RESULTS OF THE DISCOVERIES TO CHRONOLOGY AND HISTORY.--NAMES OF
ASSYRIAN KINGS IN THE INSCRIPTIONS.--A DATE FIXED.--THE NAME OF
JEHU.--THE OBELISK KING.--THE EARLIER KINGS.--SARDANAPALUS.--HIS
SUCCESSORS.--PUL, OR TIGLATH
PILESER.--SARGON.--SENNACHERIR.--ESSARHADDON.--THE LAST ASSYRIAN
KINGS.--TABLES OF PROPER NAMES IN THE ASSYRIAN
INSCRIPTIONS.--ANTIQUITY OF NINEVEH.--OF THE NAME OF
ASSYRIA.--ILLUSTRATIONS OF SCRIPTURE.--STATE OF JUDAEA AND ASSYRIA
COMPARED.--POLITICAL CONDITION OF THE EMPIRE.--ASSYRIAN
COLONIES.--PROSPERITY OF THE COUNTRY.--RELIGION.--EXTENT OF
NINEVEH.--ASSYRIAN ARCHITECTURE.--COMPARED WITH JEWISH.--PALACE OF
KOUYUNJIK RESTORED.--PLATFORM AT NIMROUD RESTORED.--THE ASSYRIAN
FORTIFIED INCLOSURES.--DESCRIPTION OF KOUYUNJIK.--CONCLUSION.
Although ten years have barely elapsed since the first discovery of ruins
on the site of the great city of Nineveh, a mass of information, scarcely
to be overrated for its importance and interest, has already been added to
our previous knowledge of the early history and comparative geography of
the East. When in 1849 I published the narrative of my first researches in
Assyria, the numerous inscriptions recovered from the remains of the
buried palaces were still almost a sealed book; for although an
interpretation of some had been hazarded, it was rather upon mere
conjecture than upon any well-established philological basis. I then,
however, expressed my belief, that ere long their contents would be known
with almost certainty, and that they would be found to furnish a history,
previously almost unknown, of one of the earliest and most powerful
empires of the ancient world. Since that time the labors of English
scholars, and especially of Col. Rawlinson and Dr. Hincks, and of M. de
Saulcy, and other eminent investigators on the Continent, have nearly led
to the fulfilment of those anticipations; and my present work would be
incomplete were I not to give a general sketch of the results of their
investigations, as well as of my own researches.
I will not detain the reader by any account of the various processes
adopted in deciphering, and of the steps gradually made in the
investigation; nor will I recapitulate the curious corroborative evidence
which has led in many instances to the verification of the
interpretations. Such details, philologically of the highest interest, and
very creditable to the sagacity and learning of those pursuing this
difficult inquiry, will be found in the several treatises published by the
investigators themselves. The results, however, are still very incomplete.
It is, indeed, a matter of astonishment that, considering the time which
has elapsed since the discovery of the monuments, so much progress has
been already made. But there is every prospect of our being able, ere
long, to ascertain the general contents of almost every Assyrian record.
The Babylonian column of the Bisutun inscription, that invaluable key to
the various branches of cuneiform writing, has at length been published by
Col. Rawlinson, and will enable others to carry on the investigation upon
sure grounds.
I will proceed, therefore, to give a slight sketch of the contents of the
inscriptions as far as they have been examined. The earliest king of whose
reign we have any detailed account was the builder of the north-west
palace at Nimroud, the most ancient edifice hitherto discovered in
Assyria. His records, however, with other inscriptions, furnish the names
of five, if not seven, of his predecessors, some of whom, there is reason
to believe, erected palaces at Nineveh, and originally founded those which
were only rebuilt by subsequent monarchs. It is consequently important to
ascertain the period of the accession of this early Assyrian king, and we
apparently have the means of fixing it with sufficient accuracy. His son,
we know, built the centre palace at Nimroud, and raised the obelisk, now
in the British Museum, inscribing upon it the principal events of his
reign. He was a great conqueror, and subdued many distant nations. The
names of the subject kings who paid him tribute are duly recorded on the
obelisk, in some instances with sculptured representations of the various
objects sent. Amongst those kings was one whose name reads "Jehu, the son
of Khumri (Omri)," and who has been identified by Dr. Hincks and Col.
Rawlinson with Jehu, king of Israel. This monarch was certainly not the
son, although one of the successors of Omri, but the term "son of" appears
to have been used throughout the East in those days, as it still is, to
denote connection generally, either by descent or by succession. Thus we
find in Scripture the same person called "the son of Nimshi," and "the son
of Jehoshaphat, the son of Nimshi."[248] An identification connected with
this word Khumri or Omri is one of the most interesting instances of
corroborative evidence that can be adduced of the accuracy of the
interpretations of the cuneiform character. It was observed that the name
of a city resembling Samaria was connected, and that in inscriptions
containing very different texts, with one reading Beth Khumri or
Omri.[249] This fact was unexplained until Col. Rawlinson perceived that
the names were, in fact, applied to the same place, or one to the
district, and the other to the town. Samaria having been built by Omri,
nothing is more probable than that--in accordance with a common Eastern
custom--it should have been called, after its founder, Beth Khumri, or the
house of Omri. As a further proof of the identity of the Jehu mentioned on
the obelisk with the king of Israel, Dr. Hincks, to whom we owe this
important discovery, has found on the same monument the name of Hazael,
whom Elijah was ordered by the Almighty to anoint king of Syria.[250]
Supposing, therefore, these names to be correctly identified,--and our
Assyrian chronology for this period rests as yet, it must be admitted,
almost entirely upon this supposition,--we can fix an approximate date for
the reign of the obelisk king. Jehu ascended the throne about 885 B. C.;
the accession of the Assyrian monarch must, consequently, be placed
somewhere between that time and the commencement of the ninth century B.
C., and that of his father in the latter part of the tenth.[251]
In his records the builder of the north-west palace mentions, amongst his
predecessors, a king whose name is identical with the one from whom,
according to the inscriptions at Bavian, were taken certain idols of
Assyria 418 years before the first or second year of the reign of
Sennacherib. According to Dr. Hincks, Sennacherib ascended the throne in
703 B. C. We have, therefore, 1121 B. C. for the date of the reign of this
early king.
There are still two kings mentioned by name in the inscriptions from the
north-west palace at Nimroud, as ancestors of its builder, who have not
yet been satisfactorily placed. It is probable that the earliest reigned
somewhere about the middle of the twelfth century B. C. Colonel Rawlinson
calls him _the founder_ of Nineveh; but there is no proof whatever, as far
as I am aware, in support of this conjecture. It is possible, however,
that he may have been the first of a dynasty which _extended_ the bounds
of the Assyrian empire, and was founded, according to Herodotus, about
five centuries before the Median invasion, or in the twelfth century B.
C.; but there appears to be evidence to show that a city bearing the name
of Nineveh stood on the banks of the Tigris long before that period.[252]
The second king, whose name is unplaced, appears to be mentioned in the
inscriptions as the original _founder_ of the north-west palace at
Nimroud. According to the views just expressed, he must have reigned about
the end of the twelfth century B. C.
The father and grandfather of the _builder_ of the north-west palace are
mentioned in nearly every inscription from that edifice. Their names,
according to Colonel Rawlinson, are Adrammelech and Anaku-Merodach. They
must have reigned in the middle of the tenth century B. C. We have no
records of either of them.
The first king of whom we have any connected historical chronicle was the
builder of the well-known edifice at Nimroud from which were obtained the
most perfect and interesting bas-reliefs brought to this country. In my
former work I stated that Colonel Rawlinson believed his name to be Ninus,
and had identified him with that ancient king, according to Greek history,
the founder of the Assyrian empire. He has since given up this reading,
and has suggested that of Assardanbal, agreeing with the historic
Sardanapalus. Dr. Hincks, however, assigning a different value to the
middle character (the name being usually written with three), reads
Ashurakhbal. It is certain that the first monogram stands both for the
name of the country of Assyria and for that of its protecting deity. We
might consequently assume, even were other proof wanting, that it should
be read Assur or Ashur.
I have elsewhere given a description of the various great monumental
records of this king, with extracts from their contents. He appears to
have carried his arms to the west of Nineveh across Syria to the
Mediterranean Sea, to the south into Chaldaea, probably beyond Babylon (the
name of this city does not, however, as far as I am aware, occur in the
inscriptions), and to the north into Asia Minor and Armenia.
Of his son, whose name Colonel Rawlinson reads Temenbar and Divanubara,
and Dr. Hincks Divanubar, we have full and important historical annals,
including the principal events of thirty-one years of his reign. They are
engraved upon the black obelisk, and upon the backs of the bulls in the
centre of the mound of Nimroud. This king, like his father, was a great
conqueror. He waged war, either in person or by his generals, in Syria,
Armenia, Babylonia, Chaldaea, Media, and Persia.
The two royal names next in order occur on the pavement slabs of the upper
chambers, on the west face of the mound of Nimroud.[253] They may belong
to the son and grandson, and immediate successors, of the obelisk king.
The two names, however, have not been satisfactorily deciphered. Colonel
Rawlinson reads them Shamas-Adar and Adrammelech II.; Dr. Hincks only
ventures to suggest Shamsiyav for the first.
On the Assyrian tablet from the tunnel of Negoub[254], are apparently two
royal names, which may be placed next in order. They are merely mentioned
as those of ancestors or predecessors of the king who caused the record to
be engraved. Dr. Hincks reads them Baldasi and Ashurkish. As the
inscription is much mutilated, some doubt may exist as to the correctness
of its interpretation.
The next king of whom we have any actual records appears to have rebuilt
or added to the palace in the centre of the mound of Nimroud. The edifice
was destroyed by a subsequent monarch, who carried away its sculptures to
decorate a palace of his own. All the remains found amongst its ruins,
with the exception of the great bulls and the obelisk, belong to a king
whose name occurs on a pavement-slab discovered in the south-west palace.
The walls and chambers of this building were, it will be remembered,
decorated with bas-reliefs brought from elsewhere. By comparing the
inscriptions upon them, and upon a pavement-slab of the same period, with
the sculptures in the ruins of the centre palace, we find that they all
belong to the same king, and we are able to identify him through a most
important discovery, for which we are also indebted to Dr. Hincks. In an
inscription on a bas-relief representing part of a line of war-chariots,
he has detected the name of Menahem, the king of Israel, amongst those of
other monarchs paying tribute to the king of Assyria, in the eighth year
of his reign.[255] This Assyrian king, must, consequently, have been
either the immediate predecessor of Pul, Pul himself, or Tiglath Pileser,
the name on the pavement-slab not having yet been deciphered.[256]
The bas-reliefs adorning his palace, like those at Khorsabad, appear to
have been accompanied by a complete series of his annals. Unfortunately
only fragments of them remain. His first campaign seems to have been in
Chaldaea, and during his reign he carried his arms into the remotest parts
of Armenia, and across the Euphrates into Syria as far as Tyre and Sidon.
There is a passage in one of his inscriptions still unpublished, which
reads, "as far as the river Oukarish," that might lead us to believe that
his conquests were even extended to the central provinces of Asia and to
the Oxus. His annals contain very ample lists of conquered towns and
tribes. Amongst the former are Harran and Ur. He rebuilt many cities, and
placed his subjects to dwell in them.
