of Midas of Phrygia is attributed to them.

 

From the same oracles we are best informed as to the Indo-Germanic movements in Armenia. The governors of the border provinces no longer report defeats suffered by Urartu at the hands of the Kimmerians as they did in the time of Sennacherib. Now the oracle of the sun-god is anxiously asked whether the Kimmerians, Saparda, Ashkuza, Medes, who are devastating the neighboring regions, will spare the Assyrian provinces; or, whether the Assyrian troops will succeed in relieving besieged places, or in retaking others that have been lost. The triumphant notes of Sargon's reports are no longer heard. Though Esarhaddon tells of victories over Kimmerians and Ashkuza he chronicles no permanent results. The conclusion is justified that, at the best, these victories were confined to outposts, if, indeed, they were not merely successful rear-guard actions. On the whole the decline of Assyrian power in this quarter is evident. A stage is reached where Assyrians and barbarians begin to meet on equal footing. In view of the danger which threatened from the Kimmerians, Esarhaddon sought and found an ally in the Ashkuza, to whose king, Bar­tatua, he gave his daughter in marriage. This same tribe, as we shall see, was in alliance with Assyria in her last days.

 

The expeditions in the direction of Media were also ineffectual. There Indo-Germanic activity witnessed an increase after the disappearance of Namri and Parsua. It was certainly not difficult for a trained Assyrian army to annihilate, here and there, individual hordes and districts and bring back their captives and plunder. But the expeditions to the "Salt deserts," on the south­east of the Caspian Sea, and as far as Demavend, secured nothing of permanence. Fresh tribes immediately came to the front, and when one wave of the rising flood had spent itself it was quickly succeeded by another. The doom of the ancient civilization of the Orient, despite all the boasted victories, was here irresistibly sealed. It is, however, no reflection upon the Assyrian king that he failed to see the greatness of the danger and acquire new resources by the conquest of other lands. One success lie won which none of his predecessors had achieved—and the question whether it was achieved by a Babylonian monarch prior to the year 2000 remains to be answered by new discoveries—he conquered Egypt. In doing so he but followed the dictates of necessity. Conquest was imperative. Assyria's mercenary army, whose spears were still her only support, needed both employment and booty. Considerations of state were, however, not wholly wanting.

 

Egypt as well as the countries of the Euphrates looked toward Palestine. If the use of the havens on the Mediterranean were necessary to the latter Palestine, nevertheless, lay contiguous to Egypt and was richer in promise in case she desired to expand. The history of these lands, accordingly, as far as we know it, shows Egypt either in possession of Palestine or struggling to regain it. In every revolt against Assyria Egypt was in­volved, though the help she promised was rarely given. "The broken reed that pierced the hand of him who leaned thereon" is the descriptive phrase Isaiah coined with reference to Egypt and her false promises of assistance. The uninterrupted disturbances in Palestine counseled a repression of the fomenter of discord. Sennacherib had attempted that on his last expedition when he lost his army.

 

Esarhaddon took up the task the more eagerly as the Ethiopian, Taharqu, against whom Sennacherib's expedition was directed, had reunited Egypt and was more ambitious of conquest than the last of the Pharaohs. We have already seen that he participated in the revolt of Tyre in 673. In that year, according to the Babylonian Chronicle, the Assyrians were defeated in Egypt. The first attempt, therefore, to carry the war into the enemy's country was repelled. But in 671 a fresh army invaded Egypt and this time Taharqu was unable to resist. From Ishupri, where the first battle was fought, to Memphis, the Assyrian army advanced irresistibly in fifteen days. On five occasions Taharqu attempted to stay their march but was wounded in battle. He then fled to Thebes. The advance continued, and in "a half day" Memphis was taken. The family of Taharqu, his son Urana-Hor, and much treasure fell into the hands of the Assyrians. Fifty-five royal statues were taken to Assyria. Taharqu appears also to have failed to establish himself in Thebes. His army was scattered and he, a stranger in Egypt, received no support. Consequently he withdrew from Thebes and fled back to "Kush," that is, to Nubia.

