THE BEGINNINGS OF THE ASSYRIAN KINGDOM.
To relegate Ninus and Semiramis with all their works and deeds to the
realm of fiction may appear to be a startling step, going beyond the
limits of a prudent criticism. Does not Ctesias state accurately the
years of the reigns: Ninus reigned, according to his statement, 52
years; Semiramis was 62 years old, and reigned 42 years? Do not the
chronographers assure us that in Ctesias the successors of Ninus and
Semiramis, from Ninyas to Sardanapalus, the last ruler over Assyria, 34
kings, were enumerated, and the length of their reigns accurately given,
and has not Eusebius actually preserved this list? Since, at the same
time, we find out, through Diodorus and the chronographers, as well as
through this list, that Ctesias fixed the continuance of the Assyrian
kingdom at more than 1300 years, or more exactly at 1306, and the fall
of the kingdom took place according to his reckoning in the year 883
B.C., Ninus must on these dates have ascended the throne in the year
2189 B.C. (883 + 1306), and the reign of Semiramis commenced in 2137
B.C. (883 + 1254). Eusebius himself puts the accession of Ninus at 2057
B.C.[27]
If in spite of these accurate statements we persist in refusing to give
credit to Ctesias, Berosus remains, who, according to the evidence of
the chronographers, dealt with the rule of Semiramis over Assyria. After
mentioning the dynasty of the Medes which reigned over Babylon from
2458-2224 B.C., the dynasty of the Elamites (2224-1976 B.C.), of the
Chaldaeans (1976-1518 B.C.), and of the Arabs, who are said to have
reigned over Babylon from the year 1518 to the year 1273 B.C., Berosus
mentioned the rule of Semiramis over the Assyrians. "After this," so we
find it in Polyhistor, "Berosus enumerates the names of 45 kings
separately, and allotted to them 526 years. After them there was a king
of the Chaldaeans named Phul, and after him Sennacherib, the king of the
Assyrians, whose son, Esarhaddon, then reigned in his place."[28] If we
take these 45 kings for kings of Assyria, who ruled over this kingdom
after Semiramis, then, by allowing the supplements of these series of
kings previously mentioned (I. 247), the era of these 45 kings will
begin in the year 1273 B.C. and end in 747 B.C., and the date of
Semiramis will fall immediately before the year 1273 B.C. In the view of
Herodotus, Ninus was at the head of the Assyrian empire, but not
Semiramis. As already observed (p. 14), he mentions Semiramis as a queen
of Babylon, and does not place her higher than the middle of the seventh
century B.C.;[29] but he regards the dominion of Assyria over Upper Asia
as commencing far earlier. Before the Persians the Medes ruled over Asia
for 156 years; before them the Assyrians ruled for 520 years; the Medes
were the first of the subject nations who rebelled against the
Assyrians; the rest of the nations followed their example. As the Median
empire fell before the attack of the Persians in 558 B.C., the
beginning of the Median empire would fall in the year 714 B.C. (558 +
156), and consequently the beginning of the Assyrian kingdom in the year
1234 B.C. (714 + 520), _i.e._ four or five decades later than Berosus
puts the death of Semiramis. For the date of the beginning of the
Assyrian dominion Herodotus and Berosus would thus be nearly in
agreement. It has been assumed that the 45 kings whom the latter
represents as following Semiramis were kings of Assyria, who ruled at
the same time over Babylon, and were thus regarded as a Babylonian
dynasty. This agreement would be the more definite if it could be
supposed that, according to the view of Herodotus, the beginning of the
156 years which he gives to the Median empire was separated by an
interval of some decades from the date of their liberation from the
power of the Assyrians. In this case the empire of the Assyrians over
Asia would not have commenced very long before the year 1273 B.C., and
would have extended from that date over Babylonia. In complete
contradiction to this are the statements of Ctesias, which carry us back
beyond 2000 B.C. for the commencement of the Assyrian empire. They
cannot be brought into harmony with the statements of Herodotus, even if
the time allotted by Ctesias to the Assyrian empire (1306 years) is
reckoned from the established date of the conquest of Nineveh by the
Medes and Babylonians (607 B.C.). The result of such a calculation (607
+ 1306) carries us back to 1913 B.C., a date far higher than Herodotus
and Berosus give.
Is it possible in any other way to approach more closely to the
beginning of the Assyrian kingdom, the date of its foundation, or the
commencement of its conquests? We have already seen how the Pharaohs of
Egypt, after driving out the shepherds in the sixteenth and fifteenth
centuries B.C., reduced Syria to subjection; how the first and third
Tuthmosis, the second and third Amenophis, forced their way beyond Syria
to Naharina. The land of Naharina, in the inscriptions of these kings,
was certainly not the Aram Naharaim, the high land between the Euphrates
and Tigris, in the sense of the books of the Hebrews. It was not
Mesopotamia, but simply "the land of the stream (Nahar)." For the
Hebrews also Nahar, _i.e._ river, means simply the Euphrates. It has
been already shown that the arms of the Egyptians hardly went beyond the
Chaboras to the east; and if the inscriptions of Tuthmosis III.
