The earliest mention of the Amorites in the Old Testament is the passage

in Gen. x. 16, where the name occurs along with that of the Jebusites and

the Girgashites, from which may be gathered that they were all three very

powerful tribes, though their power is in all probability not to be

measured by the order of their names, the most important of the three

being the Amorites, whose name comes second. They were regarded by the

ancient Jews as an iniquitous and wicked people (Gen. xv. 6; 2 Kings xxi.

11), though they may not, in reality, have been worse than other nations

which were their contemporaries. That they were a powerful nation is

implied by the statement in Gen. xlviii. 22, where Jacob speaks of the

tract which he had taken out of the hand of the Amorite with his sword and

his bow, as a feat of which a warrior might be proud.

The Amorites in Babylonia have already been referred to in Chap. V., and

from that part of the present work it will easily be understood that they

were an extensive and powerful nationality, capable, with organization, of

extending their power, as they evidently did from time to time, far and

wide. Indeed, as has been pointed out, there is great probability that the

Babylonian dynasty called by Berosus Arabic, was in reality Amorite. In

any case, the kings of this dynasty held sway over Amoria, as the

inscription of Ammi-ṭitana, translated on p. 155, clearly shows. The

importance of this nationality in the eyes of the Babylonians is proved by

the fact that their designation for “west” was “the land of Amurrū,” and

the west wind was, even with the Assyrians, “the wind of the land of

Amurrū” (though the Hittites, in Assyrian times, seem to have been the

more powerful nation), and this designation of the western point of the

compass probably long outlived the renown of the nationality from which

the expression was derived. Among other Biblical passages, testifying to

the power of the Amorites, may be quoted as typical Amos ii. 9, 10, and in

this the Babylonian and the Hebrew records are quite in agreement.

As has been pointed out by Prof. Sayce, in process of time a great many

tribes—Gibeonites, Hivites, Jebusites, and even Hittites—were classed as

Amorites by the ancient Jewish writers, a circumstance which likewise

testifies to the power of the nationality. These identifications must be

to a large extent due to the fact that all the tribes or nationalities

referred to were mountaineers, and, as we have seen (p. 122), the Akkadian

character for a mountainous region or nationality, stood not only for

Armenia, and the land of the Amorites, but also for the land of Akkad,

because the Akkadians came from a mountainous country, perhaps somewhere

in the neighbourhood of the mountains of Elam. This character was

pronounced Ari when it stood for Amoria, but ceased to be used for that on

account of its signifying also the mountainous region of Armenia, and

Akkad, for which it still continued to be employed, and it is only the

context, in many cases, which enables the reader to gather which is meant.

Other groups used for Amoria were the sign for foot, twice over (sometimes

with one of them reversed), [Cuneiform], and [Cuneiform], the ordinary

pronunciation of which is Saršar, though it is probable that the latter

was pronounced, in Akkadian, like the former, _i.e._ Tidnu. In the

inscriptions of Gudea, viceroy of Lagaš about 2700 B.C., there occurs the

name of a country called Tidalum, “a mountain of Martu,” from which a kind

of limestone was brought. This Hommel and Sayce regard as another form of

Tidnu, by the interchange of _l_ and _n_, which is not uncommon in

Akkadian. The fact that Martu is also used in the inscriptions for Amurrū,

(the land of) the Amorites, and also, with the prefix for divinity, for

the Amorite god (_îlu Amurrū_), which was introduced into Babylonia at an

exceedingly early date, confirms this explanation. In all probability

there is not at present sufficient data for ascertaining the dates when

these names first appear, but Tidnu or Tidalu was probably the earlier of

the two.

What the exact boundaries of the district were are doubtful. Prof. Sayce,

after examining the Tel-el-Amarna tablets, comes to the conclusion that it

denoted the inland region immediately to the north of the Palestine of

later days. In this Petrie concurs, the country being, according to him,

the district of middle and lower Orontes, and certainly covering a large

area. This, of course, would be the position of the tract over which they

held sway in the earlier ages, but later they must have extended their

power so as to embrace the Jebusites (Jerusalem), and even Mamre in Gen.

xiv. 13. From this wide extension of the dominions of the Amorites in the

book of the Bible dealing with the earliest period of Jewish history, and

from the fact that the Assyro-Babylonians used the word to indicate the

west in general, it is clear that the Amorites occupied a wide tract in

the earlier ages, and must have been pushed gradually back, probably by

the Babylonians under Sargon of Agadé, leaving, however, centres of

Amorite influence in the south, which, when the power of Egypt, which

followed that of Babylonia, waned and disappeared, left certain

independent states under Amorite rulers. It is thus that, at the time of

the Exodus, we find Og ruling at Bashan, who had threescore cities, all

the region of Argob, his chief seats being Edrei and Ashtaroth. This ruler

and his people were of the remnant of the Rephaim, regarded by Sayce as of

Amorite origin (Hastings’s _Dictionary of the Bible_, under “Amorites”).

Whatever doubt there may be, however, about the origin of the Bashanites,

there is none concerning Sihon king of the Amorites dwelling more to the

south. A man of great courage and daring, he had driven the Moabites out

of their territory, obliging them to retreat across the Arnon. On the

entry of the Israelites, he gathered his troops and attacked them, but was

defeated and killed. Josephus (_Ant._ iv. 5, sect. 2) has some curious

details of this battle, in which he states that the Amorites were unable

to fight successfully when away from the shelter of their cities, but in

view of their successes against the Moabites, we may be permitted to doubt

this.

In the Tel-el-Amarna tablets the ruler of the Amorites is apparently

Abdi-Aširti,(78) who, with his son Aziru, warred successfully against

Rib-Addi (Rib-Hadad), governor of Phœnicia, driving him from Ṣumuru and

Gublu (Gebal), which last city was occupied, according to Petrie’s

analysis, by the two hostile parties in turn. Naturally there are a great

many recriminations on the part of Rib-Addi against Abdi-Aširti on account

of the hostility between them, and the former is constantly complaining to

the Pharaoh of what the latter had done, frequently calling him a dog, and

once seemingly referring to the Amorites as “dogs.” (Elsewhere Abdi-Aširti

applies this word to himself as an expression of humility.) His letters to

the king of Egypt, however, are merely assurances of fidelity, and are all

short:—

“To the king my lord say then thus: ‘(It is) Abdi-Aštarti, the king’s

servant. At the feet of the king my lord I fall down—seven (times at) the

feet of the king my lord, and seven times again (?) both front part and

back. And may the king my lord know that strong is the hostility against

me, and let it be acceptable before the king my lord, and let him direct

one of the great men to protect me.’

“ ‘Secondly, the king my lord has sent word to me, and I have heard—I have

heard all the words of the king my lord. Behold, the ten women forgotten

(?) I have brought’ ” (?).

(It is here worthy of note, that he does not, in this letter, call himself

Abdi-Aširti, “servant of the Ashera,” but Abdi-Aštarti, “servant of

Astarte,” using the Assyro-Babylonian ideograph for Ištar, the original of

the goddess in question. On another document from him, the word is spelled

out, Ab-di-aš-ta-ti, in which the scribe intended to write

Ab-di-aš-ta-ar-ti, but omitted the last character but one. Yet another

letter gives his name as Abdi-Aš-ra-tum, in the second element of which we

must see another form of Abdi-Aširti, unless the scribe has also made a

mistake in this case, and written Ašratum for Aštaratum, which is just

possible. In any case, it shows a close connection between the goddess

Aštarte or Ištar, and the Ashera, which was in Palestine, at that date,

and for centuries before and after, her emblem. To be the servant of the

one was to be the servant of the other, though the bearer of the name

seems to have the desire rather to be considered the priest of the

goddess. Even unintentional variants in names furnish valuable

contributions at times to comparative mythology.)

If there are but few letters from the father, there is a sufficient

number, and of considerable extent, from the son. He, too, is the faithful

servant of the Pharaoh, and he writes also to Dûdu (a form of the name

David) and Ḫâi, telling of the difficulties which he had with regard to

the king of the Hittites. It is apparently this prince to whom the Pharaoh

writes in the letter translated on pp. 300-302, a circumstance which leads

to the belief that the complaints of Rib-Addi with regard to Abdi-Aširti

and his son Aziru were well-founded. That the king of Egypt asks therein

for the delivery to him of certain persons whom he names, implies that he

had trustworthy information as to who the intriguers were, and though

apparently willing to give Aziru the benefit of the doubt, he certainly

did not hold him blameless.

It will probably be long ere the true order of these letters is known, and

until this be found, much of the history of the period to which they refer

must necessarily remain uncertain.

Hittites.

Another nationality which took a predominant part in the politics of

ancient Palestine is the Hittites. To all appearance they were a later

power than the Amorites, as their name does not occur in the inscriptions

of Babylonia and Assyria until a comparatively late date, whilst the

Amorites are mentioned 2200 years before Christ, and their name had become

the common Assyro-Babylonian expression for “the west.” That the Hittites

were nevertheless of considerable antiquity, however, is implied by the

presence of the sons of Heth at Mamre in the time of Abraham, who

purchased from Ephron the Hittite the cave of Machpelah in that place. It

is difficult to assign to these people any definite limits, especially in

early times, but it seems certain that they began to act far in the north,

and gradually extended their power southwards. In the times of Joshua, the

tract between the Lebanon and Euphrates is described as theirs, and their

domain was, in fact, the country to the north of Palestine. It was no

doubt due to their predominating power that the Assyrians of later days

called the whole of Palestine “the land of Ḫatti,” a designation not

altogether correct, but sufficient for their purpose, namely, that of

indicating the position of the nationalities enumerated. Nevertheless, it

had some justification, several colonies of these people inhabiting that

district, as is indicated by Gen. xxiii. 3, xxv. 10; Numbers xiii. 29,

etc. The statement in Ezekiel xvi. 3, that the father of Jerusalem was an

Amorite and its mother a Hittite, shows what was the opinion of the more

learned Jews of the time in the matter.

The earliest mention of the Hittites outside the Bible is in the Egyptian

monuments, where, in the annals of Thothmes III., it is recorded for the

year 1470 B.C., that the king proceeded to the banks of the Euphrates, and

received tribute from “the greater” land of the Hittites. In the year 1463

B.C., the king of this district again paid tribute. During the reign of

Thothmes IV., grandson of Thothmes III., the relations between the two

countries must have changed, and the Egyptian king had to repel an attack

made by the Hittites upon Tunib (now Tennib) in Northern Syria. This

hostile policy was continued by them also at a later date, for the

successors of Thothmes IV., Amenophis III. and his son, Amenophis IV., had

often to oppose the Hittite king, who either attacked Northern Syria, or

stirred up strife among the Egyptian vassals in Canaan.

Here, again, the Tel-el-Amarna tablets come in, and supply a mass of

details. At times the Ḫatti still send tribute, both to Amenophis III. and

IV., but at the close of the reign of the former, hostilities again broke

out, the Hittites being, to all appearance, the aggressors. Dušratta, king

of Mitanni, writes that he sends to the king of Egypt tribute of the

spoils which he had taken from the Ḫatti; and the king of Nuḫašše, who

bears the Assyrian name of Addu-nirari, and whose grandfather had been

appointed by Thothmes III., complains that the king of the Ḫatti is

against him, and asks for help. From these and other statements it would

seem, that whoever was on the side of the king of Egypt was the enemy of

the Hittites, and therefore to be attacked by them. Akizzi, king of Qatna,

complains in one of the letters that the Ḫatti had burned down a city, and

reports in another that they had tried to win him over to their side.

Aziru, another prince in the neighbourhood, complains that the king of

Ḫatti has entered Nuḫašše, and for this reason he could not leave his own

territory to go to the king of Egypt. At the end of one of his

communications, Akizzi states that the Sun-god had taken away the king of

the Ḫatti, but as no name is given, any historical importance which this

fact might have is greatly minimized. In other letters they are spoken of

as despoiling the princes of Gebal, capturing a personage named Lupakku

and the cities of Amki “even from the cities of Aaddu” (or Bin-Addu =

Ben-Hadad). As we have seen (pp. 288-289), at least a portion of them was

led by Etakama of Kinza.

As is well known, a large number of hieroglyphic inscriptions of a people

regarded as the Hittites exist, and many attempts have been made to

translate them. In addition to these, there are many sculptures, mostly on

rocks, and still _in situ_. The most remarkable of these are at Bogaz

Keui, Eyouk, Iasili-Kaia, Ghiaour-kalesi, Doganlu-deresi, Ibriz,

Eflatun-bunar, Karabeli, and elsewhere in Asia Minor, as well as at

Jerabis (anciently called Carchemish), Hamah (Hamath), and monuments of

the Hittites have even been found at Babylon. How they came to this last

place is not at present known, but they may have formed part of the spoils

brought from the west by any of the later conquerors (such a supposition

would probably be better than attributing to them a very early date), or

sent thither as presents or as specimens of Hittite work. It is noteworthy

that the inscriptions, with the exception of the bowl brought from

Babylon, are all in relief and boustrophedon. A large number of seals,

both of the ordinary kind and cylindrical, are known, and though there are

bilingual inscriptions (Hittite and Babylonian), none of them are of

sufficient length to make them really serviceable in translating other

texts in the same character.

Notwithstanding the great difficulty attending such a task as the

translation of these inscriptions, a certain amount of success has been

attained. Those who have advanced the study most are Prof. Sayce in

England, and Profs. Jensen and Hommel in Germany. It will be many years,

however (unless some unexpected help come to light), before renderings in

any real sense of the word useful can be made.

In the opinion of Prof. Sayce, Cappadocia was the earliest home of this

nationality, which spread thence in every direction (except, perhaps,

northwards), and made itself master of a part of Palestine, from which

circumstance the district came to have, in Assyrian literature, the name

of “the land of Ḫatti.” Though later than the Amorite invasion, it

nevertheless took place at a very early date, as is shown by the fact that

Abraham had dealings with Ephron, a Hittite or “son of Heth.”

Coming down to a later date, it is interesting to see what is said about

them by the kings of Assyria. Tiglath-pileser I. (about 1120 B.C.) says as

follows—

“... 4000 Kaškaians (and) Urumaians, people of the land of Ḫattê,

disobedient, who in their strength had taken the cities of

Subarte, subject unto the god Ašur, my lord, heard of my march to

Subarte; the brilliance of my power overwhelmed them, they feared

the conflict, my feet they embraced. With their goods and II.

_sos_ (120) of chariots of their system of yoking(79) I took from

them, and delivered to the people of my land.”

Farther on in his record, Tiglath-pileser I. states that he collected his

chariots and warriors, and took to the desert, going to the border-people

of the Arameans, enemies of Ašur his lord. From before the land of Sūḫi

(the Shuhites) as far as the city Carchemish of the land of Ḫattê, he

boasts of having plundered in a single day, slaughtering their soldiers,

and taking back to his own country all their property. Some of them fled

across the Euphrates, followed by the Assyrians in boats of skins, and the

result of this flight to seek safety was, that six of their cities at the

foot of the mountain known as Bišru, were taken, plundered, and destroyed.

In other passages of his record also, this king refers to certain

districts which were undoubtedly Hittite, but without calling them by that

name. One of these—the interesting description of his operations in

Commagene—is especially worthy of notice. It reads as follows—

“In those days the people of Qurḫê, who had come with the people of

Kummuḫi to save and help the land of Kummuḫi, I caused to go down like

_šûbe._(80) The corpses of their warriors I heaped up in heaps on the tops

of the mountains, the carcases of their warriors the river Namê took forth

to the Tigris. Kili-Tešub son of Kali-Tešub, whom Irrupi put to flight

(?), their king, my hand took in the midst of the battle. His wives,

children, offspring of his heart, his force, III. _sos_ (180) plates of

copper, 5 censers of bronze, with their gods, (objects) of gold and

silver, and the best of their property, I carried off. Their spoil and

their goods I sent forth, that city and its palace I burned with fire,

destroyed (it), laid (it) waste.

“The city Urraḫinaš, their stronghold, situated in the land of Panari,

fear dreading(81) the glory of Ašur, my lord, overwhelmed them; to save

their lives they carried away their gods (and their goods), they fled to

the peaks of the lofty mountains like a bird. I collected my chariots and

troops, (and) crossed the Tigris, Ša-di-Tešub, son of Ḫattu-šar, king of

Urraḫinaš, not to be captured in his own country, took my feet. The

children, offspring of his heart, and his family, I took as hostages. I.