The next monarch, whose name is found on Assyrian monuments, was the
builder of the palace of Khorsabad, now so well known from M. Botta's
excavations and the engravings of its sculptures published by the French
government. His name, though read with slight variations by different
interpreters, is admitted by all to be that of Sargon, the Assyrian king
mentioned by Isaiah. The names of his father and grandfather are said to
have been found on a clay tablet discovered at Kouyunjik, but they do not
appear to have been monarchs of Assyria. The ruins of Khorsabad furnish us
with the most detailed and ample annals of his reign. Unfortunately an
inscription, containing an account of a campaign against Samaria in his
first or second year, has been almost entirely destroyed. But, in one
still preserved, 27,280 Israelites are described as having been carried
into captivity by him from Samaria and the several districts or provincial
towns dependent upon that city. Sargon, like his predecessors, was a great
warrior. He even extended his conquests beyond Syria to the islands of the
Mediterranean Sea, and a tablet set up by him has been found in Cyprus. He
warred also in Babylonia, Susiana, Armenia, and Media, and apparently
received tribute from the kings of Egypt.
Colonel Rawlinson believed that the names "Tiglath Pileser" and
"Shalmaneser," were found on the monuments of Khorsabad as epithets of
Sargon, and that they were applied in the Old Testament to the same king.
He has now changed his opinion with regard to the first, and Dr. Hincks
contends that the second is not a name of this king, but of his
predecessor,--of whom, however, it must be observed, we have hitherto been
unable to trace any mention on the monuments, unless, as that scholar
suggests, he is alluded to in an inscription of Sargon from Khorsabad.
From the reign of Sargon we have a complete list of kings to the fall of
the empire, or to a period not far distant from that event. He was
succeeded by Sennacherib, whose annals have been given in a former part of
this volume. His name was identified, as I have before stated, by Dr.
Hincks, and this great discovery furnished the first satisfactory
starting-point, from which the various events recorded in the inscriptions
have been linked with Scripture history. Colonel Rawlinson places the
accession of Sennacherib to the throne in 716, Dr. Hincks in 703, which
appears to be more in accordance with the canon of Ptolemy. The events of
his reign, as recorded in the inscriptions on the walls of his palace,
are mostly related or alluded to in sacred and profane history. I have
already described his wars in Judaea, and have compared his own account
with that contained in Holy Writ. His second campaign in Babylonia is
mentioned in a fragment of Polyhistor, preserved by Eusebius, in which the
name given to Sennacherib's son, and the general history of the war appear
to be nearly the same as those on the monuments. The fragment is highly
interesting as corroborating the accuracy of the interpretation of the
inscriptions. I was not aware of its existence when the translation given
in the sixth chapter of this volume was printed. "After the reign of the
brother of Sennacherib, Acises reigned over the Babylonians, and when he
had governed for the space of thirty days he was slain by Merodach
Baladan, who held the empire by force during six months; and he was slain
and succeeded by a person named Elibus (Belib). But in the third year of
his (Elibus) reign Sennacherib, king of the Assyrians, levied an army
against the Babylonians; and in a battle, in which they were engaged,
routed and took him prisoner with his adherents, and commanded them to be
carried into the land of the Assyrians. Having taken upon himself the
government of the Babylonians, he appointed his son, Asordanius, their
king, and he himself retired again into Assyria." This son, however, was
not Essarhaddon, his successor on the throne of Assyria. The two names are
distinguished by a distinct orthography in the cuneiform inscriptions.
Sennacherib raised monuments and caused tablets recording his victories to
be carved in many countries which he visited and subdued. His image and
inscriptions at the mouth of the Nahr-el-Kelb in Syria are well known.
During my journey to Europe I found one of his tablets near the village of
Hasana (or Hasan Agha), chiefly remarkable from being at the foot of
Gebel Judi, the mountain upon which, according to a widespread Eastern
tradition, the ark of Noah rested after the deluge.[257]
Essarhaddon, his son, was his successor, as we know from the Bible. He
built the south-west palace at Nimroud, and an edifice whose ruins are now
covered by the mound of the tomb of Jonah opposite Mosul. Like his father
he was a great warrior, and he styles himself in his inscriptions "King of
Egypt, conqueror of AEthiopia." It was probably this king who carried
Manasseh, king of Jerusalem, captive to Babylon.[258]
The name of the son and successor of Essarhaddon was the same as that of
the builder of the north-west palace at Nimroud. His father had erected a
dwelling for him in the suburbs or on the outskirts of Nineveh. His
principal campaign appears to have been in Susiana or Elam. As the great
number of the inscribed tablets found in the ruins of the palace of
Sennacherib, at Kouyunjik, are of his time, many of them bearing his name,
we may hope to obtain some record of the principal events of his reign.
His son built the south-east palace on the mound of Nimroud, probably over
the remains of an earlier edifice. Bricks from its ruins give his name,
which has not yet been deciphered, and those of his father and
grandfather. We know nothing of his history from cotemporaneous records.
He was one of the last, if not the last, king of the second dynasty; and
may, indeed, as I have already suggested, have been that monarch,
Sardanapalus, or Saracus, who was conquered by the combined armies of the
Medes and Babylonians under Cyaxares in B. C. 606, and who made of his
palace, his wealth, and his wives one great funeral pile.[259]
For convenience of reference I give a table of the royal names, according
to the versions of Dr. Hincks and Col. Rawlinson, the principal monuments
on which they are found, and the approximate date of the reigns of the
several kings. In a second table will be found the most important proper
and geographical names in the Assyrian inscriptions which have been
identified with those in the Bible. A third table contains the names of
the thirteen great gods of Assyria, according to the version of Dr.
Hincks.
TABLE I.--NAMES of ASSYRIAN KINGS in the Inscriptions from Nineveh.
--------------------------+------------------------------+--------------
Conjectural reading. | Where found. |Approximate
| |Date of reign.
--------------------------+------------------------------+--------------
1. Derceto (R[260]) | Pavement Slab, (B. M. Series,| 1250 B. C.
| p. 70, l. 25) |
| |
2. Divanukha (R) |Standard Inscription, Nimroud,| 1200 B. C.
Divanurish (H) | &c. |
| |
3. Anakbar-beth-hira (R) | Slabs from Temples in | 1130 B. C.
Shimish-bal-Bithkhira | North of Mound of Nimroud; |
(H) | Bavian tablets, |
| &c. |
| |
Mardokempad (?) (R) | A cylinder from Shereef-Khan |
Mesessimordacus (?) (R)| |
4. Adrammelech I. (R) | Standard Inscription, | 1000 B. C.
| Bricks, &c., from N. W. |
| Palace, Nimroud |
| |
5. Anaku Merodak (R) | |
Shimish Bar (H) | Idem | 960 B. C.
(Son of preceding) | |
| |
6. Sardanapalus I. (R) | Standard Inscription, | 930 B. C.
Ashurakhbal (H) | Bricks, &c., from N. W. |
(Son of preceding) | Palace, Nimroud, Abou |
| Maria, &c., &c. |
| |
7. Divanubara (R) | Centre Palace, Nimroud; | 900 B. C.
Divanubar (H) | Obelisk; Bricks; Kalah- |
(Son of preceding) | Sherghat; Baashiekha |
| |
8. Shamas Adar (R) | Pavement Slab, Upper | 870 B. C.
Shamsiyav (H) | Chambers, Nimroud |
| |
9. Adrammelech II. (R) | Idem | 840 B. C.
| |
10. Baldasi (?) (H) | Slab from the tunnel of |
| Negoub |
| |
11. Ashurkish (?) (H) | Idem |
| |
12. ? Pul or Tiglath- | Pavement Slab, and Slabs | 750 B. C.
Pileser | built into the S. W. |
| Palace, Nimroud |
| |
13. Sargon | Khorsabad; Nimroud; | 722 B. C.
| Karamless, &c., &c. |
| |
14. Sennacherib | Kouyunjik, &c. | 703 B. C.
(Son of preceding) | |
| |
15. Essarhaddon | S. W. Palace, Nimroud; | 690 B. C.?
(Son of preceding) | Nebbi Yunus; Shereef-Khan |
| |
16. Sardanapalus III. (R) | Kouyunjik; Shereef-Khan |
Ashurakhbal (H) | |
(Son of preceding) | |
| |
17. (Son of preceding) | S. E. Edifice, Nimroud |
| |
18. Shamishakhadon (?) (H)| Black Stone, in possession |
| of Lord Aberdeen |
TABLE II.--NAMES OF KINGS, COUNTRIES, CITIES, &c., mentioned in the Old
Testament, which occur in the A Inscriptions.
Jehu,
Omri,
Menahem,
Hezekiah,
Hazael,
Merodach Baladan,
Pharoah,
Sargon,
Sennacherib,
Essarhaddon,
Dagon,
Nebo,
Judaea,
Jerusalem,
Samaria,
Ashdod,
Lachish,
Damascus,
Hamath,
Hittites (the),
Tyre,
Sidon,
Gaza,
Ekron,
Askelon,
Arvad,
Gubal (the people of),
Lebanon,
Egypt,
Euphrates,
Carchemish,
Hebar or Chebar (river),
Harran,
Ur,
Gozan (the people of),
Mesopotamia,
Children of Eden,
Tigris,
Nineveh,
Babylon,
Elam,
Shushan,
Media,
Persia,
Yavan,
Ararat,
Hagarenes,
Nabathaeans,
Aramaeans,
Chaldaeans,
Meshek,
Tubal,
Assyria,
Assyrians,
Pethor,
Telassar.
TABLE III.--Names of THIRTEEN GREAT GODS OF ASSYRIA, as they occur on the
upright tablet of the King, discovered at Nimroud.
1. ASSHUR, the King of the Circle of the Great Gods.
2. ANU, the Lord of the Mountains, or of Foreign Countries.
3.(?) [Not yet deciphered.]
4. SAN.
5. MERODACH (? Mars).
6. YAV (? Jupiter).
7. BAR.
8. NEBO (? Mercury).
9. (?) Mylit (or Gula), called the Consort of Bel and the Mother of
the Great Gods (? Venus).
10. (?) Dagon.
11. BEL (? Saturn) Father of the Gods.
12. SHAMASH (the Sun).
13. ISHTAR (the Moon).
Although no mention appears to be made in the Assyrian inscriptions of
kings who reigned before the twelfth century B. C., this is by no means a
proof that the empire, and its capital Nineveh, did not exist long before
that time. I cannot agree with those who would limit the foundation of
both to that period. The supposition seems to me quite at variance with
the testimony of sacred and profane history. The existence of the name of
Nineveh on monuments of the eighteenth Egyptian dynasty is still
considered almost certain by Egyptian scholars. I have in my former work
quoted an instance of it on a tablet of the time of Thothmes III., or of
the beginning of the fourteenth century B. C.[261] Mr. Birch has since
pointed out to me three interesting cartouches copied by Dr. Lepsius in
Egypt, which completely remove any doubt as to the name of Assyria having
been also known as early as the eighteenth dynasty. They occur at the foot
of one of the columns of Soleb, and are of the age of Amenophis III., or
about the middle of the fourteenth century before Christ. The three
figures, with their arms bound behind, represent Asiatic captives, as is
proved by their peculiar features and head-dress, a knotted fillet round
the temples, corresponding with that seen in the Nineveh sculptures. Each
cartouche contains the name of the country from which the prisoner was
brought. The first is Patana, or Padan-Aram; the second is written
A-su-ru, or Assyria; and the third, Ka-ru-ka-mishi, Carchemish. On another
column are Saenkar (? Shinar or Sinjar); Naharaina, or Mesopotamia; and
the Khita, or Hittites. The mention in succession of these Asiatic
nations, contiguous one to the other, proves the correctness of the
reading of the word Assyria, which might have been doubted had the name
of that country stood alone.
