found in Part I in the chapter on world histories, and a further
note in Egypt, Appendix A, p. 268. It is unnecessary to make
further comment here, beyond mentioning the translation from which
our excerpts are made. This, as will be seen, was published just
at the beginning of the eighteenth century; but it has never been
superseded, few scholars having cared to undertake the task of
translating an author whose works are so voluminous. Even were
more recent translations available, the one we have used would
still have been selected, because of the quaintness of its diction,
which, as has been suggested, conveys to the average reader a
better idea of the original language than would a more modern
rendering.
=Driault=, E., La Question d’Orient depuis ses origines jusqu’ à nos
jours. Paris, 1898.--=Dümichen=, J., Geographie des alten Aegyptens.
Berlin, 1887; Bauurkunde der Tempelanlagen von Dendéra. Leipsic, 1865;
Historische Inschriften. Leipsic, 1867-1869, 2 vols.; Der Grosspalast
des Petnamenap. Leipsic, 1894; Karte des Stadtgebietes von Memphis und
benachbarter Districte. Leipsic, 1895; Die Flotte einer aegyptischen
Königin. Leipsic, 1868.
_Johannes Dümichen_ was born 15th October, 1833, in Weisholz,
Germany; died 7th February, 1894, at Strassburg. Dr. Dümichen was a
student of Lepsius and Brugsch, and he devoted his entire life to
Egyptology. He made several journeys to Egypt and wrote extensively
regarding the archæological features of the subject. His works are
mainly technical, and while very valuable for specialists, are not
always equally interesting to the general reader. What would have
been perhaps his most important contribution, his comprehensive
history of Egypt undertaken for the Oncken series, was incomplete
at the time of his death; having dealt only with the geographical
and archæological features. The work was completed by Eduard Meyer
(see below).
=Duncker=, M., Geschichte des Alterthums. Berlin, 1855, 1877, etc., 6
vols; History of Antiquity (translated by Evelyn Abbott). London, 1877,
6 vols.
_Maxmilian Wolfgang Duncker_ was born 15th October, 1811, at
Berlin; died 21st July, 1896. The writings of Duncker cover a wide
range of historical subjects, but he will chiefly be remembered
for his _History of Antiquity_, which took rank on publication as
the most important contribution to the subject. It was improved in
successive editions, and was translated into English. Its merits of
style are unusually great for a German work, and, needless to say,
it was built on authorities with the usual German comprehensiveness
of view. Dealing with the subject of oriental history, however, it
is necessarily out of date regarding many subjects, and the more
scientific, if somewhat less popular, work of Meyer has latterly
superseded it to a large extent.
* * * * *
=Ebers=, G., Egypt. London, 1880; Über das hieroglyph. Schriftsystem,
Berlin, 1875.
_Georg Moritz Ebers_ was born 1st March, 1837; died August, 1898.
The name of Ebers is probably better known to the general public
than that of any other Egyptologist. But the average reader of
his very popular novels is not perhaps aware that the author was
a technical Egyptologist of the highest rank. Ebers made personal
explorations in Egypt, the most notable result being the discovery
of the papyrus which has since borne his name,--a remarkable
document dealing with the practice of medicine in old Egypt, which
remains our chief source of knowledge regarding this subject.
=Erman=, A., Aegypten und aegyptisches Leben in Altertum. Tübingen,
1887; Life in Ancient Egypt. London, 1894; Die Entstehung eines
Totentextbuches, in Ztschr. für Aegypt. Spr. no. 32, 1894.
_Dr. Adolf Erman_, Professor of Egyptology in the University of
Berlin, Director of the Berlin Museum, member of the Royal Prussian
Academy of Sciences, at Berlin, etc., was born 31st October,
1854, at Berlin. Professor Erman is the successor of Lepsius in
the chair of Egyptology at the University of Berlin, and it is
felt that the mantle of the great Egyptologist has fallen on
worthy shoulders. Professor Erman’s writings have mainly had to
do with grammatical and literary investigations. His editions of
the romances of old Egypt are models of scholarly interpretation.
They give the original hieratic text with translations into
Egyptian hieroglyphics, into Latin, and into German. Such works
are, of course, intended chiefly for the scholar. Persons capable
of such works of scholarship are seldom interested in the exact
manner of presentation of their subject, and very generally they
scorn popular treatment in their writings. But Professor Erman,
following the precedent of here and there a forerunner such as
Heeren, has written a strictly popular work on the life of the
ancient Egyptians that is by far the most complete treatise on the
subject attempted since the time of Wilkinson. The reader will not
have overlooked the masterly characterisation of Egyptian history
which Professor Erman has written for the present work.
* * * * *
=Ferguson=, J., History of Architecture. London, 1874, 4 vols.
_James Ferguson_ was born at Ayr, Scotland, 22nd January, 1808;
died 9th January, 1886. The personal history of Ferguson is quite
unlike that of almost any other Anglo-Saxon of similar achievements
except Grote; but is in some ways closely suggestive of the great
historian of Greece. It even more closely resembles the life of
Schliemann, the great German, whose rediscovery of Troy has made
his name familiar to every one. Like Schliemann Ferguson devoted
the years of his early manhood to a purely commercial pursuit, and
like him he followed this pursuit with such success as to acquire
a fortune, which enabled him to retire while still in the prime of
manhood. Oddly enough, the parallel between these two lives is made
still closer by the fact that the particular commodity with which
each dealt chiefly was indigo. But beyond this the parallel no
longer holds, for the seat of Schliemann’s commercial activities,
as will be recalled, was Russia, while Ferguson made his fortune in
India. No sooner had Ferguson acquired a fortune that would justify
him in retiring, than he turned at once to a field of study that
undoubtedly stood in need of investigation, and made that study his
life-work. Guided by the same energy and judgment that gained him
a fortune in his commercial pursuits, Ferguson soon made himself
master of the subject of architecture, and presently came to be
known as the chief authority on the history of architecture in
antiquity.
=Fleay=, I. G., Egyptian Chronology. London, 1899 (Jour. Brit. Archeol.
Assoc., 1899).--=Fries=, S. A., 1st Israel jemals in Aegypten gewesen?
In _Sphinx_, I, 207-221.
* * * * *
=Gagnol=, Cours d’histoire ancienne des peuples de l’Orient. Tours,
1891.--=Ganeval=, L., L’Égypte. Lyon, 1882.--=Gardner=, A., Naukratis.
London, 1889.--=Gau=, F. C., Antiquités de la Nubie, ou monuments
inédits des bords du Nil. Paris, 1822.--=Geyersburg=, C. H. de, Egypt
and Palestine in Primitive Times. London, 1895.--=Girard=, Description
de l’Égypte.--=Golenischeff=, Impérial Inventaire de la Collection
égyptienne de l’Ermitage. St. Petersburg, 1891.--=Gradenwitz=, O.,
Einführung in die Papyruskunde. Leipsic, 1900. =Grandbey=, Rapport
sur les temples égyptiens. Cairo, 1888.--=Gravierre=, I. de la, La
marine des Ptolémées. Paris, 1885, 2 vols.--=Groff=, W., La fille de
Pharaoh. Cairo.--=Gruson=, H., Im Reiche des Litches (Pyramiden nach
den ältesten Quellen). Braunschweig, 1893.--=Guimet=, Plutarque et
l’Égypte. Paris, 1898.--=Gutschmid=, A. von, Kleine Schriften, vol. 1.
Schriften zur Aegyptologie. Leipsic, 1889.
* * * * *
=Halévy=, Jos., Revue Sémitique d’épigraphie et d’histoire ancienne.
Paris, 1893.--=Harkness=, M. E., Egyptian Life and History. London,
1884.--=Heeren=, A. H. L., Ideen ueber die Politik, den Verkehr und den
Handel der vornehmsten Völker der Alten Welt, 3 edit. Göttingen, 1815,
4 vols. English translation: Historical Researches, etc. Oxford, 1878,
5 vols.
_Arnold Hermann Ludwig Heeren_ was born at Arbergen, near Bremen,
1760; died at Göttingen, 1842. The celebrated author of _Historical
Researches into the Politics, Intercourse, and Trade of the
Carthaginians, Ethiopians, and Egyptians_ was, during the greater
part of his life, Professor of History at Göttingen; he had,
however, earlier in his career, filled the chair of Philosophy in
the same university, and the happy mingling of the philosophical
with the historical cast of mind is at all times evidenced in his
writings. The historical writings of Professor Heeren cover a wide
field, but his greatest renown was achieved with his _History of
the Nations of Antiquity_. In this Professor Heeren broke new
ground. His scheme of treatment was quite different from that of
any one who had preceded him. His intention was not so much to
elucidate the political history, as to deal with those commercial
relations and social customs which, after all, are the chief
foundations of a nation’s life. In particular he was perhaps
the first great historian who fully grasped the import of the
commercial relations of ancient nations. He made himself master of
all knowledge obtainable in his day bearing on this topic, and his
work at once took rank as the foremost authority on its subject. So
much as this goes almost without saying, for hardly any one attains
to professorship in a German university who has not the qualities
of scholarship calculated to make him an authority on any topic
which he will undertake to treat. But, what is much more unusual
among the Germans, Professor Heeren had also the gift of style.
His work is not only authoritative, but readable. Indeed, in this
regard, it is surpassed even now by very few works in the domain of
history. As evidence of this characteristic, the works of Professor
Heeren were at once translated both into French and into English,
and have the widest popularity in France, England, and America. In
the nature of the case, the authoritative character of his works
cannot have been maintained at their original standard, since the
new discoveries and excavations in the Orient have so altered
the phases of our conception of oriental history. In one sense,
therefore, it is unfortunate that Professor Heeren could not have
written after the excavations of Layard in Nineveh had given the
new stock of material for ferreting out the history of Mesopotamia.
Nevertheless, as far as it went, the history of Heeren was founded
firmly upon facts which the new researches have left unshaken, and
his work, as a whole, still has great value for the historical
student of the period. There are sections of it, indeed, which have
neither been supplanted nor duplicated.
=Hegel=, G. W. F., Lectures on the Philosophy of History. London,
1857.--=Herodotus=, History of Herodotus. London, 1806, 4 vols.
_Herodotus_, the celebrated “Father of History,” or, as K. O.
Müller styles him, the “Father of Prose,” was born at Halicarnassus
in Asia Minor, about 484 B.C., and died at Hurii, Italy, about 424
B.C.; there is no certainty as to the exact dates. Reference has
been made to Herodotus in Egypt. Here it is desirable to add a few
words as to the translation from which our excerpts are chosen.
Needless to say, there have been numerous translations of Herodotus
of varying degrees of merit. Doubtless the most authoritative,
historically considered, is the famous one which Professor George
Rawlinson, with the aid of his brother, Sir Henry Rawlinson, and of
Sir J. Gardner Wilkinson, made about the middle of the nineteenth
century. This particular translation, however, is of chief value
not so much for its text as for the scholarly notes which the
translators have appended. As to the text itself, there is at least
one still more recent translation--that by Macaulay--which may
perhaps claim to give even a closer rendering. For the use of the
scholar these translations cannot be too highly commended, but it
still remains true that by far the most readable and, so to say,
Herodotus-like, English rendering of the “Father of History” is
that which was made about a century ago by the Rev. William Beloe
(1756-1817), an English divine, who from 1803 to 1806 was keeper
of printed books at the British Museum, and who produced a variety
of writings of considerable note in their day. His version of
Herodotus has been said, properly enough, to lack the close verbal
accuracy of some more recent performances; but, on the other hand,
the accuracy of its rendering as a translation in the best sense,
rather than a mere literary transcription, is not in question,
and modern critics concede that in point of readableness, Beloe
is quite without a peer. And, broadly considered, one surely is
justified in saying that Herodotus not readable is not Herodotus at
all. Beloe explicitly repudiates the literal plan of translation,
aiming, as he states in his preface, to give as nearly as possible
the spirit of the author, along with a clear interpretation of his
text. How well he succeeded is evidenced by a critical estimate
which says of him that “something in his mental constitution
qualified him admirably for reproducing the limpid simplicity and
amiable garrulity of Herodotus.”
=Hieratische Papyrus= aus den Kgl. Museen zu Berlin, hrsg. von der
Generalverwaltung Berlin.--=Hommel=, F. Der Babylonische Ursprung der
aegyptischen Cultur. München, 1892.
* * * * *
=Jacotin=, Carte topographique de l’Égypte. Paris. 1869.--=St. John=,
Egypt and Nubia. London. 1845.--=Johnson=, V. E., Egyptian Science
from the Monuments and Ancient Books. London, 1892.--=Jornard=, E. F.,
Description de l’Égypte. Paris, 1809.