_sos_ (60) plates of copper, libation-vases of bronze, offering-dishes of

bronze, great ones, with II. _sos_ (120) men, oxen, sheep, tribute and

gifts, he brought, (and) I received it. I had mercy on him, spared his

life, (and) set the heavy yoke of my dominion over him for ever. I

captured the wide land of Kummuḫi to its (whole) extent (and) made it

submit to my feet. At that time I offered one bronze offering-dish and one

bronze libation-vase of the spoil and gifts of the land of Kummuḫi to Ašur

my lord, (and) I. _sos_ of copper plates, with their gods, I presented to

Hadad who loveth me.”

In the above extract the names containing that of the god Tešub show

clearly that we have here to do with nationalities in the neighbourhood of

Mitanni (see p. 277), and a close relation with the Hittites is suggested

by the other name Ḫattu-šar, father of Šadi-Tešub, which is an analogous

formation to Ḫattu-šil, the Kheta-sir of Egyptologists, with whom Rameses

II. made a treaty (cf. p. 304). Another reading of Ḫattu-šar is Ḫattuḫi, a

name which Prof. Sayce translates, “the Hittite,” in the second series of

the _Records of the Past_, vol. i. p. 97, note 2. In the same passage he

analyzes the name of the city Urraḫinaš as being derived from Urra, with

the termination _ḫi-naš_, denoting in Vannite, “the place of the people

of.”

Another interesting reference to the Hittites is that of the Assyrian king

Aššur-naṣir-âpli, renowned for his cruelty. The king ruling at the time

was Sangara, who had as his capital the city of Carchemish. The text reads

as follows—

“I drew near to the land of Carchemish. The tribute of Sangara, king of

the land of Ḫatte—20 talents of gold, bangles (?) of gold, rings of gold,

swords of gold, 100 talents of bronze, 250 talents of iron, dishes of

bronze, vases of bronze, libation-vases of bronze, a brazier of bronze,

and the numerous vessels of his palace, the weight of which was not taken;

couches of oak, chairs of oak, tables of oak and ivory inlaid, 200

slave-girls (or virgins), cotton stuffs, woollen cloth, white and black

and white and grey, white marble (?), tusks of elephants, a white chariot,

an umbrella of gold filled with overlaying (?), the ornament of his

royalty, I received. The chariots, horses, (and) grooms of the city

Carchemish, (of the Hittites(82)) I set (aside) for myself.”

The riches and importance of the city of Carchemish are here well

indicated, and to all appearance the place maintained its position to the

end, long after the power of the Hittites had completely disappeared.

Indeed, as will be recognized from the above, Sangara has every appearance

of having been a local ruler, implying that the district under Hittite

control was already broken up into small states practically independent of

each other. Another prince of the Hittites, in the neighbourhood of

Diarbekir, from whom this Assyrian king received tribute was “the son of

Baḫiani.” Apparently he was called thus on account of his ancestor,

Baḫiani, being chief of a tribe, the district over which he ruled bearing,

in Aššur-naṣir-âpli’s second reference to it, the name of Bît-Baḫiani,

“the house of Baḫiani.” The special products of this tract are well

indicated by the nature of the gifts sent to the Assyrian king: “chariots,

harness, horses, silver, gold, lead, bronze, and vessels of bronze.” That

these Hittite districts paid tribute so submissively would seem to

indicate that they had no coherence among themselves, and did not feel

called upon to aid each other in time of need.

Sargon of Assyria, who claims to have subjugated all the land of the

Hittites, speaks, as do other Assyrian kings, of the people of Hamath, and

what he did to Ilu-bi’idi or Yau-bi’idi, their king. This, too, was the

capital of a Hittite principality, and it is in the modern town of Hamah,

in which form the name still survives, that the so-called “Hamah-stones,”

now generally regarded as Hittite, were found.

The disappearance of the Hittite confederate states (if such they really

were), and the rise in their place from time to time of other powers,

caused the Assyrians, who regarded this territory as their own special

possession, won by conquest, to apply to the whole district the name of

mât _Ḫatti_, “the land of Heth,” which would seem to have included

(probably in its extended sense) Samaria, Sidon, Arvad, Gebal, Ashdod,

Beth-Ammon, Moab, Edom, Askelon, and Judah.(83) It thus, to all

appearance, took the place of the ancient “land of the Amorites” (not,

however, when indicating the points of the compass), and in this the

inscriptions of Esarhaddon and Aššur-banî-âpli agree.

What the influence of the Hittites over the nations contemporary with them

may have been is difficult to estimate. The Assyrians, to all appearance,

borrowed from them a certain style of architecture, used for the

entrance-hall of the royal palaces. Their style of art, of which numerous

examples are preserved, shows that they had made considerable progress,

and that they had individuality as artists. Neither in sculpture nor in

engraving of hard stone, however, did they ever attain to the exquisite

fineness and finish of the best work of the artists of Babylonia and

Assyria. The subjects, too, seem to be usually more grotesque, though this

suggestion, which their work gives, may be due merely to our ignorance of

their religious beliefs and the legends on which the designs were probably

based.

The inscribed vase in the British Museum, and the inscribed figure found

by the German explorers at the same place have already been referred to

(pp. 317-318), and it has been suggested as probable that they were sent

as presents to one or more of the Babylonian kings, though the possibility

that they were part of the spoils of an expedition to that part of the

world, or specimens of Hittite art carried off at a later date, when the

nations producing them had passed away, are also probable explanations. In

any case, they seem to show that there were, at some period or other,

political relations between the Hittites and the Babylonians.

Jebusites.

The importance of the Jebusites, who were, to all appearance, but a small

tribe, lies in the circumstance, that their capital and stronghold, at the

time the Israelites entered the Holy Land, was Jerusalem. In consequence

of this, Jerusalem is mentioned, in one or two places (Jud. xix. 10; 1

Chron. xi. 4, 5, etc.), apparently poetically, under the name of Jebus,

perhaps so called by the Jebusites because of its being the capital of

their tribe. The original name of the city, however, as we know from Gen.

xiv. and the Tel-el-Amarna tablets (see p. 239), was Uru-salim. When the

Jebusites took possession of the city, however, is unknown, but in all

probability neither Melchizedek nor Abdi-ṭâba belonged to the race.

Apart from the references to this tribe in connection with Jerusalem,

there is no indication as to its origin and race. The name of their ruler,

Adoni-zedek, however, seems to show clearly that they were Semites, and we

may suppose, with Driver, that they were Canaanites (Hastings, _Dict. of

the Bible_, s.v.). It is apparently one of the tribes of which the

Babylonian and Assyrian inscriptions know nothing as a body, but the name

of Yabušu, which would be the old form of Jebus, occurs in a contract

tablet of the time of the first dynasty of Babylon (about 2200 B.C.), and,

if really the name of the tribe, as it would seem to be, confirms its

antiquity, as indicated by the references to it in Genesis.

It is not improbable that future discoveries will give us more information

concerning this tribe, interesting principally on account of its having

come into contact with the Jews.

Girgashites.

This nation, descended from the fifth son of Canaan, seems to have

inhabited the tract on the western bank of the Jordan, and on that account

was not within easy reach of the Babylonians and Assyrians. The name, it

is thought, is closely connected with that of Gergesa, where Christ healed

the demoniac, and allowed the evil spirits to enter into the herd of swine

which then ran down the slope into the sea. This Gergesa has, in its turn,

been identified with Kersa, a ruined town near the mouth of the Wady

Samakh. If this be the case, there is some probability that the

Girgashites are the Kirkišāti of a tablet from Assyria which seemingly

contains an early historical record, or an historical legend. Whether the

Kirkišāti be identical with the Girgashites or not, the text is of

sufficient importance to make it a valuable record, and a translation of

the more perfect and interesting of the lines is given here—

“Gazzāni to the resting-place he has decided upon,(84)

to the fortress camp of Kirkišāti,

to Zakar-gimilli (king?) of the Siḫites,

to wide-spreading Kirkišāti,

to Ḫarri-si’iši, to Dûr-Dungi,

and the neighbourhood of Tengurgur (?) may he go forth, and

to the land of Ḫalman, the place to which his eyes are set, may he

go.

By the command of the enemy, the Lullubite, may he accomplish

(it)—

As for him, his horses, his soldiers, his chariots, in peace to

the land of Ḫalman have approached, and the enemy, the

Lullubite,

whether from before him, or from beside him, or from his right,

or from his left, did not cease (?) from him, and shall not

destroy him,

shall not make him fail, shall not cause him to diminish.”

That the majority of the countries mentioned are near to Babylonia, is

against the probability that Kirkišāti (if it be a country) is the land of

the Girgashites, unless Ḫalman be Aleppo, and not the Mesopotamian tract

of the same name; or unless, being a “numerous people,” they had sent out

colonies to the neighbourhood of Babylonia, as did the Amorites; or

emigrants, like the Jebusites. Whatever be the explanation, however, the

above fragment is exceedingly interesting, the more so, that in the first

line of the extract as given above, the person spoken of is to all

appearance Gazzāni, which is possibly the completion of the name of the

father of Tudḫula, and is written, as far as it is preserved, in the same

way.(85)

It is noteworthy that the prefix for country is absent in every case,

except that of Ḫalman.

Moabites.

Concerning the early history and state of the Moabites we get no

information from the inscriptions of Babylonia and Assyria, though the

name Muab occurs on the base of one of the six colossal inscriptions at

Luxor (_Patriarchal Palestine_, p. 21). For a time, in all probability, it

was like an Egyptian province, or, at least, greatly under Egyptian

influence. It is not until comparatively late times that the Moabites come

before us in Assyrian history, and the same thing may be said with regard

to the Edomites, Ammonites, and other petty states. As these will be

referred to incidentally in the chapters which follow, it has been thought

well not to treat of them here, in order to avoid repetition as much as

possible.

CHAPTER X. CONTACT OF THE HEBREWS WITH THE ASSYRIANS.

Aššur-naṣir-âpli II.—Shalmaneser II.—Tiglath-pileser III.

(Pul)—Shalmaneser IV.

(Elulaeus)—Sargon—Sennacherib—Esarhaddon—Aššur-banî-âpli (the

great and noble Asnappar)—The downfall of Assyria.

The Hebrew commonwealth had come into being, and given place to a

monarchy, which, passing through many vicissitudes, reached its highest

pitch of glory in the time of David and Solomon, to suffer, after the

death of the latter, diminution by the falling away of the ten tribes.

Thus weakened, the two parts of what had been erstwhile a powerful whole

became tempting morsels to any power whose ruler was ambitious of

conquest. It was probably more from unwillingness to attack with but

little chance of success than inability from inherent weakness which

caused the Assyrians to refrain whilst the nation was united. Generally,

the kings of Assyria preferred making conquests nearer home, and

Tukulti-Ninip I., who reigned in the 13th century B.C., annexed Babylonia

and ruled there for seven years, Assyrian predominance in that land coming

to an end on his death, which was due to a revolt, in which his son,

Aššur-naṣir-âpli, took part. Though this was a check to Assyrian ambition

in that quarter, its kings returned from time to time to the attack, but

with very varying success, which probably caused them to turn their

attention to other districts as the field of their warlike zeal.

Tukulti-Ninip II. (891-885 B.C.) and his son, Aššur-naṣir-âpli II.,

therefore aimed at the conquest of the north and west, and though the

latter came into conflict with Babylonia, no permanent accession of

territory resulted therefrom.

It seems not to have been until somewhat late in his reign that he

reached, in his numerous expeditions, the Mediterranean Sea, “the great

western sea,” or “the great sea of the land of Amurrū,”(86) as he calls

it. Here, after performing ceremonies to the gods of Assyria, he received

the tribute of the kings of the sea-coast—“of the land of the Tyrians, the

land of the Sidonians, the land of the Gebalites, the land of the

Maḫallatites, the land of the Maizites, the land of the Kaizites, the land

of the Amorites, (and) the city of Arvad, which is amid the sea.” This is

followed by a list of the objects received, and the statement that they

(the rulers) paid him homage. Having thus spied out the nakedness of the

land, and ascertained the willingness of the rulers to give tribute, the

Assyrian king proceeded to the mountains of Ḫamanu (Amanus), and cut beams

of cedar, cypress, and other wood for the temple Ê-šarra, for his house or

temple (apparently that in which he worshipped), “a house of rejoicing,

(and) for the temple of the moon and the sun, the glorious gods.”

Shalmaneser II., son of Aššur-naṣir-âpli, during the first six years of

his reign, warred, like his father, on the north and west, his object

being to complete what his father had begun, namely, the subjugation of

the territory of Aḫuni, son of Adini, king of Til-barsip. This having been

successfully accomplished, he was free to turn his attention to the more

southern regions of the old land of the Amorites. In the year 854 B.C.,

therefore, he marched against Giammu, a ruler whose land lay on the river

Belichus. To all appearance this chief wished to resist, but his people

feared the power of the Assyrian king, and put Giammu to death. Taking

possession of the district, he then proceeded to further successes, and

after crossing the Euphrates again in boats of skins, he received the

tribute of the kings on the farther side—Sangara of Carchemish, Kundašpu

of Commagene, Aramu the son of Gusu, Lallu the Milidian, Ḫaianu the son of

Gabaru, Kalparuda of the Patinians, and Kalparuda of the Gurgumians, “(at)

the city Aššur-uttir-aṣbat, of the farther side of the Euphrates, which is

upon the river Sajur, which the men of the Hittites call the city Pitru”

(Pethor). Having reached Aleppo, he received also tribute there, and

offered sacrifices before Hadad of Aleppo.

Next came the turn of Irḫulêni of Hamath (Amatâa), whose cities Adennu,

Pargâ, and Arganâ were captured and spoiled, and his palaces set in

flames.

“From Arganâ I departed, to Qarqara I drew near: Qarqara, his royal city,

I ravaged, destroyed, (and) burnt with fire. One thousand two hundred

chariots, 1200 yoke of horses, 20,000 trained soldiers of Adad-’idri (=

Bin-Adad-idri = Ben-Hadad) of Ša-imērišu (= the province of Damascus); 700

chariots, 700 yoke of horses, (and) 10,000 soldiers of Irḫulêni of the

land of the Hamathites; 2000 chariots (and) 10,000 men of Aḫabbu (regarded

as Ahab) of the land of the Sir’ilites (regarded as the Israelites); 500

men of the Guites; 1000 men of the Musrites; 10 chariots (and) 10,000 men

of the Irqanatites; 200 men of Matinu-ba’ali of the city of the Arvadites;

200 men of the land of the Usanatites; 30 chariots (and) 10,000 men of

Adunu-ba’ali of the land of the Šianians;(87) 1000 camels of Gindibu’u of

the Arbâa (regarded as the Arabians); ... 00 men of Ba’asa son of Ruḫubu

of the land of the Amanians (Ammonites)—these 12(88) kings he took to aid

him, (and) to make war and battle they advanced against me. With the

supreme powers which Aššur, the lord, has given; with the mighty weapons

which _ura-gala_ (Nergal(89)) going before me, has presented (me), I

fought with them. From the city Qarqara as far as the city Gilzau(90) I

made an end of them. Fourteen thousand of their warriors I caused to be

slain with the sword. Like Hadad I caused a torrent to rain down upon

them....”

Such is the account of the first recorded contact of the Assyrians with

the Jews—that is, if Sir’ilâa be rightly rendered “Israelites”; as to

Ahab, there may have been more than one of the name, just as there were

two Kalparudas, he of the Patinians, and he of the Gurgumians.

Nevertheless, the probability that it really is Ahab of Israel is great,

and this theory is held by most Assyriologists.

In truth, however, the Hebrew and the Assyrian histories of this period

are not altogether easy to reconcile. Ben-Hadad II., the son and successor

of Ben-Hadad I., was in almost continual conflict with the Israelites. The

story is told in 1 Kings xx., according to which Ben-Hadad entered into an

alliance with thirty-two other kings, who, with their armies, horses, and

chariots, besieged Samaria. Too full of confidence, he sent to Ahab of

Israel, who was in the besieged city, demanding his surrender, the second

time with terms more than usually humiliating. In consequence of the words

of a prophet who is unnamed, the rejection of these terms was followed by

a sortie of the inhabitants, who seem to have taken the besiegers

unawares, whilst they were feasting and drinking in their over-confidence.