Mr. Birch has detected a still earlier notice of Assyria in the
statistical tablet of Karnak. The king of that country is there stated to
have sent to Thothmes III., in his fortieth year, a tribute of fifty
pounds nine ounces of some article called chesbit, supposed to be a stone
for coloring blue. It would appear, therefore, that in the fifteenth
century a kingdom, known by the name of Assyria, with Nineveh for its
capital, had been established on the borders of the Tigris. Supposing the
date now assigned by Col. Rawlinson to the monuments at Nimroud to be
correct, no sculptures or relics have yet been found which we can safely
attribute to that period; future researches and a more complete
examination of the ancient sites may, however, hereafter lead to the
discovery of earlier remains.
As I have thus given a general sketch of the contents of the inscriptions,
it may not be out of place to make a few observations upon the nature of
the Assyrian records, and their importance to the study of Scripture and
profane history. In the first place, the care with which the events of
each king's reign were chronicled is worthy of remark. They were usually
written in the form of regular annals, and in some cases, as on the great
monoliths at Nimroud, the royal progress during a campaign appears to have
been described almost day by day. We are thus furnished with an
interesting illustration of the historical books of the Jews. There is,
however, this marked difference between them, that whilst the Assyrian
records are nothing but a dry narrative, or rather register, of military
campaigns, spoliations, and cruelties, events of little importance but to
those immediately concerned in them, the historical books of the Old
Testament, apart from the deeds of war and blood which they chronicle,
contain the most interesting of private episodes, and the most sublime of
moral lessons. It need scarcely be added, that this distinction is
precisely what we might have expected to find between them, and that the
Christian will not fail to give to it a due weight.
The monuments of Nineveh, as well as the testimony of history, tend to
prove that the Assyrian monarch was a thorough Eastern despot, unchecked
by popular opinion, and having complete power over the lives and property
of his subjects--rather adored as a god than feared as a man, and yet
himself claiming that authority and general obedience in virtue of his
reverence for the national deities and the national religion. It was only
when the gods themselves seemed to interpose that any check was placed
upon the royal pride and lust; and it is probable that when Jonah entered
Nineveh crying to the people to repent, the king, believing him to be a
special minister from the supreme deity of the nation, "arose from his
throne, and laid his robe from him, and covered him with sackcloth, and
sat in ashes."[262] The Hebrew state, on the contrary, was, to a certain
extent, a limited monarchy. The Jewish kings were amenable to, and even
guided by, the opinion of their subjects. The prophets boldly upbraided
and threatened them; their warnings and menaces were usually received with
respect and fear. "Good is the word of the Lord which thou hast spoken,"
exclaimed Hezekiah to Isaiah, when the prophet reproved him for his
pride, and foretold the captivity of his sons and the destruction of his
kingdom;[263] a prophecy which none would have dared utter in the presence
of the Assyrian king, except, as it would appear by the story of Jonah, he
were a stranger. It can scarcely, therefore, be expected that any history
other than bare chronicles of the victories and triumphs of the kings,
omitting all allusion to their reverses and defeats, could be found in
Assyria, even were portable rolls or books still to exist, as in Egypt,
beneath the ruins.
It is remarkable that the Assyrian records should, on the whole, be so
free from the exaggerated forms of expression, and the magniloquent royal
titles, which are found in Egyptian documents of the same nature, and even
in those of modern Eastern sovereigns. I have already pointed out the
internal evidence of their truthfulness so far as they go. We are further
led to place confidence in the statements contained in the inscriptions by
the very minuteness with which they even give the amount of the spoil; the
two registrars, "the scribes of the host," as they are called in the
Bible,[264] being seen in almost every bas-relief, writing down the
various objects brought to them by the victorious warriors,--the heads of
the slain, the prisoners, the cattle, the sheep,[265] the furniture, and
the vessels of metal.
The next reflection arising from an examination of the Assyrian records
relates to the political condition and constitution of the empire, which
appear to have been of a very peculiar nature. The king, we may infer,
exercised but little direct authority beyond the immediate districts
around Nineveh. The Assyrian dominions, as far as we can yet learn from
the inscriptions, did not extend much further than the central provinces
of Asia Minor and Armenia to the north, not reaching to the Black Sea,
though probably to the Caspian. To the east they included the western
provinces of Persia; to the south, Susiana, Babylonia, and the northern
part of Arabia. To the west the Assyrians may have penetrated into Lycia,
and perhaps Lydia; and Syria was considered within the territories of the
great king; Egypt and Meroe (AEthiopia) were the farthest limits reached by
the Assyrian armies. According to Greek history, however, a much greater
extent must be assigned to Assyrian influence, if not to the actual
Assyrian empire, and we may hereafter find that such was in fact the case.
I am here merely referring to the evidence afforded by actual records as
far as they have been deciphered.
The empire appears to have been at all times a kind of confederation
formed by many tributary states, whose kings were so far independent, that
they were only bound to furnish troops to the supreme lord in time of war,
and to pay him yearly a certain tribute. Hence we find successive Assyrian
kings fighting with exactly the same nations and tribes, some of which
were scarcely more than four or five days' march from the gates of
Nineveh.
The Jewish tribes, as it had long been suspected by biblical scholars, can
now be proved to have held their dependent position upon the Assyrian
king, from a very early period, indeed, long before the time inferred by
any passage in Scripture. Whenever an expedition against the kings of
Judah or Israel is mentioned in the Assyrian records, it is stated to have
been undertaken on the ground that they had not paid their customary
tribute.[266]
The political state of the Jewish kingdom under Solomon appears to have
been very nearly the same as that of the Assyrian empire. The inscriptions
in this instance again furnish us with an interesting illustration of the
Bible. The scriptural account of the power of the Hebrew king resembles,
almost word for word, some of the paragraphs in the great inscriptions at
Nimroud. "Solomon reigned over the kingdoms from the river unto the land
of the Philistines, and unto the border of Egypt: they brought presents,
and served Solomon all the days of his life.... He had dominion over all
the region on this side the river, from Tipsah even unto the Azzah, _over
all the kings_ on this side the river."[267]
In the custom, frequently alluded to in the inscriptions, of removing the
inhabitants of conquered cities and districts to distant parts of the
empire, and of replacing them by colonists from Nineveh or from other
subdued countries, we have another interesting illustration of Scripture
history. It has generally been inferred that there was but one carrying
away, or at the most two, of the people of Samaria, although three, at
least, appear to be distinctly alluded to in the Bible; the first, by
Pul;[268] the second, by Tiglath-Pileser[269]; the third, by
Shalmaneser.[270] It was not until the time of the last king that Samaria
was destroyed as an independent kingdom. On former occasions only the
inhabitants of the surrounding towns and villages seem to have been taken
as captives. Such we find to have been the case with many other nations
who were subdued or punished for rebellion by the Assyrians. The
conquerors, too, as we also learn from the inscriptions, established the
worship of their own gods in the conquered cities, raising altars and
temples, and appointing priests for their service. So after the fall of
Samaria, the strangers who were placed in its cities, "made gods of their
own and put them in the houses of the high places which the Samaritans had
made."[271]
The vast number of families thus sent to dwell in distant countries, must
have wrought great changes in the physical condition, language, and
religion of the people with which they were intermixed. When the Assyrian
records are with more certainty interpreted, we may, perhaps, be able to
explain many of the anomalies of ancient Eastern philology and comparative
geography.
We further gather from the records of the campaigns of the Assyrian kings,
that the country, both in Mesopotamia and to the west of the Euphrates,
now included in the general term of "the Desert," was at that remote
period, teeming with a dense population both sedentary and nomade; that
cities, towns, and villages arose on all sides; and that, consequently,
the soil brought forth produce for the support of this great congregation
of human beings. All those settlements depended almost exclusively upon
artificial irrigation. Hence the dry beds of enormous canals and
countless watercourses, which are spread like a network over the face of
the country. Even the traveller, accustomed to the triumphs of modern
science and civilization, gazes with wonder and awe upon these gigantic
works, and reflects with admiration upon the industry, the skill, and the
power of those who made them. And may not the waters be again turned into
the empty channels, and may not life be again spread over those parched
and arid wastes? Upon them no other curse has alighted than that of a
false religion and a listless race.
Of the information as to the religious system of the Assyrians which may
be derived from the inscriptions, I am still unwilling to treat in the
present state of our knowledge of their contents. A far more intimate
acquaintance with the character than we yet possess is required before the
translation of such documents can be fully relied on. All we can now
venture to infer is, that the Assyrians worshipped one supreme God, as the
great national deity under whose immediate and special protection they
lived, and their empire existed. The name of this god appears to have been
Asshur, as nearly as can be determined, at present, from the inscriptions.
It was identified with that of the empire itself, always called "the
country of Asshur;" it entered into those of both kings and private
persons, and was also applied to particular cities. With Asshur, but
apparently far inferior to him in the celestial hierarchy, although called
the great gods, were associated twelve other deities, whose names I have
given in table No. 3. Some of them may possibly be identified with the
divinities of the Greek Pantheon, although it is scarcely wise to hazard
conjectures which must ere long be again abandoned. These twelve gods may
also have presided over the twelve months of the year, and the vast number
of still inferior gods, in one inscription, I believe, stated to be no
less than 4000, over the days of the year, various phenomena and
productions of nature, and the celestial bodies. It is difficult to
understand such a system of polytheism, unless we suppose that whilst
there was but one supreme god, represented sometimes under a triune form,
all the so-called inferior gods were originally mere names for events and
outward things, or symbols and myths. Although at one time generally
accepted as such even by the common people, their true meaning was only
known in a corrupted age to the priests, by whom they were turned into a
mystery and a trade. It may, indeed, be inferred from many passages in the
Scriptures, that a system of theology not far differing from the Assyrian
prevailed at times amongst the Jews themselves. Asshur is generally, if
not always, typified by the winged figure in the circle.[272]
The question as to the space occupied by the city of Nineveh at the time
of its greatest prosperity is still far from being set at rest. Col.