* * * * *
=Kayser=, F., Aegypten einst und jetzt. Frieburg, 1879, 2nd
ed.--=Kenrick=, J., Ancient Egypt under the Pharaohs. London, 1850,
2 vols.--=Kminek-Szedlo=, I., Catalogo di antichita egizie. Torino,
1895.--=Krall=, J., Studien zur Geschichte des alten Aegyptens, in
Sitzber, d. Wiener Acad. d. Wiss. Wien. 1890; Beiträge zur Geschichte
der Blennyer und Nubier. Wien, 1898.--=Krummel=, L., Die Religion der
alten Aegypter. Heidelberg, 1893.
* * * * *
=Lassus=, L’Art égyptien. Paris, 1898.--=Laurent=, F., Études sur
l’histoire de l’humanité. Paris, 1865, 18 vols.--=Lauth=, Aegyptische
Chronologie. Strassburg, 1877.--=Lefébure=, L’Importance du nom
chez les égyptiens. Sphinx, I; Le contre-charme. Sphinx, I; Rites
égyptiens. Paris, 1890.--=Lenormant=, F., Chaldean Magic and its
Origin and Development. London, 1877.--=Lepsius=, K. R., Letters from
Egypt. London, 1853; Königsbuch der alten Aegypter. Berlin, 1858; Das
Totenreich der égypter. Leipsic, 1842; Denkmäler aus Aegypten und
Aethiopien. Berlin, 1849-1859, 12 vols.; Chronologie der Aegypter.
Berlin, 1848; Über einige Berührungspunkte der Aegypt., griech.
und röm. Chronologie. Berlin Acad., 1859; Über die zwölfte Aegypt.
Königsdynastie. Berlin Acad., 1853.
_Karl Richard Lepsius_ was born 23rd December, 1810, at Naumburg,
Prussia; died 10th July, 1884, at Berlin. Professor Lepsius was one
of the most distinguished of Egyptologists. In his maturer years
he had a professorship in Berlin, itself a matter of distinction
in that land of scholarship. He made excursions to Egypt in an
official capacity, and familiarised himself at first hand with
the monuments and records that were his life study. As a writer
Professor Lepsius was less distinguished than some of his confrères
in the field, though all that he wrote had, of course, the stamp of
the highest authority. His letters from Egypt and Nubia, being of
a more popular character than his other writings, were translated
into English and widely circulated. It must be admitted, however,
that his descriptions of the famous ruins have interest rather
because they reflect the opinions of a great scholar than because
of their intrinsic literary merit.
=Lieblein=, Aegyptische Chronologie, Christiana, 1863; Recherches sur
la chronologie égyptienne. Paris, 1873; Hieroglyph. Namenwörterbuch.
Leipsic, 1871-1892; Index alphabéthique de tous les mots contenus dans
le livre des morts. Paris, 1875; Gammel-aegyptisk Religion populaert
fremstillet. Christiana, 1883-1885; Handel und Schiffahrt auf dem
Roten Meer in alten Zeiten. Leipsic, 1887; Le livre égyptien que mon
nom fleurisse. Leipsic, 1895.--=Loret=, V., L’Égypte aux temps des
Pharaohs. Paris, 1889; La flore pharahonique. Paris, 1892.
* * * * *
=Mahler=, Ed., Materialen zur Chronologie des alten Aegyptens in
Ztschr. für äg. Spr. no. 32, 1894.--=Mallet=, D., Les premiers
établissements des Grecs en Égypte. Paris, 1893.--=Magrizi=,
Description topographique et historique de l’Égypte. Paris, 1895.
(Trans. from Arabic).--=Mariette=, Choix des monuments et des dessins.
Paris, 1856; Le Sérapeum de Memphis. Paris, 1857-1866, 9 parts; Aperçu
de l’histoire de l’Égypte. Paris, 1864; Nouvelle table d’Abydos.
Paris, 1865; Fouilles executées en Égypte, en Nubie, et au Soudan.
Paris, 1867; Abydos description des fouilles. Paris, 1870-1880,
2 vols.; Catalogue général des monuments d’Abydos. Paris, 1880;
Dendéra: description générale du grand temple de cette ville. Paris,
1870-1880, 5 vols.; Les papyrus égyptiens du musée Bolaq. Paris,
1871-1873, 3 vols.; Karnak, Étude historique et archéol. Paris, 1875;
Deinri al-Bahari. Paris, 1877; Monuments Divers. Paris, 1872-1889;
Les Mastabas de l’ancien empire, ed. by G. Maspero. Paris, 1882-1886;
Voyage dans la Haute-Égypte. Paris, 1878 (2nd ed., 1893).
_August Eduard Mariette_ was born 12th February, 1821, at Boulogne;
died 18th January, 1881, at Bulaq. He was one of the most assiduous
workers, and came to be one of the greatest authorities in the
field of Egyptology. He early made explorations in Egypt, and after
founding the famous Museum at Bulaq spent the remainder of his
life on the ground, almost incessantly occupied with explorations
and with the interpretation of his archæological finds. His first
famous excavations were made at Memphis, about the middle of the
nineteenth century; later on he excavated the famous temple of
Abydos. His publications are very numerous, but they are chiefly
of a scholarly rather than a popular character. He was the highest
authority on the hieratic form of Egyptian writing. Notwithstanding
the technical character of much of his writing, he had a wide
popular reputation, partly due to his official position as director
of the Museum at Bulaq. Like most Frenchmen, Mariette could write
in a popular vein when he chose, and his _Aperçu_, above noted
(translated into English by Miss Mary Brodrick under the title
of _Outlines of Ancient Egyptian History_) is one of the most
entertaining popular studies of the subject.
=Martine=, Histoire du monde oriental dans l’antiquité. Paris,
1894.--=Maspero=, G., Du genre épistolaire chez les égyptiens. Paris,
1872; Sur quelques papyrus du Louvre. Paris, 1875; Études égyptiennes.
Paris, 1879-1882; Histoire ancienne des peuples de l’Orient. Paris,
1886, 4th ed.; L’archéologie égyptienne. Paris, 1887; Les contes
populaires de l’Égypte ancienne. Paris, 1889; Les momies royales de
Deir et Bahari. Paris, 1889; Lectures historiques; histoire ancienne;
Égypte, Assyrie. Paris, 1890; Histoire ancienne des peuples de l’Orient
classique. Paris, 1895; The Struggle of the Nations. Soc. Prom. Chr.
Know. London, 1896; Études de mythologie et d’archéologie égyptienne.
Paris, 1893; The Dawn of Civilisation. Soc. Prom. Chr. Know. London,
1897; Manual of Egyptian Archæology. Paris, 1893; La carrière
administrative de deux hauts fonctionnaires égyptiens vers la fin de la
III dynastie, in Journal asiatique, Vol. XV.
_Gaston Camille Charles Maspero_ was born at Paris 24th June, 1846;
member of the Institute, formerly Professor of Egyptian Archæology
and Ethnology in the _Collège de France_, more recently Director
of the Egyptian Museum at Bulaq. Professor Maspero is one of the
most famous of living orientalists, and since the death of Mariette
Pasha, whose work he has continued in Egypt, he is doubtless
the most authoritative of French Egyptologists. While making a
specialty of this field, however, he has by no means confined
himself to it, and his brilliant writings cover the entire field
of oriental antiquity. While Professor Maspero is known everywhere
to scholars, and recognised by them, as an authority on the topics
of which he treats, his fame as a popular writer is still wider.
In fact in this field he, perhaps, has no peer among Egyptologists
and orientalists, living or dead. His work entitled _Les Origines_
has been translated into English, under the title of _The Dawn of
Civilisation_, as have also its companion volumes, one of which
bears the striking title of _The Struggle of the Nations_, but
these more elaborate works in no wise detract from the importance
and authority of the brilliant earlier _Histoire du peuple de
l’Orient_, from which we shall have occasion to make numerous
extracts, and which, for some unaccountable reason, has not
hitherto been made accessible to English readers. The gift of style
is no rarity among French historians, but Professor Maspero has
it in a degree unusual even among his compatriots, and the whole
range of historical literature can show few works which combine the
qualities of authority and readableness in a higher degree than his.
=Melida=, Historia del arte Egipcio. Madrid, 1899.--=Mémoires=,
publiées par les membres de la mission archéologique française au Caire
sous la direction de Maspero; Memoirs of the Egypt Exploration Fund.
London.--=Ménard=, L., La vie privée des anciens. Paris, 1880-1883, 4
vols.; L’histoire des anciens peuples de l’Orient. Paris, 1883. These
works are valuable because of their admirable style. They are the work
of one who is a writer, rather than an Egyptologist; nevertheless,
they are based on a careful study of the authorities, and they may be
turned to with confidence.--=Meglin=, F., Histoire de l’Égypte. Paris,
1823.--=Meyer=, E., Geschichte des alten Aegyptens. Berlin, 1887;
Geschichte des Alterthums. Stuttgart, 1884, etc., 5 vols. (in progress).
_Eduard Meyer_ was born in 1855, at Hamburg, Germany; he is at
present ordinary Professor of Ancient History in the University of
Halle, of which university he is also a graduate. Professor Meyer’s
historical studies, from the outset, have looked particularly to
the history of antiquity. Quite early in life he developed a plan
for writing a comprehensive history of both oriental and classical
antiquity, and the first volume of this work, under the title of
_Geschichte des Alterthums_, appeared in 1884. It is, in some
regards, the most valuable history of antiquity as yet written,
combining, as it does, the characteristic qualities of German
scholarship, with a degree of condensation very unusual in German
works, and a fair measure of popularity of style. The first volume
of Professor Meyer’s history deals solely with the nations of the
Orient, and it furnishes perhaps the best available outline for
the studies of any one who would undertake a full investigation of
Egyptian history. Unfortunately the work is out of print; but a new
edition is promised. The more extended work on Egyptian history was
contributed to the Oncken series.
=Milne=, History of Egypt under Roman Rule. London, 1899.--=Minutoli=,
Über die aegypt. Pigments und Maltechnik der Alten. 1892.--=Molchow=,
E., Aegypten und Palästina. Zürich, 1881.--=Mook=, F., Aegypten’s
vormetallische Zeit. Würzburg, 1880.--=Morgan=, Fouilles à Dahschour.
Wien, 1895; Catalogue des monuments et inscriptions de l’Égypte
antique par Morgan, Bouriant, Legrain, Jequier et Barsant. Wien, 1894.
(Valuable technical works.)--=Müller=, W. Max, Who were the Ancient
Ethiopians? Philadelphia, 1894; Asien und Aegypten nach altaegyptischen
Denkmälern. Leipsic, 1895.
* * * * *
=Naville=, The Temple of Deir al-Bahari. London, 1894; The Store-city
of Pithom and the Route of the Exodus. London, 1888. (Valuable works of
an original explorer.)--=Norovitch=, L’Europe et l’Égypte. Paris, 1898.
* * * * *
=Ollivier-Beauregard=, La caricature égyptienne. Paris,
1894.--=Osburn=, W., Monumental History of Egypt. London, 1854. (Of
antiquarian interest.)--=Oxley=, W., Egypt. London, 1884.
* * * * *
=Palmer=, W., Egyptian Chronicles. London, 1861, 2 vols.--=Parsons=,
A. R., New Light from the Great Pyramid. New York, 1894.--=Parthey=,
I. F. O., Erdkunde des alten Aegyptens.--=Paturet=, La condition
juridique de la femme dans l’ancienne Égypte. Paris, 1886.--=Pensa=,
G., Les Cultures de l’Égypte. Paris, 1897.--=Pentaur=, in Brugsch’s
Egypt. London, 1881, 2 vols. (The work ascribed to Pentaur is a poem
describing the exploits of Ramses II, like the _Battle of Kadesh_.
Pentaur, however, is not the author of it, but merely the transcriber
of one copy of this poem. See p. 212.)--=Perring=, I. S., Pyramids of
Gizeh. London, 1839-1842, 3 vols.--=Perrot= and =Chipiez=, Histoire
de l’art dans de l’antiquité. Paris, 1881-1889. (The series of works
on ancient art by these French authors constitutes one of the most
important contributions to the subject ever written. The works are
accessible in an English translation.)--=Petrie=, W. M. F., A History
of Egypt from the Earliest Times to the XVIth Dynasty. London, 1894;
Inductive Metrology. London, 1877; Plans, Descriptions, and Theories.
London, 1880; The Pyramids and Temples of Gizeh. London, 1883; Tanis I.
London, 1885; Tanis II, Nebesheh and Defenneh. London, 1887; Naukratis
I. London, 1886; Racial Portraits, 190 Photographs from the Egyptian
Monuments. London, 1888; Historical Scarabs. London, 1889; Hawara,
Biahmu, and Arsinoe. London, 1889; Kahun, Gurob, and Hawara. London,
1890; Tell el Hesy (Lachish). London, 1891; Ten Years’ Diggings.
