Produced by David Widger
THE SEVEN GREAT MONARCHIES
OF THE
ANCIENT EASTERN WORLD;
OR,
THE HISTORY, GEOGRAPHY, AND ANTIQUITIES OF CHALDAEA, ASSYRIA
BABYLON, MEDIA, PERSIA, PARTHIA, AND SASSANIAN,
OR NEW PERSIAN EMPIRE.
BY
GEORGE RAWLINSON, M.A.,
CAMDEN PROFESSOR OF ANCIENT HISTORY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD
IN THREE VOLUMES.
VOLUME I.
With Maps and Illustrations
CONTENTS OF VOL. I.
THE FIRST MONARCHY.
CHALDAEA.
CHAPTER I.
GENERAL VIEW OF THE COUNTRY
CHAPTER II.
CLIMATE AND PRODUCTIONS
CHAPTER III.
THE PEOPLE
CHAPTER IV.
LANGUAGE AND WRITING
CHAPTER V.
ARTS AND SCIENCES
CHAPTER VI.
MANNERS AND CUSTOMS
CHAPTER VII.
RELIGION
CHAPTER VIII.
HISTORY AND CHRONOLOGY
PREFACE TO FIVE GREAT MONARCHIES.
The history of Antiquity requires from time to time to be rewritten.
Historical knowledge continually extends, in part from the advance of
critical science, which teaches us little by little the true value of
ancient authors, but also, and more especially, from the new discoveries
which the enterprise of travellers and the patient toil of students are
continually bringing to light, whereby the stock of our information as to
the condition of the ancient world receives constant augmentation. The
extremest scepticism cannot deny that recent researches in Mesopotamia
and the adjacent countries have recovered a series of “monuments”
belonging to very early times, capable of throwing considerable light on
the Antiquities of the nations which produced them. The author of these
volumes believes that, together with these remains, the languages of the
ancient nations have been to a large extent recovered, and that a vast
mass of written historical matter of a very high value is thereby added
to the materials at the Historian’s disposal. This is, clearly, not the
place where so difficult and complicated a subject can be properly
argued. The author is himself content with the judgment of “experts,”
and believes it would be as difficult to impose a fabricated language on
Professor Lassen of Bonn and Professor Max Miller of Oxford, as to palm
off a fictitious for a real animal form on Professor Owen of London. The
best linguists in Europe have accepted the decipherment of the cuneiform
inscriptions as a thing actually accomplished. Until some good linguist,
having carefully examined into the matter, declares himself of contrary
opinion, the author cannot think that any serious doubt rests on the
subject.
[Some writers allow that the Persian cuneiform inscriptions have
been successfully deciphered and interpreted, but appear to doubt
the interpretation of the Assyrian records. (See Edinburgh Review
for July, 1862, Art Ill., p. 108.) Are they aware that the Persian
inscriptions are accompanied in almost every instance by an Assyrian
transcript, and that Assyrian interpretation thus follows upon
Persian, without involving any additional “guess-work”]
The present volumes aim at accomplishing for the Five Nations of which
they treat what Movers and Kenrick have accomplished for Phoenicia, or
(still more exactly) what Wilkinson has accomplished for Ancient Egypt.
Assuming the interpretation of the historical inscriptions as, in
general, sufficiently ascertained, and the various ancient remains as
assigned on sufficient grounds to certain peoples and epochs, they seek
to unite with our previous knowledge of the five nations, whether derived
from Biblical or classical sources, the new information obtained from
modern discovery. They address themselves in a great measure to the eye;
and it is hoped that even those who doubt the certainty of the linguistic
discoveries in which the author believes, will admit the advantage of
illustrating the life of the ancient peoples by representations of their
productions. Unfortunately, the materials of this kind which recent
explorations have brought to light are very unequally spread among the
several nations of which it is proposed to treat, and even where they are
most copious, fall short of the abundance of Egypt. Still in every case
there is some illustration possible; and in one--Assyria--both the
“Arts” and the “Manners” of the people admit of being illustrated very
largely from the remains still extant.--[See Chapters VI. and VII. of the
Second Monarchy]
The Author is bound to express his obligations to the following writers,
from whose published works he has drawn freely: MM. Botta and Flandin,
Mr. Layard, Mr. James Fergusson, Mr. Loftus, Mr. Cullimore, and Mr.
Birch. He is glad to take this occasion of acknowledging himself also
greatly beholden to the constant help of his brother, Sir Henry
Rawlinson, and to the liberality of Mr. Faux, of the British Museum. The
latter gentleman kindly placed at his disposal, for the purposes of the
present work, the entire series of unpublished drawings made by the
artists who accompanied Mr. Loftus in the last Mesopotamian Expedition,
besides securing him undisturbed access to the Museum sculptures, thus
enabling him to enrich the present volume with a large number of most
interesting illustrations never previously given to the public. In the
subjoined list these illustrations are carefully distinguished from such
as, in one shape or another, have appeared previously.
Oxford, September, 1862.
PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION.
In preparing for the press, after an interval of seven years, a second
edition of this work, the author has found it unnecessary to make,
excepting in two chapters, any important or exensive alterations. The
exceptions are the chapters on the History and Chronology of Chaldaea and
Assyria. So much fresh light has been thrown on these two subjects by
additional discoveries, made partly by Sir Henry Rawlinson, partly by his
assistant, Mr. George Smith, through the laborious study of fragmentary
inscriptions now in the British Museum, that many pages of the two
chapters in question required to be written afresh, and the Chronological
Schemes required, in the one case a complete, and in the other a partial,
revision. In making this revision, both of the Chronology and the
History, the author has received the most valuable assistance both from
the published papers and from the private communications of Mr.
Smith--an assistance for which he desires to make in this place the
warmest and most hearty acknowledgment. He is also beholden to a recent
Eastern traveller, Mr. A. D. Berrington, for some valuable notes on the
physical geography and productions of Mesopotamia, which have been
embodied in the accounts given of those subjects. A few corrections
have likewise been made of errors pointed out by anonymous critics.
Substantially, however, the work continues such as it was on its first
appearance, the author having found that time only deepened his
conviction of the reality of cuneiform decipherment, and of the
authenticity of the history obtained by means of it.
OXFORD, November, 1870.
PREFACE TO THE SIXTH MONARCHY.