Rawlinson, founding his opinion upon the names on bricks from the several
sites, believes the inclosures of Nimroud, Kouyunjik, and Khorsabad, and
the small mounds of Shereef-Khan, scarcely three miles from Kouyunjik, as
well as others in the immediate neighbourhood, to be the remains of
distinct cities. He would even separate the mound of Nebbi Yunus from
Kouyunjik, identifying the former with Nineveh, and making the latter a
mere suburb. A glance at the plan of the ruins will show this conjecture
to be quite untenable. Discoveries in both mounds prove that they belong
to nearly the same period, and that Nebbi Yunus is the more recent of the
two. The supposition that any of these groups of mounds represent alone
the city of Nineveh can in no way be reconciled with the accounts in
Scripture and in the Greek authors, which so remarkably coincide as to its
extent; a difficulty which leads Col. Rawlinson to say, that all these
ruins "formed one of that group of cities which, in the time of the
prophet Jonah, were known by the common name of Nineveh." It is indeed
true, that, on bricks from different mounds, distinct names appear to be
given to each locality, and that those from Kouyunjik are inscribed with
the name of Nineveh, whilst those from Nimroud and Khorsabad bear others
which have not yet been satisfactorily deciphered. These names are
preceded by a determinative monogram assumed to signify a city, but which
undoubtedly also applies to a fort or fortified palace. Nahum describes
Nineveh as a city of many strongholds and gates,[273] and such I believe
it to have been, each fort or stronghold having a different name. The most
important, as it was the best defended, may at one time have been the
palace at Kouyunjik, which being especially called Nineveh, gave its name
to the whole city. By no other supposition can we reconcile the united
testimony of ancient writers as to the great size of Nineveh with the
present remains.
It is very doubtful whether these fortified inclosures contained many
buildings beside the royal palaces, and such temples and public edifices
as were attached to them. At Nimroud, excavations were made in various
parts of the inclosed space, and it was carefully examined with a view to
ascertain whether any foundations or remains of houses still existed. None
were discovered except at the south-eastern corner, where the height of
the earth above the usual level at once showed the existence of ruins. In
most parts of the inclosure, the natural soil seems never to have been
disturbed, and in some places the conglomerate rock is almost denuded of
earth.
Such is also the case opposite Mosul. The remains of one or two buildings
appear to exist within the inclosure; but in the greater part there are no
indications whatever of ancient edifices, and the conglomerate rock is, as
at Nimroud, on a level with the surrounding soil.
At Khorsabad, the greater part of the inclosed space is so much _below_
the surrounding country, that it is covered with a marsh formed by the
small river Khauser, which flows near the ruins. Within the walls, which
are scarcely more than a mile square, can only be traced the remains of
one or two buildings, and of a propylaeum, standing below the platform, and
above two hundred yards from the ascent to the palace[274], but they are
at once perceived by well-defined inequalities in the soil.
If the walls forming the inclosures of Khorsabad and other Assyrian ruins
were the outer defences of a city, abruptly facing the open country, it is
difficult to account for the fact of the palace having been built in the
same line, and actually forming part of them. All access to it must have
been strongly fortified, and even the view over the surrounding country,
the chief object of such a position, must have been shut out.
After several careful excavations of the ruins and of the spaces inclosed
by the ramparts of earth, I am still inclined to the opinion that they
were royal dwellings with their dependent buildings, and parks or
paradises, fortified like the palace-temples of Egypt, capable of standing
a prolonged siege, and a place of refuge for the inhabitants in case of
invasion. They may have been called by different names, but they were all
included within the area of that great city known to the Jews and to the
Greeks as Nineveh. I will not pretend to say that the whole of this vast
space was thickly inhabited or built upon. As I have elsewhere observed,
we must not judge of Eastern cities by those of Europe.[275] In Asia,
gardens and orchards, containing suburbs and even distinct villages,
collected round a walled city are all included by the natives under one
general name. Such is the case with Isfahan and Damascus, and such I
believe it to have been with ancient Nineveh.
A few remarks are necessary on the additional information afforded by
recent discoveries as to the architecture and architectural decorations,
external and internal, of the Assyrian palaces. The inscriptions on their
walls, especially on those of Kouyunjik and Khorsabad, appear to contain
important and even minute details, not only as to their general plan and
mode of construction, but even as to the materials employed for their
different parts, and for the objects of sculpture and ornaments placed in
them. This fact furnishes another remarkable analogy between the records
of the Jewish and the Assyrian kings. To the history of their monarchs and
of their nation, the Hebrew chroniclers have added a full account of the
building and adornments of the temple and palaces of Solomon. In both
cases, from the use of technical words, we can scarcely hope to
understand, with any degree of certainty, all the details. It is
impossible to comprehend, by the help of the descriptions alone, the plan
or appearance of the temple of Solomon. This arises not only from our
being unacquainted with the exact meaning of various Hebrew architectural
terms, but also from the difficulty experienced even in ordinary cases, of
restoring from mere description an edifice of any kind. In the Assyrian
inscriptions we labor, of course, under still greater disadvantages. The
language in which they are written is as yet but very imperfectly known,
and although we may be able to explain with some confidence the general
meaning of the historical paragraphs, yet when we come to technical words
relating to architecture, even with a very intimate acquaintance with the
Assyrian tongue, we could scarcely hope to ascertain their precise
signification. On the other hand, the materials, and the general plan of
the Assyrian palaces are still preserved, whilst of the great edifices of
the Jews, not a fragment of masonry, nor the smallest remains are left to
guide us. The architecture of the one people, however, may be illustrated
by that of the other. With the help of the sacred books, and of the ruins
of the palaces of Nineveh, together with that of cotemporary and later
remains, as well as from customs still existing in the East, we may, to a
certain extent, restore the principal buildings of both nations.
Before suggesting a general restoration of the royal edifices of Nineveh,
I shall endeavor to point out the analogies which appear to exist between
their actual remains and what is recorded of the temple and palaces of
Solomon. In the first place, as Sennacherib in his inscriptions declares
himself to have done, the Jewish king sent the bearers of burdens and the
hewers into the mountains to bring great stones, costly stones, and hewed
stones[276], to lay the foundations, which were probably artificial
platforms, resembling the Assyrian mounds, though constructed of more
solid materials. We have the remains of such a terrace or stage of stone
masonry, perhaps built by king Solomon himself, at Baalbec. The enormous
size of some of the hewn stones existing in that structure, and of those
still seen in the quarries, some being more than sixty feet long, has
excited the wonder of modern travellers. The dimensions of the temple of
Jerusalem, threescore cubits long[277], twenty broad, and thirty high,
were much smaller than those of the great edifices explored in Assyria.
Solomon's own palace, however, appears to have been considerably larger,
and to have more nearly approached in its proportions those of the kings
of Nineveh, for it was one hundred cubits long, fifty broad, and thirty
high. "The porch before the temple," twenty cubits by ten,[278] may have
been a propylaeum, such as was discovered at Khorsabad in front of the
palace. The chambers, with the exception of the oracle, were exceedingly
small, the largest being only seven cubits broad, "for without, _in the
wall_ of the house, he made numerous rests round about, that _the beams_
should not be fastened in the walls of the house." The words in italics
are inserted in our version to make good the sense, and may consequently
not convey the exact meaning, which may be, that these chambers were thus
narrow that the beams might be supported without the use of pillars, a
reason already suggested for the narrowness of the greater number of
chambers in the Assyrian palaces. These smaller rooms appear to have been
built round a large central chamber, called the oracle, the whole
arrangement thus corresponding with the halls and surrounding rooms at
Nimroud, Khorsabad, and Kouyunjik. The oracle itself was twenty cubits
square, smaller far in dimensions than the Nineveh halls; but it was
twenty cubits _high_--an important fact, illustrative of Assyrian
architecture, for as the building was thirty cubits in height, the oracle
must not only have been much loftier than the adjoining chambers, but must
have had an upper structure of ten cubits.[279] Within it were the two
cherubim of olive wood ten cubits high, with wings each five cubits long,
"and he carved all the house around with carved figures of cherubim and
palm trees, and open flowers, within and without." The cherubim have been
described by Biblical commentators as mythic figures, uniting the human
head with the body of a lion, or an ox, and the wings of an eagle.[280]
If for the palm trees we substitute the sacred tree of the Nineveh
sculptures, and for the open flowers the Assyrian tulip-shaped
ornament--objects most probably very nearly resembling each other--we find
that the oracle of the temple was almost identical, in general form and in
its ornaments, with some of the chambers of Nimroud and Khorsabad. In the
Assyrian halls, too, the winged human-headed bulls were on the side of the
wall, and their wings, like those of the cherubim, "touched one another in
the midst of the house."[281] The dimensions of these figures were in some
cases nearly the same, namely, fifteen feet square. The doors were also
carved with cherubim and palm trees, and open flowers, and thus, with the
other parts of the building, corresponded with those of the Assyrian
palaces. On the walls at Nineveh the only addition appears to have been
the introduction of the human form and the image of the king, which were
an abomination to the Jews. The pomegranates and lilies of Solomon's
temple must have been nearly identical with the usual Assyrian ornament,
in which, and particularly at Khorsabad, the pomegranate frequently takes
the place of the tulip and the cone.
But the description given by Josephus of the interior of one of Solomon's
houses, already quoted by Mr. Fergusson in support of his ingenious
arguments, even more completely corresponds with, and illustrates the
chambers in the palaces of Nineveh. "Solomon built some of these (houses)
with stones of ten cubits, and _wainscoted the walls with other stones
that were sawed_, and were of great value, such as were dug out of the
bowels of the earth, for ornaments of temples, &c. The arrangement of the
curious workmanship of these stones was in three rows; but the fourth was
pre-eminent for the beauty of its sculpture, for on it were represented
trees, and all sorts of plants, with the shadows caused by their branches
and the leaves that hung down from them. These trees and plants covered
the stone that was beneath them, and their leaves were wrought so
wonderfully thin and subtile, that they appeared almost in motion; but the
rest of the wall, up to the roof, was plastered over, and, as it were,
wrought over with various colors and pictures."[282]
To complete the analogy between the two edifices, it would appear that
Solomon was seven years building the temple, and Sennacherib about the
same time building his great palace at Kouyunjik.[283]
The ceiling, roof, and beams of the temple were of cedar wood. The
discoveries in the ruins at Nimroud show that the same precious wood was
used in the Assyrian edifices; and the king of Nineveh, as we learn from
the inscriptions, employed men, precisely as Solomon had done, to cut it
in Mount Lebanon. Fir was also employed in the Jewish buildings, and
probably in those of Assyria.[284]
In the proposed restoration of the palace at Kouyunjik from the existing
remains, the building does not face the cardinal points of the compass. I
will, however, assume, for convenience sake, that it stands due north and
south. To the west, therefore, it immediately overlooked the Tigris; and
on that side was one of its principal facades. The edifice must have risen
on the very edge of the platform, the foot of which was at that time
washed by the river. If, therefore, there were any access to the palace on
the river front, it must necessarily have been by a flight of steps, or an
inclined way leading down to the water's edge, and there might have been
great stairs parallel to the basement wall as at Persepolis. Although from
the fact of there having been a grand entrance to the palace on this side,
it is highly probable that some such approach once existed, no remains
whatever of it have been discovered. The western facade, like the eastern,
was formed by five pairs of human-headed bulls, and numerous colossal
figures[285], forming three distinct gateways.