London, 1892; Tell-el-Amarna. London, 1894; Egyptian Tales. London,
1894-1895; Egyptian Decorative Art. London, 1895; Syria and Egypt from
the Tell-el-Amarna letters. London, 1898.
_Professor W. M. Flinders Petrie_ was born in 1853 at Charlton,
England; D.C.L. Oxford, 1893; LL.D. Edinburgh, 1895; he is at
present Professor of Egyptology in University College, London.
Professor Petrie is perhaps more widely known to the public
at large than any other living Egyptologist. Though still a
comparatively young man, he has devoted more than twenty years to
almost continuous exploration of the ruins of ancient Egypt. From
the very outset he gained a reputation as a discoverer of buried
cities, which his subsequent exertions have amply sustained.
Professor Petrie comes naturally by the instincts of the explorer,
as he is a grandson of Captain Matthew Flinders, who was celebrated
for his explorations of the Australian coast at the beginning of
the nineteenth century. The recitals of the fabulous wonders of
Australia are not more fascinating or more marvellous than the
narratives Professor Petrie has been enabled to give of the long
lost and long forgotten mysteries of Egypt.
=Piehl=, Deux déesses égyptiennes (in Mélanges de Harlez). Leiden;
Inscriptions hiéroglyphiques recueillies en Europe et en Égypte.
Leipsic, 1895.--=Poole=, R. S., Cities of Egypt. London, 1882; Egypt.
London, 1881.
* * * * *
=Rawlinson=, G., Egypt and Babylon. London, 1885; Ancient Egypt.
London, 1887; History of Ancient Egypt. London, 1881, 2 vols. (Canon
Rawlinson’s works on Egypt were perhaps written to round out his series
of oriental histories. They are of course based on the authorities,
and are at once dependable and entertaining.)--=Regaldi=, L’Egitto
antico. Firenze, 1882.--=Renouf=, P. le Page, The Book of the Dead in
Proc. Soc. Bibl. Arch., Vol. XI, 1894-1896; Lectures on the Origin
and Growth of Religion. London, 1880. (These works, written by the
successor of Dr. Birch, and the predecessor of Dr. Budge as Keeper of
the Egyptian and Assyrian Antiquities at the British Museum, have,
of course, the fullest authority. The religious phases of oriental
archæology had a peculiar interest for the author, and his writings
are confined to this field and the field of philology.)--=Reynier=,
L., State of Egypt after the Battle of Heliopolis. London, 1802; De
l’Égypte sous la domination des Romains. Paris, 1807.--=Revillout=,
Lettres sur les monnaies égyptiennes. Paris, 1895; Mélange sur la
métrologie, l’econ. polit. et l’histoire de l’ancienne Égypte. Paris,
1895.--=Riegl=, Zur Frage des Nachlebens der altaegyptischen Kunst in
der spätern Antike.--=Robinson=, C. S., Pharaoh of the Bondage and
Exodus. New York, 1887.--=Robiou=, F., La religion de l’ancienne Égypte
et les influences étrangères. Paris, 1888.--=Rosellini=, I monumenti
dell’ Egitto e della Nubia. Pisa, 1832-1844. (The work of one of the
most famous pupils of Champollion still has interest and value, though
necessarily antiquated in many regards.)--=Rougé=, E. de, Recherches
sur les monuments qu’on peut attribuer aux six premières dynasties de
Manéthon. Paris, 1866; Études sur divers monuments du règne de Tutmes
III, découverts a Thèbes par E. Mariette. Paris, 1861; Géographie
ancienne de la Basse-Égypte. Paris, 1890. (The name of De Rougé is
permanently associated with the theory that the Phœnician alphabet
was derived from an early form of the Egyptian hieratic writing. The
original paper in which De Rougé advanced this theory was accidentally
destroyed, and the theory did not gain prominence until after the death
of the author. Its correctness is still in doubt, though it has able
champions.)
* * * * *
=Salvolini=, F., Campagne de Ramses le Grand contre les Scheta.
Paris, 1835. (The work of another famous pupil of Champollion, and
innovator in Egyptology.)--=Sayce=, A. H., Egypt of the Hebrews and
Herodotus. London, 1895; Ancient Empires of the East. London, 1844;
Records of the Past.--=Schack-Schackenburg=, Aegyptolische Studien.
1894.--=Schiaparelli=, Il libro dei funerali de antichi Egiziani.
Torino, 1890.--=Schmidt=, O. P., A Self-verifying Chronological History
of Ancient Egypt. Cincinnati, 1889.--=Schweinfurth=, Der Moerissee
nach den neuesten Forschungen. In Petermann’s Mitteil. 1893.--=Sethe=,
Untersuchungen zur Geschichte und Alterthumskunde Aegyptens. Leipsic,
1900, 3 parts (in progress).--=Sylvestre de Sacy=, Abd-al-latif,
translated by Sacy. Paris, 1810, 3 vols.--=Simaiki=, A. A., La province
romaine d’Égypte. Paris, 1892.--=Sharpe=, The Chronology and Geography
of Ancient Egypt. London. 1849; History of Egypt to Arab Conquest.
London, 1876, 2 vols. (Works that are out of date, though still having
considerable value, particularly for the later period of Egyptian
history; most entertainingly written.)--=Smith=, P., The Ancient
History of the East from Earliest Times to Conquest of Alexander the
Great. London, 1871.--=Smyth=, C., Piazzi, Our Inheritance in the Great
Pyramid. London, 1890.--=Spiegelberg=, W., Studien sum Rechtswesen des
Pharaohenreiches der Dynastie XVIII-XXI. Hanover, 1892; Rechnungen
aus der Zeit Setis I. Strassburg, 1896; Zur Geographie des alten
Aegyptens by Dümichen. Ed. by Spiegelberg. Leipsic, 1894; Die Novelle
in alten Aegypten. Strassburg, 1898; Arbeiter und Arbeiterbewegung
in Pharaonenreich unter den Ramessiden. Strassburg, 1895; Die
erste Erwähnung Israels in eine aegyptischen Text. Berlin Acad.,
1896.--=Stangen=, Aegypten. Leipsic, 1882.--=Steindorff=, Aegypten und
mykenische Cultur. Berlin, 1892; Grabfunde des mittleren Reiches in
den kgl. Museen zu Berlin; Zur Geschichte der Hyksos. Leipzig, 1894;
Zur Geschichte der XI Dynastie in Ztschr. für Aegypt. Spr. no. 33.
1895; Blütezeit des Pharaonenreiches. Bielefield, 1900.--=Strabo=,
The Geography of Strabo. (Strabo was one of the greatest geographers
of antiquity. A somewhat extended reference to his work has been
made already, and further notice will be taken of it in a later
book.)--=Strauss=, V. von Torney, Der altaegyptische Götterglaube.
Heidelberg, 1890, 2 parts.--=Stucken=, Ed. Die Astralmythen der
Hebräer, Babylonier und Aegypter. Leipsic.
* * * * *
=Tiele=, Histoire comparée des anciennes religions et des peuples
sémitiques. Paris, 1882.--=Tomkins=, H. G., Campaign of Ramses II
against the Kadesh on Orontes. London, 1882.--=Torr=, Cecil, Memphis
and Mycenæ and Examination of Egyptian Chronology and its Application
to the Early History of Greece. Cambridge.--=Tylor= and =Somers
Clarke=, The Tomb of Sebeknekht. London.--=Tylor= and =L. Griffith=,
The tomb of el-Paheri at El-Kab. London.
* * * * *
=Valbuena=, R. F., Egipto y Asiria resucitados. Madrid, 1895.--=Vise=,
R. W., Operations carried on at the Pyramids of Gizeh in 1837. London,
1840-1842, 3 vols.
* * * * *
=Wallis=, H., Egyptian Chemic Art. London, 1900.--=Watkins=, I.
W., Popular History of Egypt. London, 1886.--=Watson=, G. H., Art
and Antiquities of Ancient Egypt. London, 1843.--=Wendel=, History
of Egypt. New York, 1890.--=Wessley=, Studien über das Verhältniss
des griechischen zum aegyptischen Recht im Lagidenreich. Leipsic,
1891.--=Wiedemann=, A., The Ancient Egyptian Doctrine of the
Immortality of the Soul. London, 1895; Aegyptische Geschichte. Gotha,
1884; Geschichte von Altaegypten. Cöln and Stuttgart, 1891; Die
Religion der alten Aegypter. München, 1890, and Engl. translation;
Religion of the Ancient Egyptians. London, 1897; Zum Tierkult der
alten Aegypter. Leiden (In Mélanges Ch. de Harlez). (Admirable
works combining authoritative treatment with relatively popular
presentation.)--=Wilcken=, N., Griechische Ostraca aus Ägypten und
Nubien. 1899, 2 vols.--=Wilkinson=, Sir G., Popular Account of the
Ancient Egyptians. London, 1854, 2 vols.; The Egyptians in the Time
of the Pharaohs. London, 1857; Manners and Customs of the Ancient
Egyptians. London, 1878, 3 vols.
_Sir John Gardner Wilkinson_ was born in 1797 at Hardendale,
Westmoreland; died October, 1875. Whoever would know the Egyptian
as he was and become conversant with the manners and customs
of his everyday life, must turn to the pages of Wilkinson. His
Popular Account of the Ancient Egyptians has been from the day of
its publication the chief source of information on this subject.
Wilkinson had the good fortune to enter the field of Egyptian
exploration at a time when the subject was new, and he at once
made the field of manners and customs of the Egyptians peculiarly
his own. He travelled extensively, and lived for long periods
continuously in Egypt, studying all accessible monuments of this
marvellous people, with the result that he was able in the end to
reproduce the story of life in ancient Egypt with something not
very far removed from the distinctness of an eye-witness.
=Wilson=, Sir W., Egypt of the Past. London, 1881.--=Woltmann= and
=Woermann=, K., History of Painting. London, 1880, 2 vols. (One of the
most authoritative works on ancient art.)
* * * * *
=Young=, T., Account of Recent Discoveries in Hieroglyphics. London,
1823. (Reference to Young’s connection with the discovery of the
meaning of the hieroglyphics will be found in Book II, Chapter III.)
* * * * *
=Zincke=, E. B., Egypt of the Pharaohs and of the Khedives. London,
1873.
PART III
THE HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA
BASED CHIEFLY UPON THE FOLLOWING AUTHORITIES
E. BABELON, E. A. WALLIS BUDGE, F. DELITZSCH, JOSEPH HALÉVY, A. H.
L. HEEREN, H. V. HILPRECHT, F. HOMMEL, L. W. KING, A. H. LAYARD,
F. LENORMANT, G. C. C. MASPERO, JOACHIM MENANT, EDUARD MEYER, J.
OPPERT, J. P. PETERS, HUGO RADAU, HENRY RAWLINSON, R. W. ROGERS, A.
H. SAYCE, E. SCHRADER, C. P. TIELE, H. WINCKLER, A. WIEDEMANN
TOGETHER WITH AN ESSAY ON
THE RELATIONS OF BABYLONIA WITH OTHER SEMITIC COUNTRIES
BY
JOSEPH HALÉVY
WITH ADDITIONAL CITATIONS FROM
CLAUDIUS ÆLIANUS, C. J. BALL, G. B. BARTON, G. BERTIN, THE HOLY
BIBLE, P. E. BOTTA, D. G. BRINTON, EUGÈNE BURNOUF, ISAAC PRESTON
CORY, MICHAEL J. DE GOEJE, DIODORUS SICULUS, ADOLF ERMAN, E.
FLANDRIN, G. K. C. GERLAND, G. S. GOODSPEED, G. F. GROTEFEND, I.
GUIDI, H. GUNKEL, HERODOTUS, EDWARD HINCKS, MORRIS JASTROW, P.
JENSEN, ALFRED JEREMIAS, C. H. W. JOHNS, C. JOHNSTON, FLAVIUS
JOSEPHUS, A. H. KEANE, A. VON KREMER, CHRISTIAN LASSEN, J. F.
McCURDY, M. MONTGOMERY, J. P. MAHAFFY, J. DE MORGAN, G. NAGEL,
THEODOR NÖLDEKE, W. G. PALGRAVE, W. M. FLINDERS PETRIE, T. G.
PINCHES, PLINY MAJOR, QUINTUS CURTIUS, H. RASSAM, GEO. RAWLINSON,
KARL RITTER, G. C. E. DE SARZEC, V. SCHEIL, NATHAN SCHMIDT, GEORGE
SMITH, C. JULIUS SOLINUS, ALOYS SPRENGER, B. STADE, STRABO, W. H.