The following work is intended, in part, as a continuation of the ancient
History of the East, already treated by the Author at some length in his
“Five Great Monarchies”; but it is also, and more expressly, intended as
a supplement to the ancient History of the West, as that history is
ordinarily presented to moderns under its two recognized divisions of
“Histories of Greece” and “Histories of Rome.” Especially, it seemed to
the writer that the picture of the world during the Roman period,
commonly put before students in “Histories of Rome,” was defective, not
to say false, in its omission to recognize the real position of Parthia
during the three most interesting centuries of that period, as a
counterpoise to the power of Rome, a second figure in the picture not
much inferior to the first, a rival state dividing with Rome the
attention of mankind and the sovereignty of the known earth. Writers of
Roman history have been too much in the habit of representing the later
Republic and early Empire as, practically, a Universal Monarchy, a Power
unchecked, unbalanced, having no other limits than those of the civilized
world, engrossing consequently the whole attention of all thinking men,
and free to act exactly as it pleased without any regard to opinion
beyond its own borders. One of the most popular enlarges on the idea--an
idea quite inconsistent with the fact--that for the man who provoked the
hostility of the ruler of Rome there was no refuge upon the whole face of
the earth but some wild and barbarous region, where refinement was
unknown, and life would not have been worth having. To the present
writer the truth seems to be that Rome never was in the position
supposed--that from first to last, from the time of Pompey’s Eastern
Conquests to the Fall of the Empire, there was always in the world a
Second Power, civilized or semi-civilized, which in a true sense balanced
Rome, acted as a counterpoise and a check, had to be consulted or
considered, held a place in all men’s thoughts, and finally furnished a
not intolerable refuge to such as had provoked Rome’s master beyond
forgiveness.
This Power for nearly three centuries (B.C. 64 - A.D. 225) was Parthia,
after which it was Persia under the Sassanian kings. In the hope of
gradually vindicating to Parthia her true place in the world’s history,
the Author has in his “Manual of Ancient History” (published by the
Delegates of the Clarendon Press) placed the Parthians alongside of the
Romans, and treated of their history at a moderate length. But it has
seemed to him that something more was requisite. He could not expect
that students would be able to give Parthia her proper place in their
thoughts unless her history were collected and put forth in a readable
form with some fulness. He has, therefore, employed most of his leisure
during the last two years in writing the present work, which he commends
to students of the later Greek and Roman periods as supplemental to the
modern Greek and Roman histories in which those periods are commonly
studied.
The Parthian Chronology depends very much upon coins. In preparing this
portion of his work the Author has been greatly indebted to aid kindly
rendered him by M. R. Stuart Poole and Mr. Gardiner of the British
Museum. The representations of coins in the work have been, with one
exception, taken by the Author from the originals in the National
Collection. For the illustrations of Parthian architecture and art he is
indebted to the published works of Mr. Ainsworth, Mr. Ross, the late Mr.
Loftus, and MM. Flandin and Coste. He feels also bound to express his
obligations to the late Mr. Lindsay, the numismatic portion of whose work
on Parthia he has found of much service.
CANTERBURY, December, 1872.
PREFACE TO SEVENTH MONARCHY.
This work completes the Ancient History of the East, to which the author
has devoted his main attention during the last eighteen years. It is a
sequel to his “Parthians,” published in 1873; and carries down the
History of Western Asia from the third century of our era to the middle
of the seventh. So far as the present writer is aware, no European
author has previously treated this period from the Oriental stand-point,
in any work aspiring to be more than a mere sketch or outline. Very many
such sketches have been published; but they have been scanty in the
extreme, and the greater number of them have been based on the authority
of a single class of writers. It has been the present author’s aim to
combine the various classes of authorities which are now accessible to
the historical student, and to give their due weight to each of them.
The labors of M. C. Muller, of the Abbe Gregoire Kabaragy Garabed, and of
M. J. St. Martin have opened to us the stores of ancient Armenian
literature, which were previously a sealed volume to all but a small
class of students. The early Arab historians have been translated or
analyzed by Kosegarten, Zotenberg, M. Jules Mohl, and others.
The coinage of the Sassanians has been elaborately--almost
exhaustively--treated by Mordtmann and Thomas. Mr. Fergusson has
applied his acute and practised powers to the elucidation of the
Sassanian architecture. By combining the results thus obtained with the
old sources of information--the classical, especially the Byzantine
writers--it has become possible to compose a history of the Sassanian
Empire which is at once consecutive, and not absolutely meagre. How the
author has performed his task, he must leave it to the public to judge;
he will only venture to say that he has spared no labor, but has gone
carefully through the entire series of the Byzantine writers who treat
of the time, besides availing himself of the various modern works to
which reference has been made above. If he has been sometimes obliged
to draw conclusions from his authorities other than those drawn by
Gibbon, and has deemed it right, in the interests of historic truth, to
express occasionally his dissent from that writer’s views, he must not
be thought blind to the many and great excellencies which render the
“Decline and Fall” one of the best, if not the best, of our histories.
The mistakes of a writer less eminent and less popular might have been
left unnoticed without ill results. Those of an historian generally
regarded as an authority from whom there is no appeal could not be so
lightly treated.
The author begs to acknowledge his great obligations, especially, to the
following living writers: M. Patkanian, M. Jules Mohl, Dr. Haug, Herr
Spiegel, Herr Windischmann, Herr Mordtmann, Canon Tristram, Mr. James
Fergusson, and Mr. E. Thomas. He is also largely beholden to the works
of M. Texier and of MM. Flandin and Coste for the illustrations, which he
has been able to give, of Sassanian sculpture and architecture. The
photographic illustrations of the newly-discovered palace at Mashita are
due to the liberality of Mr. R. C. Johnson (the amateur artist who
accompanied Canon Tristram in his exploration of the “Land of Moab”),
who, with Canon Tristram’s kind consent, has allowed them to appear in
the present volume. The numismatic illustrations are chiefly derived
from Longperier; but one or two have been borrowed from other sources.
For his frontispiece the author is indebted to his brother, Sir Henry
Rawlinson, who has permitted it to be taken from an original drawing in
his possession, which he believed to be a truthful representation of the
great Sassanian building.
CANTERBURY: December 1875.
THE FIRST MONARCHY.
CHALDAEA.
CHAPTER I.
GENERAL VIEW OF THE COUNTRY.
“Behold the land of the Chaldaeans.”--ISAIAH xxiii. 13.