The principal approach to the palace appears, however, to have been on the
eastern side, where the great bulls bearing the annals of Sennacherib
still stand. In the frontispiece I have been able, by the assistance of
Mr. Fergusson, to give a restoration of this magnificent facade and
entrance. Inclined ways, or broad flights of steps, appear to have led up
to it from the foot of the platform, and the remains of them, consisting
of huge squared stones, are still seen in the ravines, which are but the
ancient ascents, deepened by the winter rains of centuries. From this
grand entrance direct access could be had to all the principal halls and
chambers in the palace; that on the western face, as appears from the
ruins, only opened into a set of eight rooms.
The chambers hitherto explored appear to have been grouped round three
great halls. It must be borne in mind, however, that the palace extended
considerably to the north-east of the grand entrance, and that there may
have been another hall, and similar dependent chambers in that part of the
edifice. Only a part of the palace has been hitherto excavated, and we
are not in possession of a perfect ground-plan of it.
The general arrangement of the chambers at Kouyunjik is similar to that of
Khorsabad, though the extent of the building is very much greater. It is
also to be remarked that the Khorsabad mound falls gradually to the level
of the plain, apparently showing the remains of a succession of broad
terraces, and that parts of the palace, such as the propylaea, were
actually beneath the platform, and removed some distance from it in the
midst of the walled inclosure. At Kouyunjik, however, the whole of the
royal edifice, with its dependent buildings, appears to have stood on the
summit of the artificial basement[286], whose lofty perpendicular sides
could only have been accessible by steps, or inclined ways. No propylaea,
or other edifices connected with the palace, have as yet been discovered
below the platform.
The inscriptions appear to refer to four distinct parts of the palace,
three of which, inhabited by the women, seem subsequently to have been
reduced to one. It is not clear whether they were all on the ground-floor,
or whether they formed different stories. Mr. Fergusson, in his ingenious
work on the restoration of the palaces of Nineveh, in which he has, with
great learning and research, fully examined the subject of the
architecture of the Assyrians and ancient Persians, availing himself of
the facts then furnished by the discoveries, endeavors to divide the
Khorsabad palace, after the manner of modern Mussulman houses, into the
Salamlik or apartments of the men, and the Harem or those of the women.
The division he suggests, must, of course, depend upon conjecture; but it
may, I think, be considered as highly probable, until fuller and more
accurate translations of the inscriptions than can yet be made may
furnish us with some positive data on the subject. In the ruins of
Kouyunjik there is nothing, as far as I am aware, to mark the distinction
between the male and female apartments. Of a temple no remains have as yet
been found at Kouyunjik, nor is there any high conical mound as at Nimroud
and Khorsabad.
In all the Assyrian edifices hitherto explored, we have the same general
interior plan. On the four sides of the great halls are two or three
narrow parallel chambers opening one into the other. Most of them have
doorways at each and leading into smaller rooms, which have no other
outlet. It seems highly probable that this uniform plan was adopted with
reference to the peculiar architectural arrangements required by the
building, and I agree with Mr. Fergusson in attributing it to the mode
resorted to for lighting the apartments.
In my former work I expressed a belief that the chambers received light
through an opening in the roof. Although this may have been the case in
some instances, yet recent discoveries now prove that the Assyrian palaces
had more than one story. Such being the fact, it is evident that other
means must have been adopted to admit daylight to the inner rooms on the
ground-floor. Mr. Fergusson's suggestion, that the upper part of the halls
and principal chambers was formed by a row of pillars supporting the
ceiling and admitting a free circulation of light and air, appears to me
to meet, to a certain extent, the difficulty. It has, moreover, been borne
out by subsequent discoveries, and by the representation of a large
building, apparently a palace, on one of the bas-reliefs discovered at
Kouyunjik. In the restoration of the exterior of the Kouyunjik palace
forming the frontispiece to this volume, a somewhat similar capital has
been adopted in preference to that taken by Mr. Fergusson from
Persepolis, which, although undoubtedly like the other architectural
details of those celebrated ruins, Assyrian in character, are not
authorised by any known Assyrian remains.
A row of pillars, or of alternate pillars and masonry, would answer the
purpose intended, if they opened into a well-lighted hall. Yet inner
chambers, such as are found in the ruins of Kouyunjik, must have remained
in almost entire darkness. And it is not improbable that such was the
case, to judge from modern Eastern houses, in which the absence of light
is considered essential to secure a cool temperature. The sculptures and
decorations in them could then only be seen by torchlight. The great halls
were probably in some cases entirely open to the air, like the court-yards
of the modern houses of Mosul, whose walls are still adorned with
sculptured alabaster. When they were covered in the roof was borne by
enormous pillars of wood or brickwork, and rose so far above the
surrounding part of the building, that light was admitted by columns and
buttresses immediately beneath the ceiling. It is most probable that there
were two or three stories of chambers opening into them, either by columns
or by windows. Such appears to have been the case in Solomon's temple; for
Josephus tells us that the great inner sanctuary was surrounded by small
rooms, "over these rooms were other rooms, and others above them, equal
both in their measure and numbers, and that these reached to a height
equal to the _lower part_ of the house, for the upper had no buildings
about it." We have also an illustration of this arrangement of chambers in
the modern houses of some parts of Persia, in which a great central hall,
called an Iwan, rises to the top of the building, and has small rooms in
two or three separate stories, opening by windows into it, whilst the
inner chambers, having no windows at all, have no more light than that
which reaches them through the door. Sometimes these side chambers open
into a centre court, as I have suggested may have been the case in the
Nineveh palaces, then a projecting roof of woodwork protects the carved
and painted walls from injury by the weather. Curtains and awnings were
also suspended above the windows and entrances, to ward off the rays of
the sun.
Although no remains or even traces of pillars have hitherto been
discovered in the Assyrian ruins, I now think it highly probable, as
suggested by Mr. Fergusson, that they were used to support the roof. It is
curious, however, that no stone pedestals, upon which wooden columns may
have rested, have been found in the ruins, nor are there marks of them on
the pavement. I can scarcely account for the entire absence of all such
traces. However, unless some support of this kind were resorted to, it is
impossible that even the large chambers at Kouyunjik, without including
the central halls, could have been covered in. The great hall, or house as
it is rendered in the Bible,[287] of the forest of Lebanon was thirty
cubits high, upon four rows of cedar pillars with cedar beams upon the
pillars. The Assyrian kings, we have seen, cut wood in the same forests as
King Solomon; and probably used it for the same purposes, namely, for
pillars, beams, and ceilings. The dimensions of this hall, 100 cubits
(about 150 feet) by 50 cubits (75 feet), very much resemble those of the
centre halls of the palaces of Nineveh. "The porch of pillars" was fifty
cubits in length; equal, therefore, to the breadth of the hall, of which I
presume it to have been an inclosed space at the upper end, whilst "the
porch for the throne where he might judge, even the porch of judgment ...
covered with cedar wood from one side of the floor to the other," was
probably a raised place beneath it, corresponding with a similar platform
where the host and guests of honor are seated in a modern Eastern house.
Supposing the three parts of the building to have been arranged as I have
suggested, we should have an exact counterpart of them in the hall of
audience of the Persian palaces. The upper part of the room in which I
have frequently seen the governor of Isfahan, was divided from the rest of
a magnificent hall by columns, and his throne was a raised place of carved
woodwork adorned with rich stuffs, ivory, and other precious materials.
Suppliants and attendants stood outside the line of pillars, and the
officers of the court within. Such also may have been the interior
arrangement of the great halls in the Assyrian edifices.
That the Ninevite palaces had more than one story, at least in some parts
if not in all, can now no longer be doubted. The inscriptions appear to
describe distinctly the upper rooms, and at Kouyunjik, as it has been
seen, an inclined way was discovered leading to them. Without there had
been an upper structure, it would be impossible to account for the
enormous accumulation of rubbish, consisting chiefly of remains of
buildings, over the ruins of Kouyunjik and Khorsabad. These upper rooms
were probably built of sundried bricks and wood, but principally of the
latter material, and may have been connected with the lower by winding
staircases, as in the temple of Solomon, as well as by inclined ways. The
roofs were flat, as those of all Eastern houses are to this day; and, as
suggested by Mr. Fergusson,[288] they may have been crowned by a wooden
talar, or platform, and altars upon which sacrifices were offered,--"The
houses upon whose roofs they have burned incense unto all the host of
heaven, and have poured out drink-offerings to other gods."[289]
I have already described the internal decorations of the Assyrian
palaces,[290] and have little more to add upon the subject. The walls of
Kouyunjik were more elaborately decorated than those of Nimroud and
Khorsabad. Almost every chamber explored, and they amount to above
seventy, was panelled with alabaster slabs carved with numerous figures
and with the minutest details. Each room appears to have been dedicated to
some particular event, and in each, apparently, was the image of the king
himself. In fact, the walls recorded in sculpture what the inscriptions
did in writing,--the whole history of Sennacherib's reign, his great deeds
in peace as well as in war. It will be remarked that whilst in other
Assyrian edifices the king is frequently represented taking an active part
in war, slaying his enemies, and fighting beneath a besieged city, he is
never represented at Kouyunjik otherwise than in an attitude of triumph,
in his chariot or on his throne, receiving the captives and the spoil. Nor
is he ever seen torturing his prisoners, or putting them to death with his
own hand.
There were chambers, however, in the palace of Sennacherib, as well as in
those of Nimroud and Khorsabad, whose walls were simply coated with
plaster, like the walls of Belshazzar's palace at Babylon.[291] They may
have been richly ornamented in color with figures of men and animals, as
well as with elegant designs; or they may have been panelled with cedar
wainscoting, as the chambers in the temple and palaces of Solomon, and in
the great edifices of Babylon. Gilding, too, appears to have been
extensively used in decoration, and some of the great sphinxes may have
been overlaid with gold, like the cherubim in Solomon's temple.[292]
At Kouyunjik, the pavement slabs were not inscribed as at Nimroud; but
those between the winged bulls at some of the entrances, were carved with
an elaborate and very elegant pattern. The doors were probably of wood,
gilt and adorned with precious materials, like the gates of the temple of
Jerusalem, and they appear to have turned in stone sockets, for amongst
the ruins were found many black stones hollowed in the centre, and bearing
an inscription in these words: "Sennacherib, the great king, king of
Assyria, brought this stone from the distant mountains, and used it for
the sockets of the pillars of the doors of his palace."
To ward off the glare of an Eastern sun hangings or curtains of gay colors
and of rich materials were probably suspended to the pillars supporting
the ceiling, or to wooden poles raised for the purpose, as in the palaces
of Babylon and Shushan. Such hangings, as we have seen, appear to be
described in the tablets of king Nebuchadnezzar. The frontispiece to this
volume will enable the reader to understand how they were used. This
engraving from a beautiful water-color drawing, made by Mr. Baynes under
the superintendence of Mr. Fergusson, represents the Eastern facade and
the great entrance to the palace of Sennacherib, as they are supposed
originally to have been. The lower part of the building actually exists,
and is drawn to scale; the upper part of course is mainly founded upon
conjecture; but the preceding remarks may show that we are not altogether
without materials to authorise some such restoration. The edifice
represented in the bas-relief discovered at Kouyunjik has furnished some
of the architectural details, the battlemented finish to the walls is
still seen at Kouyunjik and Nimroud, and the various decorations
introduced in other places are all taken from Assyrian monuments. The two
poles with streamers in the foreground, are from a bas-relief at
Khorsabad. The sculptures at the sides of the steps are those from the
descending passage at Kouyunjik. The stone facing of the platform is that
of the basement of the tower at Nimroud. The lions, Assyrian in character,
are placed on the steps conjecturally, and the steps themselves are
restored. The design upon the pavement is found on slabs at the entrances
at Kouyunjik.
