He married the widow of Sabaco, Queen Dikahîtamanu, and thus assumed

the guardianship of Tanuatamanu, her son by her first husband, and this

marriage secured him supreme authority in Ethiopia.* That he regarded

Egypt as a conquered country can no longer be doubted, seeing that he

inserted its name on his monuments among those of the nations which he

had vanquished.

* The text of several documents only mentioned that Tanuata-

manu was the “son of his wife,” which Opport interpreted to

mean son of Taharqa himself, while others see in him a son

of Kashto, a brother of Amenertas, or a son of Shabîtoku.

[Illustration: 139.jpg TAHARQA AND HIS QUEEN DIKAHÎTAMANU]

Drawn by Faucher-Gudin, from the coloured plate in Lepsius.

He nevertheless felt obliged to treat it with consideration; he

respected the rights of the feudal princes, and behaved himself in every

way like a Pharaoh of the old royal line. He summoned his mother from

Napatà, where he had left her, and after proclaiming her regent of the

South and the North, he associated her with himself in the rejoicings

at his coronation. This ceremony, celebrated at Tanis with the usages

customary in the Delta, was repeated at Karnak in accordance with the

Theban ritual, and a chapel erected shortly afterwards on the northern

quay of the great sacred lake has preserved to us the memory of it.

Akaluka, installed with the rank and prerogatives of the “Divine Spouse”

of Amon, presented her son to the deity, who bestowed upon him through

his priests dominion over the whole world. She bent the bow, and let

fly the arrows towards the four cardinal points, which she thereby

symbolically delivered to him as wounded prisoners; the king, on

his part, hurled against them bullets of stone, and by this attack

figuratively accomplished their defeat. His wars in Africa were crowned

with a certain meed of success,* and his achievements in this quarter

won for him in after time so much popularity among the Egyptians,

that they extolled him to the Greeks as one of their most illustrious

conquering Pharaohs; they related that he had penetrated as far as

the Pillars of Hercules in the west, and that he had invaded Europe in

imitation of Sesostris.

* The list inscribed on the base of the statue discovered by

Mariette contains a large number of names belonging to

Africa. They are the same as those met with in the time of

the XVIIIth dynasty, and were probably copied from some

monument of Ramses II., who had himself perhaps borrowed

them from a document of the time of Thûtmosis III. A bas-

relief at Medinet-Habu shows him to us in the act of smiting

a group of tribes, among which figure the Tepa, Doshrît, and

“the humbled Kush;” this bas-relief was appropriated later

on by Nectanebo.

What we know to be a fact is, that he secured to the valley of the Nile

nearly twenty years of prosperity, and recalled the glories of the

great reigns of former days, if not by his victories, at least by

the excellence of his administration and his activity. He planned the

erection at Karnak of a hypostyle hall in front of the pylons of Ramses

II., which should equal, if not surpass, that of Seti I.*

* These columns have been looked upon as triumphal pillars,

designed to support statues or divine emblems. Mariette

thinks that they supported “an edifice in the architectural

style of the kiosk at Philæ and the small hypothral temple

on the roof of Denderah.” I am of opinion that the architect

intended to make a hypostyle hall, but that when the columns

were erected, he perceived that the great width of the aisle

they formed would render the strength of the roof very

doubtful, and so renounced the execution of his first

design.

[Illustration: 142.jpg THE COLUMN OF TAHARQA, AT KARNAK]

Drawn by Faucher-Gudin, from a photograph by Beato.

The columns of the central aisle were disposed in two lines of six

pillars each, but only one of these now remains standing in its original

place; its height, which is the same as that of Seti’s columns, is

nearly sixty-nine feet. The columns of the side aisles, like those which

should have flanked the immense colonnade at Luxor, were never even

begun, and the hall of Taharqa, like that of Seti I., remains unfinished

to this day. He bestowed his favour on Nubia and Ethiopia, as well as

on Egypt proper; even Napata owed to his munificence the most beautiful

portions of its temples. The temple of Amon, and subsequently that of

Mût, were enlarged by him; and he decorated their ancient halls with

bas-reliefs, representing himself, accompanied by his mother and his

wife, in attitudes of adoration before the deity. The style of the

carving is very good, and the hieroglyphics would not disgrace the walls

of the Theban temples. The Ethiopian sculptors and painters scrupulously

followed the traditions of the mother-country, and only a few

insignificant details of ethnic type or costume enable us to detect a

slight difference between their works and those of pure Egyptian art. At

the other extremity of Napata, on the western side of the Holy Mountain,

Taharqa excavated in the cliff a rock-hewn shrine, which he dedicated to

Hathor and Bîsû (Bes), the patron of jollity and happiness, and the god

of music and of war.

[Illustration: 143.jpg THE HEMISPEOS OP HÂTHOR AND BÎSÛ, AT

GEBEL-BARKAL]

Drawn by Faucher-Gudin, from a lithograph in Caillaud.

Bîsû, who was at first relegated to the lowest rank among the crowd of

genii adored by the people, had gradually risen to the highest place

in the hierarchy of the gods, and his images predominated in chapels

destined to represent the cradle of the infant gods, and the sacred

spots where goddesses gave birth to their divine offspring.