 

Over the separate districts of Egypt Esarhaddon appointed twenty-two "kings", whose names all appear in an inscription of his son Ashurbanipal. But with each one an Assyrian officer was appointed as overseer as well as a host of Assyrian officials. The most southerly district was Thebes, from which it appears how limited the Assyrian rule was and also how exaggerated Esarhaddon's claims are when, on the basis of his achievement, he described himself as "king of the kings of Mutsur," or Lower Egypt, "Paturisi," or Upper Egypt, and "Kush." The Senjirli monolith also, as well as the inscription on the rock at Nahr-el-Kelb, near Beirut, states rather what was wished than what was accomplished, when Taharqu is represented on his knees before Esarhaddon, with a ring in his lips, imploring mercy. This glory lasted only a few months, when Taharqu took up his designs afresh. The Ethiopian was no Egyptian, and his flight was only for the purpose of gathering a new army. In the meantime Esarhaddon had been in Assyria where an insurrection, in which the moving spirit was his son, Ashur-bani-pal, called for his attention. Taharqu, doubtless, was aware of this. At this juncture a "courier" arrived in Nineveh with intelligence that Taharqu had retaken the whole land, was ruling as "king" in Memphis, and had either put to flight or slaughtered the Assyrian soldiery. The Egyptians who, for two thousand years, had been accustomed to submit to exploitation, no doubt looked upon this "restoration of orderly conditions" with as much equanimity as they displayed in their acceptance of the numerous masters of earlier as well as of later times. After the internal affairs of Assyria were settled, and Ashurbanipal and his brother, Shamash-shum-ukin, crowned in 668, the army was again available for Egypt. Esarhaddon himself set out thither—his presence in Assyria was no longer desired, and he was sufficiently familiar with the character of an Oriental kingdom to see that nothing remained for him but to die. This he did on the way, the same year, 668. The expedition, therefore, was carried through in the reign of Ashurbanipal, whose annals give to him the glory. The Orient, with its ancestor and family worship, has little reverence for the memory of the dead when once one is "buried in his house."

 

ASHURBANIPAL, 668-626.

 

The causes which led to the crowning of Ashurbanipal have already been touched upon. When Esarhaddon was prepared for the crowning act of his work, viz., to announce his own ascent to the throne of Babylon which he had raised from her ruins, or that of his son Shamash-shum-ukin, whose mother was a Babylonian, the Assyrian party's time for action was ripe. In 669 "the king caused many nobles to be slain in Assyria" says the Babylonian (!) Chronicle; but Ashurbanipal says that when he was called to the throne and made co-regent in the beginning of 668 he "interceded" for the nobles. It was clearly Esarhaddon's purpose first to make Shamash-shum­ukin king of Babylon in order to insure for him, after his own death, the undivided sovereignty. But this was prevented. With the elevation of Ashurbanipal the Assyrian military and noble party triumphed over the Babylonian priests and commoners. During the long reign of Ashurbanipal, from 668 to 626, the military power of Assyria, with its mercenaries gathered from all lands, celebrated its final triumphs.

 

The expedition to Egypt on which Esarhaddon died terminated quickly and favorably. The army with which Taharqu attempted to defend Lower Egypt was speedily worsted. Memphis was abandoned and Taharqu fell back upon Thebes. In "one month and ten days" the Assyrian army stood before the walls of Thebes. Taharqu, not having confidence in the population of the capital, withdrew from the city and threw up fortifications on both sides of the river higher up, apparently to block the valley of the river. The Assyrian army advanced only to Thebes, and Ashurbanipal, like his father, was compelled to confine his appointment of provincial, or district governors, to the regions north of that city.