The result was the raising of the siege, and the complete defeat of the

allied forces.

The next attack of Ben-Hadad upon Ahab was at Aphek, he hoping to obtain a

victory over the Israelites because he considered their God to be a god of

the mountains, and that they would not be under his protection in the

plains. Here, too, the Israelites were victorious, and Ben-Hadad

submitted, and agreed to restore cities taken by his father (xx. 34), and

to allow the Israelites to build streets at Damascus (probably as a

quarter for Jewish merchants).

Admitting the correctness of the general opinions of Assyriologists

concerning _Aḫabbu mât Sir’ilâa_, it must have been between this period

and his death that he joined the Syrian league against Shalmaneser II. of

Assyria, with a force only half that of Ben-Hadad, though his chariots

were nearly twice as many. Notwithstanding this, however, the Israelitish

troops were sufficiently numerous, and the defeat of such a large army as

that of the allies of the Syrian league, and the slaughter of a total of

14,000 men among them (another account says 20,500), many of them in all

probability Israelites, finds no place, strange to say, in the sacred

record, notwithstanding that the Hebrew writers do not, as a rule, in the

least object to mentioning national defeat, and in this case it would have

been a most important thing to refer to, the danger which threatened them

and their allies being such as promised to overthrow their national

existence altogether. Perhaps the compiler of the sacred record, however,

did not realize to the full what the Assyrian invasion meant; or he may

not have desired to justify Ahab’s policy (which, in view of the danger

which threatened, was a sound one), and so discredit with the people the

fanatical behaviour and tragic warning of the prophet who reproached the

king so mercilessly because he had made friends with Ben-Hadad instead of

pressing on against him in hostility, even to the death.

The Rev. Joseph Horner (_Proceedings of the Society of Biblical

Archæology_, 1898, p. 244), besides bringing in the chronological

difficulty, which is very real, in spite of Prof. Oppert’s _Noli me

tangere_ (P.S.B.A., 1898, pp. 24-47), notes (pp. 237, 238) the difficulty

of the name. This is the only place where Israel is called in the Assyrian

inscriptions Sir´ilâa—in all other passages it is _bît Ḫumrî_, “the house

of Omri,” or _mât bît Ḫumrî_, “the land of the house of Omri,” and he

regards it as incredible that a name never used before, and never

afterwards found, should be employed. Elsewhere, when speaking of Jehu,

Shalmaneser calls him “son” or “descendant of Omri,” apparently intending

thereby to indicate his nationality, for, as is well known, the

relationship expressed is not correct.

Nevertheless, allowance must be made for the uncertainty attending the

introduction into the literature of a country of a name with which the

people, including the scribes, are unfamiliar. Ḫumrî or Omri may have

been, to the scribe who composed the account given by the Black Obelisk,

very much easier to remember than the comparatively unfamiliar Sir´ilâa,

and it may have been felt that the form used was not by any means

certain—Isra´ilâa would, in fact, have been much better. The scribe of the

monolith, however, may have inserted what he felt to be the

Assyro-Babylonian form of the name, for something very similar to Sir´ilâa

(or Ser´ilâa) exists in the Sar-îli of a contract tablet of the reign of

Ammi-zaduga, translated in the _Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society_,

1897, pp. 594-595 (cf. p. 157).

But, as before remarked, the chronological difficulty still remains, the

date, from Hebrew sources, being, according to Prof. Oppert, before 900

B.C. (the last year of Ahab), whilst, according to Assyrian chronology, it

should be 853 B.C. (cf. Sayce in Hastings’s _Dictionary of the Bible_,

vol. i. p. 272).

The importance of the city of Hamath is well indicated not only by the

above extract, but also by the numerous other passages where Irḫulēni (or

Urḫilēni) of Hamath is referred to. The Guites were regarded by the late

Geo. Smith as the Biblical Goim—a rather doubtful identification. As for

the Musrites, the same scholar thought them to be the Egyptians, Muṣrâa,

“Muṣrites,” coming apparently from Muṣur, the name of Egypt in the

Assyrian inscriptions. Others regard them as being a people of the north,

and this is more probable, though it would perhaps be better to regard the

name as unidentified. The mention of “camels” in connection with Gindibu’u

of the Arbâa is regarded as stamping the nationality referred to as being

Arabic, and this is very probable. In Ba’asa son of Ruḫubu of the

Ammonites we have the comparatively familiar Biblical names Baasha and

Rehob in their Assyrian forms. It will therefore be seen that the extract

translated above is of considerable interest quite independently of its

historical bearings, which are of great importance, whatever may be the

ultimate opinion concerning them.

During the next three years Shalmaneser was occupied on the west and

north-west and in Babylonia, so that it was not until 850 B.C. that he was

again able to turn his attention to the neighbourhood of Palestine.

The clemency of Ahab towards Ben-Hadad had apparently ended, as has been

seen, in an alliance between the two nationalities, but that alliance did

not, to all appearance, last very long. There is every probability that it

was an unwilling one on the part of Ben-Hadad, and in all probability he

took advantage of the death of Ahab to repudiate it. In any case,

Ben-Hadad is represented in 2 Kings vi. 24 ff., as again besieging

Samaria, but with disastrous results. What interval there was between his

raising the siege of Samaria and his death, the sacred narrative does not

say, but according to Assyrian chronology, there should be from four to

six years at least (850-846 B.C.).

In the tenth year of his reign Shalmaneser II. of Assyria crossed the

Euphrates for the eighth time, and advanced against Sangara of Carchemish,

whose cities he destroyed, made waste, and burned in the flames. After

this came the turn of Arame, whose capital city, with one hundred other

places around it, was laid in ruins. Adad-idri of Damascus (Imēri-šu),

however, set himself, with Irḫulēni of Hamath, and twelve of the kings of

Syria, to resist the Assyrian king. Shalmaneser claims to have defeated

them, put them to flight, and captured their chariots, horses, and

war-material.

There is hardly any doubt, however, that his success was not by any means

what he desired and expected, for he found himself obliged to march again

to the same region in his eleventh year, when he crossed the Euphrates for

the ninth time. On this occasion he says that he destroyed ninety-seven

cities of Sangara of Carchemish and one hundred cities of Arame. Having

reached the edge of the Ḫamanu (Amanus) range of mountains, he traversed

the portion named Yaraqu, and descended to the land of the Hamathites,

where he captured the city Aštamaku and ninety-nine other places,

defeating their armies with great slaughter. Again he met Adad-idri, with

Irḫulēni of Hamath and the twelve “kings of the sea-coast.” In the battle

which follows he claims to have defeated them and killed 10,000 of their

fighting-men with the sword. He also states that he took their chariots,

horses, and war-material. On his way back he again turned his attention to

Arame, capturing his capital Apparazu. At that time he likewise received

the tribute of Kalparundu of the Patinians, consisting of silver, lead,

gold, horses, oxen, sheep, and textile fabrics. Ascending again into the

Amanus mountains, he brought away a further supply of cedar-wood for his

palaces.

In the two following years (648 and 647 B.C., according to Assyrian

reckoning), Shalmaneser was not to all appearance engaged in any

expeditions of importance, or at least their importance is unknown. In his

fourteenth year, 846 B.C., however, he crossed the Euphrates again, and

met Ben-Hadad for the last time. As before, the latter was in alliance

with Irḫulēni of Hamath and the “twelve kings of the sea-coast above and

below.” Again the Assyrian king fought with them and defeated them,

destroying their chariots and teams, and capturing, as before, their

war-material, and “to save their lives, they fled.”

Naturally all these historical details are of great interest and value.

The question naturally arises whether, being so much alike in wording and

results, they may not all refer to the same expedition, which the Assyrian

king repeated to fill up his annals? As a rule, however, the annals of the

Assyrian rulers are exceedingly correct, and there is consequently but

little reason to doubt the accuracy of Shalmaneser’s statements. It is

noteworthy that, in all these descriptions of expeditions to the west,

twelve kings are mentioned, whilst in the first instance eleven only are

enumerated, and in the other two the twelve are spoken of as if in

addition to Adad-idri and Irḫulēni of Hamath. Ought we, therefore, to

translate “the twelve kings,” meaning the eleven which are referred to

along with and including Aḫabbu of the Sir’ilâa, or are the twelve kings

referred to in the account of the second and third encounters with

Ben-Hadad merely an indefinite number, meaning “a dozen,” _i.e._“twelve

more or less”? As it is impossible that Ahab of Israel should have been

one of the Syrian league all this time, the latter must be held to be the

more probable explanation—“In those days Adad-idri of the land of Imēri-šu

(and) Irḫulēni of the land of Hamath with a dozen kings of the sea-coast

trusted each other’s might, and came against me to make war and battle.”

Notwithstanding all his efforts, however, as detailed in his annals,

Shalmaneser II. was still very far from the subjugation of the

“sea-coast,” as he calls Palestine and Syria, and realizing that he had a

hard task before him, he returned to his own country and occupied himself

in the two following years in Mesopotamia, Ararat, and Namri, south-east

of Assyria. The following year, 843 B.C., for the first time during his

reign, he was at peace, superintending the felling of trees in the Amanus

mountains for use in the palaces of Assyria. This period of rest was in

all probability necessary to enable the army to be reorganized for further

campaigns in that part of the world which he seems to have set his heart

upon subjugating.

This being the case, he set out, in his eighteenth year (842 B.C.), and

crossed the Euphrates for the sixteenth time. This expedition, however,

was not against his old foe, Ben-Hadad or Adad-idri, but against

Ḫaza’-îlu, the Hazael of 2 Kings viii. 8, etc., who had treacherously

murdered his master, as related in this passage, and seized the throne.

Hearing of the advance of the Assyrian army, he prepared for resistance,

as is related in the following narrative.

[Plate VIII.]

Plates of Chased Bronze, which covered the Doors of an Enclosure at

Balawat. (Left-hand portions, from right-hand leaf.) (Found by Mr. H.

Rassam, in 1878, and now in British Museum, Assyrian Saloon.) I_a_.—The

expedition of Shalmaneser II. to the land of Nairi (Mesopotamia).

Sacrificing to the gods by throwing meat-offerings into the lake. March of

the army over the mountains. I_b_.—Siege and capture of the city Suguni,

in Ararat. II_a_.—Bringing to Shalmaneser "_the tribute of the ships of

Tyre and Sidon_." II_b_.—March against the city Hazizi. Procession of

prisoners. III_a_. and III_b_.—Crossing the tributaries of the Euphrates

by pontoon bridges. Receiving tribute from Adinu, son of Dakaru, of

Enzudu. (Page 337.)

“In my 18th year I crossed the Euphrates for the 16th time. Ḫaza-’îlu of

the land of Imēri-šu trusted to the might of his troops, and called his

troops together in great number. Saniru, the peak of a mountain which is

before Lebanon, he made his stronghold. I fought with him, I accomplished

his defeat: 16,000 of his fighting-men I slew with the sword: 1121 of his

chariots, 470 of his horses, with his camp, I captured. He fled to save

his life—I set out after him. I besieged him in Dimašqu (Damascus), his

royal city. I cut down his orchards; I went to the mountains of the land

of Ḫauranu (the Hauran), cities without number I destroyed, wasted, and

burned in the flames. Untold spoil I carried away. I went to the mountains

of Ba’ali-ra’asi” (Aramaic: “lord of the promontory”), “which is a

headland” (lit., “head of the sea”)—“I set up an image of my majesty

therein. In those days I received the tribute of the Tyrians, Sidonians,

(and) of Yaua, son of Ḫumrî.”

The description of this campaign given by the Black Obelisk is as follows—

“In my 18th year I crossed the Euphrates for the 16th time. Ḫaza’-îlu of

the land of Imēri-šu came forth to battle: 1121 of his chariots, 470 of

his horses, with his camp, I took away from him.”

These two documents, as will easily be seen, are in perfect accord, and

the story they have to tell agrees in its turn with that of the preceding

years of Shalmaneser’s reign. Indeed, this text may be regarded as

confirming the opinions hitherto held concerning the identity of Aḫabbu

mât Sir’ilâa with Ahab of Israel, and Adad-idri with Ben-Hadad of

Damascus. This, be it noted, is due to the fact that, like Ben-Hadad,

Adad-idri was succeeded by Hazael, who, in both the Bible narrative and

the annals of Shalmaneser, is a contemporary of Jehu (Yaua, son of Ḫumrî

or Omri). The Black Obelisk, probably for the sake of economizing space,

does not refer to the receipt of tribute from Jehu when speaking of the

battle with Hazael, on account of the bas-relief thereon referring to that

event. The following is the translation of the epigraph in question which

I gave in 1886(91)—

“The tribute of Yaua, son of Ḫumrî: silver, gold, a golden cup, golden

vases, golden vessels, golden buckets, lead, a staff for the hand of the

king (and) sceptres, I received.”

The account of the conflict with Hazael indicates that certain changes had

taken place in the Mediterranean coast-lands since Shalmaneser’s former

campaigns thither. It was no longer against the kings of Damascus and

Hamath with “a dozen kings” in alliance with them, but against Hazael

alone. Had they broken with Ben-Hadad? or did they hold aloof because they

had no sympathy with his murderer? In any case, it would seem to be

certain that they no longer feared the Assyrian king, who, they must have

felt, had his hands full. In Israel, too, there had been changes, Ahab

having been succeeded by Ahaziah, who, after a reign of one year, was

succeeded by Jehoram. The latter tried to reduce Mesha king of Moab again

to subjection, but without success. Ben-Hadad’s attempt to capture Samaria

was made during his reign, and the non-success of the Syrian king was

probably the cause of Jehoram’s attempt to recover Ramoth-gilead, where

Ahab had found his fate some years before. The king of Israel did not fall

on the field of battle, but received there a wound which obliged him to

return to Jezreel. His death at the hands of Jehu in Naboth’s vineyard is

one of the most dramatic incidents of Israelitish history.

Jehu’s payment of tribute to the Assyrian king in 842 B.C. was probably

due to a question of policy, and in the main it may be considered as a

cheap way of avoiding misfortune, for he might easily have been worsted in

an encounter with Shalmaneser. What Tyre and Sidon thought fit to do,

could hardly but be recognized as policy for Israel as well. It was

important for Jehu that he should consolidate his power, hence this

submission, though, to say the truth, he could not have been certain that

he would be attacked. Was it that he felt strong enough to resist the

Assyrian king which made him withhold the payment of tribute when, in 839

B.C., Shalmaneser again marched against Hazael? It would seem so. On this

occasion four towns of the king of Damascus were captured, and tribute

again received from Tyre and Sidon, Gebal likewise buying peace in the

same way.

That Jehu, who destroyed the house of Omri, should be called “son of Omri”

in the inscriptions of Shalmaneser II. of Assyria, is strange, and needs

explanation. Perhaps the successor of a king could loosely be spoken of as

his son, as occupying the place of such a relative; and, as is well known,

Belshazzar, in the book of Daniel, is called son of Nebuchadnezzar, which,

according to the Babylonian inscriptions, he certainly was not. That Jehu

may have been in some way related with Jehoram, and therefore a descendant

of Omri, is possible and even probable. That he was not descended from him

in a direct line is certain.

It is noteworthy that the Assyrian form of the name, Yaua, shows that the

unpronounced aleph at the end was at that time sounded, so that the

Hebrews must have called him Yahua (Jehua). Omri was likewise pronounced

in accordance with the older system, before the ghain became ayin. Ḫumrî

shows that they said at that time Ghomrî.

After the rebellion which embittered the closing years of Shalmaneser’s

life, the great Assyrian king died, and his crown went to his younger son

Šamši-Adad III. (825-812 B.C.). The first work of the new ruler was the

pacification of his country, and this having been successfully done, he

tried to restore Assyrian influence beyond the borders of his kingdom.

During his reign of about thirteen years, he warred on the N., N.E., N.W.

and S. (Babylonia), but never came nearer to Syria than Kar-Shalmaneser on

the Euphrates, near Carchemish.