FOX TALBOT, G. WEBER, J. GARDNER WILKINSON, HENRY SMITH WILLIAMS,
W. WRIGHT
COPYRIGHT, 1904,
BY HENRY SMITH WILLIAMS.
_All rights reserved._
MESOPOTAMIA
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
INTRODUCTORY ESSAY. THE RELATIONS OF BABYLONIA WITH OTHER
SEMITIC COUNTRIES. BY JOSEPH HALÉVY 309
MESOPOTAMIAN HISTORY IN OUTLINE 318
CHAPTER I. LAND AND PEOPLE 337
CHAPTER II. OLD BABYLONIAN HISTORY 349
CHAPTER III. THE RISE OF ASSYRIA 366
CHAPTER IV. FOUR GENERATIONS OF ASSYRIAN GREATNESS 397
CHAPTER V. THE DECLINE AND FALL OF ASSYRIA 438
CHAPTER VI. RENASCENCE AND FALL OF BABYLON 446
CHAPTER VII. MANNERS AND CUSTOMS OF ASSYRIA AND BABYLONIA 460
CHAPTER VIII. THE RELIGION OF THE BABYLONIANS AND ASSYRIANS 515
CHAPTER IX. BABYLONIAN AND ASSYRIAN CULTURE 534
APPENDIX A. CLASSICAL TRADITIONS 571
APPENDIX B. EXCAVATIONS IN MESOPOTAMIA, AND THEIR RESULTS 600
BRIEF REFERENCE-LIST OF AUTHORITIES BY CHAPTERS 627
A GENERAL BIBLIOGRAPHY OF MESOPOTAMIAN HISTORY 629
THE RELATIONS OF BABYLONIA WITH OTHER SEMITIC COUNTRIES
WRITTEN SPECIALLY FOR THE PRESENT WORK
BY JOSEPH HALÉVY
Professor in the Collège de France, Paris
Ingratitude in masses, as in individuals, is very apt to be the reward
of great benefactors. Egypt, taciturn, proud, and self-contained, was
respected and admired by all her neighbours, while Greece and Judea,
the shining beacons of Mediterranean civilisation, from the point of
view of morals and science, have had the mortification of receiving
ineffaceable stigmas. In the popular language of our own day, “Greek”
and “Jew” are such offensive sobriquets that the descendants of these
two glorious races seek to avoid the use of those names when describing
their origins.
Babylonia, after her conquest and disappearance from the scene of the
world, although she was vastly superior to her destroyers, did not
escape this little-deserved fate. To the contemporaries of her fall,
Babylon is only the city of courtesans and insipid magic; nevertheless,
in the days of her strength, she ruled the barbarian world that
surrounded her by other means than naked flesh and empty formulas of
incantation. For thousands of years she shone with an unparalleled
brilliancy, and illuminated with her vivifying rays the rude peoples
with which she was in contact. Her influence left indelible traces
even on the civilisations of western Asia and of the Greek world,
partly through the agency of the Phœnicians and Aramæans. And if her
disappearance caused no disturbance in the march of progress, it is
because her mission was fulfilled long before the epoch of her decline.
From the reign of Xerxes, plundered Babylon gradually decayed; on
the arrival of Alexander she was already three-fourths in ruins. The
war of the Diadochi and the advent of the Parthian dynasty completed
her entombment. There was none to assume her moral heritage at that
time, for the heir had already taken all that was precious and truly
imperishable.
A truly intellectual culture is manifested in the possession of a form
of writing. The existence of it in Babylon is proved by documents that
go back to the fifth millennium B.C. The letters consist as yet of
linear strokes representing certain parts of the human body, various
kinds of animals, plants, and natural or manufactured objects. It was
not until later that these strokes assumed the wedge form that has
caused the name “cuneiform” system to be applied to them. The primitive
characters are few in number--about fifteen--and are joined with one
another to form a syllabary that is both ideographic and phonetic.
The intrinsic nature of these values is a striking proof of the Semitic
origin of the system, and completely refutes the hypothesis of the
earlier decipherers that there existed on Babylonian soil prior to the
Semites an alien race called “Sumerian” or “Accadian,” from whom came
the cuneiform characters, as well as the entire Semitic civilisation
of Babylonia. Such syllables as _ab_, “father”; _an_, “god”; _el_,
“pure, bright”; _en_, “lord”; _sal_, “servant, woman”; _il_, “high”;
_is_, “tree, wood”; _ul_, “past”; _mu_, “name”; _rat_, “canal”; _sag_,
“summit, head”; _rig_, “plant, green leaf,” etc., are taken from
fundamental Semitic words of the Babylonian language, which, except for
slight variations, was also that of Elam and Assyria. Nowhere, and at
no period of their existence, is any linguistic modification noticed
which could be attributed to the intrusion of a foreign element.
Without risk of being accused of exaggeration, we may place the
beginning of writing in the sixth, or even in the seventh, millennium
before our era; and yet the Babylonian language has the worn and
phonetically impoverished character which it always preserved
in comparison with its sister languages. This is an astonishing
phenomenon, and gives an idea of the extreme antiquity, not only of the
existence of the Semites in Babylonia, but of the development of the
great civilisation of which they were the creators.
For, after the appearance of the written documents on stone and on
clay tablets, we meet with a most remarkable ancient civilisation:
monarchical institutions, communal organisations, flourishing
agriculture, systematic canalisation, metal working, proprietorship of
land, extensive commercial transactions, fixed taxes, the establishment
of governors in subject countries. With regard to science, astronomy
was cultivated and there were observatories for the study of the
movements of the stars and the eclipses. The Babylonians had the
divisions of the year, the month, and the day; they fixed weights
and measures, and calculated square and cube roots. A rational
classification facilitated the knowledge of botany and zoology.
Dynastic lists were drawn up with care, in which the principal
historical events of the reigns were recorded. Finally, the spiritual
needs of the nation were satisfied by a vast mythological system which
is lost in the night of time, and on the basis of which innumerable
epic tales were developed. Among these the stories of the creation and
of the deluge, the descent of Ishtar into Hades, the adventures of
Gilgames and Etanna, etc., rank among the most beautiful products of
the poetic imagination. On the other hand, the fetichistic mysticism
of prehistoric times was transformed into a learned magic, which was
combined with religious and moral elements, and claimed to be based
upon miraculous facts that had, however, been proved by experience.
A Babylonian furnished with these elements of intellectual culture
must, in spite of his superstitions and the real gaps in his knowledge,
have seemed a superior being to the neighbouring tribes which had the
same racial instincts, but whose development was still embryonic and
had taken place under totally different conditions. It is nothing
astonishing, then, that the most capable of these semi-savages hastened
to adopt, in different degrees, a large part of the Babylonian
civilisation, the advantages of which they had learned to appreciate.
As usual, it is the apparent and material side that was accepted
first; after a more intimate acquaintance with the Babylonian mode of
life, these peoples were captivated by the religious conceptions and
the powerful attraction of the legends and the magic. All this slowly
filtered into the mind of the other Semitic peoples, and became so well
embodied there that some centuries later it formed an integral part
of their national substance, and to such a degree that it has been
possible to disentangle their true origin only by means of an arduous
research which has not yet said the last word.
The extension of Babylonian civilisation beyond its primitive cradle
had its greatest strength during the glorious reign of Sargon I,
the first monarch known to have made military expeditions into the
countries of the west. We shall have, then, to consider, first, the
pre-Sargonic, second, the post-Sargonic, epochs.
Before the reign of Sargon, about thirty-eight hundred years before our
common era, Babylonia had succeeded in forming itself into a national
body, having the same manners, speaking the same language, and using
the same alphabet. No alien people broke into this unity of race and
genius, which included on its eastern side the inhabitants of the
Elamitic plain, forming a simple annex to Babylonia on that side of the
Tigris. The great excess of population flowed into the fertile plains
extending between the Tigris and the mighty chain of the Zagros, and
founded the little kingdoms of Suti, Lulubi, Namar, and with greater
success the powerful kingdom of Assyria, which during the years of its
prosperity became the most powerful military state of the oriental
world.
These very ancient colonies were often in conflict with the mother
country, and Assyria even succeeded in imposing its iron yoke for
several generations; but, save for Sennacherib’s moment of violent
passion, Babylonia remained for all of them a centre of light and of
religious mystery. The Babylonian divinities have their temples and
serve as types for various localisations. In Assyria, especially,
Ishtar of Nineveh, Ishtar of Arbela, Ishtar of Kidmur, etc., are
worshipped. The Babylonian origin is perpetuated in the new capital
Ninua (Nineveh), which is the name of a locality of Babylonia, while
the ancient capital Asshur recalls the name of the most ancient god of
the Babylonian epic of creation.
It goes without saying that among the neighbouring tribes of different
languages Babylonian influence could not penetrate so completely. In
the south the numerous Aramæan tribes persisted in their nomadic state;
in the mountainous districts of the east the Susio-Amardians, in the
north the Vannians and the Mitannians, while accepting Babylonian
civilisation, use along with the ordinary Babylonian syllabary a
more limited one for writing their own languages. Traces of Assyrian
influences in ancient epochs have been proved in Cappadocia, which
shows the great antiquity of the kingdom of Assyria. But the most
important and most enduring influence manifests itself in the Semitic
region of the extreme west, in Syrio-Phœnicia and in Palestine.
Through the discovery of the tablets of Tel-el-Amarna, which date from
the reigns of Amenhotep III and Amenhotep IV, it was learned with
astonishment that in the fourteenth century before our era, Babylonian
was the diplomatic language, not only of the western Semites, but also
of the sovereigns of Egypt. Syria and Phœnicia then formed a vassal
province of the Pharaohs, probably as a result of the conquests of
Tehutimes III; the use of Egyptian writing, or at least of the special
Assyrian type, was to be expected there, but it is the Babylonian
alphabet, the Babylonian dialect, that we find in use. We are forced
to conclude that the extension of Babylonian culture was due to an
occupation of Syria by the Babylonians at an extremely early period,
when Assyria was still too feeble to bar the way to the country of its
origin. History shows the truth of this, for it tells us that Sargon
I spent three years in Syria, and finally made himself master of it;
in one of his maritime expeditions he even crossed to the island of
Cyprus and took possession. It is probable that this vassalage of
Syria to Babylonia underwent frequent reactions and interruptions of
continuity, due in great part to the policy of Egypt, which was seeking
an outlet to the north. The plan of thwarting the covetousness of the
Pharaohs for this province, if not of simply annexing the valley of the
Nile to the great empire of the East, was carried out by Sargon I in an
invasion of Egypt, the success of which is recorded in the account of
the haruspices [Tablet of Omens]. His son Naram-Sin, according to the
same documents, likewise invaded Egypt and killed its king, whose name
has unfortunately disappeared on account of the breaking of the tablet.
Egypt, intimidated, made no hostile movement for several centuries,
which undoubtedly strengthened the Babylonian authority in Syria under
all the dynasties that successively occupied the throne in the capital
of Chaldea.
In the age of Abraham, when Elam exercised supremacy over Babylonia,
the king of the latter country, Khammurabi, the Amraphel of Genesis,
figures among the kings who had accompanied the Elamite suzerain in his
expedition against several tribes of eastern and southern Palestine
(Gen. xiv.). Seven centuries later the Egyptian functionaries of
Syrio-Phœnicia correspond in Babylonian with the court of Thebes. This
province had been conquered a half-century before by Tehutimes III; and
the Egyptian supremacy left its trace in the invention of the Phœnician
alphabet, which marks the decision to break with Babylonian sympathies
in favour of the intellectual culture of Egypt, of which the city of
Byblus was to be the principal centre.
A remarkable circumstance furnished the occasion for this decision.
In this city, where mystic tendencies seem to have prevailed over the
desire for the riches that navigation and commerce bring, a local
goddess was worshipped, called Baal-Gebal, “Lady of Byblus,” who
represented one of the numerous Semitic goddesses known under the name
of Baalat or Belit. She was identified with the great Egyptian goddess
Isis, and the myth of Osiris was attached to the shore of this city
to such an extent that the priesthood of Byblus was believed to be
in possession of the true meaning of these mysteries. At the bottom
of this process was the desire of finding a ground of agreement for
all the religious conceptions of the civilised nations of the age. In
the matter of religion, as in the arts and industry, the rôle of the
Phœnicians consisted in serving as intermediaries, as zealous apostles
who saw the advantage of being useful to the barbarians after having
obtained profit from them, and hoped to profit further in the future.