[Illustration: 144.jpg ENTRANCE TO THE HEMISPEOS OF BÎSÛ (BES), AT

GEBEL-BARKAL]

Drawn by Faucher-Gudin, from a lithograph in Caillaud.

The portico erected in front of the pylon had a central avenue of

pillars, against which stood monstrous and grinning statues of Bîsû,

his hands on his hips, and his head crowned with a large bunch of

lotus-flowers and plumes. Two rows of columns with Hathor-headed

capitals flanked the central aisle, which led to a hall supported by

massive columns, also with Hathor capitals, and beyond it again lay

the actual shrine similarly excavated in the rocky hill; two statues of

Bîsû, standing erect against their supporting columns, kept guard over

the entrance, and their fantastic forms, dimly discernible in the gloom,

must have appeared in ancient times to have prohibited the vulgar throng

from approaching the innermost sanctuary. Half of the roof has fallen

in since the building was deserted, and a broad beam of light falling

through the aperture thus made reveals the hideous grotesqueness of the

statues to all comers. The portraits of Taharqa represent him with

a strong, square-shaped head, with full cheeks, vigorous mouth, and

determined chin, such as belong to a man well suited to deal with that

troubled epoch, and the knowledge we as yet possess of his conflict with

Assyria fully confirms the character exhibited by his portrait statues.

[Illustration: 145.jpg TAHARQA]

Drawn by Faucher-Gudin, from a cast of the fragment

preserved at Gizeh

We may surmise that, when once absolute master of Egypt, he must have

cast his eyes beyond the isthmus, and considered how he might turn to

his own advantage the secret grudge borne by the Syrians against

their suzerain at Nineveh, but up to the present time we possess no

indications as to the policy he pursued in Palestine. We may safely

assume, however, that it gave umbrage to the Assyrians, and that

Esarhaddon resolved to put an end once for all to the uneasiness it

caused him. More than half a century had elapsed since the day when the

kings of Syria, alarmed at the earliest victories of Tiglath-pileser

III., had conceived the idea of pitting their former conquerors against

those of the day, and had solicited help from the Pharaohs against

Assyria.

None of the sovereigns to whom they turned had refused to listen to

their appeals, or failed to promise subsidies and reinforcements; but

these engagements, however definite, had for the most part been left

unfulfilled, and when an occasion for their execution had occurred, the

Egyptian armies had merely appeared on the fields of battle to beat

a hasty retreat: they had not prevented the subjugation of Damascus,

Israel, Tyre, the Philistines, nor, indeed, of any of the princes or

people who trusted to their renown; yet, notwithstanding these numerous

disappointments, the prestige of the Egyptians was still so great that

insubordinate or rebel states invariably looked to them for support and

entreated their help. The Assyrian generals had learnt by experience to

meet them unmoved, being well aware that the Egyptian army was inferior

to their own in organisation, and used antiquated weapons and methods

of warfare; they were also well aware that the Egyptian and even the

Ethiopian soldiery had never been able successfully to withstand a

determined attack by the Assyrian battalions, and that when once the

desert which protected Egypt had been crossed, she would, like Babylon,

fall an easy prey to their arms. It would merely be necessary to guard

against the possible danger of opposition being offered to the passage

of the invading host by the Idumoan and Arab tribes sparsely scattered

over the country between the Nile and the Gulf of Akabah, as their

hostility would be a cause of serious uneasiness. An expedition, sent

against Milukhkha* in 675 B.C., had taught the inhabitants to respect

the power of Assyria; but the campaign had not been brought to a

satisfactory conclusion, for the King of Elam, Khumbân-khaldash II.,

seeing his rival occupied at the opposite extremity of his empire, fell

unexpectedly upon Babylon, and pushing forward as far as Sippara, laid

waste the surrounding country; and his hateful presence even prevented

the god Shamash from making his annual progress outside the walls of the

city. The people of Bît-Dakkuri seem to have plucked up courage at

his approach, and invaded the neighbouring territory, probably that

of Borsippa. Esarhaddon was absent on a distant expedition, and the

garrisons scattered over the province were not sufficiently strong in

numbers to risk a pitched battle: Khumbân-khaldash, therefore, marched

back with his booty to Susa entirely unmolested. He died suddenly in his

palace a few days after his return, and was succeeded by his brother,

Urtaku, who was too intent upon seating himself securely on the throne

to send his troops on a second raid in the following year.

* The name of Milukhkha, first applied to the countries in

the neighbourhood of the Persian Gulf, had been transferred

to the western coasts of Arabia, as well as that of Magan.