His son, Adad-nirari, who reigned from 812 to 783 B.C., followed in his

footsteps, and began by making conquests on the east. The north and

north-west, however, also felt the force of his arms. The only campaign of

which details are given is one against Syria, the date of which, however,

is not known. G. Smith thought that this could not have taken place

earlier than 797 B.C., during the time of Amaziah king of Judah and Joash

king of Israel—a conjecture which is based, to all appearance, upon the

comparison of Mansuate with Manasseh. As the Assyrian form of this name is

Minsē or Minasē, such an identification is impossible, and this being the

case, it is more probable that the expeditions to the Holy Land and Syria

took place either in 806, when he went to Arpad, 805, when he was at Ḫaza,

or 804, when he marched against Ba’ali, the name, apparently, of a

Phœnician city. The next year he went to the sea-coast, but whether this

was the Mediterranean or not is not indicated, though it may be regarded

as very probable, and if so, 803 B.C. must be added to the dates already

named, or the operations to which he refers in his slab-inscription may

have extended over one or more of the years here referred to.

So, when he was young and enthusiastic, King Adad-nirari III. of Assyria

had the inscription carved of which the following is a translation, as far

as it is at present known—

“Palace of Adad-nirari, the great king, the powerful king, king of the

world, king of the land of Aššur; the king who, in his youth, Aššur, king

of the Igigi, called, and delivered into his hand a kingdom without equal;

his shepherding he (Aššur) made good as pasture for the people of the land

of Aššur, and caused his throne to be firm; the glorious priest, patron of

Ê-šarra, he who ceaseth not to uphold the command of Ê-kura, who

continually walketh in the service of Aššur, his lord, and hath caused the

princes of the four regions to submit to his feet. He who hath conquered

from the land of Siluna of the rising of the sun, the mountains (?) of the

land of Ellipu, the land of Ḫarḫar, the land of Araziaš, the land of Mesu,

the land of the Medes, the land of Gizil-bunda, to its whole extent, the

land of Munna, the land of Parsua (Persia), the land of Allapria, the land

of Abdadana, the land of Na’iru (Mesopotamia), to the border of the whole

of it, the land of Andiu, whose situation is remote, the range (?) of the

mountains, to its whole border, as far as the great sea of the rising of

the sun (the Persian Gulf); from the river Euphrates, the land of Ḫatti

(Heth, the Hittites), the land of Amurri (Amoria, the Amorites), to its

whole extent, the land of Tyre, the land of Sidon, the land of Ḫumrî

(Omri, Israel), the land of Edom, the land of Palastu (Philistia) as far

as the great sea of the setting of the sun (the Mediterranean), I caused

to submit to my feet. I fixed tax and tribute upon them. I went to the

land of Ša-imēri-šu (Syria of Damascus); Mari’u, king of Ša-imēri-šu, I

shut up in Dimašqu (Damascus), his royal city. The fear and terror of

Aššur, his lord, struck him, and he took my feet, performed homage. Two

thousand three hundred talents of silver, 20 talents of gold, 3000 talents

of bronze, 5000 talents of iron, cloth, variegated stuffs, linen, a couch

of ivory, an inlaid litter of ivory, (with) cushions (?), his goods, his

property, to a countless amount I received in Damascus, his royal city, in

the midst of his palace. All the kings of the land of Kaldu (the Chaldean

tribes in Babylonia) performed homage, tax and tribute for future days I

fixed upon them. Babylon, Borsippa, Cuthah, brought the overplus (of the

treasures) of Bêl, Nebo, (and) Nergal, (made) pure offerings....”

(The remainder of the inscription is said to be still at Calah, not yet

uncovered.)

Schrader, in his _Cuneiform Inscriptions and the Old Testament_, makes the

campaign against Syria to have taken place in 803 B.C., and sees in

Adad-nirari the deliverer sent by Yahwah in answer to the prayers of

Jehoahaz. According to 2 Kings xiii. 3, the Israelites were subject to

Hazael and Ben-Hadad, his son, all their days. There is every probability

that the successor of the latter was the Mari’u mentioned in the

translation given above, and the same inscription would seem to indicate

that the Israelites submitted to the Assyrian king, and paid him tribute

in order to secure his intervention, which, judging from the enormous

amount of spoil which he secured, he did not regret. The saviour having

come, and the tribute paid, “Israel dwelt in their tents, as beforetime”

(2 Kings xiii. 5). Verses 22-25 are to all appearance a recapitulation,

probably extracted from another source. They show that Joash, son of

Jehoahaz, rebelled, and took from Ben-Hadad the cities which the

last-named had captured from Israel, and defeated him three times (see

ver. 19). Apparently “all their days” in ver. 3 is not to be taken

literally, as the war of the Israelites against Syria took place before

the death of Ben-Hadad III. It may also be conjectured that the reason of

there being no more than three defeats of the Syrians was due to the death

of Ben-Hadad, and his sceptre passing into younger and more vigorous

hands, so that “a saviour” was still needed, and found in the person of

the Assyrian king, as suggested by Schrader. The Syrian forces not being

in a condition, after their defeats by the Israelites, to offer battle to

Adad-nirari, apparently submitted without fighting, and after such a visit

the country had too much need for peace to allow of reprisals being made

against the Israelites.

The fame of Adad-nirari was great, and his queen seems to have shared in

it. She was named Sammu-ramat, “(the goddess) Sammu loveth (her),” a name

which is generally regarded as the original of the somewhat mythical

Semiramis of Herodotus. That she was looked up to by the subjects of her

royal spouse, however, is proved by the two statues in the British Museum

(there were in all four of them, erected at Calah). According to the

inscription on them, they were made and dedicated for one of the chief

officers of the kingdom, Bêl-tarṣi-îli-ma (“a lord before God”), who

furnished them with the following dedication—

“To Nebo, mighty, exalted, son of Ê-saggil,(92) the wise one,

high-towering, the mighty prince, son of Nudimmud, whose word is supreme;

prince of intelligence, director of the universe of heaven and earth, he

who knoweth everything, the wide of ear, he who holdeth the tablet-reed

(and) hath the stilus; the merciful one, he who decideth, with whom is

(the power of) raising and abasing; the beloved of Ea, lord of lords,

whose power hath no equal, without whom there would be no counsel in

heaven; the gracious one, pitiful, whose sympathy is good; he who dwelleth

in E-zida, which is within Calah—the great lord, his lord—for the life of

Adad-nirari, king of the land of Aššur, his lord, and the life of

Sammu-ramat, she of the palace, his lady, Bêl-tarṣi-îli-ma, ruler of the

city of Calah, the land of Ḫamedu, the land of Sudgana, the land of

Temeni, the land of Yaluna, for the saving of his life, the lengthening of

his days, the adding of days to his years, the peace of his house and his

people (not the one evil to him), he has caused (this statue) to be made

as a gift. Whoever (cometh) after: Trust to Nebo—trust not another god.”

It is rare that an Assyrian queen is mentioned in the inscriptions,

especially on almost equal terms with the king, and additional interest is

added by the fact, that she bears a name commonly regarded as the same as

that of Semiramis. In Assyrian and Babylonian history, it is always the

king who is the ruler, whatever influence his spouse may have had in

determining his policy as such being always unmentioned, and therefore

unknown to the world at large. The present inscription, however, seems to

testify that Sammu-ramat was known outside the walls of the palace, and

that one of the greatest in the kingdom thought fit to do her honour by

associating her with the king in the dedication to Nebo which he made for

the preservation of the lives of the king, the queen, and himself. Whether

the history of Sammu-ramat, queen of Assyria, was laid under contribution

to furnish details for the legend of Semiramis, will probably never be

known; but it is nevertheless unfortunate that the slab recounting the

warlike exploits of Adad-nirari, king of Assyria, her husband, should

break off in the middle of his account of his successes in Babylonia.

Adad-nirari reigned 29 years, and was succeeded by Shalmaneser III. in 783

B.C. The expeditions of this king were principally against Armenia and

Itu’u, a region on the Euphrates. In the year 775 B.C. he went to the

cedar-country, but whether the mountain region of the Amanus, Lebanon, or

of a district called Ḫašur be intended, is unknown. The necessity of

expeditions against Syria, however, still continued, for in 773 B.C. we

find Shalmaneser at Damascus, probably to bring the king then ruling there

again into subjection.

Although doubt is now expressed as to whether Ḫatarika, whither

Shalmaneser III. marched in 772 B.C., the last year of his reign, be

really Hadrach (Zech. ix. 1) or not (the consonants do not agree so well

as they ought to do), in all probability it was a district not far from

Damascus to which he went.

Aššur-dan, his successor, ascended the throne in the following year, and

at once began warring in Babylonia and on the east. In 765 B.C. he marched

to Ḫatarika. Signs of revolt seem at this time to have broken out in

Assyria, probably on account of the pestilence with which the land was

afflicted, and it must have been for this reason that no expedition was

undertaken in the year 764 B.C. Next year the rising, which was evidently

expected, took place in the city of Aššur, and there was an eclipse of the

sun in the month Sivan, an important astronomical occurrence which has

been identified with an eclipse which passed over Assyria on the 15th of

June, 763 B.C., and was supposed by Mr. Bosanquet to be referred to in

Amos viii. 9, “I will cause the sun to go down at noon, and will darken

the earth in the clear day.”

To all appearance this eclipse, taken in conjunction with the presence of

pestilence and rebellion, was regarded as an evil omen. This revolt lasted

into the next year, and spread, in 761 B.C., into Arrapḫa, where it

continued three years. In 759 the revolt reached Gozan, and there was a

recrudescence of the plague. There is no reference to the stamping out of

the revolt in Assyria, but it seems very probable that the king and his

supporters were active to that end, as he was able to march in the year

758 B.C., to Gozan, after which there is the entry, “Peace in the land.”

Two years were to all appearance occupied in reorganizing the country and

providing against a repetition of such risings, unless it be that

Aššur-dan was too ill to take the field, for according to the received

chronology, he died in 755 B.C. when Aššur-nirari II. ascended the throne.

This new ruler is represented to have made two expeditions, one in the

year of his accession, to Ḫatarika, and the other, in 754 B.C., to Arpad.

What the additional statement, “Return from the city of Aššur,” really

refers to, is exceedingly doubtful—perhaps troops had been stationed there

during the whole period since the breaking out of the revolt there in 763

B.C.

For four years no expeditions were made, pointing to a continued ferment

of discontent in Assyria. In 749 and 748 B.C., however, Aššur-nirari made

expeditions to Namri, south-west of Media. It is significant, however,

that the Canon has, for the next year (747 B.C.), the usual words (“In the

land”) when no expedition took place, the reason probably being the

unsettled state of the country. The entry for the next year is “Revolt in

Calah,” which, as has already been seen, was one of the principal cities

of the kingdom. After this is the usual division-line, indicating the end

of a reign, followed by the words “(Eponymy of Nabû-bêl-uṣur, governor of)

Arrapḫa. In the month Aaru (Iyyar), day 13, Tiglath-pileser sat upon the

throne. In the month Tisritu (Tisri) he made an expedition to (the

district) between the rivers.” This corresponds with 745 B.C.

Thus is ushered in, in the Eponym Canon, one of the most important reigns

in Assyrian history. By what right Tiglath-pileser III. took the throne is

not known. To all appearance, he was not in any way related to his

predecessor, Aššur-nirari, and it is therefore supposed that he was one of

the generals of that king, who, taking advantage of the rising in Aššur

(of which he may, indeed, have been the instigator), made away with his

sovereign, and set himself in his place. Further light, however, is needed

upon this period, before anything can be said as to the circumstances

attending Tiglath-pileser’s accession to the throne.

[Plate IX.]

Tiglath-pileser III. in His Chariot. British Museum, Nimroud Central

Saloon.

Though all Tiglath-pileser’s inscriptions are imperfect, and most of them

very fragmentary, they nevertheless contain enough to show of what

enormous value they are. Their incompleteness and the absence of dates

consequent thereon is fortunately compensated somewhat by the fact that

the Eponym Canon is perfect in the part which refers to this king, and

that we are therefore able to locate with certainty all the events of his

reign.

As the entry translated above shows, his first campaign was “between the

rivers,” that is, to Babylonia, the land lying between the Tigris and the

Euphrates. His object in leading his forces thither was to break the power

of the Aramean tribes, with the Arabs and others who were in alliance with

them. Going first south-east, he subjugated the Chaldean tribes, including

the Pekodites; turning afterwards west, he went against the Arameans,

capturing Sippar, Dûr-Kuri-galzu, and other Babylonian cities, and it is

supposed that it was on this occasion that he assumed the title “king of

Šumer and Akkad.” To all appearance, however, he was not recognized by the

Babylonians themselves as king, Nabonassar being then on the throne. There

is hardly any doubt, however, that Babylonia acknowledged Assyrian

overlordship on this occasion, thus giving Tiglath-pileser some

justification for assuming the title.

Having arranged things to his satisfaction in Babylonia, Tiglath-pileser

turned his attention to the East (Namri, 744), Ararat (743), and Arpad

(same year), the last being his objective up to and including the year 740

B.C. Sardurri of Ararat, however, saw his influence threatened by this

move, for he, too, was a conqueror, and had had such success, that he felt

justified in calling himself “king of Suri,” or North Syria. How matters

fell out is not known, but it may be supposed that the Assyrian king went

and besieged Arpad, was attacked whilst doing so by Sardurri and his

allies, and compelled to raise the siege. A pursuit of the Armenian forces

by the Assyrians was the result of this attack, the end being, in all

probability, a decisive victory for Tiglath-pileser. This, according to

Rost, would seem to be the most reasonable supposition, for the Assyrian

king was able to besiege Arpad again next year without any hindrance. The

capture of the city in the third year brought the rulers of the district

in which it stood to the feet of the Assyrian king—all except one, Tutamû

king of Unqu, who was defeated and captured, and his territories annexed

to Assyria.

During the campaigns in the north at the end of 739 B.C., risings took

place in Syria and North Phœnicia, and this gave Tiglath-pileser the

wished-for opportunity to bring these districts again under his sway. The

Eponym Canon gives for this year the simple entry, “He captured the city

of Kullanû,” which Rost supposes to have been in the neighbourhood of

Hamath, and if so, must be the Calne of Isaiah x. 9, which is there

mentioned with Hamath, Carchemish, Arpad, Samaria, and Damascus as having

been subdued by Assyria. The mention of Kullanû as the object of the

expedition is probably due to its having been one of the chief factors in

the disturbances which took place. It would also seem that Azariah of

Judah took part in the attempt to get rid of Assyrian influence, and

though this was fully recognized by Tiglath-pileser, the Assyrian king to

all appearance did not come into direct contact with his country.

Azriau or Izriau (Azariah—Rost’s collation of the squeezes shows that both

spellings of the name were used) of Judah is mentioned at least four

times. The earlier references, however, are so very fragmentary that

nothing certain can be said concerning their connection—in one of the

passages containing his name the wording leads one to imagine that he was

captured by the Assyrian king, though, as Rost has shown, this may simply

mean that certain sympathizers of his had taken his part. But whatever may

have taken place in Judah, Azariah’s sympathizers did not get on so well

as their leader. No less than nineteen places were captured by the

Assyrian king, including “Usnû, Siannu, Ṣimirra (Simyra), Rašpûna, on the

sea-coast, together with the cities of the Sauê-mountains (mountains which

are in Lebanon), Ba’ali-ṣapuna (Baal-zephon) as far as Ammana (Amanus, or

according to Winckler, the anti-Lebanon), the mountain of _urkarinu_-wood,

the whole of the land of Sau, the province of Kar-Adad (fortress of

Hadad), the city of Ḫatarikka, the province of Nuqudina, Ḫasu with the

cities which are around it, the cities of Arâ, and the cities which are on

each side of it, with the cities (= villages) which are around them, the

mountain Sarbûa to its whole extent, the city Ašḫanu, the city Yadabu, the

mountain Yaraqu to its whole extent, the city ... -ri, the city

Elli-tarbi, the city Zitānu as far as the city Atinnu, the city ... (and)

the city Bumamu—XIX. districts of the city of Hamath, with the cities

which were around them, of the sea-coast of the setting of the sun, which

in sin and wickedness had taken to Azriau, I added to the boundary of

Assyria. I set my commander-in-chief as governor over them, 30,300 people

I removed from the midst of their cities and caused the province of the

city of Ku- ... to take them.”