So, after this reconcilement with the Egyptian religion, the
exportation of manufactured articles to the valley of the Nile, or
of imitations of Egyptian art, which was so strongly marked with a
religious stamp, could develop indefinitely in all the Mediterranean
regions and contribute to the prosperity of the mother country and her
colonies. So, after the fourteenth century before the common era, the
invention of alphabetic writing had barred the way for the extension
of Babylonian writing into the European world. The ancient spiritual
legacy of Babylonia’s thousand years of domination, a natural product
of the Semitic genius, was too strongly anchored in Syrio-Phœnicia to
be totally eclipsed, or even to descend to an inferior rank under the
pressure of Egyptian influence.
Egypt, with its language deprived of all outlet and with its
essentially funereal mythology, was incapable of producing a movement
of renaissance in foreign peoples. The spiritual condition remained
without notable change, but, direct contact with Babylonia having
become more difficult, the Phœnicians were obliged to record in their
own language their ancestral and divine traditions, in which the
universal elements received from Babylonia always remained preponderant.
Of Phœnician literature nothing is known in the original language, but
some cosmogonic data taken from the book of Sanchoniathon by Philo of
Byblus reflect myths that can have been produced only on the soil of
Babylon, although the Philhellenic author is unable to interpret them
with exactness. The primordial couple of chaos, Apason and Tomoth,
are in reality the Babylonian divinities prior to the creation:
Apsu, “ocean, abyss,” and Tiamat, “sea”; but Philo, carried away by
Neoplatonic doctrine and confounding similar consonants, attributes
to Apason the meaning of “desire,” and seems to discern in Tiamat
the divinity Mot, “death,” symbolical of matter. Another goddess,
Chosartes, recalls the consort of Asshur, Kishar, of cosmogonic
character. On the Syrio-Phœnician monuments we often read the name
of the goddess Anath, bearing the title of “force of life or of the
living,” but the masculine consort is not met with. The Babylonian
inscriptions fill the gap by very frequently furnishing the couple Anu
and Anata. Philistia worshipped principally the ichthyomorphous god
Dagon, who is no other than the Babylonian Daganu, associated with Anu.
Among other divine personages we note in the first place Tammuz,
consort of Astarte, who was slain by a boar in the flower of his youth.
His death was mourned for a month each year, and his resurrection
was later celebrated with frenzied demonstrations of joy. This myth
of nature, symbolical of the passing of summer and metaphorically of
that of ardent and passionate youth, has as its basis the Babylonian
tale of Du’uzu, eponym of the month of that name (Tammuz), who died
prematurely, and whom the goddess Ishtar (Astarte), the incarnation
of ardent passion, endeavours, though in vain, to bring back from the
kingdom of death. The grief and the heroic effort of the goddess are
told in a touching manner in the beautiful poem, entitled _The Descent
of Ishtar into Hades_. The Phœnicians mourned Tammuz under the honorary
title of Adon, Adonim, “lord,” whence the Greek Adonis. From Phœnicia
this rite passed to Greece, and was celebrated there with no less pomp,
while the descent of Ishtar became there the point of departure for
several analogous legends.
Less known is the cult of the Babylonian god of war, Nergal, who had
sanctuaries in Phœnicia. Among celestial gods we identify Hadad or
Hadod, styled “king of the gods,” Rimmon, Nabu, Sin, and Mar, called
among the Babylonians Adad, Ramman (god of the air), Nabu, Sin, Allat,
and Marduk (god of Babylon). The inscriptions of Sam’al add to these
Nusk and Be’el-Kharran, one of whom is the Babylonian Nusku, the
other a local Bel of the Babylonian city of Kharran, whose cult was
transplanted to the city of the same name in Upper Mesopotamia.
Since very remote antiquity certain names of Babylonian divinities have
been fixed in Syrio-Phœnicia as names of places and persons: the city
of Nebo in Moab, the desert of Sin, and probably also Mount Sinai in
Arabia Petræa, the fortress of Anathoth in the territory of Benjamin;
Ana, a chief of Esau, Anath, a judge of Israel, Hadad, the common name
of a king of Aram and a king of Idumæa. So many reminiscences of the
superior rank of the Babylonian religion clearly prove how the mind
of the western Semites was imbued and moulded into permanent form by
their ancient masters in the ages preceding the occupation of Syria by
the Egyptians. Egypt did almost nothing to modify the tendencies of
the subject peoples; she contented herself with collecting the taxes,
and gave nothing in exchange. We must not then be surprised that, if
we except the maritime coast, Egyptian dominion left no trace on the
civilisation of the interior of Syria. These peoples, when they became
independent, continued to cultivate the germs of civilisation they had
received in such abundance, but regarded them as their own creations.
Passing to the nomads of northern Arabia we find ourselves before an
ethnographic unknown, the ancient tribes having disintegrated and new
ones formed, a transformation that was certainly repeated several
times. There is as yet no agreement on the question whether the tribes
called in ancient times Ishmaelites and Ceturians spoke Arabic or
Aramæan. It is, however, certain that fragments of southern tribes
of true Arabian race moved to the north at periods very difficult
to determine. It is not very long since it was affirmed that these
unstable populations lacked every element of civilisation, and it was
even claimed that they were a pure example of unmixed Semitic race, to
which an instinctive monotheism was attributed.
These speculations have been dissipated by the testimony of the
Assyrian texts, which show that the Arabs possessed statues of their
gods. These proud children of the desert even signed their submission
to the government of Nineveh, in order to recover the statues which the
Assyrians had taken from them in the course of an expedition into the
interior of Arabia. The possession of statues implies the existence
in the oases of fixed sanctuaries, of religious rites, and of a
traditional priesthood.
When we consider that the conquering nation of the Persians did not
arrive at the idea of anthropomorphic gods until the time of Artaxerxes
II, and then solely under the influence of the Babylonian cult, we
cannot doubt that the worship of statues by the nomadic Arabs in the
seventh century before our era was due to the same influence. The
Ishmaelites were particularly devoted to Atar Celeste, that is, to the
great goddess Ishtar, whose cult spread from Babylon among all the
Semites of Syria.
In the oasis of Teyma a stele has been found that fixes the revenues of
a priest, who had lately been installed, to provide for the expenses
of the cult of an adopted divinity, and this priest is dressed in the
mode of the Babylonian priesthood. Such a borrowing is all the more
remarkable because the garments of sacrificing priests had in antiquity
a meaning intimately connected with the religious mysteries. This fact
supposes the presence of Babylonian instructors at some previous epoch.
Hedjaz forms the first province, whose inhabitants belong to the
Arabian race, properly so called, whose idiom and whose writing are
very different from those of the Aramæan populations of the north.
Some of these tribes settled in the east of Syria, on the edge of the
desert, especially in the oasis of Safa, south of Damascus. We must
wait until the numerous graffiti, discovered in recent times, are
published, before we can get an exact idea of the theophorous names
used among these tribes. The names Bel and Hadad figure here, however;
but this may be a late borrowing from their Aramæan neighbours. From
northern Hedjaz we have a considerable number of inscriptions and
graffiti, copies of which are still to be regarded with caution, and
there, too, the names Bel, Hadad and compounds of the Babylonian Nabu,
are found in the list of names of the nomads.
More interesting is the ancient name of Mecca, Macoraba, which
originally designated the celebrated central sanctuary of the region.
This name is derived front the verb _karaba_, which in Babylonian
means “worship, bless, pray”, in evident proof of an ancient borrowing
from the idiom of the cuneiform texts. We shall know some day what
the inscriptions of middle and southern Hedjaz contain in the way of
theophorous names. These inscriptions certainly exist, and await a
traveller courageous enough to save them from total destruction at the
stupid hands of the pilgrims. The famous black stone of Kaaba seems to
bear an inscription of which it would be well to have a photograph.
We know still less what is reserved for us in the graffiti scattered
in the intermediate region between Hedjaz and Yemen; the graphic
chain cannot have been interrupted in this latitude, which from great
antiquity formed the entrance to the highly civilised kingdom of Sheba,
and which, owing to its production of aromatic essences, had commercial
relations with the peoples of the Mediterranean.
Yemen was composed of four kingdoms, of which that of Sheba seems
to have been the most ancient and most powerful; the other three
are Catabania, Hadramaut, Mahrah or Tafat. Of the latter we have
no indigenous information prior to Islamism, and there is reason
to believe that it formed a vassal state of Hadramaut. The latter
is pre-eminently the spice-producing region, and Catabania may be
considered as an ancient colony of Hadramaut, which was founded on
the northern route for a commercial purpose, and later gained its
independence.
In its turn Catabania founded, again, on the northern route, another
colony, which, on gaining its freedom, called itself the Minyæan
people, after the principal city, Ma’in. The Minyæi left traces of
their activity at Egra on the frontier of Nabatia, and in central Egypt
at Oxyrhyncus, where they had a settlement at the time of the first
Ptolemies; but their presence in Egypt in the Persian period is proved
by a votive inscription, thanking their gods for having saved their
caravan from the danger by which it had been threatened during the war
between the Egyptians and the Medes, _i.e._, the Persians. From Egypt
they sent their caravans to Gaza in Phœnicia and into all Syria.
Prior to this the trade in incense and spices seems to have been in the
hands of the Sabæans. Solomon (about the year 1000 B.C.) sought to make
a treaty with this people, whose queen had made him an official visit
at Jerusalem. It is to be presumed that the Sabæans also sent caravans
directly to Nineveh and Babylon by way of the oases of Negran, Wady
Dawassir, and Gebel-Sammar. Owing to these almost uninterrupted visits,
the peoples of southern Arabia were in a position to learn and practise
customs and rites peculiar to the eastern Semites; for example,
the employment of aromatic fumigation as a means of purification
after sexual intercourse. The Sabæan pantheon contained El (the
Assyrio-Babylonian Ilu) under the guise of a divine personage, and not
simply as an abstract term for “god.” The Babylonian Ishtar, daughter
of Sin, is transformed into a male divinity, Athtar, son of Sin. The
manifold diversification of the Babylonian goddess appears also in the
Sabæan Athtar; the great religious centres of Sheba each possess their
own Athtar. Nabu, the Babylonian god of writing and prophecy, was also
worshipped by the Catabanians under the somewhat disguised form of
Anbai. From the point of view of art, the technique of sculpture and
decoration often recalls the Babylonian style. Finally, we meet in the
kingdom of Sheba the Assyrian institution of the _limmi_, or annual
archons, an institution that existed also at Carthage, but nowhere else
on the Asiatic continent, least of all in a monarchical state.
We know very little of the religion of the Agazi or Semites of
Abyssinia; a pre-Christian inscription asserts, however, that the cult
of El and of Astar (Astarte) flourished among them. Their pantheon
included also a god of war called Mahram, the equivalent of the Ninib
or Adar of the Semites of the north.
On the opposite side, at the extreme east of the Arabian peninsula,
along the Persian gulf, the most important agglomeration formed the
kingdom of Gerrha. The Gerrhæans maintained commercial relations with
both Egypt and Chaldea. One of their cities bore the name of Bilbana,
“Bil (Bel) has built,” a certain indication that it had adopted the
cult of the most popular Babylonian god. Facing this coast is the
Bahrein group of islands, the largest of which contains a number of
tombs in which cuneiform inscriptions in the Babylonian language have
been found.
We have now made the round of the whole Semitic region, and everywhere
we have been able to show striking Babylonian influences in spite of
the enormous distance in time and space that separates the converging
rays from their point of radiation. But before concluding, we must
halt upon a particular territory, a territory that forms but an
imperceptible point in this vast region, but which in spite of its
material diminutiveness brought forth a nation that was destined to
assume the glorious rôle of being the legitimate heir of the great
Babylonian ancestor, and of directing the conscience not only of the
Semitic race, but of the most civilised portion of the human race in
general.
This nation, which chance seems to have thrown into the world without
defence, in the midst of hostile elements that were furious for its
destruction, and whose name, Israel, exactly symbolises the unremitting
struggle against the terribly destructive powers that surround it, this
nation, I say, had the strength to transform the splendid polytheistic
heritage that had fallen to it from Babylon into a monotheistic theory
of an astounding originality. The transformation of the antique legacy
took place only after centuries of struggle between the best part of
the nation, the party of the prophets, and the conservatism of the mass
of the people, who were everywhere attached to the ancient traditions.
The writings of this monotheistic minority, which finally imposed
itself upon the entire nation, enable us to appreciate the importance
of the ancient elements, the dross of which was rejected in the
refining process of the prophets. Genesis has preserved two great
and very characteristic Babylonian epics,--the Creation, and the
Deluge,--but how different in spirit, in spite of the close similarity
in outline and external form.