The broad belt of desert which traverses the eastern hemisphere, in a
general direction from west to east (or, speaking more exactly, of
W. S. W. to N. E. E.), reaching from the Atlantic on the one hand nearly
to the Yellow Sea on the other, is interrupted about its centre by a
strip of rich vegetation, which at once breaks the continuity of the arid
region, and serves also to mark the point where the desert changes its
character from that of a plain at a low level to that of an elevated
plateau or table-land. West of the favored district, the Arabian and
African wastes are seas of sand, seldom raised much above, often sinking
below, the level of the ocean; while east of the same, in Persia, Kerman,
Seistan, Chinese Tartary, and Mongolia, the desert consists of a series
of plateaus, having from 3000 to nearly 10,000 feet of elevation. The
green and fertile region, which is thus interposed between the “highland”
and the “lowland” deserts, participates, curiously enough, in both
characters. Where the belt of sand is intersected by the valley of the
Nile, no marked change of elevation occurs; and the continuous low desert
is merely interrupted by a few miles of green and cultivable surface, the
whole of which is just as smooth and as flat as the waste on either side
of it. But it is otherwise at the more eastern interruption. There the
verdant and productive country divides itself into two tracts, running
parallel to each other, of which the western presents features not unlike
those that characterize the Nile valley, but on a far larger scale; while
the eastern is a lofty mountain region, consisting for the most part of
five or six parallel ranges, and mounting in many places far above the
level of perpetual snow.
It is with the western or plain tract that we are here concerned.
Between the outer limits of the Syro-Arabian desert and the foot of the
great mountain range of Kurdistan and Luristan intervenes a territory
long famous in the world’s history, and the chief site of three out of
the five empires of whose history, geography, and antiquities it is
proposed to treat in the present volumes. Known to the Jews as
Aram-Naharaim, or “Syria of the two rivers;” to the Greeks and Romans as
Mesopotamia, or “the between-river country;” to the Arabs as Al-Jezireh,
or “the island,” this district has always taken its name from the
streams, which constitute its most striking feature, and to which, in
fact, it owes its existence. If it were not for the two great
rivers--the Tigris and Euphrates--with their tributaries, the more
northern part of the Mesopotamian lowland would in no respect differ
from the Syro-Arabian desert on which it adjoins, and which in latitude,
elevation, and general geological character it exactly resembles.
Towards the south, the importance of the rivers is still greater; for of
Lower Mesopotamia it may be said, with more truth than of Egypt, that it
is “an acquired land,” the actual “gift” of the two streams which wash
it on either side; being, as it is, entirely a recent formation--a
deposit which the streams have made in the shallow waters of a gulf into
which they have flowed for many ages.
The division, which has here forced itself upon our notice, between the
Upper and the Lower Mesopotamian country, is one very necessary to engage
our attention in connection with the ancient Chaldaea. There is no
reason to think that the terns Chaldaea had at anytime the extensive
signification of Mesopotamia, much less that it applied to the entire
flat country between the desert and the mountains. Chaldaea was not the
whole, but a part of, the great Mesopotamian plain; which was ample
enough to contain within it three or four considerable monarchies.
According to the combined testimony of geographers and historians,
Chaldaea lay towards the south, for it bordered upon the Persian Gulf;
and towards the west, for it adjoined Arabia. If we are called upon
to fix more accurately its boundaries, which, like those of most
countries without strong natural frontiers, suffered many fluctuations,
we are perhaps entitled to say that the Persian Gulf on the south, the
Tigris on the east, the Arabian desert on the west, and the limit between
Upper and Lower Mesopotamia on the north, formed the natural bounds,
which were never greatly exceeded and never much infringed upon. These
boundaries are for the most part tolerably clear, though the northern
only is invariable. Natural causes, hereafter to be mentioned more
particularly, are perpetually varying the course of the Tigris, the shore
of the Persian Gulf, and the line of demarcation between the sands of
Arabia and the verdure of the Euphrates valley. But nature has set a
permanent mark, half way down the Mesopotamian lowland, by a difference
of geological structure, which is very conspicuous. Near Hit on the
Euphrates, and a little below Samarah on the Tigris, the traveller who
descends the streams, bids adieu to a somewhat waving and slightly
elevated plain of secondary formation, and enters on the dead flat and
low level of the mere alluvium. The line thus formed is marked and
invariable; it constitutes the only natural division between the upper
and lower portions of the valley; and both probability and history point
to it as the actual boundary between Chaldaea and her northern neighbor.
The extent of ancient Chaldaea is, even after we have fixed its
boundaries, a question of some difficulty. From the edge of the alluvium
a little below Hit, to the present coast of the Persian Gulf at the mouth
of the Shat-el-Arab, is a distance of above 430 miles; while from the
western shore of the Bahr-i-Nedjif to the Tigris at Serut is a direct
distance of 185 miles. The present area of the alluvium west of the
Tigris and the Shat-el-Arab maybe estimated at about 30,000 square miles.
But the extent of ancient Chaldaea can scarcely have been so great. It
is certain that the alluvium at the head of the Persian Gulf now grows
with extraordinary rapidity, and not improbable that the growth may in
ancient times have been even more rapid than it is at present. Accurate
observations have shown that the present rate of increase amounts to as
much as a mile each seventy years, while it is the opinion of those best
qualified to judge that the average progress during the historic period
has been as much as a mile in every thirty years! Traces of
post-tertiary deposits have been found as far up the country as Tel
Ede and Hammam, 10 or more than 200 miles from the embouchure of the
Shat-el-Arab; and there is ample reason for believing that at the time
when the first Chaldaean monarchy was established, the Persian Gulf
reached inland, 120 or 130 miles further than at present. We must
deduct therefore from the estimate of extent grounded upon the existing
state of things, a tract of land 130 miles long and some 60 or 70 broad,
which has been gained from the sea in the course of about forty
centuries. This deduction will reduce Chaldaea to a kingdom of somewhat
narrow limits; for it will contain no more than about 23,000 square
miles. This, it is true, exceeds the area of all ancient Greece,
including Thessaly, Acarnania, and the islands; it nearly equals that of
the Low Countries, to which Chaldaea presents some analogy; it is almost
exactly that of the modern kingdom of Denmark; but it is less than
Scotland, or Ireland, or Portugal, or Bavaria; it is more than doubled
by England, more than quadrupled by Prussia, and more than octupled by
Spain, France, and European Turkey. Certainly, therefore, it was not in
consequence of its size that Chaldaea became so important a country in
the early ages, but rather in consequence of certain advantages of the
soil, climate, and position, which will be considered in the next
chapter.