Notwithstanding that there is no reference to the above in the Old

Testament, there is no reason to doubt that it is substantially correct.

Its omission is in all probability due to the fact, that neither Judah nor

Israel were menaced by the forces of the Assyrian king. Notwithstanding

this, the expedition and the success of Tiglath-pileser had its effect,

the result being that all the princes of middle and north Syria showed

their submission to the Assyrian king by paying tribute, thus ensuring the

safety of their territory, at least for a time. This took place after the

defeat of Kišî, the Aramean, and his forces, together with several other

districts, and the transportation of the inhabitants from their homes to

districts in other principalities, a proceeding calculated to destroy

national feeling and thus contribute to the safety of the empire by

rendering rebellion more unlikely. The following is the list of the

princes who secured immunity from attack by paying tribute:—

“Kuštašpu of the city of the Comagenians; Raṣunnu (Rezon) of the land of

the Sa-Imērišuites (Syria); Meniḫimme (Menahem) of the city of the

Samarians; Ḫirummu (Hirom) of the city of the Tyrians; Sibitti-bi’ili of

the city of the Gebalites; Urikku of the Kûites; Pisiris of the

Carchemishites; Êni-îlu of the city of the Ḫammatites; Panammû of the city

of the Sam’allites; Tarḫulara of the land of the Gurgumites; Sulumal of

the land of the Melidites; Dadi-îlu of the land of the Kaskites; Uassurme

of the land of the Tabalites; Ušḫitti of the land of the Tunites; Urballâ

of the land of the Tuḫanites; Tuḫamme of the city of the Ištundites;

Urimme of the city of the Ḫušimnites; Zabibê, queen of the land of Arabia.

Gold, silver, lead, iron, elephant-skins, ivory, variegated cloth, linen,

violet stuff, crimson stuff, terebinth-wood, oak (?), everything costly,

the treasure of a kingdom, fat lambs whose fleeces were coloured crimson,

winged birds of heaven, whose feathers were coloured violet, horses,

mules, oxen and sheep, male camels and female camels with their young, I

received.”

It was a rich booty, and was probably held to be a sufficient return for

all the expense, and trials, and hardships of the campaign. Though the

kingdom of Judah seems not to have suffered (we must not be too hasty to

assume that this was the case, as the Assyrian records are exceedingly

defective), Israel, as is mentioned above, paid tribute. It does not

appear from the Assyrian account that Tiglath-pileser went against

Samaria, but notwithstanding this, 2 Kings xv. 19 has the following—

“There came against the land Pul the king of Assyria; and Menahem gave Pul

1000 talents of silver, that his hand might be with him to confirm the

kingdom in his hand. And Menahem exacted the money of Israel, even of all

the mighty men of wealth, of each man fifty shekels of silver, to give to

the king of Assyria. So the king of Assyria turned back, and stayed not

there in the land.”

It is to be noted that there is here nothing about buying the Assyrian

king off—the money was paid him to confirm the kingdom in Menahem’s hand.

The writer apparently assumed that the Assyrian king might not altogether

be hostilely inclined, notwithstanding that “he came against the land.”

Perhaps by “land” we are to understand “district.” In any case, the two

accounts can hardly be said to disagree. He did not war there, but he

received Menahem’s tribute—it was therefore needless to mention his visit,

if such it was. Many a ruler in this district must have done the same

thing on this occasion, and there could have been no reason to mention one

more than the other—hence, probably, the absence of references to any

threatening approach to the borders of Israel and other states on the part

of the Assyrian king.

But whilst absent in the west, rebellion was rife nearer home, and was put

down with vigour by the governors of the provinces of Lullumû and Na’iru

(Mesopotamia). This led to further transportations of the inhabitants, who

were sent west to Ṣimirra (Simyra), Arka, Usnu, Siannu, Tu’immu, and other

places in Syria. Next year Tiglath-pileser himself marched to Madâa (the

Medes), where he had a very successful campaign. As some of the places

mentioned have the element Kingi as part of the name, it has been

suggested that in all probability the Sumerians, whose Babylonian home was

called Kingi, had their original seat in Media.

Campaigns against the district of the mountains of Nal and Ararat, the

former as a preparation for the latter, follow, after which comes,

according to the Eponym Canon, an expedition to the land Pilišta. This is

set down as the event of 734 B.C. There is, it is needless to say, some

uncertainty in this expression, as the question naturally arises, What is

really included in the term? Assuming, with Rost, that the statements in

the Canon indicate the point intended to be reached, and not the farthest

point attained, it is very probable that Israel did not come into the

sphere of the Assyrian king’s operations, and this is all the more

probable in that Rost’s collation of one of the squeezes in the British

Museum shows that instead of the Assyrian form of Abel-Beth-Maachah, we

have to read Abil-akka, to which is added, however, the description “on

the boundary of Israel (Bît-Ḫumria).” It will be seen, therefore, that

though he may not have entered the country, or, at least, made any warlike

operations there, he approached well within striking distance of its

borders. On this occasion it would seem that he found it necessary to

install six new governors so as to ensure the due obedience of the

inhabitants. After this, Tiglath-pileser goes on to speak of Hanon of

Gaza, who on seeing the approach of the Assyrians fled to Egypt, leaving

his capital at the mercy of the invader. Having captured the city,

Tiglath-pileser entered Hanon’s royal palace, taking possession of all his

property, and setting therein his royal couch. He speaks of having

delivered something to the gods of the land, and of having laid upon its

inhabitants (the payment of tribute and gifts). Further mutilated lines

follow, referring to the spoil taken, and there is a reference to the land

of Israel (mât Bît-Ḫumria). After this comes the words, “the whole of his

people, (with their property) I sent to Assyria.” The gap between the

reference to Israel and this line, however, makes it doubtful to what it

really refers. The record immediately goes on, however, to speak of the

death of Pekah.

In the Eponym Canon the entries for the two years following the campaign

to Pilišta (_i.e._ 733-732 B.C.) are, “to the land of Dimašqa.” It would

therefore seem that, having assured himself of the submission of his

north-Phœnician vassals, Tiglath-pileser attacked the northern district of

Israel, taking Ijon, Abel-beth-maachah, Janoah, Kedesh, Hazor, Gilead,

Galilee, and all the land of Naphtali (2 Kings xv. 29). No account of

this, however, occurs in the Assyrian inscriptions,(93) which, as already

pointed out, are very mutilated for this period. It is possible that the

reference to Israel, in the mutilated passage quoted above, relates to

this invasion, and possibly also to the payment of tribute by Pekah in

order to secure himself against further attacks.

Whether before or after the above is not known, but possibly on the

departure of the Assyrians, Rezin (Rezon), king of Syria, made alliance

with Pekah, and their combined forces invaded Judah. Ahaz, who was at this

time king of Judah, was apparently besieged in Jerusalem, and the king of

Syria took advantage of this opportunity to recover possession of Elath,

which never fell into the hands of the Jews again (2 Kings xvi. 6).

There is no doubt that Ahaz was hard pressed, and hearing, to all

appearance, that the Assyrians were again in the neighbourhood, he sent to

Tiglath-pileser a humble message: “I am thy servant, and thy son; come up,

and save me out of the hand of the king of Syria, and out of the hand of

the king of Israel, which rise up against me.” This would in all

probability have had but little effect, had it not been accompanied by a

goodly amount of gold and silver, taken not only from his own treasury,

but also from that of the Temple at Jerusalem. The result was, that

Tiglath-pileser went up against Damascus. The Syrian king, however,

decided to resist, and a battle was fought in which he was defeated, and

obliged to seek safety in flight. With a grim, not to say barbarous,

humour, Tiglath-pileser describes his flight and the treatment of his

supporters—

“... (like) a mouse he entered the great gate of his city. His chiefs (I

took) alive with my hands, (and) I caused them to be raised up and to view

his land (on) stakes: 45 camps of soldiers I collected (in the provin)ce

of his city, and shut him up like a bird in a cage. His plantations,

(fields, orchards (?), and) woods, which were without number, I cut down,

and did not leave one ... (the city) Ḫādara, the house (= dwelling-place)

of the father of Raṣunnu (Rezon) of the land of the Ša-imērišuites, (the

place where) he was born, I besieged, I captured: 800 people with their

possessions, ... their oxen, their sheep, I carried off: 750 prisoners of

the city Kurussa, ... (prisoners) of the city of the Irmaites, 550

prisoners of the city Metuna, I carried off: 591 cities ... of 16

districts of the land of Ša-imērišu I destroyed like flood-mounds.”(94)

This is immediately followed by an account of the operations against

Samsi, queen of Arabia, and the tribes connected with that over which she

held sway. After this he states that he set Idi-bi’ilu as governor over

the land of Musru. All these passages, however, are exceedingly

incomplete, as is also that referring to Samaria, which follows. The

shorter account of the expeditions of Tiglath-pileser gives in this place

lines of which the following is a translation—

“They overthrew Paqaḫa (Pekah), their king, and I set Ausi’a (Hosea) (upon

the throne) over them. Ten talents of gold, ... talents of silver, ...

their (tribute), I received, and (brought) them (to the land of Assyria).”

The longer account, from which most of the above extracts have been made,

may therefore be completed, with Rost, provisionally, as follows—

“(Pekah, all of whose) cities (I had captured) in my earlier campaigns,

and had given over (as a prey, and whose spoi)l I had carried off,

abandoned the city of Samerina (Samaria) alone. (Pekah), their king, (they

overthrew, and like) a hurricane (I ravaged the land).”

As will be seen, the above agrees closely with the statement in 2 Kings

xv. 30—

“And Hoshea the son of Elah made a conspiracy against Pekah the son of

Remaliah, and smote him, and slew him, and reigned in his stead, in the

20th year of Jotham the son of Uzziah.”

Mutilated details concerning other cities captured by Tiglath-pileser

follow the above extract from his annals, after which the narrative

continues—

“(Mitinti, of the land) of the Askelonites, (sinned) against (my)

agreement, (and revolted against me). He saw (the overthrow of Ra)ṣunnu

(Rezon), and failure (of understanding (?) fell upon him (?), and Rûkipti,

the son of Mitinti), sat upon the throne....”

In the account of the flight and death of Pekah, the Assyrian king

suggests that the abandonment of the king of Israel of his capital was due

to the fear of capture at his hands. One may also suppose that he wished

it to be understood that Pekah incurred the displeasure of his subjects by

his flight, and that they pursued after him, and having overtaken him, put

him to death. As a matter of fact, Pekah must really have fled on account

of the rebellion led by Hoshea, who, on learning of his flight, in all

probability pursued after him, and thus encompassed his death. Hoshea

then, by a payment of tribute to Tiglath-pileser, secured from the

Assyrian king his recognition as king of Israel, and at the same time

assured himself against attack at his hands.

Imitating Hoshea, Rûkipti, the new king of Askelon, also paid tribute, and

thus secured his recognition. As to Rezon, the Assyrian text does not

enable us to see what was his ultimate fate, but as it was such,

apparently, as to terrify Mitinti of Askelon into madness, it may be

supposed that it was death at the orders of the Assyrian king, as recorded

in 2 Kings xvi. 9.

Tiglath-pileser was now complete master of the land of Ša-imēri-šu or

Syria, and all the princes of the west acknowledged his overlordship. This

being the case, it is only natural that Ahaz of Judah should visit and pay

him homage at Damascus, the capital of the new province, as related in 2

Kings xvi. 10, and probably it was to that city that many of the other

subject princes went for that purpose, and to offer him their tribute. The

further result of the visit of Ahaz is detailed in the succeeding verses

of the passage in 2 Kings referred to.

Thus ended Tiglath-pileser’s successful expedition to Pilišta and

Damascus, and there is no record that he ever went westward again. The

Chaldeans, in combination with the Arameans, had made use of his absence

to engage in new advances against Babylon. Nabonassar, the king of that

country, had died, and been succeeded by his son, Nabû-nadin-zēri, who,

however, only reigned two years, and gave place to Nabû-šum-ukîn, who

murdered him. This last, however, only held the throne for somewhat more

than two months, and Ukîn-zēr, chief of the Chaldean tribe Bît-Amukkāni,

took possession of the throne, and ruled for three years—much against the

inclination of the Babylonians, who, to all appearance, had no love for

the Chaldean tribes inhabiting certain tracts of the country. The

interference of Tiglath-pileser was therefore looked on with favour by the

Babylonians, who welcomed him as a deliverer. Ukîn-zēr (the Chinzēros of

Ptolemy) was besieged in his capital, Sapîa, though that city was not

taken until the year 729 B.C. The result of this was, the submission of

all the Chaldean tribes, including that of which Merodach-baladan (then

only a young man) was the chief. Entering Babylon, Tiglath-pileser, in

accordance with the custom, “took the hand of Bêl,” an expression

apparently meaning that he performed the usual ceremonies, and was

accepted by the god—and the priesthood—as king. This also took place again

next year, from which it may be supposed that one acknowledged as king of

Babylon had to perform the ceremony yearly in order to fulfil the

conditions imposed upon all who held the reins of power. An entry in the

Canon for this year suggests that there was a rebellion (?) in a city of

which only the first character is preserved—possibly to be completed Dir,

and perhaps situated in Babylonia. Operations against this place, in all

probability, were taken in hand next year (727 B.C.), but whilst they were

in progress, Tiglath-pileser died, and Shalmaneser IV. mounted the throne.

How it is that Tiglath-pileser III. of Assyria was called Pûlu is not

known. The name only occurs, in native documents, in the Babylonian Canon

of kings—to all appearance that from which the Canon of Ptolemy was

copied. It is therefore practically certain that he only bore this name

officially in Babylonia. Probably the most likely explanation is, that it

was his original name, though it may have been given him by the compiler

of the canon (supposing that he was a man who had no great admiration for

the Assyrian conqueror) as a scornful expression, _bûlu_ (which may also

be read _pûlu_) meaning “the wild animal.” It occurs, however, as a

personal name in the inscriptions of Assyria at least twice, the bearer of

it being in one case a charioteer, one of nine officials of “the

Ḫuḫamite.”

The fact that the name Pûlu (in the Canon of Ptolemy Poros), applied to

Tiglath-pileser, occurs only in a Babylonian document, suggests that the

reference to the Assyrian conqueror in 2 Kings xv. 19 and 1 Chron. v. 26

are due to a Babylonian source, though, as it is the name by which he is

at first called by the writer of the 2nd Book of Kings, this is a

confirmation of the explanation that it was his original name. The glory

attached to the name Tiglath-pileser in Assyrian history probably accounts

for his having ultimately adopted the latter.

“On the 25th day of Tebet Šulmanu-ašarid (Shalmaneser) sat on the throne

in Assyria. He destroyed Šabara’in.” (Babylonian Chronicle.)

“In the eponymy of Bêl-ḫarran-bêl-uṣur, of the city of Gozan, To

the city ... Šalmanu-ašarid sat upon the throne.

In the eponymy of Marduk-bêl-uṣur, of the city of Amedi, In the

land.

In the eponymy of Maḫdê, of the city of Nineveh, To....

In the eponymy of Aššur-ḫalṣani (?), of the city of Kalzi, To....

In the eponymy of Šalmanu-ašarid, king of Assyria, To....”

(Eponym Canon with historical notices.)

These two extracts give practically all that is known of the important

reign of Shalmaneser IV. from native sources. The first is from the

Babylonian Chronicle, and its brevity in all likelihood indicates the

amount of sympathy that the Babylonians had for this king. Short as it is,

however, it is probably of as much value historically as the Assyrian

Eponym Canon in its present state, even including the restorations from

that without historical notices. The completion of this important document

from additional fragments and duplicates is greatly to be wished.

It is therefore from the Old Testament and Josephus that we get the

fullest history of the reign of this king. How it is that no records have

been found is not known. They may have been destroyed, or nothing very

extensive may have been written. That at least something of the kind

existed is indicated by the fact that the late George Smith refers to at

least one document, the whereabouts of which at present is not known.