represent him as receiving on his sixth campaign against the Syrians,
_i.e._ about the year 1584 B.C., the tribute of Urn Assuru, _i.e._ of
the chieftain of Asshur, consisting of 50 minae of lapis-lazuli; if these
inscriptions in the year 1579 once more mention among the tribute of the
Syrians the tribute of this prince in lapis-lazuli, cedar-trunks, and
other wood, it is still uncertain whether the chief of the Assyrians is
to be understood by this prince. Had Tuthmosis III. really reached and
crossed the Tigris, were Assuru Assyria, then from the description of
this prince, and the payment of tribute in lapis-lazuli and
cedar-trunks, we could draw the conclusion that Assyria in the first
half of the sixteenth century B.C. was still in the commencement of its
civilisation, whereas we found above that as early as the beginning of
the twentieth century B.C. Babylonia was united into a mighty kingdom,
and had made considerable advance in the development of her
civilisation.
Our hypothesis was that the Semites, who took possession of the valley
of the Euphrates, were immigrants from the south, from Arabia, and that
this new population forced its way by successive steps up the
river-valley. We were able to establish the fact that the earliest
governments among the immigrants were formed on the lower course of the
Euphrates, and that the centre of the state in these regions slowly
moved upwards towards Babel. We found, further, that Semitic tribes went
in this direction as far as the southern slope of the Armenian
table-land.[30] In this way the region on the Tigris, afterwards called
Assyria, was reached and peopled by the Semites. With the Hebrews
Asshur, beside Arphaxad and Aram, beside Elam and Lud, is the seed of
Shem. "From Shinar" (_i.e._ from Babylonia), we are told in Genesis,
"Asshur went forth and built Nineveh, and Rehoboth-Ir, and Chalah, and
Resen between Nineveh and Chalah, which is the great city." There is no
reason to call in question this statement that Assyria was peopled and
civilised from Babylonia. Language, writing, and religion exhibit the
closest relationship and agreement between Babylonia and Assyria.
On the west bank of the Tigris, some miles above the confluence of the
Lesser Zab, at the foot of a ridge of hills, lie the remains of an
ancient city. The stamps on the tiles of these ruins tell us that the
name of the city was Asshur. Tiglath Pilesar, a king of Assyria, the
first of the name, whose reign, though we cannot fix the date precisely,
may certainly be put about the year 1110 B.C., narrates in his
inscriptions: The temple of the gods Anu and Bin, which Samsi-Bin, the
son of Ismidagon, built at Asshur 641 years previously, had fallen down;
King Assur-dayan had caused the ruins to be removed without rebuilding
it. For 60 years the foundations remained untouched; he, Tiglath
Pilesar, restored this ancient sanctuary. Tiles from this ruin on the
Tigris, from this city of Asshur, establish also the fact that a prince
named Samsi-Bin, son of Ismidagon, once ruled and built in this city of
Asshur. They have the inscription: "Samsi-Bin, the son of Ismidagon,
built the temple of the god Asshur."[31] Hence Samsi-Bin built temples
in the city of Asshur to the god Asshur as well as to the gods Anu and
Bin. His date falls, according as the 60 years of the inscription of
Tiglath Pilesar, during which the temple of Anu and Bin was not in
existence, are added to the space of 641 years or included in them,
either about the year 1800 or 1740 B.C.; the date of his father
Ismidagon about the year 1830 or 1770 B.C.
In any case it is clear that a place of the name of Asshur, the site of
which is marked by the ruins of Kileh-Shergat, was inhabited about the
year 1800 B.C., and that about this time sanctuaries were raised in it.
The name of the place was taken from the god specially worshipped there.
As Babel (Gate of El) was named after the god El, Asshur was named after
the god of that name. The city was Asshur's city, the land Asshur's
land. Beside the city of Asshur, about 75 miles up the Tigris, there
must have been at the time indicated a second place of the name of Ninua
(Nineveh), the site of which is marked by the ruins of Kuyundshik and
Nebbi Yunus (opposite Mosul), since, according to the statement of
Shalmanesar I., king of Assyria, Samsi-Bin built another temple here to
the goddess Istar.[32] Ismidagon, as well as Samsi-Bin, is called in the
inscription of Tiglath Pilesar I. "Patis of Asshur." The meaning of this
title is not quite clear; the word is said to mean viceroy. If by this
title a vice-royalty over the land of Asshur is meant, we may assume
that Assyria was a colony of Babylonia--that it was under the supremacy
of the kings of Babylon, and ruled by their viceroys. But since at a
later period princes of Assyria called themselves "Patis of Asshur," as
well as "kings of Asshur," the title may be explained as meaning that
the old princes of Assyria called themselves viceroys of the god of the
land, of the god Asshur. Moreover, it would be strange that a colony of
Babylonia, which was under the supremacy of that country, should make
its protecting god a deity different from that worshipped in Babylonia.