It has been already noticed that in the ancient Chaldaea, the
chief--almost the sole-geographical features, were the rivers. Nothing
is more remarkable even now than the featureless character of the region,
although in the course of ages it has received from man some
interruptions of the original uniformity. On all sides a dead level
extends itself, broken only by single solitary mounds, the remains of
ancient temples or cities, by long lines of slightly elevated embankment
marking the course of canals, ancient or recent, and towards the
south--by a few sand-hills. The only further variety is that of color; for
while the banks of the streams, the marsh-grounds, and the country for a
short distance on each side of the canals in actual operation, present to
the eye a pleasing, and in some cases a luxuriant verdure; the rest,
except in early spring, is parched and arid, having little to distinguish
it from the most desolate districts of Arabia. Anciently, except for
this difference, the tract must have possessed all the wearisome
uniformity of the steppe region; the level horizon must have shown itself
on all sides unbroken by a single irregularity; all places must have
appeared alike, and the traveller can scarcely have perceived his
progress, or have known whither or how to direct his steps. The rivers
alone, with their broad sweeps and bold reaches, their periodical changes
of swell and fall, their strength, motion, and life-giving power, can
have been objects of thought and interest to the first inhabitants; and
it is still to these that the modern must turn who wishes to represent,
to himself or others, the general aspect and chief geographical divisions
of the country.
The Tigris and Euphrates rise from opposite sides of the same
mountain-chain. This is the ancient range of Niphates (a prolongation
of Taurus), the loftiest of the many parallel ridges which intervene
between the Euxine and the Mesopotamian plain, and the only one which
transcends in many places the limits of perpetual snow. Hence its
ancient appellation, and hence its power to sustain unfailingly the two
magnificent streams which flow from it. The line of the Niphates is
from east to west, with a very slight deflection to the south of west;
and the streams thrown off from its opposite flanks, run at first in
valleys parallel to the chain itself, but in opposite directions, the
Euphrates flowing westward from its source near Ararat to Malatiyeh,
while the Tigris from Diarbekr “goes eastward to Assyria.” The rivers
thus appear as if never about to meet; but at Malatiyeh, the course of
the Euphrates is changed. Sweeping suddenly to the south-east, this
stream passes within a few miles of the source of the Tigris below Lake
Goljik, and forces a way through the mountains towards the south,
pursuing a tortuous course, but still seeming as if it intended
ultimately to mingle its waters with those of the Mediterranean. It is
not till about Balis, in lat. 36 deg., that this intention appears to be
finally relinquished, and the convergence of the two streams begins. The
Euphrates at first flows nearly due east, but soon takes a course which
is, with few and unimportant deflections, about south-east, as far as
Suk-es-Sheioukh, after which it runs a little north of east to Kurnah.
The Tigris from Til to Mosul pursues also a south-easterly course, and
draws but a very little nearer to the Euphrates. From Mosul, however,
to Samarah, its course is only a point east of south; and though, after
that, for some miles it flows off to the east, yet resuming, a little
below the thirty-fourth parallel, its southerly direction, it is brought
about Baghdad within twenty miles of the sister stream. From this point
there is again a divergence. The course of the Euphrates, which from
Hit to the mounds of Mohammed (long. 44 deg.) had been E.S.E., becomes
much more southerly, while that of the Tigris--which, as we have seen,
was for awhile due south--becomes once more only slightly south of east,
till near Serut, where the distance between the rivers has increased
from twenty to a hundred miles. After passing respectively Serut and El
Khitr, the two streams converge rapidly. The flow of the Euphrates is
at first E. S. E., and then a little north of east to Kurnah, while that
of the Tigris is S.S.E. to the same point. The lines of the streams in
this last portion of their course, together with that which may be drawn
across from stream to stream, form nearly an equilateral triangle, the
distance being respectively 104, 110, and 115 miles. So rapid is the
final convergence of the two great rivers.
The Tigris and Euphrates are both streams of the first order. The
estimated length of the former, including main windings, is 1146 miles;
that of the latter is 1780 miles. Like most rivers that have their
sources in high mountain regions, they are strong from the first, and,
receiving in their early course a vast number of important tributaries,
become broad and deep streams before they issue upon the plains. The
Euphrates is navigable from Sumeisat (the ancient Samosata), 1200 miles
above its embouchure; and even 180 miles higher up, is a river “of
imposing appearance,” 120 yards wide and very deep. The Tigris is often
250 yards wide at Diarbekr, which is not a hundred miles from its
source, and is navigable in the flood time from the bridge of Diarbekr
to Mosul, from which place it is descended at all seasons to Baghdad,
and thence to the sea. Its average width below Mosul is 200 yards, with
a depth which allows the ascent of light steamers, unless when there is
an artificial obstruction. Above Mosul the width rarely exceeds 150
yards, and the depth is not more in places than three or four feet. The
Euphrates is 250 yards wide at Balbi, and averages 350 yards from its
junction with the Khabour to Hit: its depth is commonly from fifteen to
twenty feet. Small steamers have descended its entire course from Bir to
the sea. The volume of the Euphrates in places is, however, somewhat
less than that of the Tigris, which is a swifter and in its latter
course a deeper stream. It has been calculated that the quantity of
water discharged every second by the Tigris at Baghdad is 164,103 cubic
feet, while that discharged by the Euphrates at Hit is 72,804 feet.
The Tigris and Euphrates are very differently circumstanced with respect
to tributaries. So long as it runs among the Armenian mountains, the
Euphrates has indeed no lack of affluents; but these, except the Kara
Su, or northern Euphrates, are streams of no great volume, being chiefly
mountain-torrents which collect the drainage of very limited basins.
After it leaves the mountains and enters upon a low country at Sumefsat,
the affluents almost entirely cease; one, the river of Sajur, is
received from the right, in about lat. 36 deg. 40’; and two of more
importance flow in from the left-the Belik (ancient Bilichus), which
joins it in long. 39 deg. 9’; and the Khabour (ancient Habor or
Chaboras), which effects a junction in long. 40 deg. 30’, lat. 35 deg.