What may have been the relationship of Shalmaneser IV. of Assyria to

Tiglath-pileser does not appear. There is every probability that, like his

great predecessor, he was an adventurer who, taking advantage of his

popularity with the army, and the failing powers of his royal master,

seized the throne. As will be seen from the Eponym Canon, an expedition

was in progress when he assumed the reins of power, so that he may have

taken advantage of the absence of Tiglath-pileser to carry out his design.

Tebet being the tenth month of the Assyro-Babylonian year, the time of his

accession corresponds with the winter of 727 B.C., a period at which

warlike operations were impossible. In the year 726 B.C. also he remained

at home, as was to be expected, consolidating his power.

His first campaign must therefore have taken place in 725 B.C., when, as

recorded in 2 Kings xvii. 3, he went against Hoshea, who paid him homage

and became tributary. Hearing that the king of Israel had sent privately

to So,(95) king of Egypt, asking for his help against the Assyrian king,

Shalmaneser threw Hoshea into prison, and advancing against Samaria,

called upon the city to surrender. Submission being refused, he laid siege

against it, and although Josephus relates that he ultimately took it, this

must be due simply to an inference, as there is no statement to that

effect in the Book of Kings, the words recording the event being simply

“the king of Assyria took Samaria,” and, as we know from the inscriptions,

it is Sargon, successor of Shalmaneser, who claims the honour of capturing

the city (see below, p. 363).(96)

During the siege, however, the Assyrian king busied himself with the

subjugation of all the surrounding district. It was probably in the same

year (725 B.C.) that he sent his army against Elulaeus, king of Tyre,

whose king had just been very successful in subjugating the Cittaeans

(people of Cyprus). According to Josephus (or, rather, Menander, whom he

quotes), Phœnicia submitted (Menander tells the story from the native

point of view, and states that “he soon made peace with them all”), but

Sidon, Accho, and Old Tyre (Palaetyrus) revolted (this probably means

“joined the Assyrians”), and several other cities yielded to the king of

Assyria. Finding that the Tyrians(97) would not submit, the Assyrian king

returned against them (this must have been in the year 724 B.C.), and

attacked them again, being aided on this occasion by the Phœnicians, who

furnished him with threescore ships, and 800 men to row them. The attack

of the Assyrian allies, however, must have been a very half-hearted one,

for the Tyrians advanced against them with only twelve ships, and

dispersed those of the enemy, taking 500 men prisoners.

The reputation—and also the confidence—of the citizens of Tyre being thus

greatly increased, they continued their resistance, and Shalmaneser found

himself obliged, in consequence of the inefficiency of his allies, to

content himself with a mere blockade of the city, and the placing of

guards over the water supply, so as to reduce the inhabitants of Tyre by

thirst. The latter, however, dug wells, and were thus enabled to continue

their resistance, which Meander states lasted all the time of the siege,

namely, five years—_i.e._ until two years after the death of Shalmaneser.

To all appearance the Sabara’in of the Babylonian Chronicle is the place

which should be supplied in the historical Eponym Canon, but, if so, the

form is a strange one. One would rather expect mât Bît-Ḫumrî, “the land of

Beth-Omri,” Pilišta, “Philistia,” or âl Ṣurri, “the city of Tyre.” There

is also the possibility that one of these names may have appeared in each

of the three lines which require completing, indicating three different

stages of his conquests. Samerina, “Samaria,” may also have been the word,

or one of the words, to be restored. In this last case, Delitzsch’s

suggestion that Sabara’in ought to be read Samara’in, and regarded as the

Babylonian form of the Heb. Shomeron, “Samaria,” is worthy of note. The

Babylonians do not state that he captured Sabara’in or Samara’in, but only

that he destroyed (perhaps the word means “ravaged”) it, and the city may

not have really fallen into the hands of the Assyrians until Sargon was

actually on the throne.

“In the 5th year Šulmanu-ašarid died in the month Tebet. Šulmanu-ašarid

had ruled the kingdom of Akkad and Aššur for five years. In the month

Tebet, the 12th day, Sargon sat on the throne in Aššur, and in the month

Nisan Marduk-âbla-iddina (Merodach-baladan) sat on the throne in Babylon.”

Thus does the Babylonian Chronicle record the change of rulers, which was

to have wide-reaching results for both countries.

What the verse in Hoshea, “All thy fortresses shall be spoiled, as Shalman

spoiled Beth-arbel in the day of battle,” refers to, is not known. There

is every probability that Shalman stands for Shalmaneser IV., but which is

the Beth-arbel which is spoken of? There were two places of the name in

Palestine, one west of the Sea of Galilee, and the other at the extreme

north of Gilead. Both are now called Irbid. If it be one of these, the

verse probably refers to some incident of Shalmaneser’s invasion. George

Smith, however, thought that the reference may have been due to some

domestic strife in Assyria at the close of the reign of Shalmaneser, in

which the Assyrian city of Arbela was involved. That it was one of the two

places in Palestine, however, is more probable.

The month which, five years earlier, had seen the death of

Tiglath-pileser, saw the departure of Shalmaneser IV. of Assyria to the

abode of his god, and in Sargon, who succeeded him, the kingdom to all

appearance accepted for the third time a ruler who might be described as

an adventurer. Whether he, too, changed his name, in order to shine in

borrowed plumes before the people, is unknown, but this is certain, that

“Sargon the Later,” as he called himself, by assuming that style and

title, challenged comparison with an old Babylonian king of great renown,

who made the little state which was his original principality the centre

of a wide-spreading domain.

Strange as it may seem, until the discovery of the Assyrian inscriptions

and their decipherment, nothing was known of this ruler outside of the Old

Testament, his name being regarded as another name of Shalmaneser in the

passage (Isa. xx. 1) where it occurs. Scholars did not realize that the

Arkeanos of Ptolemy was the king here mentioned, and that the change in

the form of his name was simply due to the change of the initial _s_ into

a breathing, according to a rule which is common in Greek etymology.

On assuming the government of the country, Sargon threw himself with

energy into the Syrian war, though in his slab-inscription found at

Nimroud, and in his annals, he makes his campaign against Ḫumbanigaš of

Elam to precede his operations in the west. The following is the text of

his “State-Inscription”—

“From the beginning of my reign to the 15th of my regnal-years, I

accomplished the overthrow of Ḫumbanigaš the Elamite in the suburbs of

Dêru. I besieged and captured Samerina (Samaria): 27,290 people dwelling

in the midst of it I carried off. Fifty chariots I collected among them,

and allowed them to have the rest of their goods. My commander-in-chief I

placed over them, and imposed upon them the tribute of the former king.

“Ḫanunu (Hanon), king of Ḫazitu (Gaza), advanced against me with Sib’e,

the Field-marshal of the land of Muṣuru (Egypt), to make war and battle in

Rapiḫu (Raphia). I defeated them.(98) Sib’e feared the sound of my weapons

and fled, and his place was not found. Ḫanunu of Ḫazitu I took with my

hands. I received the tribute of Pir’u, king of the land of Muṣuru, Samsê,

queen of the land of Aribu (Arabia), (and) It’amara, of the land of the

Saba’aa (Sabeans)—gold, the produce of the mountains, horses, (and)

camels.”

“Yau-bi’idi of the land of the Amatâa (Hamathites), a loose fellow, a

usurper, a frivolous, evil man, set his heart on the dominion of the land

of Amattu (Hamath), and caused Arpadda (Arpad), Ṣimirra (Simyra), Dimašqa

(Damascus), (and) Samerina (Samaria) to revolt against me, and caused them

to agree together, and they assembled for battle. I collected the powerful

troops of the god Aššur, and besieged (and) captured him in Qarqaru, his

own city, with his warriors. I burned Qarqaru with fire. As for him, I

flayed him. I slew the sinners in the midst of their (own) cities, and

brought about peace. I embodied 200 chariots (and) 600 cavalry among the

people of the land of Amattu, and added to the force of my kingdom.”

The general opinion of Assyriologists is, that Shalmaneser did not succeed

in making himself master of Samaria, the capture of the city falling to

the honour of Sargon, and this, as a matter of fact, is what the latter

claims. As will be seen from the above extract, he states that he carried

captive no less than 27,290 of the inhabitants of the city, but whither he

transported them he does not say. According to 2 Kings xvii. 6, he placed

them in Halah (probably the Ḫalaḫḫa of the inscriptions, near Haran), and

by the river Habor (the Chaboras) in Gozan, and in the cities of the

Medes. It is needless to say that these long journeys must in many cases

have entailed much suffering.

According to the Babylonian Chronicle, the conflict with Ḫumbanigaš took

place in the second year of Merodach-baladan of Babylonia, which was the

second year of Sargon as well. It is therefore difficult to understand why

Sargon, in his record, places this event first. The reason why he

dismisses the account of his conflict with the Elamite king in so few

words is supposed to be, that he was in reality, as the Babylonian

Chronicle says, defeated on that occasion. Though he might have wished to

keep it in the background, his successes were so many, that there was no

need for him to change the chronological order of his campaigns.

Sargon was naturally unable to be present at the siege and occupation of

Samaria, which occurred too close to the date of his assuming power to

allow him to reach the place. Besides that, his presence was needed nearer

home, lest conspiracies should deprive him of his newly-acquired regal

dignity. That he considered the successes of his troops in the west as a

most important circumstance, however, is proved by the fact, that he

devotes so much space in his annals to the account of it—and, indeed, the

capture of 27,290 people is a thing of which any ruler might boast. There

can be no doubt that the Assyrian kings, like the Babylonians before them,

always desired to possess the dominion of the Mediterranean provinces,

where were marts for the products both of their lands and their people,

and entry to the ports, for then, as now, all good rulers tried to further

the interests of their subjects in distant lands, and were probably firmly

of opinion, that “trade followed the standard.”(99)

In addition to this, there was the rivalry of Egypt, the country which had

held these provinces in the past, and would have liked to regain them.

Whether the rulers of the Mediterranean states realized this or not, is

uncertain, but in any case, like the Israelites, they had no objection to

making use of Egypt, “bruised reed” as she was by some considered. Seeing

that there was danger from the Assyrians, Hanon of Gaza followed the

example of Hoshea, in whom Shalmaneser had “found conspiracy,” and made

overtures with Sib’e, the So of 2 Kings xvii. 4 (the word ought really to

be pointed so as to read Seve, which was apparently the pronunciation of

the Assyrian form, the aspirate having the effect of changing _b_ into

_bh_ or _v_). This ruler is called “king of Egypt” in the passage cited,

but Sargon says that he was “Tartan,” or commander-in-chief of the

Egyptian army. This would imply that he was acting for another, a Pharaoh

unnamed, and at present unknown. The general opinion is, that So or Sib’e

is the same as Sabaco, and is called “king” by anticipation in 2 Kings

xvii.(100)

The result was one exceedingly gratifying to the Assyrian king, for in the

battle at Raphia, which followed, Sib’e fled in fear, whilst Hanon of Gaza

was made prisoner. The defeat and flight of the Egyptian army does not

seem to redound to the credit of its leader, who must have returned

bitterly disappointed to his native land.

Immediately after, however, there is a reference to the receipt of tribute

from “Pir’u, king of the land of Muṣuru.” This would be a natural result

of the success of the Assyrians (so it seemed to the earlier

Assyriologists), for surely Pir’u is Pharaoh, and Muṣuru is the Muṣur of

other inscriptions, and stands for Egypt (the Heb. Misraim(101)). This

however, is now denied, and Pir’u is said to be the name of a chief of an

Arab tribe called Muṣuru. It reminds one of the Eri-Eaku of Larsa who is

not Arioch of Elassar, contemporary of Kudur-laḫgumal of Elam who is not

Chedorlaomer of Elam, and Tudḫula who is admittedly the same in name as

Tidal, all of them ruling at or near the same period, but not those

referred to in Gen. xiv. as contemporaries. In Assyriology, more than in

any other study whatever, things are not what they seem, and must always

be identified with something else.

According to the annals, it would seem that Yau-bi’idi, who is there

called Ilu-bi’idi, acted in concert with Sib’e of Egypt and Hanon of Gaza,

the operations against him preceding those against the other two. The

order of the translation given above would seem to be preferable, as it

must have been in consequence of the flight of Sib’e “like a shepherd

whose sheep had been lost,” that Yau-bi’idi and Hanon of Gaza were so

easily defeated. The former appears to have made Qarqaru the centre from

which he intended to press his claim to the throne of Hamath, and he

managed so well, that he got Arpad, Simyra, Damascus, and Samaria to join

him. The Assyrian king, however, soon disposed of the pretensions of this

prince, whom he describes as “a loose (?) fellow, a usurper, a frivolous

(?), evil man” (_ṣab ḫubši, lâ-bêl-kussī, amēlu patû limnu_). After this

it is not surprising that he thought he was justified in flaying him

alive.

To all appearance the state of affairs in Syria was satisfactory. The

great victory of the Assyrians at Raphia had convinced the leaders of the

various states of the uselessness of continuing to struggle against the

power of the Assyrian king, who had nothing further to fear from Egypt,

and was therefore free to occupy himself with other conquests. In 719,

therefore, he turned his attention to the region of the north, the

kingdoms of Van and Urarṭu or Ararat, the result of the operations against

the latter being, that the people were transported to Syria, or, as the

original has it, “into Heth of the Amorites.” The operations in 718 B.C.

were against Kiakki of Sinuḫtu, a city in Tabal.

The next year, 717 B.C., came the turn of Pisîris of Carchemish, who had

tried to get Mitâ king of Musku to join him in a rebellion against

Assyria. Assyrians were after this settled there, and Carchemish became an

integral part of the Assyrian empire. The next entry in the Annals of

Sargon is a reference to the Pâpites and the Lalluknites, “dogs brought up

in his palace,” who planned treacherously against the land of Kakmê,

though the full extent of their crime is not stated. These people were

removed from their places, and sent down to the midst of Damascus of

Amoria (Syria). In this year Ḫumbanigaš of Elam died, and was succeeded by

Šutur-Nanḫundi, a man of a more peaceful character than his predecessor.

Extensive operations, chiefly in Ararat, are recorded for 716 B.C., in

which year also Bêl-šarra-uṣur, the city-chief of Kišešim, a Median

province, was deposed, and his territory added to the boundaries of

Assyria, together with several other west-Median districts. Among these

was Ḫarḫar, whose city-chief was driven away by the Assyrian king. This

city was re-peopled with prisoners of war, and its name having been

changed to Kar-Šarru-ukîn, made the capital of the province. The war

against Ararat continued during the next year, resulting in the submission

of Yanzû king of Na’iri or Mesopotamia. On the east, a rebellion in Ḫarḫar

was put down, and the city fortified as a defence against Media. In this

year people of Tumadu, Ibâdidu, Marsimanu, Ḫayapâ, and the remote Arbâa

(Arabs?), an unlettered tribe which had never paid tribute to an Assyrian

king, were overthrown, and the survivors transported to Samaria. The

receipt of tribute from Pir’u king of Muṣuru, Samsi queen of Aribbu

(Arabia), It’amra of the land of the Sabâa (Sabeans), kings of the

sea-coast and the desert, consisting of “gold, the produce of the

mountain, precious stones, ivory, seeds of the _ûšû_-tree, all kinds of

spices, horses and camels,”(102) is recorded.

To all appearance, Pir’u of Muṣuru is regarded as one of the kings of the

sea-coast and the desert, but whether this is evidence against his being

Pharaoh of Egypt or not, may be doubted. Egypt is as much a country of the

sea-coast as any part of Palestine, but it is naturally on the south shore

of the Mediterranean, and not on the east.

714 B.C. saw the continuance of the war with Ararat and its allies, and

seems to have resulted in its becoming an Assyrian province. In 713

expeditions were made, among other places, to west Media and Cilicia. In

712 B.C. he found himself obliged to proceed against Tarḫunazi of Meliddu,

who, driven from his capital by the Assyrians, shut himself up in

Tilgarimme, which had been identified with the Biblical Togarmah. This

city, having been conquered, was repeopled with the nomad Sutî(103) and

placed under Assyrian rule.