From this evidence we may assume that about the year 1800 B.C. a state
named Asshur grew up between the Tigris and the Lesser Zab. This state
must have passed beyond the lower stages of civilisation at the time
when the princes erected temples to their gods at more than one chief
place in their dominions, when they could busy themselves with buildings
in honour of the gods after the example of the ancient princes of Erech
and Nipur, of Hammurabi, and his successors at Babylon. With this result
the statements in the inscriptions of Tuthmosis III do not entirely
agree. Two hundred years after the time of Ismidagon and Samsi-Bin they
speak only of the chief of Asshur, and of tribute in lapis-lazuli and
tree-trunks; but this divergence is not sufficient to make us affirm
with certainty that the "Assuru" of Tuthmosis has no reference whatever
to Assyria. If we were able to place the earliest formation of a state
on the Lower Euphrates about the year 2500 B.C., the beginnings of
Assyria, according to the inferences to be drawn from the evidence of
the first Tiglath Pilesar and the tiles of Kileh-Shergat, could not be
placed later than the year 2000 B.C.
Beside Ismidagon and Samsi-Bin, the inscriptions of Tiglath Pilesar and
the tiles of the ruins of Kileh-Shergat mention four or five other names
of princes who belong to the early centuries of the Assyrian empire, but
for whom we cannot fix any precise place. The date of the two kings, who
on Assyrian tablets are the contemporaries of Binsumnasir of Babylon,
Assur-nirar, and Nabudan, could not have been fixed with certainty if
other inscriptions had not made us acquainted with the princes who ruled
over Assyria in succession from 1460--1280 B.C.[33] From these we may
assume that Assur-nirar and Nabudan must have reigned before this series
of princes, _i.e._ before 1460 B.C., from which it further follows that
from about the year 1500 B.C. onwards Assyria was in any case an
independent state beside Babylon. We found above that the treaty which
Assur-bil-nisi, king of Assyria, concluded about the year 1450 B.C. with
Karaindas, king of Babylon, for fixing the boundaries, must have been
preceded by hostile movements on the part of both kingdoms. We saw that
Assur-bil-nisi's successor, Busur-Assur, concluded a treaty with the
same object with Purnapuryas of Babylon, and that Assur-u-ballit, who
succeeded Busur-Assur on the throne of Assyria, gave his daughter in
marriage to Purnapuryas. In order to avenge the murder of Karachardas,
the son of Purnapuryas by this marriage, who succeeded his father on the
throne of Babylon, Assur-u-ballit invaded Babylonia and placed
Kurigalzu, another son of Purnapuryas, on the throne. We might assume
that about this time, _i.e._ about 1400 B.C., the borders of Assyria
and Babylonia touched each other in the neighbourhood of the modern
Aker-Kuf, the ancient Dur-Kurigalzu.[34] Assur-u-ballit, who restored
the temple of Istar at Nineveh which Samsi-Bin had built, was followed
by Pudiel, Bel-nirar, and Bin-nirar.[35] The last tells us, on a stone
of Kileh-Shergat, that Assur-u-ballit conquered the land of Subari,
Bel-nirar the army of Kassi, that Pudiel subjugated all the land as far
as the distant border of Guti; he himself overcame the armies of Kassi,
Guti, Lulumi and Subari; the road to the temple of the god Asshur, his
lord, which had fallen down, he restored with earth and tiles, and set
up his tablet with his name, "on the twentieth day of the month
Muhurili, in the year of Salmanurris."[36]
Bin-nirar's son and successor was Shalmanesar I., who ascended the
throne of Assyria about 1340 B.C. We learnt above from Genesis, that
"Asshur built the cities of Nineveh, Rehoboth-Ir, Resen and Chalah."