7’. The Belik and Khabour collect the waters which flow from the
southern flank of the mountain range above Orfa, Mardin, and Nisibin,
best known as the “Mons Masius” of Strabo. They are not, however,
streams of equal importance. The Belik has a course which is nearly
straight, and does not much exceed 120 miles. The Khabour, on the
contrary, is sufficiently sinuous, and its course may be reckoned at
fully 200 miles. It is navigable by rafts from the junction of its two
main branches near the volcanic cone of Koukab, and adds a considerable
body of water to the Euphrates. Below its confluence with this stream,
or during the last 800 miles of its course, the Euphrates does not
receive a single tributary. On the contrary, it soon begins to give off
its waters right and left, throwing out branches, which either terminate
in marshes, or else empty themselves into the Tigris. After awhile,
indeed, it receives compensation, by means of the Shat-el-Hie and other
branch streams, which bring back to it from the Tigris, between Mugheir
and Kurnah, the greater portion of the borrowed fluid. The Tigris, on
the contrary, is largely enriched throughout the whole of its course by
the waters of tributary streams. It is formed originally of three main
branches: the Diarbekr stream, or true Tigris, the Myafarekin River, and
the Bitlis Chai, or Centrites of Xenophon, which carries a greater body
than either of the other two. From its entry on the low country near
Jezireh to the termination of its course at Kurnah, it is continually
receiving from the left a series of most important additions. The chain
of Zagros, which, running parallel to the two main springs, shuts in the
Mesopotamian plain upon the east, abounds with springs, which are well
supplied during the whole summer from its snows, and these when
collected form rivers of large size and most refreshing coolness. The
principal are, the eastern Khabour, which joins the Tigris in lat. 37
deg. 12’: the Upper Zabo which falls in by the ruins of Nimrud: the
Lower Zab, which joins some way below Kileh Sherghat: the Adhem, which
unites its waters half way between Samarah and Baghdad: and the Diyaleh
(ancient Gyndes), which is received between Baghdad and the ruins of
Ctesiphon.
By the influx of these streams the Tigris continues to grow in depth and
strength as it nears the sea, and becomes at last (as we have seen) a
greater river than the Euphrates, which shrinks during the latter part
of its course, and is reduced to a volume very inferior to that which it
once boasted. The Euphrates at its junction with the Khabour, 700 miles
above Kurnah, is 400 yards wide and 18 feet deep; at Irzah or Verdi, 75
miles lower down, it is 350 yards wide and of the same depth; at
Hadiseh, 140 miles below Werdi, it is 300 yards wide, and still of the
same depth; at Hit, 50 miles below Hadiseh, its width has increased to
350 yards, but its depth has diminished to 16 feet; at Felujiah, 75
miles from Hit, the depth is 20 feet, but the width has diminished to
250 yards. From this point the contraction is very rapid and striking.
The Saklawiyeh canal is given out upon the left, and some way further
down the Hindiyeh branches off upon the right, each carrying, when the
Euphrates is full, a large body of water. The consequence is that at
Hillah, 90 miles-below Felujiah, the stream is no more than 200 yards
wide and 15 feet deep; at Diwaniyeh, 65 miles further down, it is only
160 yards wide; and at Lamlun, 20 miles below Diwaniyeh, it is reduced
to 120 yards wide, with a depth of no more than 12 feet! Soon after,
however, it begins to recover itself. The water, which left it by the
Hindiyeh, returns to it upon the one side, while the Shat-el-Hie and
numerous other branch streams from the Tigris flow in upon the other;
but still the Euphrates never recovers itself entirely, nor even
approaches in its later course to the standard of its earlier greatness.
The channel from Kurnah to El Khitr was found by Colonel Chesney to have
an average width of only 200 yards, and a depth of about 18 or 19 feet,
which implies a body of water far inferior to that carried between the
junction with the Khabour and Hit. More recently, the decline of the
stream in its latter course has been found to be even greater. Neglect
of the banks has allowed the river to spread itself more and more widely
over the land: and it is said that, except in the flood time, very
little of the Euphrates water reaches the sea. Nor is this an
unprecedented or very unusual state of things. From the circumstance
(probably) that it has been formed by the deposits of streams flowing
from the east as well as from the north, the lower Mesopotamian plain
slopes not only to the south, but to the west. The Euphrates, which has
low banks, is hence at all times inclined to leave its bed, and to flow
off to the right, where large tracts are below its ordinary level. Over
these it spreads itself, forming the well-known “Chaldaean marshes,”
which absorb the chief proportion of the water that flows into them, and
in which the “great river” seems at various times to have wholly, or
almost wholly, lost itself. No such misfortune can befall the Tigris,
which runs in a deep bed, and seldom varies its channel, offering a
strong contrast to the sister stream.
Frequent allusion has been made, in the course of this description of
the Tigris and Euphrates, to the fact of their having each a flood
season. Herodotus is scarcely correct when he says that in Babylonia
“the river does not, as in Egypt, overflow the corn-lands of its own
accord, but is spread over them by the help of engines.” Both the
Tigris and Euphrates rise many feet each spring, and overflow their
banks in various places. The rise is caused by the melting of the snows
in the mountain regions from which the two rivers and their affluents
spring. As the Tigris drains the southern, and the Euphrates the
northern side of the same mountain range, the flood of the former stream
is earlier and briefer than that of the latter. The Tigris commonly
begins to rise early in March, and reaches its greatest height in the
first or second week of May, after which it rapidly declines, and
returns to its natural level by the middle of June. The Euphrates first
swells about the middle of March, and is not in full flood till quite
the end of May or the beginning of June; it then continues high for
above a month, and does not sink much till the middle of July, after
which it gradually falls till September. The country inundated by the
Tigris is chiefly that on its lower course, between the 32d and 31st
parallels, the territory of the Beni Lam Arabs. The territory which the
Euphrates floods is far more extensive. As high up as its junction with
the Khabour, that stream is described as, in the month of April,
“spreading over the surrounding country like a sea.” From Hit
downwards, it inundates both its banks, more especially the country
above Baghdad (to which it is carried by the Saklawiyeh canal), the
tract west of the Birs Nimrud and extending thence by way of Nedjif to
Samava and the territory of the Affej Arabs, between the rivers above
and below the 32d parallel. Its flood is, however, very irregular,
owing to the nature of its banks, and the general inclination of the
plain, whereof mention was made above. If care is taken, the inundation
may be pretty equally distrib uted on either side of the stream; but if
the river banks are neglected, it is sure to flow mainly to the west,
rendering the whole country on that side the river a swamp, and leaving
the territory on the left bank almost without water. This state of
things may be traced historically from the age of Alexander to the
present day, and has probably prevailed more or less since the time when
Chaldaea received its first inhabitants.