At this time, as Sargon says, he received the treasure (?) of the land of

Heth (the high-lands of Syria), among the things sent being copper, iron,

lead or tin, white marble from the Amanus mountains, royal garments of the

colour of _uknû_-stone (lapis-lazuli), something which came from the

mountain Ba’il-ṣapuna (Baal-zephon), “a great mountain,” and silver,

which, in consequence of the large consignments received at Dûr-Sargina

(Khorsabad), became in value like copper. The next year (711 B.C.) an

expedition against Muttallu, son of Tarḫulara, one of the kings of “the

land of Heth,” took place. The son had killed his father and mounted the

throne, hence the necessity for this campaign.

A similar expedition also took place to Ashdod. It happened that Azuri,

king of the district of which Ashdod was the capital, had withheld the

tribute agreed upon, and Sargon had therefore deposed him, and set his

brother Aḫi-miti in his place. The following is Sargon’s own account of

this, and the sequel—

“Azuri, king of Asdudu, planned in his heart not to send tribute, and sent

to the kings around hostile expressions (towards) the land of Aššur, and

on account of the evil he had done, I changed his dominion over the people

of his land. Aḫi-miti, his brother next in order, I appointed to the

kingdom over them. Men of Ḫattî,(104) speaking treachery, hated his

dominion, and raised up over them Yaana, a usurper, who like themselves

knew no reverence for the dominion. In the anger of my heart I went

hastily with the chariot of my feet and my cavalry, which for security

quit not my side, to the city Asdudu, the city of his dominion, and the

city Asdudu, the city Gimtu, (and) the city Asdudimma I besieged (and)

captured. The gods dwelling in the midst of them, himself, with the people

of his land, gold, silver, (and) the property of his palace, I counted as

spoil. Their cities I rebuilt,(105) and settled therein the people of the

lands captured by my hands. I placed my commander-in-chief as governor

over them, and counted them with the people of my land, and they bore my

yoke.”

Another inscription calls Yaana by the name of Yawani, and states that,

hearing from far of the advance of the Assyrian army, he fled to the

border of Muṣuru, which lies on the boundary of Meluḫḫa, and there hid

himself. The king of Meluḫḫa seems thereupon to have feared for his own

land, and placing Yatna in chains, sent him to Assyria. A third text

referring to this campaign adds the following details—

“(People) of the land of Pilište (Philistia), the land of Yaudu (Judah),

the land of Udumu (Edom), the land of Ma’abi (Moab), dwellers by the sea,

bringers of the tribute and the gift of Aššur my lord, (for)

sedition-mongering without measure, and evil, which was against me to

cause hostility, unto Pir’u, king of the land of Muṣri, a prince who could

not save them, they brought their homage-offering, and asked him for aid.

I, Sargina, the true prince, fearing the oath of Lag-gi (= Nebo) and

Merodach, keeper of the commands of the god Aššur, caused (my troops) to

cross the Tigris and the Euphrates at high water, the fulness of the

flood, as on dry land. And he, Yawani, their king, who trusted to his own

power, and had not submitted to my dominion, heard from afar of the march

of my expedition, and the glory of Aššur, my lord, overthrew him, and ...

of the region of the river ... depth of the waters ... possession (?) of

his land ... afar ... he fled ... Asdudu....”

In this, too, there is a reference to Pir’u, here called king of Muṣrí,

either Egypt, or that mysterious and otherwise unknown kingdom to whose

help so many trusted.

The years 710 and 709 B.C. were devoted to the operations against

Merodach-baladan, the Chaldean prince who had made himself master of

Babylonia. This is the Merodach-baladan who is referred to in 2 Kings xx.

12, but as his embassy really belongs to a somewhat later date, reference

will be made to it in its place. Suffice it here to say that he was a

usurper on the Babylonian throne, head of the Chaldean tribe called

Bît-Yakîn, and one of the most influential chieftains of the district. To

all appearance, the Babylonians themselves (as in earlier days when they

tried to seize the throne) preferred the Assyrians to the semi-barbarous

Chaldeans and Arameans, with whom they were, in fact, in too close

connection to have any great respect for. It is needless to say that this

entirely fell in with the ambition of the kings of Assyria, who, from the

time of Tukulti-Ninip, if not earlier, had desired, and sometimes

obtained, dominion over Babylonia. Sargon, the successor of two kings of

Assyria who were acknowledged to be at the same time kings of Babylonia,

naturally regarded himself as inheriting that crown in virtue of his being

king of Assyria, whilst the Babylonians themselves were probably not

displeased with the idea that they formed part of the world-renowned and

powerful Assyrian empire, whose kings spoke the same language as

themselves, and with whose religion they were in sympathy. Thus it

happened, therefore, that in the course of the operations against

Merodach-baladan, success frequently crowned the arms of the Assyrians,

and the inhabitants of Babylon, sending to Dûr-Ladinna, where Sargon was

staying, brought him in solemn possession to Babylon, where he made the

prescribed offerings to the gods, took up his abode in Merodach-baladan’s

palace, and received the tribute of the Babylonian tribes which he had

subjugated. He still continued, however, his operations against

Merodach-baladan, who was by no means willing to give up the struggle, to

which there could be one end only, namely, the overthrow of the Chaldean

king, which took place in 709 B.C.

Whilst Sargon was busy in Babylonia, the governor of Quê invaded Musku

(Mesech) and brought the country to subjection. The seven kings of Cyprus

also sent gifts, and a stele of Sargon was set up in the island, which,

though mutilated, is of considerable importance, and is now preserved in

the Berlin Museum. Kummuḫ (Comagene) was also added to the Assyrian empire

(708 B.C.), and probably in the same year, a new king (in consequence of a

dispute concerning the succession) set up in the land of Ellipu. In this

reign also, the Elamites were generally against the Assyrians in their

conflicts in Babylonia and on the eastern borders.

Concerning his death there is much uncertainty. The supposition is, that

he was assassinated by one of his soldiers, as is indicated by the entry

in an eponym-list with historical references—

_Lîmme Upaḫḫir-bêlu, D.P. šakin âl Amedi ..._

_îna êli purussî Kulummâa...._

_amēl tidûki madaktam ša šar mât Aššur D.S...._

_âraḫ Abi, ûmu šinšēru, Sin-âḫê-êriba (îna_

_kussī ittušib)._

“Eponymy of Upaḫḫir-bêlu, prefect of the city Amedu....

according to the oracle of the Kulummite(s)....

a soldier (entered) the camp of the king of Assyria (and killed

him?).

month Ab, day 12th, Sennacherib (sat on the throne”).

[Plate X.]

Reception by Sennachereb of Prisoners and Spoil. British Museum, Nineveh

Gallery, No. 57.

That he died a violent death seems to be nearly certain, and how many

others of the overbearing rulers of Assyria had come to an end in the same

way is not known. The fate of his son, to which reference will be made in

its place, is a historical fact.

Sennacherib.

Though in all probability young when he came to the throne in 705 B.C.,

Sennacherib had already some experience as a ruler, having been the

representative of his father Sargon in Armenia, where he had to receive

and transmit the reports of the Assyrian generals, and probably also to

administer the country. For the nations over which he was to rule,

however, he was practically a new and untried administrator, of whose

strength or weakness of character nothing was known. Merodach-baladan

therefore took advantage of the death of Sargon and the succession of his

son to come forth from his hiding-place, with such of his followers who

were available, and an army placed at his disposal by the king of Elam. To

all appearance the Chaldean ruler had taken advantage of the occupation of

the Assyrian army elsewhere to possess himself of Babylon, which city

Sennacherib entered, occupying Merodach-baladan’s palace, and seizing all

his treasures. Merodach-baladan fled and took refuge in Nagitu, on the

other side of the Persian Gulf, so as to be near his Elamite allies.

After this the Assyrian king records his expedition to the mountainous

countries of Kassû (the Cossæans) and the Yasubigalleans, north of Elam,

in the course of which he wasted the neighbouring district of Ellipu,

taking, on his way, tribute from some of the more inaccessible tribes of

the Medes. His third campaign was to the land of Ḫatti (Syria), and as

this is of considerable importance, a translation of the whole, from the

Taylor Cylinder, which gives a full account, is inserted here—

“In my third expedition I went to the land of Ḫatti. Lulî king of the city

of Ṣidunnu (Sidon), fear of the glory of my dominion struck him, and he

fled from the midst of Tyre to Yatnana(106) (Cyprus), which is in the

middle of the sea, and I subjugated his country. Great Ṣidunnu, little

Ṣidunnu, Bît-zitte, Ṣareptu (Zarephath), Maḫalliba, Ûšû (Osah), Akzibi

(Achzib), Akkû (Accho), his strong cities, fortresses, where were food and

drink, his strongholds, the terror of the weapons of Aššur my lord struck

them, and they submitted to my feet. Tu-ba’alu (Ethobaal) on the throne of

dominion over them I set, and the tax and tribute of my overlordship

yearly without fail I imposed upon him.

“As for Minḫimmu (Menahem) of the city of the Samsimurunâa;

Tu-ba’alu of the city of the Ṣidunnâa (Sidonians);

Abdi-li’iti of the city of the Arudâa (Arvadites);

Uru-milki of the city of the Gublâa (Gebalites);

Mitinti of the city of the Asdudâa (Ashdodites);

Budu-îlu of the land of the Bît-Ammanâa (Beth-Ammonites);

Kammusu-nadbi (Chemosh-nadab) of the land of the Ma’abâa

(Moabites);

Aa-rammu (Joram) of the land of the Udummâa (Edomites);

kings of the land of Amoria all of them, brought numerous treasures, their

valuable presents, as gifts to my presence and kissed my feet. And

Ṣidqâ(107) (Zedekiah), king of the city of Isqalluna (Askelon), who was

not submissive to my yoke, the gods of his father’s house, himself, his

wife, his sons, his daughters, his brothers, (and) the seed of his

father’s house, I removed and brought to the land of Aššur. Šarru-lûdâri,

son of Rûkibtu, their former king, I placed over the people of the city of

Isqalluna, and the payment of tribute as the price of my overlordship I

set for him, and he bore my yoke. In the course of my campaign the city

Bît-Daganna (Beth-Dagon), Yappû (Joppa), Banâa-barqa (Bene-berak), Azuru

(Azor), cities of Ṣidqâ which were not at once submissive to my yoke, I

besieged, captured, (and) carried off their spoil.

“The prefects, the princes, and the people of the city Amqarruna (Ekron),

who had thrown Padî, their king, who was faithful to the agreement and

oath of the land of Aššur, into fetters of iron, and given him to Ḫazaqiau

(Hezekiah), of the land of the Yaudâa (Jews)—hostilely in secret they had

acted—feared in their hearts. The kings of the land of Muṣuru (Egypt),

(and) the soldiers of the bow, the chariots, (and) the horses of the king

of the land of Meluḫḫa, gathered to themselves a numberless force, and

came to their help. Over against me in sight of Altaqû (Eltekah) their

line of battle was set in array, they called for their weapons. In the

service of Aššur my lord I fought with them and accomplished their defeat.

The charioteers and the sons of the king of the Muṣurâa (Egyptians), with

the charioteers of the king of the land of Meluḫḫa, my hands captured

alive in the midst of the battle. (As for) the city of Altaqû (Eltekah)

(and) the city of Tamnâ (Timnah), I besieged, captured, (and) carried off

their spoil.

“I approached to the city of Amqarruna, and the prefects and princes who

had caused the wrong to be, I killed, and on stakes around the city I hung

their corpses. The sons of the city doing the crime and misdeed I counted

as spoil. The rest of them, who did not commit sin and wickedness, whose

evil deed was not, I commanded their release. I caused Padî, their king,

to come forth from the midst of Ursalimmu (Jerusalem), and to sit on the

throne of dominion over them, and the tribute of my overlordship I imposed

upon him. And (as for) Hazaqiau (Hezekiah) of the land of the Yaudâa

(Jews), who had not submitted to my yoke, 46 of his strong cities,

fortresses, and small towns which were around them, which were

innumerable, with overthrowing by battering-rams, and advance of towers,

infantry-attack, breaching, cutting, and earthworks, I besieged (and)

captured. 200,150 people, small and great, male and female, horses, mules,

asses, camels, oxen, and sheep, which were without number, from their

midst I caused to come forth and reckoned as spoil. As for him, like a

cage-bird I shut him up within Ursalimmu, the city of his dominion.

Redoubts I threw up around him, and I cut off the exit from the great gate

of his city—it was (completely) covered. His cities, which I had spoiled,

I detached from the midst of his country, and gave (them) to Mitintu, king

of Asdudu (Ashdod), Padî, king of Amqarruna (Ekron), and Ṣilli-bêl, king

of the city Ḫazitu (Gaza), and (thus) reduced his land. Over the former

tribute, their yearly gift, I added a payment as to the due of my

overlordship, and imposed it upon them. As for him, Ḫazaqiau (Hezekiah),

fear of the magnificence of my lordship struck him, and the _urbi_ and his

chosen soldiers, which he had brought in for the defence of Ursalimmu, the

city of his kingdom, and (who) had pay, with 30 talents of gold, 800

talents of silver, precious (stones), _guḫli_, _daggassi_,(108) great

carbuncles (?), couches of ivory, state thrones of ivory, elephant-skin,

elephant-tooth (ivory), ebony (?), _urkarinnu_-wood, all sorts of

things,(109) a valuable treasure, and his daughters, the women of his

palace, male singers (and) female singers, he(110) caused to be brought

after me to the midst of Ninua (Nineveh), the city of my dominion, and he

sent his messenger to present the gift and pay homage.”

It is needless to say that the above long account differs considerably

from that given in the Bible (2 Kings xviii. 13; Isa. xxxvi. 1 ff.), and

it is very difficult to reconcile the two narratives. According to the

account in Kings, Sennacherib came and took all the fenced cities of

Judah, but there is no statement as to the reason why. The Assyrian king

justifies his invasion of the country by stating that Hezekiah had sided

with the inhabitants of Ekron in the deposition of their king, whom he had

received from them and kept in prison. He even states that he brought him

forth from Jerusalem and replaced him on the throne. That this

circumstance is not referred to in the Biblical account, cannot be held to

indicate that the Assyrian king’s story is wrong, and only shows that the

writer of the 2nd Book of the Kings did not think it of sufficient

importance to record. In all probability, Hezekiah did not know at the

time that Padî was an Assyrian vassal, otherwise he would not have

incurred the risk of an invasion of his country by the dreaded Assyrians.

The Biblical account then states that Hezekiah sent to the king at

Lachish, saying that he had offended, and asking for terms, a fact which

indicates that he was aware of having done something at which the king of

Assyria might justly take offence. The answer was, the fixing of the

amount of tribute which Hezekiah had to pay—300 talents of silver and 30

talents of gold, this latter item agreeing with the statement of

Sennacherib himself, though the amount of silver which he mentions—800

talents—is much greater. The sacrifice which Hezekiah made on this

occasion (he had to strip off the gold from the doors of the Temple, and

also from the pillars which he had overlaid, to make up the sum) was

considerable. Concerning a siege of Jerusalem at this point, however,

there is not a single word in the Biblical account, and the general

opinion is, that the Assyrian king has purposely combined two accounts to

give an appearance of success to what, in 2 Kings xix. 35-37, appears to

have been a serious disaster to the Assyrian arms.

It is worthy of note, however, that Josephus makes the siege of Jerusalem

to have taken place when Sennacherib was returning from Egypt, where he

had spent a long time besieging Pelusium (_Ant._ x. i. 4), which was

regarded as the key of Egypt. In support of this he quotes Herodotus, who,

according to him, made a great mistake “when he called this king not king

of the Assyrians, but of the Arabians.” This, however, is not quite

correct, as Herodotus really says (book ii. 141), “Sennacherib king of the

Arabians and of the Assyrians.” That it took place on his return from

Egypt, however, is also stated by Berosus, whom Josephus quotes in full,

as follows—

“Now when Sennacherib was returning from his Egyptian war to Jerusalem, he

found his army under Rabshakeh in great danger, for God had sent a

pestilential distemper upon his army; and on the very first night of the

siege, a hundred and eighty-five thousand, with their captains and

generals, were destroyed. So the king was in a great dread, and in a

terrible agony at this calamity; and being in great fear for his whole

army, he fled with the rest of his forces to his own kingdom, and to his

city Nineveh, and when he had abode there a little while, he was

treacherously assaulted, and died by the hands of his elder sons,

Adramelech and Sarasar, and was slain in his own temple which was called

Araske. Now these sons of his were driven away on account of the murder of

their father, by the citizens, and went into Armenia, whilst Assarachoddas

took the kingdom of Sennacherib.”