 

Taharqu died that year, or shortly after, in possession of his fortifications. His successor in Napata was Tanut-Ammon, his sister's son. He immediately took the field. The Assyrian army had apparently already withdrawn from Thebes, and the rest of Egypt fell easily into Tanut­Ammon's hands. In Memphis alone did the Assyrian garrison offer resistance. Tanut­Ammon besieged them and took up a position in On (Heliopolis), which lay to the north. Again a courier appeared in. Nineveh, and the Assyrian army hastened by forced marches to the relief of the besieged garrison. Tanut-Ammon abandoned the siege and retired upon Thebes, which he attempted to hold. But the city was conquered in 667 or 666 and the Ethiopians driven out of Egypt. Ashurbanipal was able to reappoint his provincial governors. Again, however, what was done was quickly undone. Naturally enough the Egyptians looked upon Assyrian rule only as a means to get rid of the Kushites. When that was done the next thing to be considered was deliverance from those who had helped them. A couple of years had barely passed before Psammetik, the son of Necho, to whom Ashurbanipal had given the districts of Memphis and Sais, declared his independence. Assyria's army was elsewhere engaged and Psammetik's coup d'êtat succeeded. With the help of the Assyrians they had expelled the Kushites, and then they chose the proper moment to repudiate their debt.

 

The unselfish Ashurbanipal complained of similar base ingratitude on the part of Gyges of Lydia. About the beginning of his reign the Kimmerians were advancing to attack Lydia. They had crossed the Halys and pushed on westward. Since the Assyrians were united with the Ashkuza against the Kimmerians Gyges asked assistance of Ashurbanipal, whose Cilician and Cappadocian possessions on the Lydian border were likewise liable to attack. Ashurbanipal accordingly offered help—he prayed to Ashur, and so effectually that Gyges actually won over the much feared enemy. He sent two chieftain captives in chains to Nineveh, where the inhabitants gazed in astonishment at the barbarians "whose language no interpreter understood." Therewith the thankless Lydian felt that he had sufficiently acknowledged his obligations. He ceased to send his messenger and "gifts" and supported the rebellious Psammetik—not with prayers, but with troops. Ashurbanipal again lifted his hands in prayer to Ashur and Ishtar that "his corpse might be cast before his enemy and his bones carried away." The prayer was answered and the insolent offence expiated. The Kimmerians returned to the attack and Gyges was impotent before them. The land was overrun and Gyges fell in battle. His son, unnamed by Ashurbanipal, but called Ardys by Herodotus, succeeded him on the throne. Profiting by the fate of his father he sent to Ashurbanipal saying: "Thou art a king acknowledged of God. Thou cursedst my father and evil befell him. Me, thy humble servant, accept, and let me bear thy yoke." But Ashurbanipal, by his silence as to assistance, appears, for the time being at least, to have left the Lydians to their own resources. The Kimmerian storm first broke over Cilicia on the Assyrian border, although it is unlikely that Assyria was at all responsible for that. All this occurred in the year 668 and later.

 

In the same year Baal of Tyre finally submitted after Taharqu had abandoned Thebes. He had, as we have seen, to content himself with his island. The king of Arvad, Yakinlu, whose hopes were also in Taharqu, now paid tribute and sent his sons as hostages and pages to Assyria. In these earliest years of Ashurbanipal's reign an expedition was also made against the rebellious people of Man, on the Urumia Sea, where the Assyrian ally, Ashkuza, had become emboldened. The causes that led King Akhsheri to withhold his tribute are not far to seek. With the Ashkuza, the king's own allies, in the country the resources must have been seriously affected. Nevertheless, an Assyrian army advanced, an insurrection arose, and Akhsheri fell. His son Ualli submitted to the Assyrians.

 

About the same time expeditions were made against one or two Median chieftains, but Ashurbanipal did not advance as far in this direction as Sargon and Esarhaddon had gone. The East was already in the grip of the advancing multitude.

 

In 660, or a little later, there was again war with Elam, and this time Elam was the aggressor. Since the time of Esarhaddon peace had prevailed with Urtaki. But now he was trying, in connivance with certain Babylonian tribal chiefs, especially with the Gambuli, to establish himself in Babylonia and for that purpose he despatched an army. Ashurbanipal does not appear to have had his army in readiness; the Elamites had reached almost to Babylon before he appeared and drove them back over the border. There he halted. It is clear, therefore, that Assyria remained on the defensive as regards Elam ever since Sennacherib's ill-fated venture. Urtaki died soon after. The complications which followed the change of kings led to war with Teumman, his successor, who marched against North Babylonia, but was forced to retreat at Dur-ilu. Now, for the first time, the Assyrian army marched through the Zagros passes and appeared before the walls of Susa. The successes of Kuri­galzu II and Nebuchadrezzar I were in this instance repeated. With this war, about 655, Ashurbanipal's undertakings during the first half of his reign come to a close.