The excavations carried on at Nimroud during the last expedition have
enabled me to restore, to a certain extent, the several buildings on the
platform, and to obtain some idea of their original appearance. On the
artificial platform, built of regular layers of sundried bricks in some
parts, and entirely of rubbish in others, but cased on all sides with
solid stone masonry, stood at one time at least nine distinct buildings.
Between each was a terrace, paved with stone, or with large kiln-burnt
bricks, from one and a half to two feet square. At the north-western
corner rose the great tower, the tomb of the founder of the principal
palace. Its basement was encased with massive masonry of stone, relieved
by recesses and other architectural ornaments. The upper part built of
brick, was most probably painted, like the palaces of Babylon, with
figures and mythic emblems. Its summit, I conjecture, to have consisted of
several receding gradines like the top of the black obelisk, and I would
venture to crown it with an altar on which may have burnt the eternal
fire. Adjoining this tower were, two small temples, dedicated to Assyrian
gods. One actually abutted on it, although there was no communication
whatever, as far as I could discover, between the interior of the two
buildings; the other was about 100 feet to the east. They were both
adorned with sculptures, and had evidently been more than one story high,
and their beams and ceilings were of cedar wood. They contained statues of
the gods, and the fullest records of the reign of the king their founder,
engraved on immense monoliths. Between them was a way up to the platform
from the north.
Between the small temples and the north-west palace were two great flights
of steps, or inclined ways, leading up from the margin of the river. Their
sites are still marked by deep ravines. They opened upon a broad paved
terrace. The north-west palace having been so fully described in my former
work, I need only add that I have now been able to ascertain the position
of its principal facade and entrance. It was to the north, facing the
tower, and nearly resembled the grand approaches to Kouyunjik and
Khorsabad. The two gateways formed by the sphinxes with the human form to
the waist, appear to have flanked a grand centre portal to which they
were united on both sides, as in Sennacherib's palace, by colossal
figures of human-headed bulls and lions and winged priests. The remains of
no other great entrance to the palace have yet been discovered, but I have
little doubt from several indications in the ruins, that there was a
similar facade on the river side, and that a terrace, ascended by broad
flights of steps, overlooked the Tigris.
To the south of the north-west palace was a third ascent to the summit of
the platform, also marked by a ravine in the side of the mound. Beyond it
were the upper chambers, built by the fourth king in succession from
Sardanapalus, probably over the remains of an earlier edifice. Excavations
made in different parts of the small mound covering their ruins, show that
they consisted of three distinct groups, built round a solid central mass
of sundried bricks. The great accumulation of earth above them, proves
that this building must have had more than one story.
The upper chambers were separated from the palace of Essarhaddon, the most
southern on this side of the platform, by a fourth grand approach to the
terraces. Remains of great blocks of stone, of winged bulls, and of
colossal figures in yellow limestone, were found in the ravine.
Essarhaddon's palace was raised some feet above the north-west and centre
edifices. It has been so entirely destroyed by fire, and by the removal of
the slabs from its walls, that a complete ground-plan of it cannot be
restored. In the arrangement of its chambers, as far as we are able to
judge from the ruins, it differed from other Assyrian buildings with which
we are acquainted. The hall, above 220 feet long, and 100 broad, opening
at the northern end by a gateway of winged bulls on a terrace, which
overlooked the grand approach and the principal palaces, and at the
opposite end having a triple portal guarded by three pairs of colossal
sphinxes, which commanded the open country and the Tigris winding through
the plain, must have been a truly magnificent feature in this palace. It
occupied the corner of the platform, and an approach of which considerable
remains still exist led up from the plain to its southern face. Around the
grand hall appear to have been built a number of small chambers; and this
Assyrian building probably answers in its general plan, more than any
other yet discovered, to the descriptions in the Bible of the palace of
Solomon, especially if we assume that the antechamber, divided into two
parts, corresponds with the portico of the Jewish structures.
The palace of Essarhaddon was considerably below the level of that of his
grandson, and was separated from it by what appears, from a very deep and
wide ravine, to have been the principal approach to the platform. The
south-east edifice was very inferior, both in the size of its apartments
and in the materials employed in its construction, to the other royal
buildings. It was probably built when the empire was fast falling to
decay, and, as is usual in such cases, the arts seem to have declined with
the power of the people.
Returning northwards, we come to the only traces of an approach on the
eastern side of the platform, and consequently from the interior of the
walled inclosure. It is remarkable that there should have been but one on
this face; and it is even more curious, that the only sides of the mound
on which there are any remains of walls or fortifications, are the eastern
and northern, where the royal residences would have overlooked the city,
supposing it to have been contained within the existing ramparts of earth.
The edifices facing what would, in that case, have been the open country,
were left apparently defenceless.
On the west side of the platform no actual ruins have been discovered,
although there are undoubtedly traces of building in several places, and I
think it not improbable that a temple, or some similar edifice, stood
there.
It only remains for me to mention the palace in the centre of the
platform, founded by the king whose name is believed to read Divanubar or
Divanubra, but rebuilt almost entirely by Pul or Tiglath-Pileser.
Excavations carried on during the second expedition, brought to light the
walls of a few additional chambers and numerous fragments of interesting
sculptures. But the edifice was so utterly destroyed by Essarhaddon, who
used the materials in the construction of his own dwelling-place, that it
is impossible to ascertain its general plan, or even the arrangement of
any of its rooms. The great inscribed bulls and the obelisk, we know to
have been of the time of the older king; and the bas-reliefs of battles
and sieges, heaped up together as if ready for removal, to have belonged
to the later.
In the ramparts of earth, marking the inclosure wall of Nimroud to the
north, fifty-eight towers can still be distinctly traced. To the east
there were about fifty, but all traces of some of them are entirely gone.
To the south the wall has almost disappeared, so that it could not have
been of great size or thickness on that side. The level of the inclosure
is here, however, considerably above the plain, and it is not improbable
that the Tigris actually flowed beneath part of it, and that the remainder
was defended by a wide and deep ditch, either supplied by the small stream
still running near the ruins, or by the river.
At the south-eastern corner of the inclosure, is a mound of considerable
height, and the remains of a square edifice; they may have been a fort or
castle. I searched in vain for traces of gates in the walls on the
northern side. A high double mound, which probably marks the ruins of an
entrance, was excavated; but no stone masonry or sculptured figures were
discovered, as in a similar mound in the inclosure of Kouyunjik. I
conclude, therefore, that the gateways of the quarter of Nineveh
represented by Nimroud were not, like those of the more northern divisions
of the city, adorned with sculptures, but were built of the same materials
as the walls, and were either arched or square, being formed, like the
gates of modern Arab cities, by simple beams of wood.
It is evident that the inclosure of Nimroud was regularly fortified, and
defended by walls built for the purpose of resisting an enemy, and
sustaining a prolonged siege. That of Khorsabad was precisely similar.
There also the platform, on which the great palace stood, formed part of
the walls,--a fact for which I can scarcely offer any satisfactory
explanation. It would seem more consistent with security that the dwelling
of the king, the temples of the gods, and the edifices containing the
archives and treasures of the kingdom, should have been in the centre of
the fortifications, equally protected on all sides. The palaces of Nimroud
and Kouyunjik, built on a platform, washed by a deep and broad river,
were, to a certain extent, guarded from the approach of an enemy. But at
Khorsabad such was not the case. The royal residence overlooked the plain
country, and was accessible from it, unless the summit of the platform
were strongly fortified on the western side, of which there is no trace.
Of the fortified inclosures still existing, that surrounding Kouyunjik is
the most remarkable, and was best calculated to withstand the attack of a
powerful and numerous army. I give a plan of the ruins from Mr. Rich's
survey, which will enable the reader to understand the following
description.[293]
[Illustration: Plan of the Inclosure Walls and Ditches at Kouyunjik.]
Its form, it will be perceived, was irregular. The side facing the river,
including the mounds of Kouyunjik and Nebbi-Yunus (_a_), and the northern
(or north-western) (_b_), are at right angles to each other, and in
nearly a straight line. From the eastern corner of the northern face, the
inner wall (_c_) forms the segment of a circle towards the southern end of
the western, the two being only 873 yards apart at their extremities
(_d_).[294] On the four sides are the remains of towers and curtains, and
the walls appear to have consisted of a basement of stone and an upper
structure of sundried bricks. The top of the stone masonry was ornamented
with gradines, as at Nimroud.
The western wall (_a_) was washed by the river, and needed no other
defence.[295] A deep ditch, of which traces still exist, appears to have
been dug beneath the northern (_b_). That to the south (_d_) was also
protected by a dyke and the Tigris. The side most accessible to an enemy
was that to the east (_c_), and it was accordingly fortified with
extraordinary care and strength. The small river Khauser flows nearly in a
direct line from the hills to the north-eastern corner of the inclosure,
makes a sweep to the south (at _e_) before reaching it, and after running
for some distance beneath a perpendicular bank formed by conglomerate
hills (_g_) parallel to the walls, but about three quarters of a mile from
them, again turns to the westward (at _f_), and enters the inclosure
almost in the centre. It then traverses this quarter of the city, winds
round the base of Kouyunjik, and falls into the Tigris. Nearly one half of
the eastern wall was, consequently, provided with natural defences. The
Khauser served as a ditch; and the conglomerate ridge, slightly increased
by artificial means, as a strong line of fortification. The remains of one
or more ramparts of earth are still to be traced between the stream and
the inner wall, but they could not have been of very considerable size.
The north-eastern extremity of these outer defences appears to have joined
the ditch which was carried along the northern face of the inclosure, thus
completing the fortification in this part.
Below, or to the south of, the entry of the Khauser into the inclosure,
the inner wall was defended by a complete system of outworks. In the first
place a deep ditch, about one hundred and fifty feet wide, was cut
immediately beneath it, and was divided for half its length into two
separate parts, between which was a rampart. A parallel wall (_h_) was
then carried from the banks of the Khauser to the dyke on the southern
side of the inclosure. A second ditch, about one hundred and eight feet
wide, and of considerable depth, probably supplied by the Khauser,
extended from the point at which that stream turns to the westward, as far
as the southern line of defences. A third wall (_i_), the remains of which
are above one hundred feet high on the inner face, abutted to the north on
the ridge of conglomerate hills (_g_), and completed the outer defences. A
few mounds rising in the level country beyond, the principal of which,
near the southern extremity of the lines, is called Tel-ez-zembil (the
Mound of the Basket), appear to have been fortified outposts, probably
detached towers, such as are represented in the bas-reliefs of Kouyunjik.