Assur-nasirpal, who ruled over Assyria more than 400 years after
Shalmanesar I., tells us that "Shalmanesar the mighty, who lived before
him, founded the ancient city of Chalah."[37] It is thus clear that
Assyria before the year 1300 B.C. obtained a third residence in addition
to the cities of Asshur and Nineveh. Like Asshur and Nineveh, it lay on
the banks of the Tigris, about 50 miles to the north of Asshur, and 25
to the south of Nineveh. It was not, however, like Asshur, situated on
the western bank of the river, but on the eastern, like Nineveh, a
little above the junction of the Upper Zab, in a position protected by
both rivers, and thus far more secure than Asshur. Shalmanesar also
built in both the old residences of Asshur and Nineveh. Tiles of
Kileh-Shergat bear the stamp, "Palace of Shalmanesar, son of king
Bin-nirar."[38] His buildings in Nineveh are certified by an
inscription, in which Shalmanesar says: "The temple of Istar, which
Samsi-Bin, the prince who was before me, built, and which my predecessor
Assur-u-ballit restored, had fallen into decay in the course of time. I
built it up again from the ground to the roof. The prince who comes
after me and sees my cylinder (p. 37), and sets it again in its place,
as I have set the cylinder of Assur-u-ballit in its place, him may Istar
bless; but him who destroys my monument may Istar curse and root his
name and race out of the land."[39] In the same inscription Shalmanesar
calls himself conqueror of Niri, Lulumi and Musri, districts for
which--at any rate for the two last--we shall have to look in the
neighbourhood of Nineveh, in the chain of the Zagrus. The son of
Shalmanesar I. was Tiglath Adar; he completed the restoration of the
temple of Istar at Nineveh, and fought with such success against
Nazimurdas of Babylon that he placed on his seal this inscription:
"Tiglath Adar, king of the nations, son of Shalmanesar, king of Asshur,
has conquered the land of Kardunias." But he afterwards lost this very
seal to the Babylonians, who placed it as a trophy in the treasure-house
of Babylon (about 1300 B.C.).[40]
These are the beginnings of the Assyrian kingdom according to the
indications of the monuments. After the series of kings from
Assur-bil-nisi to Tiglath Adar, whose dates come down from about the
year 1460 to about 1280 B.C., there is a gap in our knowledge of some
decades. After this we hear at first of new struggles with Babylon. In
these Belkudurussur of Assyria (about 1220 B.C.) lost his life. The
Babylonians, led by their king, Binpaliddin, invaded Assyria with a
numerous army in order to take the city of Asshur. But Adarpalbitkur,
the successor of Belkudurussur, succeeded in forcing them to retire to
Babylon.[41] Of Adarpalbitkur his fourth successor proudly declares that
"he was the protector of the might of Asshur, that he put an end to his
weakness in his land, that he arranged well the army of the land of
Assyria."[42] His son, Assur-dayan (about 1180 B.C.) was able to remove
the war again into the land of Babylonia; he claims to have carried the
booty from three places in Babylonia--Zab, Irriya and Agarsalu--to
Assyria.[43] It was he who had carried away the ruins of the fallen
temple which Samsi-Bin had built at Asshur to Anu and Bin, but had not
erected it again. According to the words of his great-grandson, "he
carried the exalted sceptre, and prospered the nation of Bel; the work
of his hands and the gifts of his fingers pleased the great gods; he
attained great age and long life."[44] Of Assur-dayan's son and
successor, Mutakkil-Nebu (about 1160 B.C.), we only find that "Asshur,
the great lord, raised him to the throne, and upheld him in the
constancy of his heart."[45] Mutakkil-Nebu's son, Assur-ris-ilim
(between 1150 and 1130 B.C.) had to undergo severe struggles against the
Babylonians, who repeatedly invaded Assyria under Nebuchadnezzar I. At
length Assur-ris-ilim succeeded in repulsing Nebuchadnezzar, and took
from him 40 (50) chariots of war with a banner. Tiglath Pilesar, the son
of Assur-ris-ilim, says of the deeds of his father, doubtless with
extreme exaggeration, "he conquered the lands of the enemy, and
subjugated all the hostile lands."[46]
The tiles of a heap of ruins at Asshur bear the inscription, "Tiglath
Pilesar, the favoured of Asshur, has built and set up the temple of his
lord the god Bin." At the four corners of the foundation walls of this
building were discovered four octagonal cylinders of clay, about a foot
and a half in height, on the inscriptions of which this king repeats the
narrative of the deeds of the first five years of his life. He restored
the royal dwelling-places and the fortresses of the land which were in a
bad condition, and planted again the forests of the land of Asshur; he
renovated the habitation of the gods, the temples of Istar and Bilit in
the city of Asshur. At the beginning of his reign Anu and Bin, his
lords, had bidden him set up again the temple which Samsi-Bin had once
built for them. This he accomplished; he caused the two great deities to
enter into their high dwelling-places and rejoiced the heart of their
great divinity. "May Anu and Bin grant me prosperity for ever, may they
bless the work of my hands, may they hear my prayer and lead me to
victory in war and in fight, may they subdue to my dominion all the
lands which rise up against me, the rebellious nations and the princes,
my rivals, may they accept my sacrificial offerings for the continuance
and increase of my race; may it be the will of Asshur and the great gods
to establish my race as firm as the mountains to the remotest days."[47]
These cylinders tell us of the campaign of Tiglath Pilesar. First he
defeated 20,000 Moschi (Muskai) and their five kings. He marched against
the land of Kummukh, which rebelled against him; even that part of the
inhabitants which fled into a city beyond the Tigris which they had
garrisoned he overcame after crossing the Tigris. He also conquered the
people of Kurkhie (Kirkhie) who came to their help; he drove them into
the Tigris and the river Nami, and took prisoner in the battle
Kiliantaru, whom they had made their king; he conquered the land of
Kummukh throughout its whole extent and incorporated it with
Assyria.[48] After this he marched against the land of Kurkhie; next he
crossed the Lower Zab and overcame two districts there. Then he turned
against the princes of the land of Nairi (he puts the number of these at
23); these, and the princes who came from the upper sea to aid them, he
conquered, carried off their flocks, destroyed their cities, and imposed
on them a tribute of 1200 horses and 2000 oxen. These battles in the
north were followed by a campaign in the west. He invaded the land of
Aram, which knew not the god Asshur, his lord;[49] he marched against
the city of Karkamis, in the land of the Chatti; he defeated their
warriors on the east of the Euphrates; he crossed the Euphrates in
pursuit of the fugitives and there destroyed six cities. Immediately
after this the king marched again to the East, against the lands of
Khumani and Musri and imposed tribute upon them.