In the Babylonian cosmogony, chaos, incarnate in the female dragon
Tiamat, the primordial ocean, brings forth at the same time the gods
and the most horrible, malevolent monsters. Having learned that the
gods wish to build themselves a more commodious residence in her
domain, she gathers her forces, furiously attacks the clan of gods,
and puts them to flight. They unite again and choose as their champion
Marduk, the son of Yan, who succeeds in vanquishing the terrible
ancestress. Marduk cuts the body of Tiamat into two pieces, and of them
he constructs heaven and earth. Then he proceeds to make the heavenly
bodies, and arranges them in an immutable order; he stocks the earth
with plants and animals, and has man made by the goddess Arura, who
fashions him out of the dust of the earth.
This myth, splendid as an epic invention, is too rude to contain the
least philosophical principle. The Hebrew thinker, while retaining
the general outline, has eliminated the whole crowd of monstrous or
ugly divinities unworthy to receive the homage of the human race. The
picture has lost nothing in extent; but a single, all-powerful god
first creates chaotic matter, and then organises it, step by step, for
the sole benefit of the human race. The cycle of the ten antediluvian
patriarchs, which includes millions of years, is reduced to sixteen
hundred years, and thus brought within the range of actual humanity.
Finally, the deluge, in the primitive legend the result of the mad
arrogance of the god Bel, is justified by the extraordinary corruption
of the men of that epoch.
Like a true reformer the prophetic narrator has raised upon the
Babylonian basis a new system whose rational and moral side need
not fear comparison with any other religious doctrine of humanity.
Among the Greeks, no religious or social reform could be developed
and preserved that took for a basis their castes of irresponsible
gods. Egypt perished without having attempted to rise from its coarse
animal-worship. Babylonianism alone, by its hymns and its epics, still
lives to-day as an important factor in universal religion, although
under a form idealised by genius. Materially, Babylon is but a memory,
but a delicate part of its atoms passed into the vigorous constitution
of its spiritual heir, the sacred book of Hebrew monotheism, to become
the common property of humanity.
MESOPOTAMIAN HISTORY IN OUTLINE
A PRELIMINARY SURVEY COMPRISING A CURSORY VIEW OF THE SOURCES OF
MESOPOTAMIAN HISTORY AND OF THE SWEEP OF EVENTS, AND A TABLE OF
CHRONOLOGY
The Babylonians and Assyrians were two very important peoples of remote
antiquity, inhabiting the region of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers in
southwestern Asia. The Greeks regarded these peoples as constituting
one nation and called their country Mesopotamia, a name that could
properly be applied to only a part of their territory. The Babylonians
and Assyrians, themselves, on the other hand, regarded each other as
alien peoples, though both belonged to the same Semitic stock. The
Babylonians were the more ancient, and their territory lay to the
south, where, many scholars believe, they had been preceded by a people
of a different race.
Though the seat of this early civilisation is geographically small
in extent, yet the peoples who entered into it were by no means
homogeneous, nor was their history a continuous record of unbroken
political succession. On the contrary, at least two different races
of people were involved,--a Turanian stock in the early Babylonian
history, a Semitic stock in all the later periods,--and at least
three successive kingdoms or empires, not to speak of mere changes of
dynasty. The earliest period known to us--that which left records at
Nippur and Shirpurla, in old Babylonia--had its seat in the southern
portion of the territory bordering on the sea; thence, seemingly,
civilisation spread northward. Assyriologists are not fully agreed as
to the share which the non-Semitic race had in this early civilisation.
It has even been questioned whether these so-called Sumerians really
existed at all.[15] In any event the Semitic Babylonians acquired full
control at a very early period.
The Assyrian kingdom--which came to be a veritable world-empire--had
its seat at Calah and afterwards at Nineveh. It conquered and absorbed
the old Babylonian kingdom, and then reached out for domination to the
east and to the west, finally overrunning even Egypt.
The Bible accounts preserve records of some of its most famous kings,
including Sennacherib. The Greek legends are chiefly concerned with
a mythical Semiramis, the alleged founder of Nineveh, and with a
seemingly mythical Sardanapalus, who perished after an inglorious
reign, in the destruction of Nineveh, which came about suddenly and
dramatically in the year 606 B.C.--the Sardanapalus myth being,
however, based on an actuality.
After the destruction of Nineveh, Babylon, the capital of Babylonia,
resumed renewed importance as a world metropolis. Nebuchadrezzar, the
most famous king of this period, besieged Jerusalem and carried the
Israelites to his capital (the Babylonian capital). The classical
accounts preserve reminiscences of the magnificence of Babylon in this
period. The course of the New Babylonian empire, though brilliant, was
brief, ending with the overthrow of Babylon by the Persians under Cyrus
in the year 538 B.C. Babylon was not, like Nineveh, totally destroyed;
but it never regained autonomy or anything approaching its former
importance. It was one of the Persian capitals for two centuries, until
in 331 B.C., with the downfall of the Persian empire, it passed into
the hands of Alexander the Great, who, after his eastern conquests,
chose it as the capital of his newly acquired empire. But Alexander
died in his new capital almost immediately, and his death was the last
great world-historic event that occurred in Mesopotamia. In the course
of a few centuries thereafter, the whole region that for so many years
had been the very heart of the world’s civilisation, became a barren
wilderness, and Babylon itself, like Nineveh before it, was reduced to
a mere earth-covered mound of ruins, the very location of which was
practically forgotten.
Such a fate was tragic enough; yet after all it seems less cruel than
the destiny of such nations as Egypt, and in later time, Greece,
which live on in senescence long after all vestige of their power
has departed. And in any event, Mesopotamia had had its full share
of glory, for no other region of the globe, within historic times,
with the possible exception of Egypt alone, has so long held rank as
a centre of influence and civilisation. If the earlier walls of the
Temple of Bel (Baal) at Nippur really date from 6000 or 7000 years
B.C. as the records seem to prove, there was a continuous, powerful
empire in Mesopotamia for at least five or six thousand years. The
civilisations of Greece, of Rome, or of any modern state, seem mere
mushroom growths in comparison.
In studying the history of Egypt we have caught occasional glimpses
of this oldest Asiatic civilisation of Babylonia and Assyria, and it
is almost impossible to avoid drawing comparisons between these two
countries, so closely related are the two peoples in the minds of all
students. It is true that the ethnological types are quite different,
and that the two peoples, during the greater part of their existence,
did not mingle much with one another. Often they were at war, and it is
traditional that for the most part the Egyptians repelled rather than
invited any advances from their Asiatic neighbours. Nevertheless, their
own interests dictated a commercial policy that led first and last to
an extensive intermingling between all the contemporary civilisations
of western Asiatic antiquity, and there are abundant evidences that the
same influence extended also to the Nile Valley.
But even had this not been the case,--even had Egypt and Mesopotamia
been shut off absolutely one from the other,--it would still be
impossible for the modern student to disassociate the two, so many
are the links of association between them. The fact that these two
are the oldest civilisations known to us, and the further fact that
there has been a constant question in the minds of investigators as to
which one of these ancient peoples can claim priority of development,
form in themselves an indissoluble bond of union. Yet in some respects
the story of the Babylonians and Assyrians is unique; because this
well-nigh greatest of civilisations was blotted out absolutely
almost before the oldest European civilisation was under way. Egypt,
indeed, declined in power at about the same period and permanently
lost autonomy, but its pyramids and temples and numberless antiquities
remain as obvious testimonials of its former greatness; whereas the
monuments of Mesopotamia--the ruins of such wonderful cities as Nippur,
Babylon, and Nineveh--were completely buried under the accumulating
earth deposits of centuries, and almost absolutely lost to view. For
more than two thousand years the names of these once famous cities
were only reminiscences. No one knew accurately even their site, and
scarcely an antiquity of any description was known to be preserved that
evidenced the sometime greatness of the Mesopotamian civilisation.
During this long period a few reminiscences preserved in the writings
of Berosus, Diodorus, Herodotus, and a few other classical writers,
and in the text of Hebrew writings, gave all the clews that were
obtainable, and apparently all that could ever be obtained regarding
one of the most remarkable peoples of antiquity.
We have said that the entire destruction of the Mesopotamian
civilisation gave it peculiar interest. It should not be forgotten,
however, that at least one other very important people of antiquity,
namely the Hittites, met with a like fate. Probably there were
still others whose names even are unknown to us. But the story of
Mesopotamia stands quite by itself in the fact that it has been very
largely restored to us through the efforts of modern explorers. We
have seen that the decipherment of the hieroglyphics led to a much
fuller understanding of Egyptian history than had previously been
possible; yet, after all, these new revelations sufficed to fill in
the outlines of an old story, rather than to create an altogether new
one. But in the case of Babylonia and Assyria the modern investigators
had virtually a blank canvas upon which to work in reconstructing the
history. The Bible references and the classical myths gave but the most
shadowy outlines. Yet traditions are all powerful for the transmission
of knowledge in a vague form, and throughout all generations it had
never been doubted that the reminiscences of Mesopotamian greatness had
a firm foundation in fact, though few historians were visionary enough
to dare hope that more tangible evidence would ever be forthcoming, and
not even the most enthusiastic dreamer could have suspected that such
records as the nineteenth century has restored to us had been preserved.
Even now, looking back from the standpoint of accomplishment, it seems
almost incredible that the monuments of a great civilisation--treasures
of art, and voluminous literary records--should have been absolutely
hidden from human view for a minimum period of more than two thousand
years, and should then have been restored in almost their original
condition. Yet such is the fact regarding the antiquities of
Mesopotamia.
[Illustration: THE ASSYRIAN GOD NABU]
OUR SOURCES FOR MESOPOTAMIAN HISTORY
The reports that have come down to us from antiquity dealing with
the history of Babylonia and Assyria are relatively meagre in extent
and decidedly untrustworthy from an historical standpoint. Without
doubt numerous classical writers dealt with the subject, but of
such writings, only a few have been preserved. So far as known, the
principal native historian of the later period of Babylonian history
was Berosus. He was a Chaldean priest living in the time of Alexander
the Great, as his own writings testify. He had access to the ancient
documents of his country, and is believed to have made excellent use
of them. Unfortunately, only meagre remnants of his history have
come down to us, and these more or less distorted through the medium
of transcribers, the chief of these being Alexander Polyhistor and
Eusebius. Had we the entire work of Berosus, he would, perhaps, perform
some such function for Mesopotamia as Manetho performed for Egypt; but
as the case stands, the remnants of Berosus serve to transmit certain
interesting traditions, particularly with reference to Babylonian
cosmogony, rather than to preserve any considerable historical records.
The classical historian whose account of the Babylonians and Assyrians
has been most largely copied was Ctesias. This writer was a Greek who
served for seventeen years (415-398 B.C.) as court physician to the
Persian king Artaxerxes Mnemon, and who wrote a history of Persia
alleged to be based upon native documents. In this history Ctesias
considered the contemporary civilisation, but he was interested rather
in picturesque traditions than in the sober historical narratives,
and the records he preserved are chiefly of a nature which the modern
critical historian pronounces fabulous. The original work of Ctesias
has perished, but its character is fairly established through the
writings of other authors who used Ctesias as a source. Foremost among
the latter is Diodorus, whose account of the Assyrians represents the
ideas that were current throughout classical times, and continued in
vogue until the nineteenth century.
The most authentic classical accounts of the Babylonians are those
given by Herodotus and by Strabo, both of whom spoke as eye-witnesses.
Unfortunately, these writers did not have access to the native
materials, and their accounts, while throwing interesting sidelights
upon the later civilisation, do very little towards enlightening us as
to the actual history of the greatest of Asiatic peoples of antiquity.
A few other fragments have been preserved from the classical writings,
notably some bits from Abydenus, preserved through Eusebius. To these
must be added numerous references to the Babylonians and Assyrians in
the biblical writings. Taken altogether, however, these classical and
oriental traditions fail to give us more than the vaguest picture of
Mesopotamian history.
The real sources of that history are the original chronicles of the
Babylonians and Assyrians themselves, which were inscribed on stone
slabs and on tablets of clay. The clay tablets, after being inscribed,
were dried, forming almost imperishable bricks. Tens of thousands of
these were preserved beneath the ruins of Mesopotamian cities, and
were first brought to light in the nineteenth century. Among these are
several lists of kings, and other chronological documents of a somewhat
general character. One document attempts the synchronism of Babylonian
and Assyrian history. Then there are numerous tablets and cylinders and
wall inscriptions which record the deeds of individual kings, including
such famous monarchs as Sennacherib. Vast quantities of documents are
doubtless still buried in Mesopotamia, and a large proportion of the
inscriptions that have been exhumed are still undeciphered. But enough
of these documents have been discovered and read to restore the outline
of Babylonian and Assyrian history as a whole; and for certain periods,
including the time of greatest Assyrian power, very full records are
at hand. The result of these recent discoveries has been the practical
substitution of secure historical records for the old classical and
oriental traditions regarding the Babylonians and Assyrians.