The floods of the Tigris and Euphrates combine with the ordinary action
of their streams upon their banks to produce a constant variation in
their courses, which in a long period of time might amount to something
very considerable. It is impossible to say, with respect to any portion
of the alluvial plain, that it may not at some former period have been
the bed of one or the other river. Still it would seem that, on the
whole, a law of compensation prevails, with the result that the general
position of the streams in the valley is not very different now from what
it was 4000 years ago. Certainly between the present condition of things
and that in the time of Alexander, or even of Herodotus, no great
difference can be pointed out, except in the region immediately adjoining
on the gulf, where the alluvium has grown, and the streams, which were
formerly separate, have united their waters. The Euphrates still flows
by Hit and through Babylon; the Tigris passes near Opis, and at Baghdad
runs at the foot of an embankment made to confine it by Nebuchadnezzar.
The changes traceable are less in the main courses than in the branch
streams, which perpetually vary, being sometimes left dry within a few
years of the time that they have been navigable channels.
The most important variations of this kind are on the side of Arabia.
Here the desert is always ready to encroach; and the limits of Chaldaea
itself depend upon the distance from the main river, to which some branch
stream conveys the Euphrates water. In the most flourishing times of the
country, a wide and deep channel, branching off near Hit, at the very
commencement of the alluvium, has skirted the Arabian rock and gravel for
a distance of several hundred miles, and has entered the Persian Gulf by
a mouth of its own. In this way the extent of Chaldaea has been at times
largely increased, a vast tract being rendered cultivable, which is
otherwise either swamp or desert.
Such are the chief points of interest connected with the two great
Mesopotamian rivers. These form, as has been already observed, the only
marked and striking characteristics of the country, which, except for
them, and for one further feature, which now requires notice, would be
absolutely unvaried and uniform. On the Arabian side of the Euphrates,
50 miles south of the ruins of Babylon, and 25 or 30 miles from the
river, is a fresh-water lake of very considerable dimensions--the
Bahr-i-Nedjif, the “Assyrium stagnum” of Justin. This is a natural
basin, 40 miles long, and from 10 to 20 miles broad, enclosed on three
sides by sandstone cliffs, varying from 20 to 200 feet in height, and
shut in on the fourth side--the north-east--by a rocky ridge, which
intervenes between the valley of the Euphrates and this inland sea. The
cliffs are water-worn, presenting distinct indications of more than one
level at which the water has rested in former times. At the season of
the inundation this lake is liable to be confounded with the extensive
floods and marshes which extend continuously from the country west of
the Birs Nimrud to Samava. But at other tines the distinction between
the Bahr and the marshes is very evident, the former remaining when the
latter disappear altogether, and not diminishing very greatly in size
even in the driest season. The water of the lake is fresh and sweet, so
long as it communicates with the Euphrates; when the communication is
cut off it becomes very unpalatable, and those who dwell in the vicinity
are no longer able to drink it. This result is attributed to the
connection of the lake with rocks of the gypsiferous series.
It is obvious that the only natural divisions of Chaldaea a proper are
those made by the river-courses. The principal tract must always have
been that which intervenes between the two streams. This was anciently a
district some 300 miles in length, varying from 20 to 100 miles in
breadth, and perhaps averaging 50 miles, which must thus have contained
an area of about 15,000 square miles. The tract between the Euphrates
and Arabia was at all times smaller than this, and in the most
flourishing period of Chaldaea must have fallen short of 10,000 square
miles.
We have no evidence that the natural division of Chaldaea here indicated
was ever employed in ancient times for political purposes. The division
which appears to have been so employed was one into northern and southern
Chaldaea, the first extending from Hit to a little below Babylon, the
second from Niffer to the shores of the Persian Gulf. In each of these
districts we have a sort of tetrarchy, or special pre-eminence of four
cities, such as appears to be indicated by the words--“The beginning of
his kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad and Calneh, in the land of
Shinar.” The southern tetrarchy is composed of the four cities, Ur or
Hur, Huruk, Nipur, and Larsa or Larancha, which are probably identified
with the Scriptural “Ur of the Chaldees,” Erech, Calneh, and Ellasar.
The northern consists of Babel or Babylon, Borsippa, Cutha, and Sippara,
of which all except Borsippa are mentioned in Scripture. Besides these
cities the country contained many others,--as Chilmad, Dur-Kurri-galzu,
Ihi or Ahava, Rubesi, Duran, Tel-Humba, etc. It is not possible at
present to locate with accuracy all these places. We may, however, in
the more important instances, fix either certainly, or with a very high
degree of probability, their position.
Hur or Ur, the most important of the early capitals, was situated on the
Euphrates, probably at no great distance from its mouth. It was probably
the chief commercial emporium in the early times; as in the bilingual
vocabularies its ships are mentioned in connection with those of
Ethiopia. The name is found to have attached to the extensive ruins (now
about six miles from the river, on its right bank, and nearly opposite
its junction with the Shat-el-Hie) which are known by the name of
Mugheir, or “the bitumened.” Hereon a dead flat, broken only by a few
sand-hills, are traces of a considerable town, consisting chiefly of a
series of low mounds, disposed in an oval shape, the largest diameter of
which runs from north to south, and measures somewhat more than half a
mile. The chief building is a temple, hereafter to be more particularly
described, which is a very conspicuous object even at a considerable
distance, its greatest height above the plain being about seventy feet.
It is built in a very rude fashion, of large bricks, cemented with
bitumen, whence the name by which the Arabs designate the ruins.
[Illustration: PLATE 1]
About thirty miles from Hur, in a north-westerly direction, and on the
other side of the Euphrates, from which it is distant eight or nine
miles, are the ruins of a town, called in the inscriptions Larrak, or
Larsa, in which some of the best Orientalists have recognized at once the
Biblical Ellasar, the Laranchue of Berosus, and the Larissa of
Apollodorus, where the king held his court who sent Memnon to the siege
of Troy. The identification is perhaps doubtful; but, at any rate, we
have here the remains of a second Chaldaean capital, dating from the very
earliest times. The ruins, which bear now the name of Senkereh or
Sinkara, consist of a low circular platform, about four and a half miles
in circumference, rising gradually from the level of the plain to a
central mound, the highest point of which attains an elevation of seventy
feet above the plain itself, and is distinctly visible from a distance of
fifteen miles. The material used consists of the ordinary sun-dried and
baked bricks; and the basement platforms bear the inscriptions of the
same king who appears to have been the original founder of the chief
buildings at Ur or Mugheir.