"Two-and-forty lands and their princes," so the cylinders inform us,
"from the banks of the Lower Zab as far as the bank of the Euphrates,
the land of the Chatti, and the upper sea of the setting sun, all these
my hand has reached since my accession; one after the other I have
subjugated them; I have received hostages from them and laid tribute
upon them."[50] "This temple of Anu and Bin and these towers," so the
inscription of the cylinders concludes, "will grow old; he who in the
succession of the days shall be king in my place at a remote time, may
he restore them and place his name beside mine, then will Anu and Bin
grant to him prosperity, joy and success in his undertakings. But he who
hides my tablets, and erases or destroys them, or puts his name in the
place of mine, him will Anu and Bin curse, his throne will they bring
down, and break the power of his dominion, and cause his army to flee;
Bin will devote his land to destruction, and will spread over it
poverty, hunger, sickness, and death, and destroy his name and his race
from the earth. On the twenty-ninth day of Kisallu, in the year of
In-iliya-allik."[51]
In memory of his achievements against the land of Nairi, Tiglath Pilesar
also set up a special monument. On a rock at one of the sources of the
Eastern Tigris near Karkar we see his image hewn in relief. He wears the
tall cap or _kidaris_; the hair and beard are long and curled; the robe
falls in deep folds to the ancles. The inscription runs: "By the grace
of Asshur, Samas and Bin, the great gods, my lords, I, Tiglath Pilesar,
am ruler from the great sea of the west land (_mat acharri_) to the lake
of the land of Nairi. Three times I have marched to the land of
Nairi."[52] The first subjugation of this district could not, therefore,
have been complete.
As this monument proves, Tiglath Pilesar's campaigns could not have
ended with the fifth year of his reign. From the synchronistic tablets
we can ascertain that he had to undergo severe struggles with the
Babylonians. Marduk-nadin-akh of Babylon invaded Assyria, crossed the
Tigris, and the battle took place on the Lower Zab. In the next year,
according to the same tablets, Tiglath Pilesar is said to have taken the
border-fortresses of Babylon, Dur-Kurigalzu, Sippara, Babili and Upi
(Opis ?).[53] However this may be, Tiglath Pilesar in the end was at a
disadvantage in his contest with the Babylonians. Sennacherib, king of
Assyria, tells us, "The gods of the city Hekali, which Marduk-nadin-akh,
king of the land of Accad, had taken in the time of Tiglath Pilesar,
king of Asshur, and carried to Babylon 418 years previously, I have
caused to be brought back again from Babylon and put up again in their
place." A Babylonian tablet from the tenth year of Marduk-nadin-akh of
Babylon appears to deal with loans on conquered Assyrian territory.[54]
When Tiglath Pilesar ascended the throne about the year 1130 B.C. the
empire of Assyria, as his inscriptions show, had not as yet made any
extensive conquests beyond the circle of the native country. The Muskai,
_i.e._ the Moschi, whom we have found on the north-western slopes of
the Armenian mountains, against whom Tiglath Pilesar first fought, had
forced their way, as the cylinders tell us, into the land of
Kummukh.[55] As the inhabitants of the land of Kummukh are conquered on
the Tigris and forced into it, while others escape over the Tigris and
defend a fortified city on the further side of the river, as the land
itself is then incorporated with Assyria, we must obviously look for it
at no great distance to the north on both shores of the Upper Tigris. We
shall hardly be in error, therefore, if we take this land to be the
district afterwards called Gumathene, on the Tigris, which Ammianus
describes as a fruitful and productive land, _i.e._ as the canton of
Amida.[56] The next conflicts of Tiglath Pilesar took place on the Lower
Zab, _i.e._ at the south-eastern border of the Assyrian country.
Further to the south, on the Zagrus, perhaps in the district of
Chalonitis, or between the Lower Zab and the Adhim, or at any rate to
the east, we must look for the land of Khumani and the land of Musri.
The image at Karkar, Tiglath Pilesar's monument of victory, gives us
information about the position of the land of Nairi. It comprises the
mountain cantons between the Eastern Tigris and the upper course of the
Great Zab, where that river traverses the land of Arrapachitis (Albak).