The modern workers who have assisted in the restoration of
Mesopotamian history through the recovery and decipherment of the
monumental inscriptions make up in the aggregate a large company. The
chief explorers of the earliest period were Botta and Layard. Then came
Fresnel, Thomas, and Oppert, followed by Rassam, George Smith, Ernest
de Sarzec; the Germans, Koldewey and Moritz, and the Americans, Peters,
Hilprecht, and Haynes.
The work of interpreting the newly found Assyrian records began with
Sir Henry Rawlinson in England, Eberhard Schrader in Germany, and a
small company of other workers, about the middle of the nineteenth
century. The difficulties of deciphering records in an unknown
language, and of an extremely intricate character, at first seemed
almost insuperable; but with the aid of the knowledge of Ancient
Persian, already acquired earlier in the century through the efforts
of Grotefend and his followers, together with the hints gained by
comparison with the Hebrew language and other extant Semitic tongues, a
working knowledge of the Assyrian language was at last attained. Since
then the decipherment of the inscriptions has gone on unceasingly, and
a constantly growing band of workers has added to our knowledge.
Most of the excavators and explorers have, very naturally, given us
personal accounts of their labours. Botta’s labours, however, were
chiefly made public through the publications of Victor Place; and in
more recent times, Heuzey has published the chief accounts of the
excavations of De Sarzec. Layard, on the other hand, the greatest of
all Assyrian explorers, gave full accounts of his own discoveries, and
interpreted the monuments as well as described them. He restored to us
a picture of Mesopotamian civilisation somewhat as Wilkinson had done
for Egypt. Of the more recent workers who have written about Babylonia
and Assyria the most important are Meyer, Hommel, Winckler, Muerdter,
and Delitzsch in Germany; Tiele in Holland; Lenormant, Babelon, Menant
and Halévy in France; Sayce in England, and Peters, Hilprecht, Harper
and Rogers in America.
Thanks to the records thus made available, the history of this most
ancient civilisation is no longer a mere hazy figment of tradition,
but has become a sharply outlined picture. We are able to trace, not
indeed the origin of the Mesopotamian civilisation--for the beginnings
of national life evade us here as elsewhere--but its very early
development in the cities of old or southern Babylonia. Antiquarian
documents, aided by estimates as to the rate of deposit of sediment
at the mouth of the rivers, enable us to fix, at least approximately,
the dates for this early civilisation. These figures cannot pretend to
exact accuracy, but the Assyriologist assures us with some confidence
that they carry us back to a period something like six or seven
thousand years B.C. At this remote time the civilisation of southern
Babylonia was already established in its main features. The people
of Ur, Nippur, Shirpurla, and Babylon were able even then to build
elaborate palaces and temples, to carve interesting sculptures, to
make ornaments of glass, and to record their thought in words traced
in the most complex script. In a word, the main characteristics of
Mesopotamian civilisation were fully established several millenniums
before the Christian era, and abundant proofs of this fact have been
preserved to us.
It must not be supposed, however, that the records exhumed from
the ruins of these ancient capitals have given us full information
regarding the entire stretch of this long material existence. The
fact is quite otherwise. Only comparatively short periods are covered
fully by the historical records in the wedge writing, and there are
reaches of some thousands of years in the aggregate, regarding which
our knowledge is still most fragmentary. Indeed, the history of the old
Babylonian kingdom in its entirety is known at present only in the most
general way. But it seems almost miraculous that we should know even
the outlines of this ancient story.
THE ANCIENT KINGDOMS OF BABYLONIA
The earliest known inhabitants of Babylonia were a people of whose
origin nothing is known except that they were not Semites. After a time
they are called sometimes Sumerians, sometimes Accadians. Sumer was
the southern portion of Babylonia, Accad the northern. The Accadian
language is now considered a dialect of the Sumerian, the older form.
Civilisation in the land goes back at least to 6000 B.C. Between 5000
and 4000 B.C. this people was invaded by a warlike Semitic race, the
Babylonians of history, who came, perhaps, from Arabia. What portion of
the aborigines the invaders did not expel or destroy they assimilated,
gradually assuming the older civilisation.
The chronology of the earlier period is largely speculative. Recent
chronology begins with the kingdom of Babylon about the time of
Khammurabi. For the earlier kingdoms, we, for the most part, follow the
dates of Professor Rogers.
Without referring to the legendary history of Babylonia, related by
Berosus, which is mentioned elsewhere, our earliest knowledge of the
land is of a country of independent kingdoms, the cities with the
temples forming their centres. The ruler is often the patesi or high
priest.
THE KINGDOM OF KENGI
Before 4500 B.C. =En-shag-kush-anna= is king of Kengi, in southern
Babylonia, but whether he was Sumerian or Semite, we do not
know. He is patesi of En-lil, the later Bel. Of his kingdom,
Shirpurla-Girsu (or Sungir) is the capital and Nippur the
religious centre. Later, Sungir is called Sumer and gave its
name to the whole of southern Babylonia. The chief rival of
Kengi is the Semitic kingdom of Kish in the north, which
En-shag-kush-anna defeated but only temporarily checked. We know
of no other king of Kengi.
_Monuments._--Several vase inscriptions found at Nippur.
THE KINGDOM OF KISH
Recovers itself quickly after its reverse by En-shag-kush-anna. A
certain U-dug is patesi of Kish at the time of this revival.
4400 =Mesilim=, king of Kish, subjugates Shirpurla, at the time of
Lugal-shug-gur. This supremacy is maintained for a short period,
4200 until E-anna-tum, king of Shirpurla, shakes off the yoke.
Kish is left very feeble after this, but gradually recovers its
power.
3850 =Alusharshid=, the last great king of Kish before the conquest
of Sargon I.
_Monuments._--Many vase inscriptions.
THE KINGDOM OF GISHBAN
4400 =Ush= is patesi, contemporary of Mesilim of Kish. He wages war
with Shirpurla on the question of boundaries. Gishban is subjugated
4200 by E-anna-tum of Shirpurla. At the latter’s death, =Ur-lumma=,
patesi, invades Shirpurla and probably suffers a slight defeat.
4120 Great defeat of Ur-lumma by Entemena of Shirpurla.
4000 =Lugal-zaggisi=, patesi, son of Ukush, leads a victorious army
against the south. The whole of Babylonia to the southern gulf
is subjugated. He becomes king of Erech and is styled “king
of the whole world.” He revives the ancient cults of Lower
Mesopotamia.
_Monuments._--Vase inscriptions.
THE KINGDOM OF SHIRPURLA
Shirpurla, sometimes called Lagash--the modern Telloh--is situated
north of Mugheir on the east side of the Shatt-el-Khai. The oldest king
that we know is
4500 =Urukagina.=--A great warrior and administrator. He builds and
restores temples and also a canal for the capital Sungir (Girsu).
4400 One of his successors is =En-ge-gal=, and another, =Lugal-shug-gur=,
is reduced by Mesilim of Kish to a patesi.
4300 In the enfeebled kingdom, dominated by the rulers of Kish, a
new family headed by =Ur-Nina= comes to the throne. He is famous
as a temple builder, but also begins to prepare his kingdom to
throw off the yoke of Kish. He calls himself king though his son
is still patesi.
_Monuments._--Vase inscriptions.
4250 =Akurgal= succeeds Ur-Nina. He is the father of E-anna-tum and
En-anna-tum I.
4200 =E-anna-tum=, the hero who delivers his country from the
thraldom of Kish, and resumes the royal title. After this he
puts Gishban under his yoke, and wages successful wars against
Erech, Ur, Larsa, Az, and Ukh. He builds a wall around one of
the suburbs of Shirpurla, digs canals for boundary lines, etc.
Is a great and wise administrator as well as a mighty warrior.
_Monuments._--The famous “Vulture Stele” now in the Louvre--many
inscriptions.
=En-anna-tum I= succeeds his brother E-anna-tum. An unsuccessful
invasion of Shirpurla by the patesi of Gishban.
4120 =En-teme-na=, son of En-anna-tum I, defeats and destroys army
of the patesi of Gishban.
_Monuments._--The Cone of En-teme-na. The “silver vase”--an
exquisite piece of art placed on the altar of the god Nina at
Singur.
4100 =En-anna-tum II=, the last patesi of the dynasty of Ur-Nina,
since his son, Lummadu, bears no title. Conquest of Shirpurla by
Lugal-zaggisi of Gishban.
4100-3800 There are patesis in Shirpurla, ruled over by
Lugal-zaggisi and his successors.
3800-3100 The darkest age of Babylonian history. Lugal-ushumgal
was patesi and vassal of Sargon I. In all probability the kings
of Agade ruled over Shirpurla until dispossessed by the second
dynasty of Ur. Of all the patesis, the vassal rulers, of this
period =Ur-Bau= 3500 (?) and =Gudea= 3300 (?) are the most
prominent. Ur-Bau’s rule seems to have been peaceful; Gudea is a
warrior; he wrests the territory of Anshan from Elam. Builds the
temple of Nina at Singur.
_Monuments._--Many inscriptions.
The civilisation of Shirpurla was a high one, and it contained
no Semitic elements.
THE KINGDOM OF UR (THE BIBLICAL “UR OF THE CHALDEES”)
IST DYNASTY
The first king of this dynasty appears after the conquest of Erech
by Lugal-zaggisi of Gishban. He would appear to have overthrown
Lugal-zaggisi.
3900 =Lugal-kigubni-dudu.=
=Lugal-kisali=, his son.
Their rule includes Ur, Erech, and Nippur, and possibly they
conquered Shirpurla. The fate of this dynasty with the names of
its other rulers is unknown, but it probably falls before the
power of Agade.
_Monuments._--Inscriptions of the two above-mentioned kings.
THE KINGDOM OF GUTI AND LULUBI
There are inscriptions relating to two kings, =Lasirab= of
Guti and =Anu-banini= of Lulubi. They seem to have been
contemporaneous with Sargon I (3800 B.C.).
THE KINGDOM OF AGADE
3800 The earliest known dynasty is Semitic, and the first ruler
is =Sargon I= (=Shargani-shar-ali=), son of Itti-Bel. By
conquest he founds an empire from Elam to the Mediterranean, and
from the extreme south of Babylonia to Apirak and Guti.
_Monuments._--Engraved seals of wonderful execution,
inscriptions, and contract tablets.
3750 =Naram-Sin=, son of Sargon, succeeds him. First to assume
title “King of the Four Quarters of the World”--a great
conqueror and builder. Campaigns against Apirak and Magan
(Arabia).
Builds temples at Nippur and Agade. Temple E-barra of Shamash
at Sippar. This temple is the one in which Nabonidus found the
“tablet with the writing of the name of Naram-Sin,” by which we
are able to fix the date of his reign.
Under Sargon I and Naram-Sin there is a high state of
organisation and civilisation in the kingdom. There were judges,
musicians, physicians, good roads, etc. Thureau-Dangin says:
“The epoch of Sargon and Naram-Sin certainly marks a culminating
point in the history of the old Orient.”
_Monuments._--Inscriptions.
3700 =Bingani-shar-ali=, son of Naram-Sin.
Further history of the kingdom of Agade is still unknown.
Apparently the later kings gradually lose their power before
that of the second dynasty of Ur.
The first period of Babylonian history is now closed. The
Semites are in full possession of the land. We have the main
seat of power at Agade with the rulers of Shirpurla reduced to
patesis.
THE SECOND DYNASTY OF UR
These kings add the title “King of Sumer and Accad” to that of Ur,
combining the hostile elements of the North and South under one rule;
“restoring,” says Radau, “in old Babylonia the peace which had been
disturbed for many centuries, even from the time of the original
Semitic invasion.”
3200 =Ur-gur= holds sway over both Semites and Sumerians (Agade
and Shirpurla). His capital is at Ur. Famous as a temple
builder. Builds temple Teimila to Nannar (moon god) at Ur,
temple E-anna to Ishtar at Erech, temple E-barra to Shamash at
Larsa.
_Monuments._--Pyramidal tower at Nippur. Inscriptions.
3150 =Dun-gi I= succeeds. Continues his father’s work.
Builds temples of Nin-mar, Nina, Ningirsu, Dam-gal-nunna, and
Ea, in Sungir, Nippur, and Kutha.
These two were ancestors of a long line of kings, concerning
whom history is still silent. Apparently ground in southern
Babylonia was soon lost, for we find
THE KINGDOM OF ERECH
3100-3000 Two kings of pure Semitic names are known at this period.
=Singashid=, probably the founder of the dynasty, and
=Sin-gamil=. The probable history of this kingdom is that of
a strong Semitic colony in southern Babylonia making itself
independent and establishing a king and capital at Erech. With
Sin-gamil, the thread of its history is lost.