[Illustration: PLATE 2]
Fifteen miles from Larsa, in a direction a little north of west, and on
the same side of the river, are ruins considerably more extensive than
those of either Ur or Larsa, to which the natives apply the name of
Warka, which is no doubt a corruption of the original appellation. The
Erech, or Orech, of the Hebrews, which appears as Huruk in the cuneiform
geographical lists, became known to the Greeks as Orchoe; and this
appellation, probably continuing in use to the time of the Arab conquest,
was then corrupted into Urka or Warka, in which shape the name given by
Nimrod still attaches to the second of his cities. The ruins stand in
lat. 31 deg. 19’, long. 45 deg. 40’, about four miles from the nearest
bend of the Euphrates, on its left or east bank. They form an irregular
circle, nearly six miles in circumference, which is defined by the traces
of an earthen rampart, in some places forty feet high. A vast mass of
undulating mounds, intersected by innumerable channels and ravines,
extends almost entirely across the circular space, in a direction, which
is nearly north and south, abutting at either end upon the rampart. East
and west of this mass is a comparatively open space, where the mounds are
scattered and infrequent; while outside the rampart are not only a number
of detached hillocks marking the site of ancient buildings, but in one
direction--towards the east--the city may be traced continuously by means
of ruined edifices, mounds, and pottery, fully three miles beyond the
rampart into the desert. The greatest height of the ruins is about 100
feet; their construction is very rude and primitive, the date of some
buildings being evidently as early as that of the most ancient structures
of either Mugheir or Senkereh.
Sixty miles to the north-west of these ruins, still on the left or
eastern bank of the Euphrates, but at the distance of thirty miles from
its present course, are the remains of another city, the only Chaldaean
ruins which can dispute, with those already described, the palm of
antiquity. They consist of a number of separate and distinct heaps,
which seem to be the remains of different buildings, and are divided into
two nearly equal groups by a deep ravine or channel 120 feet wide,
apparently the dry bed of a river which once ran through the town.
Conspicuous among the other hillocks is a conical heap, occupying a
central position on the eastern side of the river-bed, and rising to the
height of about seventy feet above the general level of the plain.
Further on in this direction is a low continuous mound, which seems to be
a portion of the outer wall of the city. The ruins are of considerable
extent, but scarcely so large as those at either Senkereh or Warka. The
name which now attaches to them is Niffer: and it appears, from the
inscriptions at the place, that the ancient Semitic appellation was but
slightly different. This name, as read on the bilingual tablets, was
Nipur; and as there can be little doubt that it is this word which
appears in the Talmud as Nopher, we are perhaps entitled, on the
authority of that treasure-house of Hebrew traditions, to identify these
ruins with the Calneh of Moses, and the Calno of Isaiah.
About sixty-five miles from Niffer, on the opposite side of the
Euphrates, and in a direction only slightly north of west, are the
remains of the ancient Borsippa. These consist of little more than the
ruins of a single building--the great temple of Merodach--which was
entirely rebuilt by Nebuchadnezzar. They have been sometimes regarded as
really a portion of the ancient Babylon; but this view is wholly
incompatible with the cuneiform records, which distinctly assign to the
ruins in question the name of Borsip or Borsippa, a place known with
certainty to have been distinct from, though in the neighborhood of, the
capital. A remnant of the ancient name appears to be contained in the
modern appellation, Birs-Nimrud or Birsi-Nimrud, which does not admit of
any explanation from the existing language of the country.
Fifteen miles from thence, to the north-east, chiefly but not entirely on
the left or east bank of the Euphrates, are the remains of “Babylon the
Great,” which have been so frequently described by travellers, that
little need be said of them in this place. The chief ruins cover a space
about three miles long, and from one to two broad, and consist mainly of
three great masses: the first a square mound, called “Babil” by the
Arabs, lying towards the north at some distance from the other remains;
the second or central mound, a pile called the “Kasr” or Palace; and the
third, a great irregular heap lying towards the south, known as the
“mound of Amram,” from a tomb which crowns its summit. The “Kasr” and
“Amram” mounds are enclosed within two lines of rampart, lying at right
angles to each other, and forming, with the river, a sort of triangle,
within which all the principal ruins are comprised, except the mound
called “Babil”. Beyond the rampart, towards the north, south, and east,
and also across the river to the west, are various smaller detached
ruins, while the whole ground, in every direction, is covered with
fragments of brick and with nitre, the sure marks of former habitations.
[Illustration: PLATE 3]
The other cities of ancient Chaldaea which may be located with an
approach to certainty, are Cutha, now Ibrahim, fifteen miles north-east
by north of Hymar; Sippara or Sepharvaim, which was at Sura, near Mosaib
on the Euphrates, about twenty miles above Babylon by the direct route;
and Dur-Kurri-galzu, now Akkerkuf, on the Saklawiyeh canal, six miles
from Baghdad, and thirty from Mosaib, in a direction a little west of
north. [PLATE III., Fig. 1.] Ihi, or Ahava, is probably Hit, ninety
miles above Mosaib, on the right bank of the river; Chilmad may be
Kalwadha, near Baghdad; and Rubesi is perhaps Zerghul, near the left bank
of the Shat-el-Hie, a little above its confluence with the Euphrates.
Chaldaean cities appear likewise to have existed at Hymar, ten miles from
Babylon towards the east; at Sherifeh and Im Khithr, south and south-east
of Hymar; at Zibbliyeh, on the line of the Nil canal, fifteen miles
north-west of Niffer; at Delayhim and Bisrniya, in the Affej marshes,
beyond Niffer, to the south-east; at Phara and Jidr, in the same region,
to the south-west and south-east of Bismiya; at Hammam [PLATE III., Fig.