The lake of the land of Nairi, to which the inscription of Karkar
extends the rule of Tiglath Pilesar, and the upper sea from which
auxiliaries come to the princes of the land of Nairi, are both, no
doubt, Lake Van. The inhabitants of Nairi are not like those of the land
of Kummukh, incorporated with Assyria, they have merely to pay a
moderate tribute in horses and oxen. The campaign of Tiglath Pilesar
against Karkamis (Karchemish) proves that the dominion of Assyria before
his reign did not reach the Euphrates. He marches against the land of
Aram and has then to fight with the army of Karchemish on this side,
_i.e._ on the east side of the Euphrates; the results which he obtained
on this campaign to the west of the Euphrates he does not himself rate
very highly. We saw that in the end he remained at a disadvantage in his
contest with Babylon. On the other hand, in campaigns which took place
in years subsequent to the attempt against Karchemish, he must have
forced his way to the west far beyond the Euphrates, in order to be able
to boast on the monument at Karkar "that he ruled from the sea of Nairi
as far as the great sea of the west land," _i.e._ to the Mediterranean.
Hence we have to assume that he went forth from Karchemish westwards
almost as far as the mouth of the Orontes. We should be more accurately
informed on this matter if the fragment of an inscription on an obelisk
beside an inscription of Assurnasirpal, who reigned more than 200 years
after Tiglath Pilesar, could be referred to Tiglath Pilesar. The
fragment speaks in the third person of the booty gained in hunting by a
king, which is given in nearly the same totals as the results of Tiglath
Pilesar's hunts on his cylinders. These represent him as slaying 120
lions and capturing 800. The fragment speaks of 120 and 800 lions, of
Amsi killed in Charran on the Chabor, of Rim whom the king slew before
the land of Chatti at the foot of Mount Labnani (Lebanon), of a
crocodile (_nasukh_) which the king of Musri sent as a present. The
hunter, it is said, ruled from the city of Babylon, in the land of
Accad, as far as the land of the west (_mat acharri_).[57]
According to the inscriptions on the cylinders the land of Aram lies to
the east of the Euphrates; the city of Karchemish lies on the west bank
in the land of the Chatti. The Chatti are the Hittites of the Hebrews,
the Cheta of the Egyptians. We found that the inscriptions of Sethos and
Ramses II. extended the name of the Cheta as far as the Euphrates (I.
151, 152). But although the kingdom of the Hittites had fallen two
centuries before Tiglath Pilesar crossed the Euphrates, the name still
clung to this region, as the inscriptions of Tiglath Pilesar and his
successors prove, more especially to the region from Hamath and Damascus
as far as Lebanon. The land of the west (_mat acharri_) in the strict
sense is, of course, to the Assyrians, from their point of view, the
coast of Syria. Whatever successes Tiglath Pilesar may have gained in
this direction, they were of a transitory nature.
The first of his sons to succeed him was Assur-bel-kala, whose reign we
may fix in the years 1100-1080 B.C. With three successive kings of
Babylon, Marduk-sapik-kullat, Saduni (?), and Nebu-zikir-iskun, he came
into contact, peaceful or hostile. With the first he made a treaty of
peace, with Saduni he carried on war, with Nebu-zikir-iskun he again
concluded a peace, which fixed the borders. This was confirmed by
intermarriage;[58] Assur-bel-kala married his daughter to
Nebu-zikir-iskun, while the latter gave his daughter to Assur-bel-kala.
Of the exploits of his successor, Samsi-Bin II. (1080-1060 B.C.), a
second son of Tiglath Pilesar, we have no account.[59] We cannot
maintain with certainty whether Assur-rab-amar, of whom Shalmanesar II.
tells us that he lost two cities on the Euphrates which Tiglath Pilesar
had taken,[60] was the direct successor of Samsi-Bin.
After this, for the space of more than 100 years (1040-930), there is
again a gap in our knowledge. Not till we reach Assur-dayan II., who
ascended the throne of Assyria about the year 930 B.C., can we again
follow the series of the Assyrian kings downwards without interruption.
This Assur-dayan II. is followed by Bin-nirar II., about 900; Bin-nirar,
by Tiglath Adar II., who reigned from 889-883 B.C. He had to contend
once more against the land of Nairi, _i.e._ against the region between
the Eastern Tigris and the upper course of the Upper Zab. As a memorial
of the successes which he gained here he caused his image to be carved
beside that of Tiglath Pilesar in the rocks at Karkar (see below).
Besides this, there is in existence from his time a pass, _i.e._ a
small tablet, with the inscription, "Permission to enter into the palace
of Tiglath Adar, king of the land of Asshur, son of Bin-nirar, king of
the land of Asshur."[61]
Neither at the commencement nor in the course of the history of Assyria
do the monuments know of a king Ninus, a queen Semiramis, or of any
warlike queen of this kingdom; they do not even mention any woman as
standing independently at the head of Assyria. Once, it is true, we find
the name Semiramis in the inscriptions in the form Sammuramat.