An enemy coming from the east, the side on which the inclosure was most
open to attack, had consequently first to force a stupendous wall
strengthened by detached forts. Two deep ditches and two more walls, the
inner being scarcely inferior in size to the outer, had then to be passed
before the city could be taken.[296] The remains still existing of these
fortifications almost confirm the statements of Diodorus Siculus, that the
walls were a hundred feet high, and that three chariots could drive upon
them abreast; and lead to the conclusion that in describing the ramparts
forming the circuit round the whole city, ancient historians were
confounding them with those which inclosed only a separate quarter or a
royal residence, as they have also done in speaking of Babylon. Whilst the
inner walls were constructed of stone and brick masonry, the outer appear
to have consisted of little else than of the earth, loose pebbles, and
rubble dug out from the ditches, which were cut with enormous labor into
the solid conglomerate rock.[297]
The walls and ditches around Kouyunjik were a favourite ride during my
residence among the ruins. The summit of the outer ramparts commands an
extensive and beautiful prospect over all the great mounds, the plains
bounded by the several mountain ranges of Kurdistan, the windings of the
river, and the town of Mosul. "Niniue (that which God himself calleth that
Great Citie) hath not one stone standing, which may giue memorie of the
being of a towne: one English mile from it is a place called Mosul, a
small thing, rather to be a witnesse of the other's mightenesse, and God's
judgement, than of any fashion of magnificence in itselfe."[298] Such are
the simple though impressive words of an old English traveller, who
probably looked down upon the site of Nineveh from the same spot two
centuries and a half ago.
Beaten tracks from the neighbouring villages have for ages led, and still
lead, through the ruins. Along them Arabs and Kurds with their camels and
laden beasts may be seen slowly wending their way to the town. But the
space between the walls is deserted except by the timid gazelle and the
jackals and hyenas which make their dens in the holes and caves in the
sides of the mounds and in the rocky banks of the ancient ditches.
The spring called by the Arabs Damlamajeh, and described by Mr. Rich,[299]
is a small pool of cool and refreshing water in a natural cavern, the fore
part of which is adorned with an arch, cornice, and stonework, evidently
of Roman or Greek construction. Upon the masonry are still to be traced
the names of Mrs. Rich, and of the companions of the distinguished
traveller.
CONCLUSION.
The time was drawing near for my departure. Once more I was about to leave
the ruins amidst which I had spent so many happy hours, and to which I was
bound by so many pleasant and solemn ties; and probably to return no more.
I only waited the arrival of Abde, the late Pasha of Baghdad, who was now
on his way to his new government of Diarbekir. He was travelling with a
large company of attendants, and without a strong escort it was scarcely
prudent to venture on a journey. It was doubly necessary for me to have
proper protection, as I took with me the valuable collection of bronzes
and other small objects discovered in the ruins. I gladly, therefore,
availed myself of this opportunity of joining so numerous and powerful a
caravan.
At length, after the usual Eastern delays, the Pasha arrived at Mosul. He
remained encamped outside the town for two or three days, and during that
time visited the excavations, his curiosity having been excited by the
description he had received of the wondrous idols dug out of the ruins. He
marvelled at what he saw, as a Turk marvels at strange things which he can
neither understand nor explain. It would be in vain to speak to him of the
true objects of such researches, the knowledge they impart, the lessons
they teach, or the thoughts they beget.
In these pages I have occasionally indulged in reflections suggested by
the scenes I have had to describe, and have ventured to point out the
moral of the strange tale I have had to relate. I cannot better conclude
than by showing the spirit in which Eastern philosophy and Mussulman
resignation contemplate the evidences of ancient greatness and
civilization, suddenly rising up in the midst of modern ignorance and
decay. A letter in my possession contained so true and characteristic a
picture of the feelings that such an event excites in the mind of a good
Mohammedan, that I here give a literal translation of its contents. It was
written to a friend of mine by a Turkish Cadi, in reply to some inquiries
as to the commerce, population, and remains of antiquity of an ancient
city, in which dwelt the head of the law. These are its words:--
"My Illustrious Friend, and Joy of my Liver!
"The thing you ask of me is both difficult and useless. Although I
have passed all my days in this place, I have neither counted the
houses nor have I inquired into the number of the inhabitants; and as
to what one person loads on his mules and the other stows away in the
bottom of his ship, that is no business of mine. But, above all, as to
the previous history of this city, God only knows the amount of dirt
and confusion that the infidels may have eaten before the coming of
the sword of Islam. It were unprofitable for us to inquire into it.
"Oh, my soul! oh, my lamb! seek not after the things which concern
thee not. Thou camest unto us, and we welcomed thee: go in peace.
"Of a truth, thou hast spoken many words; and there is no harm done,
for the speaker is one and the listener is another. After the fashion
of thy people thou hast wandered from one place to another until thou
art happy and content in none. We (praise be to God) were born here,
and never desire to quit it. Is it possible then that the idea of a
general intercourse between mankind should make any impression on our
understandings? God forbid!
"Listen, oh my son! There is no wisdom equal unto the belief in God!
He created the world, and shall we liken ourselves unto him in seeking
to penetrate into the mysteries of his creation? Shall we say, behold
this star spinneth round that star, and this other star with a tail
goeth and cometh in so many years! Let it go! He from whose hand it
came will guide and direct it.
"But thou wilt say unto me, Stand aside, oh man, for I am more learned
than thou art, and have seen more things. If thou thinkest that thou
art in this respect better than I am, thou art welcome. I praise God
that I seek not that which I require not. Thou art learned in the
things I care not for; and as for that which thou hast seen I defile
it. Will much knowledge create thee a double belly, or wilt thou seek
Paradise with thine eyes?
"Oh, my friend! If thou wilt be happy, say, There is no God but God!
Do no evil, and thus wilt thou fear neither man nor death; for surely
thine hour will come!
"The meek in spirit (El Fakir),
"IMAUM ALI ZADE."
On the 28th of April I bid a last farewell to my faithful Arab friends,
and with a heavy heart turned from the ruins of ancient Nineveh.
THE END.
[Illustration]
INDEX.
A.
_Abde Pasha_, 383, 540.
_Abdi Agha_, 52.
_Abd-ul-Azeez_, mound of, 187.
Hills of, 259.
_Abou-Jerdeh_, mound, 186.
_Abou-Khameera_, ruins of, 201, 202.
_Abou-Maria_, excavations at, 278.
_Abou-Sheetha_, mound of, 188.
_Abraham_ thrown into the furnace by Nimrod, 403.
_Adremit_, village of, 338.
_Adrammelech_, name of, according to Rawlinson, 497.
_AEthiopia_, mentioned in inscriptions, 121.
_Afaij_, visit to tribe of, 438.
Their boats, 443.
Their huts, 445.
_Agab_, Sheikh of the Afaij, 446.
_Agammi_ river, 124, 475.
_Agayl_, tribe of, 395.
_Akhlat_, village of, 30.
_Akhtamar_, patriarch of, 339.
Visit to the island of, _ib._
Church of, _ib._
_Akkari_, sea of the Mediterranean, 296.
_Akker-Kuf_, ruin of, 382.
_Akko_, a Yezidi chief, 42, 47.
_Albanian_, an, 313.
_Alabaster_, jars in, 164, 165.
_Alexander the Great_, 174, 190.
Wish to uncover ruins of Temple of Belus, 420.
To rebuild it, 426.
To restore canals, 428.
_Ali-Baba_ mountains, 24.
_Altars_ discovered at Khorsabad, 110.
At Nimroud, 288.
_American_ missionaries, their establishments, 313, 332, 334, and _note_.
Their schools at Ooroomiyah, 334.
Intercourse with Nestorians, 347.
_Amran_, mound of, 390.
Discoveries in, 414.
_Ana_, town of, mentioned in inscriptions, 294.
_Anana_, ruin and village, 436.
_Antioch_, Egyptian monument at, 295, _note_.
_Ararat_, name of Armenia, 403.
View of mount, 423.
_Araxes_ river, 25.
_Arban_, arrival at, 223.
Description of, 226.
Excavations at, 228.
Departure from, 252.
_Arbela_, battle of, 174.
_Arabs._ _See_ Bedouins.
_Arab_ workmen, 88.
Instances of honesty in, 470.
_Arabkha_, a city under Sennacherib, 120.
_Aramaeans_ defeated by Sennacherib, 118.
_Arch_ at Nimroud, 138.
_Architecture_, Armenian, 35.
Assyrian, 120.
Babylonian, 423.
Early Persian, 460.
Comparison between Assyrian and Jewish, 517.
_Armenia_, a bishop of, 27, 392.
Ploughs in, 29, 38.
Schools in, 331.
Reform in church, 332.
Books in language of, 334.
Ignorance of Christians in, 335.
_Armour_, parts of, discovered, 152, 162.
Worn by Bedouins, 251.
_Arms_ in iron and bronze discovered, 162.
_Arrows_, heads of, discovered, 162.
_Art_, Assyrian, of lower period, 369.
_Arvad_, name of, in inscriptions, 296.
_Ascalon_, name of, in inscriptions, 122.
_Ashayansk_, village of, 340.
_Ashtoreth_, or Astarte, the moon, 291, and _note_.
_Ashur_, the supreme god of the Assyrians, 504.
_Ashurakhbal._ _See_ Sardanapalus.
_Ass_, a wild, 224.
White, of Bagdad, 379.
_Assordanes_, name in inscriptions, 365.
_Assurnadin_, son of Sennacherib, 124.
_Assyria_, computation of time in, 178.
Greek coin of, 479.
Name of, on Egyptian monuments, 505.
Records of, compared with Jewish, 506.
Nature of government, 507.
Bounds of empire, 509.
_Athur_ or _Assur_, mound of, 139.
_Azeez Agha_, a young Sheikh, 393.
B.
_Baashiekhah_, village of, 112.
_Baazani_, village of, 111.
_Babel_, mound of, 389, 397.
Excavations and discoveries in, 408.
Small objects from, 409.
_Babylon_ taken by Sennacherib, 118, 178, 500.
In possession of early Nimroud king, 293.
Name of, in Wan inscriptions, 327.
Approach to ruins of, 389.
Excavations commenced at, 394.
Walls of, not traced, 397.
Dimensions of walls, 398.
General plan of, 400.
Hanging gardens of, 405.
Temple of Belus, 406.
Painted walls at, 412.
Deities of, 413.
Jews of the captivity at, 415.
Building materials of, 420.
History of, 425.
Destruction of, 427.
Commerce of, 428.
Fabrics of, 431.
Inhabitants impaled by Darius, 295, _note_.
Common origin of inhabitants with Assyrians, 423.
Cupidity of their priests, 427.
Commerce and roads of, 428.
Corruption of, 432.
Cylinders and gems of, 488.
_Badger_, the Rev. Mr., his intercourse with the Nestorians, 347, _note_.
_Baghdad_, departure for, 373.
Entrance to, 380.
Description of, 381.
Departure from, 465.
_Baiandour_, Sultan, the tomb of, 31.
_Bairam_, Mussulman feast of, 330.
_Bash-Kalah_, castle of, 315.
_Bavian_, sculptures of, 173.
Inscriptions of, 177, 494.
_Baz_, district of, 353.
_Beavers_ of the Khabour, 247.
_Bedouins_, customs of, with regard to captured horses, 184.
On seeing a stranger, 202.
Their women, 217.
Their bread, 239.
Their hospitality, 240.
Their food, _ib._
Diseases amongst, 242.
Their Cadis, 253.
Lovemaking of, 262.
Laws of Dakheel, or protection, 263.