 

All the succeeding wars of Ashurbanipal are bound up with the great insurrection of Shamash­shum-ukin which broke out in 652. The superiority of the Assyrian army was manifest in his overthrow, but the encouragement that Shamash­shum-ukin everywhere met with, and the hopes connected with his project in all parts of the kingdom, showed at the same time that the kingdom was held together by force only and that without its army of mercenaries it could not last. His treatment of Babylon was different from Sennakerib's; nevertheless, as representative of the "Assyrian" policy, he certainly dealt with her in much the same way as Tiglathpileser and Shalmaneser had. Tangible evidence of this is seen in the fact that he, following their example, assumed the crown of Babylon and ruled there as King Kandalanu from 647 to 626.

 

Babylon's strongest support during the revolt came from Elam. The result was that a series of wars were waged against her which culminated in the conquest of Susa and the complete destruction of the Elamite kingdom. But all that Assyria attained by this was that she, having made no effort to hold the conquered territory, played into the hands of the advancing Indo-Germanic tribes on the border. Just as in Urartu, so it was here; she had destroyed the buffer-state between herself and the enemy. The events con­nected with the overthrow of Elam reveal the lasting confusion which followed, but a narrative of these belongs properly to the history of Elam. Within Babylonia the different tribes were like­wise won over from Shamash-shum-ukin. The Gambuli and Puqudi and some of the Chaldean states were severely chastised. The submission of the great grandson of Merodach-Baladan in the Sea-Land also followed, and this contributed in its way to Elam's distress.

 

Furthermore, the Babylonian revolt paved the way for a punitive expedition into Arabia. The Bedouins, ever eager for plunder, had sent an auxiliary force to Babylon, and, naturally enough, it was completely annihilated; but this was not enough. Since the land of "Aribi" was under Assyrian protection the defection must needs be punished. An Assyrian army marched through the Syrian desert, plundering as it went, in a semicircle from Assyria to Damascus. This was soon after 648. Quiet, however, did not long endure. Abiyate, the king who had been placed on the throne in place of Uaiti' soon "forgot the name of the great gods" and had to learn his lesson anew. Ashurbanipal's reports of these expeditions to Arabia are particularly oratorical and correspondingly obscure. "No bird of the heaven flies in the land of Mash" into which his army penetrated, "no wild-ass nor gazelle feeds there."

 

In Phoenicia, Ushu, a city on the mainland opposite Tyre, and Akko, were both visited and the revolters deported or killed. The "province Tyre," we see, had tried to become independent—that seems to have been the only practical result wrought in the West by the instigations of Shamash-shum-ukin.

 

The king of Urartu, Sarduris III, compelled by the pressure of the Indo-Germanic tribes, now voluntarily submitted to Assyrian sovereignty. From now on we hear nothing more of Urartu. The new immigrants changed the old order of affairs; and a people now developed, which afterward is known as Armenian. Ashurbanipal closes the political account of his reign with Sarduris' salutation: "Peace be to the king, my lord".

 

CHAPTER VIII. THE FALL

 

WE have no information covering the last part of Ashurbanipal's reign—a comparatively long period, possibly of ten or fifteen years. In view of his victories we may assume that in general he maintained the glory of Assyria. This conclusion is justified by the fact that until his death he remained king of Babylon. The extent to which this glory rested upon one man and his army is witnessed by the rapid dissolution which set in after him.