Sammuramat was the wife of king Bin-nirar III., who ruled over Assyria
from the year 810-781 B.C. On the pedestal of two statues, which an
officer of this king, the prefect of Chalah, dedicated to the god Nebo,
the inscription is: "To Nebo, the highest lord of his lords, the
protector of Bin-nirar, king of Asshur, and protector of Sammuramat, the
wife of the palace, his lady." The name of Ninyas is quite unknown to
the monuments, and of the names of the 33 kings which Ctesias gives,
with their names and reigns as successors of Ninyas down to the
overthrow of the kingdom and Sardanapalus (p. 26),--unless we identify
the last name in the list, that of Sardanapalus, with the Assurbanipal
of the inscriptions, _i.e._ with the ruler last but one or two
according to the records,--no single one agrees with the names of the
monuments, which, moreover, give a higher total than six-and-thirty for
the reigns of the Assyrian kings. The list of Ctesias appears to have
been put together capriciously or merely invented; the lengths of the
reigns are pure imagination, and arranged according to certain
synchronisms.
Not less definite is the evidence of the monuments that the pre-eminence
of Assyria over Upper Asia cannot have commenced in the year 2189 or
1913 B.C., as Ctesias asserts, or as may be assumed from his data, nor
in 1273, as has been deduced from the statements of Berosus, nor finally
in the year 1234, according to Herodotus' statements (p. 27). Though we
are able to find only approximately the dates of the kings of Assyria,
whose names and deeds we have passed in review, the result is,
nevertheless, that the power of Assyria in the fifteenth and fourteenth
centuries did not go far beyond the native country--that her forces by
no means surpassed those of Babylon--that precisely in the thirteenth
and twelfth centuries B.C. the kingdom of Babylon was at least as strong
as that of Assyria--that even towards the close of the twelfth century
Tiglath Pilesar I. could gain no success against Babylon--that his
successors sought to establish peaceful relations with Babylonia. There
is just as little reason to maintain the period of 520 years which
Herodotus allows for the Assyrian empire over Asia. This cannot in any
case be assumed earlier than the date of Tiglath Pilesar I., who did at
least cross the Euphrates and enter Northern Syria. The beginning of
this empire would, therefore, be about 1130 B.C., not 1234 B.C. The date
also which Herodotus gives for the close of this empire (before 700
B.C.) cannot, as will be shown, be maintained. According to this datum
the decline and fall of Assyria must have began with the period in
which, as a fact, she rose to the proudest height and extended her power
to the widest extent. The period of 520 years can only be kept
artificially by reckoning it upwards from the year 607 B.C., the year of
the overthrow of the Assyrian empire; then it brings us from this date
to 1127 B.C., _i.e._ to the time of Tiglath Pilesar I. But we saw that
the conquests of Tiglath Pilesar did not extend very far, that his
successes west of the Euphrates were of a transitory nature; in no case
could a dominion of Assyria over Babylon be dated from his reign.
The complete agreement of the Assyrian and Babylonian style and
civilisation is proved most clearly by the monuments. The names of the
princes of Assyria are formed analogously to those of the Babylonians;
the names and the nature of the deities which the Assyrians and
Babylonians worship are the same. In Assyria we meet again with Anu the
god of the high heaven, Samas the sun-god, Sin the moon-god, Bin
(Ramman) the god of the thunder; of the spirits of the planets Adar, the
lord of Saturn, Nebo, the god of Mercury, and Istar, the lady of Venus,
in her double nature of destroyer and giver of fruit, reappear. There is
only one striking difference: the special protector of Assyria, Asshur,
the god of the land, stands at the head of the gods in the place of El
of the Babylonians. He it is after whom the land and the oldest
metropolis is named, whose representatives the oldest princes of Assyria
appear to have called themselves. The name of Asshur is said to mean the
good or the kind;[62] which may even on the Euphrates have been an
epithet of El, which on the Tigris became the chief name of the deity.
As the ancient princes of Ur and Erech, of Nipur and Senkereh, as the
kings of Babel--so also the kings of Assyria, as far back as our
monuments allow us to go--built temples to their gods; like them they
mark the tiles of their buildings with their names; like the kings of
Babel, they cause inscriptions to be written on cylinders, intended to
preserve the memory of their buildings and achievements, and then placed
in the masonry of their temples. The language of the inscriptions of
Assyria differs from those of the Babylonian inscriptions, as one
dialect from another; the system of writing is the same. The population
of Assyria transferred their language and writing, their religious
conceptions and modes of worship, from the Lower Euphrates to the Upper
Tigris. If the princes of Erech, Nipur and Babylon had to repel the
attacks of Elam, the Assyrian land, a region of moderate extent, lay
under the spurs of the Armenian table-land, under the ranges of the
Zagrus. The struggle against the tribes of these mountains, in the
Zagrus and in the region of the sources of the Euphrates and the Tigris,
and the stubborn resistance of these tribes appears to have strengthened
the warlike powers of the Assyrians, and these ceaseless campaigns
trained them to that military excellence which finally, after a period
of exercise which lasted for centuries, won for them the preponderance
over Mesopotamia and Syria, over Babylonia and Elam, no less than over
Egypt.
FOOTNOTES:
[27] Diod. 2, 21; Euseb. "Chron." 1, p. 56; 2, p. 11, ed. Schoene;
Syncellus, "Chron." 1, 313, 314, ed. Bonn; Brandis, "Rer. Assyr. tempor.
emend." p. 13 _seq._
[28] Euseb. "Chron." 1, p. 26, ed. Schoene.