This would seem to be conclusive, especially as Sennacherib, according to

his own records, made no expedition to Egypt before or at the time of that

against the land of Ḫatti, which took place in the eponymy of Mitunu,

prefect of Isana, _i.e._ 700 B.C., or the year immediately preceding. Now

as Sennacherib died in 681 B.C., nearly twenty years elapsed between the

campaign of which the account is above translated and his death. Berosus,

however, states that, after the siege of Jerusalem, which ended so

disastrously for him, he abode at Nineveh only “a little while” before he

was murdered. There is then no doubt that there were two campaigns, and

the events referred to in 2 Kings xviii. 13-xix. 37, though they seem to

follow each other with little or no break, must have extended over a

considerable period, the widest gap being in all probability between the

sixteenth and seventeenth verses of ch. xviii. It is noteworthy that, at

this point, the Hebrew indicates the end of a paragraph, though not a

change of subject.

Affairs in Babylonia now occupied the attention of Sennacherib for many

years, in consequence of the many revolutions there, which were largely

fomented, aided and abetted by the Elamites. In 703 B.C., two pretenders,

Marduk-zakir-šumi and Marduk-âbla-iddina, held the throne in succession

for a few months, but Sennacherib put an end to this rule by setting on

the throne a Chaldean named Bêl-ibnî (Belibus).(111) This took place when

he defeated Merodach-baladan, before the campaign against the West.

Evidently, however, he was not satisfied with the rule of his nominee, who

had probably been plotting against him, and therefore entered the country

again in 699 B.C., carried away Bêl-ibnî prisoner, and set on the throne

his own eldest son, Aššur-nadin-šum. After this seems to have occurred his

fifth expedition, which was to the mountainous region where lay the cities

Tumurru, Šarum or Šarma, Ezema, Kibšu, Ḫalbuda, Qûa, and Qana, in the

neighbourhood of Cilicia, his objective being the city Ukku, which was

taken and spoiled.

Whilst absent on this expedition, however, the Elamites seem to have been

again plotting against the Assyrians in Babylonia. This being the case,

Sennacherib went in “ships of the land of Ḫatti” to the place where

Merodach-baladan(112) had taken refuge, namely, “Nagitu of Elam.”(113) On

this occasion, he claims to have captured Šûzubu (otherwise

Nergal-ušêzib), and carried him in chains to Assyria. This led to

reprisals on the part of the Elamites, who invaded Babylonia, carried

Aššur-nadin-šum, the king, Sennacherib’s son, prisoner, and set on the

throne Nergal-ušêzib, who, if he be the Šûzubu referred to by Sennacherib,

must have escaped from the custody of the Assyrians. This was in 693 B.C.

Nergal-ušêzib only ruled for a year or eighteen months, and was captured

(? again) by the Assyrians. The Assyrian king now ravaged Elam “from Râš

to Bît-Burnaki,” but his army would have been better employed in watching

over affairs in Babylonia, where another pretender, Mušêzib-Marduk, sat on

the throne, and ruled for four years. During this time he, too, found that

his seat was not altogether a bed of roses, for Menanu, king of Elam,

after a battle with the Assyrians,(114) captured Mušêzib-Marduk with an

army composed of Elamites and Babylonians, and delivered him to the

Assyrians. Sennacherib now again (688 B.C.) became king of Babylonia, and

it is thought that, on taking possession of the capital again, out of

revenge for the loss of his son, and on account of the trouble he had had

in consequence of the Babylonians running after the many pretenders, with

which the land seems to have teemed, he destroyed the city of Babylon,

committing such cruelties that they were remembered to the end, and sowed

the seeds of that hatred which were to bring forth for Assyria that

deadliest of all fruit—her own destruction.

In the eight years which passed between his assuming the reins of power in

Babylonia and his death, must be placed that expedition to Egypt spoken of

by Berosus and Herodotus. The version of the former, which refers

principally to the siege of Jerusalem, is quoted above (p. 378); the

following is the account of the latter—

“After this, Sanacharib, king of the Arabians and of the Assyrians,

marched a great host against Egypt. Then the warriors of the Egyptians

refused to come to the rescue, and the priest (Hephaistos, whose name was

Sethos),(115) being driven into a strait, entered into the sanctuary of

the temple and bewailed to the image of the god the danger which was

impending over him; and as he was thus lamenting, sleep came upon him, and

it seemed to him in his vision that the god came out and stood by him and

encouraged him, saying that he should suffer no evil if he went forth to

meet the army of the Arabians, for he would himself send him helpers.

Trusting in these things seen in sleep, he took with him, they say, those

of the Egyptians who were willing to follow him, and encamped in Pelusion,

for by this way the invasion came; and not one of the warrior class

followed him, but shopkeepers and artisans and men of the market. Then

after they came, there swarmed by night upon the enemies mice of the

fields, and ate up their quivers and their bows, and moreover the handles

of their shields, so that on the next day they fled, and being without

defence of arms great numbers fell. And at the present time this king

stands in the temple of Hephaistos in stone, holding upon his head a

mouse, and by letters inscribed he says these words, ‘Let him who looks

upon me learn to fear the gods.’ ”

Josephus’s quotation from Herodotus differs somewhat from the above, in

that he makes the Egyptian king to pray to God (and not before his image),

and omits all reference to the dream. This was doubtless to make the

parallel with the case of Hezekiah more striking.

[Plate XI.]

Sennacherib before Lachish. For the translation of the inscription, see

the opposite page. British Museum, Assyrian Saloon. The face of the king

is mutilated in the original bas-relief, and has been restored.

The precise date of this expedition to Egypt and second siege of Jerusalem

is unknown, but it must have taken place between 688 and 680 B.C. It is

not by any means improbable that the date may some time or other be fixed,

for an account of it will probably be found in the ruins of the cities of

Assyria somewhere. That Herodotus calls Sennacherib “king of the Arabians

and the Assyrians” is probably due to the fact that he seems to have been

in alliance with “the queen of the Aribi”—_(šar)rat_ D.P. _Aribi_—or

Arabians, at the time. Esarhaddon speaks of his father Sennacherib as

having captured the Arabian city Adumū, and inscriptions of

Aššur-banî-âpli also refer to Sennacherib’s expedition thither, and to his

connection with an Arabian king named Ḫaza-îlu (Hazael). With regard to

Palestine itself, the reality of the siege of Lachish is testified to by

the fact, that a large portion of Sennacherib’s sculptures represent him

as being present at the siege of Lachish in person, when the prisoners and

the booty taken were passed before him in procession. The inscription

accompanying this scene reads as follows—

“Sin-âḫê-iriba, king of the world, king of the land Aššur,

sat upon his throne of state, and

the spoil of Lakisu

passed before him.”

It would be strange indeed if this event, of which he was evidently very

proud, were omitted from the history of what he must have regarded as his

glorious deeds. As it does not occur in the account of his expedition to

the land of Ḫatti, there is hardly any doubt that it belongs to the later

campaign there, when he took the city, though he failed, as has been seen,

to take Jerusalem. In all probability there were two sieges of Lachish,

and it was very possible that the city was taken only on the second

occasion. In any case, it was from Lachish that Sennacherib sent the

Tartan, the Rabsaris, and the Rabshakeh to Hezekiah, with a great army to

besiege Jerusalem, and it is noteworthy that the Rabshakeh reproaches him

with trusting to Egypt, the power with which Assyria was at that moment in

conflict; and in Sennacherib’s second message to Hezekiah (2 Kings xix. 9)

the words accompanying it clearly show that the general opinion was, that

it was the march of Tirhakah against him which called it forth. It is

noteworthy in this connection, that Tirhakah cannot have been on the

throne of Egypt so early as 700 B.C., the date of Sennacherib’s first

campaign against the West.

There are therefore many arguments in favour of two expeditions of

Sennacherib to Palestine, with two sieges of Jerusalem, and also, to all

appearance, two sieges of Lachish.

The following is the account of his death given in the Babylonian

Chronicle—

“On the 20th day of Tebet, Sin-âḫê-eriba, king of Assyria, his son killed

him in a revolt. For (? 25) years Sin-âḫê-eriba had ruled the kingdom of

Assyria. From the 20th day of the month Tebet until the 2nd day of the

month Adar, the revolt in Assyria continued. Month Adar, day 18th,

Aššur-âḫâ-iddina (Esarhaddon), his son, sat upon the throne in Assyria.”

According to Berosus, who agrees with the Biblical account in this, it was

two of his sons who killed him, but it may be taken that, though they were

both morally responsible, one only actually performed the deed. Shareser

is not mentioned, either by Abydenus or Polyhistor, as taking part in the

murder; it would seem to be very probable, that Adrammelech was the

culprit. From Berosus it is also clear that Esarhaddon had nothing to do

with it, and this is to a certain extent confirmed by his inscriptions,

which, as will be seen farther on, represent him as warring in Armenia,

whither his brothers had fled.

According to the received chronology, the assassination of Sennacherib and

the accession of Esarhaddon took place in the year 680 B.C.

Esarhaddon.

It is a matter greatly to be regretted that the royal inscriptions of

Esarhaddon have not come down to us in a complete state, and also that we

do not possess the later portions of the Assyrian Eponym Canon with

historical references, which would enable us to fix the date of the

campaigns. Of course, there is every probability that they are mentioned

in chronological order, but as their dates are not stated, at least some

uncertainty must prevail.

[Plate XII.]

Esarhaddon, King of Assyria. The kneeling figure, which has the negro type

of features and wears the uraeus ornament, is apparently Tirhakah, his

opponent in Egypt. The prisoners here represented are regarded as being

treated as the same king treated Manasseh (2 Chr. xxxiii. 11, R.V. marg.).

Found at Zenjirli. From _Mittheilungen aus den Orientalischen Sammlungen_,

Part XI., by permission of the publishing-house of Georg Reimer, Berlin.

It is therefore impossible to say with certainty whether the recital, in

forcible though apparently well-chosen language, of what took place in

Ḫanigalbat, or Mesopotamia, belongs to the account of the conflict with

his brothers (who would have liked to overthrow Esarhaddon that one of

them might reign in his stead) or not. The wording, however, makes it very

probable that the narrative does refer to them, for he overtook them on

the Nineveh road, and the disappearance of their resistance was more than

gratifying to the new king—

“The Nineveh-road, with difficulty (but) speedily, I traversed—

before me, in the land of Ḫani-galbat, the whole of their mighty

warriors halted before my expedition, and prepared their weapons.

The fear of the great gods, my lords, overwhelmed them, and

the attack of my mighty battle they saw, and became as demented.

Ištar, lady of war and battle, lover of my priesthood,

stood by my side, and broke their bows.

She scattered their serried battle(-array), and

in their assembled mass they called out thus:

“This is our king.”

By her supreme command they came over to my side.”

Oracles encouraging Esarhaddon exist, and possibly refer to this

expedition.

Unfortunately the mutilation of the record, by which the beginning is

wanting, has deprived us of the names of both conspirators, which are,

therefore, only preserved by the Bible, Berosus, Abydenus, and Polyhistor.

Various have been the conjectures as to what the true Assyrian forms of

the names would be, and only one, that of Adrammelech, has been found with

any probability of its being the right one. The name in question is that

of Aššur-munik, or, perhaps better, Aššur-mulik, for whom Sennacherib

built a palace. From its form in Hebrew, Sharezer should be Šar-uṣur in

Assyrian, _i.e._ “protect the king,” the name of the deity called upon

being omitted.

Though Esarhaddon’s inscriptions do not give any chronological data, the

Babylonian chronicle indicates the dates of his campaigns with sufficient

precision. From it we learn that in his first year he had to put down a

rebellion in Ur, led by Zēru-kênu-lîšir, whom Esarhaddon calls

Nabû-zēr-napišti-lîšir, son of Merodach-baladan. In the year 676 B.C., his

expedition to Sidon took place, and Abdi-milkutti, the king, was beheaded

in 675. After taking the spoil of the city, he says that he “assembled the

kings of Ḫatti and the sea-coast, all of them,” and there is every

probability that it was at this time that he “took Menasseh with hooks,”

or, as the Revised Version has it, with chains, and bound him with

fetters, and brought him to Babylon, where, as sovereign of that land

also, he sometimes held court. Though severe, and probably also cruel

sometimes, Esarhaddon was more mercifully inclined than his father, and

allowed Menasseh to resume the reins of government at Jerusalem. There is

no reference to this in the inscriptions of Esarhaddon, though he

mentions, in his list of tributaries, Menasseh king of the city of Judah.

This list, which is from a cylinder-inscription, is as follows—

“I gathered also the kings of Ḫatti and across the river ...

Ba’alu king of Ṣurru (Tyre): Menasê (Menasseh) king of the city of

Yaudu:

Qauš-gabri, king of the city of Udumu (Edom); Muṣur’i, king of the

city Ma’ab (Moab);

Ṣilli-bêlu, king of the city of Ḫazitu (Gaza); Mitinti, king of

the city of Isqaluna (Askelon);

Ikausu, king of the city of Amqarruna (Ekron); Milki-ašapa, king

of the city of Gublu (Gebal);

Matan-ba’al, king of the city of Aruadu (Arvad); Abi-baal, king of

the city of Samsimuruna;

Budu-ilu, king of the city Bêt-Ammana (Beth-Ammon); Aḫi-milki,

king of the city of Asdudu (Ashdod);

12 kings of the sea-coast. Ekištura, king of the city Edi’al

(Idalium);

Pilâgurâ, king of the city of Kidrusu; Kîsu, king of the city

Sillûa;

Itûandar, king of the city Pappa (Paphos); Erêsu, king of the city

of Sillu;

Damasu, king of the city Kurî (Kurium); Admezu, king of the city

Tamesu (Tamessus);

Damûsi, king of the city Karti-ḫadasti (the new town, a Phœnician

settlement);

Unasagusu, king of the city Lidir; Buṣusu, king of the city Nurîa:

10 kings of the land of Yatnana (Cyprus), within the sea—

altogether 22 kings of the land of Ḫatti, the sea-coast and the

middle of the sea, all of them,

I directed, and great beams, enormous poles,

trunks of cedar and cypress from the midst of Sirara

and Libnana (Lebanon) (etc., etc., etc.),

from the midst of the wooded mountains,

the place of their growing,

for the requirements of my palace,

with toil and with difficulty

I caused them to be brought to Nineveh.”

The tribute which he exacted was not, therefore, a tribute of gold,

silver, and other precious things, but simply the building materials which

Esarhaddon required for his palace, and the kings of Heth, including

Menasseh, contributed to this together with the kings of Cyprus—and to all

appearance they had to transport these things to Nineveh! It was the

labour and expense of transport rather than the material itself, which

rendered this tribute so precious.

Judging from his records, Esarhaddon was fully as active as the other

kings of Assyria in making conquests. He attacked the people of Armenia

(the Mannâa), the rebellious land of Barnaku—“those who dwell in the land

of Til-Ašurri,”(116)—the Medes, the Chaldeans, the Arabians (see p. 382),

and Egypt, in the direction of which he had already made a little

expedition (to the cities of Arzâ and Aaki (?) of the brook of

Egypt—probably the river of Egypt of Gen. xv. 18, and other passages). His

first real expedition to Egypt, however, was in the tenth year of his

reign (670 B.C.). Three battles were fought there, and Memphis was

captured by the Assyrians on the 22nd of Tammuz. Whether he really and

effectually subjugated the country or not, is not known, but he again

marched to the same place in the last year of his reign, and falling ill

on the road, died on the 10th day of Marcheswan. He was succeeded by

Aššur-banî-âpli (Asshur-bani-pal) in Assyria, and Šamaš-šum-ukîn

(Saosduchinos) in Babylonia, and the two kingdoms, united by so much

bloodshed, became once more separated (668 B.C.).

Aššur-Banî-Âpli.