Their poetry, 265.
Their sagacity, 269.
Their horses, 272.
Their honesty, 470.
_Belad_, ancient district of, 99.
_Belib_, made king of Babylon, 118, 500.
_Bells_ discovered at Nimroud, 151.
Analyses of copper of, 160.
_Benjamin_ of Tudela, his description of Babylon, 402.
Of tomb of Ezekiel, 407.
Of tomb of Ezra, 407, _note_.
Account of captive Jews, 416.
_Beth-Khumri_, or Samaria, 494.
_Bimerstein_, Dr., 323, _note_.
_Birs-Nimroud_, the, 401.
Restoration of, 404.
_Bishi_ country conquered by Sennacherib, 119.
_Bitlis_, town of, 38.
_Bitumen_ pits fired, 168.
Used for cement, 422.
_Blood-revenge_ among Bedouins, 253.
_Boats_ of Afaij, 443.
_Borsippa_, the Birs Nimroud, 402.
_Bowen_, the Rev. Mr., 300, 319, 334.
_Bowls_ of bronze from Nimroud, 153.
Earthenware with Hebrew inscriptions, 415.
Date of, 417.
_Brant_, Mr., 20.
_Bread_, Arab mode of baking, 239.
Unlawful to see among Afaij, 457.
_Bricks_, painted, at Khorsabad, 110.
Nimroud, 139.
Babylonian, 141, 405.
_Bronzes_, discovery of, 151.
Analysis of, 160.
Origin of, 161.
_Buffalos_ of Arabs, 406.
_Bukra_, village of, 209.
_Bulls_, winged, transport of represented in bas-reliefs, 91, 99.
At gateway, 102.
In facade of Kouyunjik, 115.
At Arban, 228.
_Burchardt_, his account of the Bedouins, 199, _note_, 263.
_Bustard_, the, 205.
Hawking the, 386.
C.
_Calah_, ancient name of Nimroud, 294.
_Caldrons_, discovery, at Nimroud, 151.
Value of, among ancients, 152.
Represented in bas-relief, 588.
_Camanus_ mountain. _See_ Kamana.
_Camels_ of Nimroud, 36.
Abstinence from water, 215, _note_.
Represented in bas-reliefs, 476.
_Canals_ of Babylonia, 478.
_Canning_, Sir S., 17.
Protects reformed Armenians, 333.
_Captives_ in bas-reliefs, with feathers in their heads, 139.
With feathered head-dress, 192.
_Captivity_, Prince of the, 417.
The history of the Jews of the, 416.
_Carchemish_, 195, 236, 238.
_Cavalry_, Turkish irregular, 267.
_Cavern_, a natural, 255.
Artificial, at Wan, 328.
_Cedar-wood_ brought by Assyrians from Lebanon, 297, 521.
Discovered at Nimroud, 297.
Employed in palaces, 527.
_Centre Palace_, Nimroud, builder of, 497.
State of, 534.
_Chaldaeans_ defeated by Sennacherib, 118.
_Chariot_, an Assyrian, 130.
Royal, 364.
_Chark_, a hawk used by Bedouins, 387.
_Charms_, Eastern, 418.
_Chellek_, village of, 48.
_Cherubim_ of Jews compared with Assyrian figures, 519.
_Chinese_ bottles discovered at Arban, 332.
_Chesney_, Col., expedition under, 381.
_Cock_, image of, on Babylonian gems, 432.
_Commerce_ of Babylon, 432.
_Coffins_ of earthenware at Arban, 234.
At Niffer, 449.
Of wood, at Babel, 408.
_Colonies_, Assyrian, 513.
_Colors_ on bricks, 139.
_Columns_ not found at Babylon, 423.
Used at Nineveh, 526.
_Cooper_, Mr., 16, 88.
Returns to England, 337.
_Copper_ used in colors, 297.
_Convent_, a Nestorian, 311.
An Armenian, 339.
_Corinthian_ capital, 194.
_Cowley_, Lord, protects the Armenians, 333.
_Ctesiphon_, ruin of, 460.
Tradition connected with, 461.
_Cuneiform_, progress in deciphering, 492.
_Cuth_, country of, 432, _note_.
_Cylinders_, of Sennacherib, 136.
Babylonian, 432.
Assyrian, 488.
Phoenician, 487.
Persian, 488.
Used as seals, 490.
_Cyprus_, Assyrian tablet found in, 499.
_Cyrus_, description of, 357.
Takes Babylon, 426.
D.
_Dagon_, represented in bas-reliefs, 284, 289.
_Dakheel_, the law of, among Bedouins, 263.
_Dam_, building up a, 385.
_Dumlamajeh_, spring of, 540.
_Darius_, cylinder of, 489.
_Deloul._ _See_ Dromedary.
_Denarii_ found at Kouyunjik, 479.
_Dereboun_, village of, 52.
_Dereh Beys_, the, 22.
_Dervish_, a Persian, 32.
_Desert_, the, described, 204, 205, 250.
_Divanubar_, name of Assyrian king, 496.
_Diz_, district of, 349.
_Dizza_, town of, 313.
_Dromedary_, the, 196, _note_, 249, 278.
_Ducks_, in marble, &c. used as weights, 486, and _note_.
_Dudjook_ tribes, 21.
_Dujail_, canal of, 465.
_Dura_, plain of, 376.
E.
_Earring_ of gold from Kouyunjik, 482.
Moulds for casting, _ib._
_Eclipse_, Eastern prejudice concerning, 444, and _note_.
_Effendi_, the, a Yezidi chief, 200.
_Egypt_, seal of king of, 134.
Bronzes of Egyptian character, 154, 156, 157.
Relics of, discovered at Kouyunjik, 482.
Conquered by Essarhaddon, 501.
_Egyptians_, mode of transport of great stones, 98.
Defeated by Sennacherib, 121.
Antiquities of, at Antioch, 295.
Weights used by, 487.
_Elam_, ancient name of, 124, 365.
Conquest of, 178, 292, 362, 473.
_Elulaeus_, king of Tyre, mentioned in inscriptions, 121.
_Ekron_, name in inscriptions, 121.
_Embossing_ on bronze vessels, 153.
_Enamel_, Assyrian, 165, 297.
Babylonian, 412.
_Enoch_, book of, 418.
_Erzeroom_, roads to city of, 17, 20.
_Eski Baghdad_, ruins of, 377.
_Eski Mosul_, ruins at, 278.
_Essarhaddon_, name of, 136.
Cylinder of, 286.
Name at Nebbi Yunus, 484.
His monuments, 501.
His palace at Nimroud, 532.
_Essarhaddon's son_, his bas-reliefs, 362.
His name, 365.
His palace at Shereef-Khan, 484.
His monuments, 501.
_Eulaeus_, river, 125.
_Eunuch_, represented in bas-relief, 364.
_Euphrates_, river, 27.
Represented in bas-reliefs, 359.
Banks of, deserted, 374.
Navigation of, 381.
State of, _ib._
Changes in its course at Babylon, 399.
_Evemerus_, king of Parthia, sends Babylonians to Media, 427.
_Evil Spirit_, the, represented in bas-reliefs, 289.
_Eyes_ in marble and enamel, 297.
_Ezekiel_, tomb of, 407.
_Ezra_, tomb of 407, _note_.
F.
_Facade_ of Kouyunjik palace, 115.
_Falcons._ _See_ Hawking.
_Faras_, Sheikh of the Tai, 147.
_Fawaz_, a hawk, 224.
_Fergusson_, Mr., remarks on Assyrian cornice, 110.
Restoration of Assyrian palaces, 519, 520, 523, 526.
_Ferhan_, son of Sofuk, 276.
_Ferry-boat_ at Mosul, 300.
_Fish-god._ _See_ Dagon.
_Footstool_ of bronze discovered, 166.
_Ford_, the Rev. Mr., 198.
_Fountain_, an Assyrian, 180.
_Funduk_, village of, 49.
_Futhliyah_, village and mound of, 111.
_Fynyk_, rock sculptures at, 50.
G.
_Galleys_ represented in bas-reliefs, 192.
_Gate_ of Eastern cities, 52.
Of Nineveh, 101.
Of palace, 529.
None discovered at Nimroud, 535.
_Gaza_, name of, in inscriptions, 122.
_Gazelle_, hawking the, 387.
_Ghazir_ river, the, 148, 303.
_Gherdi_, district of, 306.
_Gherara_, mound of, excavated, 383.
_Glass_ bowls, 164.
Vase of Sargon, 164.
From Babel, 409.
From Kouyunjik, 480.
_Gods_, the twelve Assyrian, 291.
Table of, 504.
_Gold_ inlaid in bronze, 165.
Laid over figures in temples, 529.
_Gomel_ river, 173.
_Greek_ art, resemblance to Assyrian, 369.
Remains at Kouyunjik, 480.
_Greyhound_, Persian, 47.
_Guagamela_, battle of, 173.
_Gula Shailu_ lake, 28.
_Guli_, village of, 23.
_Gunduk_, Assyrian bas-reliefs at, 304.
_Guzelder_, village of, 43.
H.
_Hadj_, the, or caravan to Mecca, 433.
_Hagarenes_, conquered by Sennacherib, 119.
_Hakkiari_, pashalic of, 307.
_Hall_, great, in palace of Kouyunjik, 360.
_Hamki_, village of, 40.
_Hangings_ of silk in Babylonian palace, 422.
At Nineveh, 529.
_Hanging gardens_, 194, 405.
_Harisa_, an Arab dish, 77.
_Hartushi_ Kurds, 344.
_Haroun_, mound of, 440.
_Hatem Tai_, anecdote of, 146, _note_.
_Hawking_, 223, 248.
Falcons, 277.
Training, 387.
_Hazael_, king of Syria, mentioned in inscriptions, 494.
_Hebar._ _See_ Khabour.
_Hercules_, the Assyrian, 114, 179, 482, 484.
_Herki_, tribe of, 183.
_Hermus_, river, mentioned in inscriptions, 294.
_Hezekiah_, name of, in inscriptions, 121.
Wars of Sennacherib with, 122.
_Hillah_, arrival at, 391.
Governor of, 393.
Built of Babylonian bricks, 412.
_Hincks_, the Rev. Dr., translations of inscriptions, 99, 117, 177, 291.
Discovery of name of Sennacherib, 116.
Of Nebuchadnezzar, 116, _note_.
Of syllabarium, 286.
Discoveries, 492.
On Wan inscriptions, 327, 329.
Translation of inscription of Nebuchadnezzar, 422.
_Hindiyah_ canal and marshes, 383, 401.
_Hittites_, the, name of Syrians, 120.
Tribute of, 293.
Name of, on Egyptian monuments, 505.
_Horses_, trappings of, 151.
Pedigrees of Bedouin, 184.
Bedouin, 215.
Turkish, 267.
Arab breeds, 272.
Represented in bas-reliefs, 282.
Clothed in armour, 363.
_Howar_, Sheikh of the Tai, 144, 183.
_Hymer_, the ruins of, 436.
I. J.
_Idols_ of Assyrians carried away, 179.
Taken by Assyrians, 191, 474.
_Jehesh_, tribe of, 200.
_Jehu_, name of, on obelisk, 493.