2], sixteen miles south-east of Phara, between the Affej and the Shatra
marshes; at Tel-Ede, six miles from Hammam, to the south-south-west
[PLATE IV., Fig. 2]; at Tel-Medineh and Tel-Sifr, in the Shatra marshes,
to the south-east of Tel-Ede and the north-east of Senkereh; at Yokha,
east of Hammam, and Nuffdyji, north of Warka; at Lethami, near Niffer; at
Iskhuriyeh, north of Zibbliyeh, near the Tigris; at Tel-Kheir and
Tel-Dhalab, in the upper part of the alluvium, to the north of Akkerkuf;
at Duair, on the right bank of the Euphrates, south of Hilleh and
south-east of the Birs-Nimrud; at Jeb Mehari, south of the
Bahr-i-Nedjif; at Mal Battush, near Swaje; at Tel-el-Lahm, nine or ten
miles south of Suk-es-Sheioukh, and at Abu Shahrein, in the same
neighborhood, on the very border of the Arabian Desert. Further
investigation will probably add largely to this catalogue, for many
parts of Babylonia are still to some extent unexplored. This is
especially true of the tract between the Shat-el-Hie and the lower
Tigris, a district which, according to the geographers, abounds with
ruins. No doubt the most extensive and most striking of the old cities
have been visited; for of these Europeans are sure to hear through the
reports of natives. But it is more than probable that a number of the
most interesting sites remain unexplored, and even unvisited; for these
are not always either very extensive or very conspicuous. The process
of gradual disintegration is continually lowering the height of the
Chaldaean ruins; and depressed mounds are commonly the sign of an
ancient and long-deserted city. Such remains give us an insight into
the character of the early people, which it is impossible to obtain from
ruins where various populations have raised their fabrics in succession
upon the same spot.
[Illustration: PLATE 4]
The cities here enumerated may not perhaps, in all cases, have existed in
the Chaldaean period. The evidence hitherto obtained connects distinctly
with that period only the following--Babylon, Ur or Hur, Larrak or Larsa,
Erech or Huruk, Calneh or Nopher, Sippara, Dur-Kurri-galzu, Chilmad, and
the places now called Abu Shahrein and Tel-Sifr. These sites, it will be
observed, were scattered over the whole territory from the extreme south
almost to the extreme north, and show the extent of the kingdom to have
been that above assigned to it. They are connected together by a
similarity in building arrangements and materials, in language, in form
of type and writing, and sometimes in actual names of monarchs. The most
ancient, apparently, are those towards the south, at Warka, Senkereh,
Mugheir, and Niffer; and here, in the neighborhood of the sea, which then
probably reached inland as far as Suk-es-Sheioukh, there is sufficient
reason to place the primitive seat of Chaldaean power. The capital of
the whole region was at first Ur or Hur, but afterwards became Nipur, and
finally Babel or Babylon.
The geography of Chaldaea is scarcely complete without a glance at the
countries which adjoin upon it. On the west, approaching generally
within twenty or thirty miles of the present course of the Euphrates, is
the Arabian Desert, consisting in this place of tertiary sand and
gravels, having a general elevation of a few feet above the Mesopotamian
plain, and occasionally rising into ridges of no great height, whose
direction is parallel to the course of the great stream. Such are the
Hazem and the Qassaim, in the country between the Bahr-i-Nedjif and the
Persian Gulf, low pebbly ridges which skirt the valley from the Bahr to
below Suk-es-Sheioukh. Further west the desert becomes more stony, its
surface being strewn with numerous blocks of black granite, from which it
derives its appellation of Hejerra. No permanent streams water this
region; occasional “wadys” or torrent-courses, only full after heavy
rains, are found; but the scattered inhabitants depend for water chiefly
on their wells, which are deep and numerous, but yield only a scanty
supply of a brackish and unpalatable fluid. No settled population can at
any time have found subsistence in this region, which produces only a few
dates, and in places a poor and unsucculent herbage. Sandstorms are
frequent, and at times the baleful simoon sweeps across the entire tract,
destroying with its pestilential breath both men and animals.
Towards the north Chaldaea adjoined upon Assyria. From the foot of that
moderately lofty range already described which the Greeks call Masius,
and the modern Turks know as Jebel Tur and Karajah Dagh, extends, for
above 300 miles, a plain of low elevation, slightly undulating in places,
and crossed about its centre by an important limestone ridge, known as
the Sinjar hills, which have a direction nearly east and west, beginning
about Mosul, and terminating a little below Rakkah. This track differs
from the Chaldaean lowland, by being at once less flat and more elevated.
Geologically it is of secondary formation, while Chaldaea proper is
tertiary or post-tertiary. It is fairly watered towards the north, but
below the Sinjar is only very scantily supplied. In modern times it is
for nine months in the year a desert, but anciently it was well
inhabited, means having apparently been found to bring the whole into
cultivation. As a complete account of this entire region must be given
in another part of the present volume, this outline (it is thought) may
suffice for our present purpose.
Eastward of Chaldaea, separated from it by the Tigris, which in its lower
course is a stream of more body than the Euphrates, was the country known
to the Jews as Elam, to the early Greeks as Cissia, and to the later
Greeks as Susis or Susiana. This territory comprised a portion of the
mountain country which separates Mesopotamia from Persia; but it was
chiefly composed of the broad and rich flats intervening between the
mountains and the Tigris, along the courses of the Kerkhah, Kuran, and
Jerahi rivers. It was a rich and fertile tract, resembling Chaldaea in
its general character, with the exception that the vicinity of the
mountains lent it freshness, giving it cooler streams, more frequent
rains, and pleasanter breezes.
Capable of maintaining with ease a dense population, it was likely, in
the early times, to be a powerful rival to the Mesopotamian kingdom, over
which we shall find that in fact it sometimes exercised supremacy.
On the south Chaldaea had no neighbor. Here a spacious sea, with few
shoals, land-locked, and therefore protected from the violent storms of
the Indian Ocean, invited to commerce, offering a ready communication
with India and Ceylon, as well as with Arabia Felix, Ethiopia, and Egypt.
It is perhaps to this circumstance of her geographical position, as much
as to any other, that ancient Chaldaea owes her superiority over her
neighbors, and her right to be regarded as one of the five great
monarchies of the ancient world. Commanding at once the sea, which
reaches here deep into the land, and the great rivers by means of which
the commodities of the land were most conveniently brought down to the
sea, she lay in the highway of trade, and could scarcely fail to profit
by her position. There is sufficient reason to believe that Ur, the
first capital, was a great maritime emporium; and if so, it can scarcely
be doubted that to commerce and trade, at the least in part, the early
development of Chaldaean greatness was owing.