[29] 1, 184, 187.
[30] Vol. i. 512.
[31] Menant, "Annal." p. 18.
[32] G. Smith, "Discov." p. 249.
[33] The date of Tiglath Adar is fixed by the statement of Sennacherib
that he lost his seal to the Babylonians 600 years before Sennacherib
took Babylon, _i.e._ about the year 1300 B.C. As the series of seven
kings who reigned before Tiglath Adar is fixed, Assur-bil-nisi, the
first of these, can be placed about 1460 B.C. if we allow 20 years to
each.
[34] Vol. i. p. 262.
[35] This series, Pudiel, Bel-nirar and Bin-nirar, is established by
tiles of Kileh-Shergat, and the fact that it joins on to Assur-u-ballit,
by the tablet of Bin-nirar discovered by G. Smith, in which he calls
himself great grandson of Assur-u-ballit, grandson of Bel-nirar, and son
of Pudiel; G. Smith, "Discov." p. 244.
[36] G. Smith, "Discov." pp. 244, 245.
[37] E. Schrader, "Keilinschriften und A. T." s. 20; "Records of the
Past," 7, 17.
[38] Menant, "Annal." p. 73.
[39] G. Smith, _loc. cit._ p. 249.
[40] G. Smith, _loc. cit._ p. 250; E. Schrader, "A. B. Keilinschriften,"
s. 294. As Sennacherib states that he brought back this seal from
Babylon after 600 years, and as Sennacherib took Babylon twice in 704
and 694 B.C., the loss of it falls either in the year 1304 or 1294 B.C.
As he brings back the Assyrian images of the gods at the second capture
(694 B.C.), the seal of Tiglath Adar may have been brought back on this
occasion.
[41] G. Smith, _loc. cit._ p. 250.
[42] So the passage runs according to a communication from E. Schrader.
On the reading Adarpalbitkur as against the readings Ninpalazira and
Adarpalassar, see E. Schrader, "A. B. Keilinschriften," s. 152. On what
Menant ("Annal." p. 29) grounds the assumption that Belkudurussur was
the immediate successor of Tiglath Adar I cannot say; it would not be
chronologically impossible, but the synchronistic tablet merely informs
us that Adarpalbitkur was the successor of Belkudurussur; G. Rawlinson,
"Mon." 2, 49. Still less am I able to find any foundation for the
statement that Binpaliddin of Babylon, the opponent of Belkudurussur and
Adarpalbitkur, was a vassal-king set up by Assyria. The date of Tiglath
Pilesar I. is fixed by the Bavian inscription, which tells us that
Sennacherib at his second capture of Babylon brought back out of that
city the images of the gods lost by Tiglath Pilesar 418 years previously
(Bav. 43-50), at the period between 1130 and 1100 B.C. If he began to
reign 1130, then the five kings before him (the series from
Adarpalbitkur to Tiglath Pilesar is fixed by the cylinder of the
latter), allowing 20 years to each reign, bring us to 1230 B.C. for the
beginning of Belkudurussur. To go back further seems the more doubtful,
as Tiglath Pilesar put Assur-dayan, the third prince of this series,
only 60 years before his own time.
[43] Sayce, "Records of the Past," 3, 31; Menant, _loc. cit._ p. 31.
[44] Communication from E. Schrader.
[45] Cf. G. Smith, _loc. cit._ p. 251.
[46] Vol. i. p. 263; Menant, _loc. cit._ p. 32.
[47] Menant, "Annal." pp. 47, 48.
[48] Column, 1, 62, _seqq._, 1, 89.
[49] Column, 5, 44.
[50] Column, 6, 39.
[51] Menant, _loc. cit._ p. 48.
[52] Vol. i. p. 519; E. Schrader, "Keilinschriften und A. T." s. 16.
[53] Menant, _loc. cit._ p. 51.
[54] Vol. i. p. 263; Bavian Inscrip. 48-50; Menant, "Annal." pp. 52,
236. Inscription on the black basalt-stone in Oppert et Menant,
"Documents juridiques," p. 98. Is the name of the witness (col. 2, 27),
Sar-babil-assur-issu (p. 115), correctly explained by "The king of Babel
has conquered Asshur"?
[55] Col. 1, 62.
[56] Ammian. Marcell. 18, 9.
[57] Araziki cannot be taken for Aradus, the name of which city on the
obelisk and in the inscriptions of Assurnasirpal, Shalmanesar, and
elsewhere is Arvadu.
[58] Sayce, "Records," 3, 33; Menant, "Annal." p. 53; "Babylone," pp.
129, 130.
[59] According to G. Smith ("Discov." p. 91, 252) this Samsi-Bin II.
restored the temple of Istar at Nineveh which Samsi-Bin I. had built
(above, p. 3).
[60] Inscription of Kurkh, "Records of the Past," 3, 93; Menant,
"Annal." p. 55.
[61] Menant, "Annal." p. 63.
[62] E. Schrader, "Keilinschriften und A. T." s. 7.