 

Ashurbanipal's chief interest for us centres in his literary proclivities, rather than in his victories on the field of battle, although it was in connection with the latter that the name of "Sardanapalus" became famous through the semi-mythical figure of classical tradition. In his palace in Nineveh he collected a library of cuneiform tablets containing copies of all the Babylonian literary works and old inscriptions that were accessible. To the scanty remnant that has been recovered by excavation we owe almost all our knowledge of Babylonian literature, and of many other important documents whose originals have perished. If through his victories Ashurbanipalpal is not distinguished from other Assyrian rulers he, nevertheless, is distinguished by his zeal in. causing these documents to be written, and also as a student, a zeal for which we can almost forgive him that he was an Assyrian.

 

Two kings ruled in Assyria after Ashurbanipal, the brothers

 

ASHUR-ETIL-ILI AND SIN-SHAR-ISHKUN.

 

We know very little of the period during which they reigned. With the death of Ashurbanipal Babylon was lost, but not Babylonia, portions of which were held until the end. How long each of these kings reigned we cannot say.

 

We are somewhat better instructed concerning the last days of the kingdom. The Chaldean Nabopolassar could no longer look to Elam, as his predecessors had done, for support on the throne of Babylon, for Elam was no more. He found instead a strong ally in Elam's successor, the Medes. From the time of Esarhaddon. Assyria was in alliance with the Ashkuza who, as the neighbors of the Medes, were their natural enemies. In 609 Nabopolassar was in possession of Mesopotamia. He called himself "king of the World," and boasted of his victory over Shubari, the ancient name of Mesopotamia. Accordingly, the strength of Assyria must have been already broken. Soon afterward we find Cyaxares, the Mede, before Nineveh. The Ashkuza despatched a force of auxiliaries under the command of Madyas, the son of Bartatua, Esarhaddon's son-in-law, but these were defeated by Cyaxares. The fate of Nineveh was therewith sealed. The city fell about the year 607.

 

SIN-SHAR-ISHKUN,

 

the last king, is said to have destroyed himself in the flames—the fate which mythical tradition ascribes to Sardanapalus.

 

The Median hosts carried out the work of plundering and destroying more thoroughly than was agreeable to their ally, for not only was Nineveh destroyed but also all the cities of Assyria, as well as those of Babylonia that remained loyal to Assyria, were completely despoiled. Harran, likewise, with its famous temple, suffered the same fate. And it was not until 54 years later—in the third year of Nabunaid, when these "Umman­manda" under Astyages were driven off by Cyrus, that the city and temple reverted to the Babylonians, despite the "friendship" with Nabopolassar and Nebuchadrezzar. Nabunacid gives an interesting description of his restoration of the temple and re-establishment of its cult.

 

Nineveh never arose again from her ruins, and fortunately so for us, for the mound has safely guarded the remains which otherwise would have been used for building material by a later age.

 

Nabopolassar watched the procedure of his allies with little satisfaction now that his own lands were not spared. But, strange to say, the barbarians appear to have actually kept to their agreement. They retired from the conquered territory and observed the compact whereby the Tigris was to be the boundary between the respective provinces. Whether this action is to be attributed to their undeveloped diplomacy, or whether, as one is led to suspect, there lay behind the apparent good faith an unethical compulsion from without cannot be definitely determined. At present, however, nothing is known in support of the latter assumption. In any case the new disposition of territory was effected. All the country to the north of the river region from Elam to Asia Minor fell to the Medes. Elam itself appears, as in the earliest times, to have fallen to Babylonia. On the other hand, the relation of both to Harran for the present remains doubtful. Again there were kings of "Anzan and Suri" of which the oldest Babylonian inscriptions speak. Babylonia, Mesopotamia, Syria, and Palestine remained to Babylon; Assyria to the Medes.

 

The Assyrian kingdom had therewith disappeared from history. We have already frequently intimated why no effort to recover herself was possible—the country was in the hands of an army of mercenaries and a tribe of officials. There was no longer an Assyrian people. It was a matter of complete indifference in the provinces whether the governor exacted his extortions in the name of the king of Assyria, or in that of the king of Babylon. All interest languished except that which ever looked longingly for a change of masters in the false hope that a change of rule would bring an improvement of conditions. In the provinces of Syria and Palestine action had been long since paralyzed. It was only in isolated cases, as in Judah, that life was manifested in a resistance that was easily overcome by a superior army.