_Monuments._--Inscriptions relating to building of palace,
temples, and restoration of temples at Erech.
THE KINGDOM OF ISIN
A Semitic kingdom, similar to that of Erech, is established at Isin in
the north. These kings extend their power to Nippur, Ur, Eridu, and
finally to Erech, extinguishing the dynasty ruling there.
The kings add “king of Sumer and Accad” to that of Isin, showing also
that the second dynasty of Ur has ceased to exist.
3000 =Libit-Ishtar.=
_Monuments_ and cylinder inscriptions.
Other kings are, =Ishbigarra=, =Bur-Sin I=, =Ur-Ninib=,
=Idin-Dagan=.
2850 =Ishme Dagan=, the last to bear the title of Sumer and Accad.
His son En-anna-tum is a vassal of the third dynasty of Ur.
_Monuments._--Tablet inscriptions.
THE THIRD DYNASTY OF UR
The early kings call themselves simply Kings of Ur.
2800 =Gungunu= puts an end to the dynasty of Isin. He is succeeded
by =Ur-gur II= and =Dungi II=, order uncertain.
They build many temples, and Ur-gur II fortifies the wall of his
capital, hence he must have been harassed by enemies. We have
records that the patesis of Shirpurla still existed at this time.
_Monuments._--Votive and seal inscriptions.
2700 =Dungi III.=--The kings from now on add “King of the Four Quarters
of the World” to their title, and for this reason some scholars
reckon this king as the first of a fourth dynasty. He is followed
by =Bur-Sin II=, =Gamil-Sin=, and =Ine-Sin=; the latter ruling
about 2580. We have no knowledge of other kings, but about
2450-2400 the “Kingship of the Four Quarters of the World” is
overthrown in the north by the Ist Dynasty of Babylon and in
the south by Nur-Adad of Larsa.
_Monuments._--Building records and contract tablets.
THE KINGDOM OF LARSA
2400 Successful rebellion of southern Babylonia against the kings
of Ur. The kingdom of Larsa founded by =Nur-Adad=.
2370 =Sin-iddin= succeeds his father and extends his kingdom over
Sumer and Accad.
2350 =Kudur-nankhundi=, king of Elam, invades southern Babylonia.
Under Kudur-nankhundi’s successor, =Kudur-lagamar=
2340 (=Kudur-dugmal=, probably the Hebrew =Chedoriaomer=)
the Elamites establish a kingdom in Larsa with =Rim-Sin=
(=Eri-aku=) at its head. He adopts Sin-iddin’s titles.
2312 The latter appeals to Khammurabi, king of Babylon, who
overpowers Rim-Sin.
THE KINGDOM OF BABYLON
IST DYNASTY, 2450-2150 B.C.
In the days of Sumer and Accad there is no mention of Babylon, which
must, however, have developed into some importance during the supremacy
of Isin (3000-2850). Dates are now more reliable.
2450 =Sumu-abi= overthrows the Ur Dynasty in Babylon, but the
rebellion does not extend beyond that city.
2440 =Sumu-la-ilu.=--He builds six strong fortresses in Babylon.
2405 =Zabu.=--He builds temple E-dubar in Sippar. The country is
evidently in revolution, for mention is made of a pretender,
Immeru.
2290 =Apil-Sin.=
2370 =Sin-muballit.=
Only monuments of these reigns, contract tablets.
2342 =Khammurabi.=--Probably the =Amraphel= of the Bible, a
contemporary of Abraham. The maker of a united Babylon, for in
2312 called upon by Sin-iddin, he expels Rim-Sin and the Elamites
from Larsa, and adding southern Babylonia to his dominions,
resumes the titles of the kings of Ur, Isin, and Larsa. He
begins to develop his new kingdom, digging canals for water
supply. Builds a great storehouse for wheat in Babylonia.
Enlarges temples of E-zida and E-sagila in Borsippa.
_Monuments._--Letters and inscriptions.
2287-2150 The remaining kings of the dynasty lived in complete
peace. The few remains of their age witness a high civilisation
and great prosperity.
_Monuments._--Contract tablets.
IIND DYNASTY, 2150-1783 B.C.
2150-1783 Called the dynasty of Uru-Azag (probably referring to a
district of the city of Babylon). Eleven kings of Sumerian
origin reign for 368 years. There is but little known of them.
No monuments of this dynasty.
IIIRD DYNASTY, 1783-1207 B.C.
1783 The Kossæans or Kassites (Kasshu) from the mountains of
Elam establish a dynasty with =Gandish= or =Gaddash= the first
king. They had entered the country as roving bands, had overrun
it, and finally attained the power. Culture and civilisation are
assimilated by the newcomers.
1700 =Agum-kakrime=, the first king of the dynasty of whom we have
any details. His kingdom is greater than that of Khammurabi. The
land of Padan is subject to him. Some statues of gods that had
been previously carried away are restored to Babylon.
1450 =Karaindash.=--In this reign we have the first evidence of
intercourse between the kingdoms of Assyria and Babylonia--a
treaty with Asshur-bel-nish-eshu, king of Assyria, concerning
boundary line. Builds a temple to Nana, goddess of E-Anna.
1430 =Kadashman-Bel.=--He corresponds with Amenhotep III, of Egypt.
_Monuments._--Letters found at Tel-el-Amarna.
1420 =Burnaburiash I.=--Contemporary with Puzur-Asshur of Assyria,
with whom he seems to have had difficulties regarding questions
of boundary. Builds a temple to the Sun-god at Larsa.
1410 =Kurigalzu I.=--The city of Dur-Kurigalzu is named after him.
He probably rebuilds it.
_Monuments._--Correspondence with Pharaoh of Egypt.
(Tel-el-Amarna.)
1400 =Burnaburiash II.=--His successor. Long and prosperous reign.
_Monuments._--Correspondence with Amenhotep IV, of Egypt.
(Tel-el-Amarna.)
1370 =Kharakhardash=, marries a daughter of Asshur-uballit, king of
Assyria. His son, =Kadashman-Kharbe I=, conducts a campaign
against the Sutu, whom he conquers, and among whom he settles
some of his subjects.
1360 Rebellion of the Kassites, who, jealous of the growing
Assyrian influence, kill the king and place on the throne
=Nazibugash=, who is defeated and killed by Asshur-uballit, the
king of Assyria.
1350 =Kurigalzu II.=--Placed on the throne by the Assyrian king,
invades Elam, and conquers the city of Susa (or Shushan). Battle
with Bel-nirari, king of Assyria, with doubtful result.
1340-1286 Continuous struggle between Babylonia and Assyria under
the following kings: =Nazi-Maruttash= (1340), =Kadashman-Turgu=,
=Kadashman-Buriash= (1330), =Kudur-Bel= (1304-1299),
=Shagarakti-Buriash= (1298-1286).
1285-1270 The king of Assyria, Tukulti-Ninib I, invades Babylon,
enters the town, removes the treasures of the temple, and
carries away the god Marduk to Assyria. This invasion took place
probably under the reign of =Bibeiashu=, whose successors,
=Bel-shum-iddin=, =Kadashman-Kharbe II= (1277-1275), and
=Adad-shum-iddin= (1274-1269), were very likely only vassals of
Tukulti-Ninib, who was the real king of Babylon for seven years.
1270 The Babylonians rise in revolt, drive the Assyrians from Babylon,
1269 and make =Adad-shum-usur= king, under whom the power of Babylon
begins to revive. Assyria attacked, the king, Bel-kudur-usur,
slain, and a portion of Assyrian territory annexed.
1238-1224 =Meli-Shipak.=--Successful against the Assyrian king,
1223-1211 Ninib-apal-esharra, so that under =Marduk-apal-iddin=,
the Babylonian dominion extends over nearly the whole of the
valley.
1210 Under the last two kings of this dynasty, =Zamamu-shum-iddin= and
1209 =Bel-shum-iddin=, Babylonia threatened by the Assyrian Asshur-dan.
1207 End of the dynasty as result of a Semitic revolution.
IVTH DYNASTY, 1207-1075 B.C.
The origin of this (Isin) dynasty still doubtful. There are eleven
kings, of whom four or five are unknown to us.
1135 =Nebuchadrezzar I=, sixth king, exhibits the old-time spirit.
Invades Assyria, but is repulsed. Is successful in campaigns
against the people of Elam and Lulubi, even penetrates into
Syria.
_Monuments_.--Monolithic inscription concerning grant of land to
Ritti Marduk of Bit-Karziyabku.
1110 In the reign of =Marduk-nadin-akhe=, Tiglathpileser I of
Assyria invades Babylon and takes the capital.
1083 At death of =Marduk-shapik-zer-mati=, a usurper,
=Adad-apal-iddin= takes the throne.
1078 End of dynasty with death of =Nabu-shum=.
VTH, VITH, VIITH, VIIITH DYNASTIES, 1075-728 B.C.
A series of short-lived dynasties all struggling with the rising power
of Assyria.
1075 Dynasty of Sea Lands, at the estuaries of the Tigris and
the Euphrates upon the Persian Gulf, which later exercises
great influence upon the history of Babylonia. This dynasty
numbers only three kings, who reign together twenty-one years
five months, or, according to the Babylonian chronicle,
twenty-three years; viz. =Sibar-Shipak=, slain and buried in
palace of Sargon. In his reign the Elamites pillage Sippar and
do much damage; =Ea-mukin-zer=, of whom nothing is known, and
=Kasshu-nadin-akhe=. These kings engaged on rebuilding the
temple of the Sun at Sippar.
1053-1033 The dynasty of Sea Lands in Babylonia followed by
the dynasty of Bit-Bazi, numbering also only three
kings: =Eulbar-shakin-shum=, =Ninib-kudur-usur=, and
=Silanim-shukamuna=, followed by a dynasty of Elam with only
one king, whose name is unknown.
1027 The VIIIth Dynasty. Babylonian stock having exhausted its
vigour, now intermixed with Kassite and other foreign blood.
747 =Nabu-nasir= (=Nabonassar=) of the VIIIth Dynasty comes to the
throne. A time of literary activity.
732 =Nabu-nadinzer=, his successor, slain by =Nabu-shum-ukin=.
731 =Ukinzer= replaces Nabu-shum-ukin. Tiglathpileser III invades
Babylon and determines to end the rule of native princes in the
land.
728 =Tiglathpileser=, king of Babylon. =End of the Old Babylonian
Empire.=
THE ASSYRIAN EMPIRE
FIRST PERIOD, 1830-1120 B.C.
Assyria was colonised from Babylonia. The date is uncertain, but
Nineveh was in existence in 3000 B.C. The early rulers appear to have
been subject priest-princes of the kings of Babylonia.
1830-1810 The first known rulers (Ishakke) are =Ishme-Dagan= and
his son, =Shamshi-Adad I=, who builds a great temple in the city
of Asshur, dedicated to the gods Anu and Adad.
1800-1700 Little known of their successors =Igur-kapkapu=,
=Shamshi-Adad II=, while the dates of =Khallu= and =Irishum= are
unknown.
_Monuments._--A few inscriptions.
1700 =Bel-Kapkapu.=--The first to take the title of king, and
therefore considered the real founder of the monarchy, probably
the Bel-bani, of whom Esarhaddon claimed to be a direct
descendant.
1700-1450 A dark age of Assyrian history. We know nothing of it,
except that after the battle of Megiddo (_ca._ 1525) the ruler
of Assyria sends presents to Tehutimes III.
1450 Assyria is now recognised by Babylonia as an independent
kingdom. Its ruler, =Asshur-bel-nish-eshu=, makes a treaty with
Karaindash, king of Kardunyash (Babylonia) concerning boundaries.
1420 =Puzur-Asshur=, treats with the Babylonians concerning the
boundary.
1400 =Asshur-nadin-akhe II=, his successor, contemporary of
Amenhotep IV, king of Egypt. Builds or restores a palace in
Asshur.
_Monuments._--Friendly correspondence with Amenhotep IV in the
Tel-el-Amarna letters.
1370 Succeeded by =Asshur-uballit=, whose daughter, Muballitat
Sheru’a, is married to Karakhardash, king of Babylon. The
murder of his son, Kadashman-Kharbe I, brought about Assyrian
intervention, and a grandson of Asshur-uballit, Kurigalzu,
is placed on the throne. Babylonia now partially subject to
Assyria. Campaigns of Asshur-uballit against the Shubari.
1360 His son =Bel-nirari= said to have conquered the inhabitants of
the neighbouring Elamite foothills. These Assyrian conquests
lead to a conflict between Kurigalzu II and Bel-nirari, in which
the latter is victorious. A rearrangement of the boundary lines
between the two countries is the result.