Esarhaddon deferred his revenge to a more convenient season, and

utilised the respite fate had accorded him on the Elamite border to

hasten his attack on Egypt (673 B.C.). The expedition was a failure, and

Taharqa was greatly elated at having issued with honour from this trial

of strength. As most of the countries over which his enemy exercised

his supremacy were those which had been ruled by his Theban ancestors

in days gone by, Taharqa engraved on the base of his statue a list of

nations and towns copied from one of the monuments of Ramses II. The

Khâti, Carchemish, Mitanni, Arvad--in short, a dozen peoples already

extinct or in their decline, and whose names were merely perpetuated

in the stereotyped official lists,--were enumerated in the list of

his vanquished foes side by side with Assyria. It was a mere piece of

bravado, for never, even when victorious, did he set foot on Syrian

soil; but all the same the victory had caused the invading host to

retire, and the fame of this exploit, spreading throughout Asia, was not

without its effect on the minds of the inhabitants. The island of Tyre

had never officially recognised the Assyrian suzerainty. The Tyrians had

lived in peace since the defeat of Elulai, and had maintained constant

commercial relations with the continent without interfering in active

politics: they had, perhaps, even been permitted to establish some

settlements on the coast of the mainland. Their king, Bâal, now deemed

the moment a propitious one for coming forward and recovering his lost

territory, and since the Greek princes of Cyprus had ranged themselves

under the hegemony of Assyria, he thought he could best counterbalance

their influence by seeking support from Egypt, whose ancient greatness

was apparently reviving. He therefore concluded an alliance with

Taharqa,* and it would be no cause for astonishment if we should one day

discover that Judah had followed his example.

* The alliance of Bâal with Taharqa is mentioned in the

fragment of the _Annals_, under the date of year X., and the

name Bâal is still decipherable amid the defaced linos which

contained the account of events which took place before that

year. I think we may reasonably assign the first

understanding between the two sovereigns, either to the

actual year of the first campaign or to the following year.

Hezekiah had devoted his declining years to religious reformation, and

the organisation of his kingdom under the guidance of Isaiah or the

group of prophets of which Isaiah was the leader. Judah had increased

in population, and had quickly recovered its prosperity; when Hezekiah

died, about 686 B.C., it had entirely regained its former vigour, but

the memory of the disasters of 701 was still sufficiently fresh in the

minds of the people to prevent the change of sovereign being followed

by a change of policy. Manasseh, who succeeded his father, though he

did not walk, as Hezekiah had done, in the ways of the Lord, at least

remained loyal to his Assyrian masters. It is, however, asserted that

he afterwards rebelled, though his reason for doing so is not explained,

and that he was carried captive to Babylon as a punishment for this

crime: he succeeded, nevertheless, in regaining favour, and was

reinstated at Jerusalem on condition of not repeating his offence. If

this statement is true, as I believe it to be, it was probably after the

Egyptian campaign of 673 B.C.* that his conspiracy with Baal took place.

* The fact of Manasseh’s captivity is only known to us from

the testimony of 2 Chron. xxxiii. 10-13, and most modern

critics consider it apocryphal. The moral development which

accompanies the narrative, and the conversion which follows

it, are certainly later additions, but the story may have

some foundation in fact; we shall see later on that Necho

I., King of Sais, was taken prisoner, led into captivity,

and received again into favour in the same way as Manasseh

is said to have been. The exile to Babylon, which at one

time appeared to demonstrate the unauthenticity of the

passage, would be rather in favour of its authenticity.

Esarhaddon was King of Babylon during the whole of his

reign, and the great works which he executed in that city

obliged him, we know, to transport thither a large

proportion of the prisoners whom he brought back from his

wars.

The Assyrian governors of the neighbouring provinces easily crushed

these attempts at independence, but, the islands of Tyre being secure

from attack, they were obliged to be content with establishing a series

of redoubts along the coast, and with prohibiting the Tyrians from

having access to the mainland.

The promptitude of their action quenched the hopes of the Egyptian party

and prevented the spread of the revolt. Esarhaddon was, nevertheless,

obliged to put off the fulfilment of his schemes longer than he desired:

complications arose on his northern frontiers, near the sources of the

Tigris, which distracted his attention from the intrigues taking place

on the banks of the Nile. Urartu, hard pressed by the Cimmerians and

Scythians, had lived for a quarter of a century in a condition of sullen

peace with Assyria, and its kings avoided anything which could bring

them into conflict with their hereditary rival. Argistis II. had been

succeeded by one of his sons, Eusas IL, and both of them had been more

intent upon strengthening their kingdom than on extending its area; they

had rebuilt their capital, Dhuspas, on a magnificent scale, and from the

security of their rocky home they watched the course of events without

taking any part in it, unless forced to do so by circumstances. Andaria,

chief of Lubdi, one of the remote mountain districts, so difficult of

access that it always retained its independence in spite of frequent

attacks, had seized Shupria, a province which had been from very early

times subject to the sovereigns of Nineveh, and was the first to be

colonised by them. The inhabitants, forgetful of their origin, had

yielded voluntarily to Andaria; but this prince, after receiving their

homage, was seized with alarm at his own audacity. He endeavoured to

strengthen his position by an alliance with the Cimmerians,* and the

spirit of insubordination which he aroused spread beyond the Euphrates;

Mugallu of Milid, a king of the Tabal, resorted to such violent measures

that Esarhaddon was alarmed lest the wild mountaineers of the Taurus

should pour down upon the plain of Kuî and lay it waste. The

danger would indeed have been serious had all these tribes risen

simultaneously; but the Cimmerians were detained in Asia Minor by their

own concerns,** and Mugallu, when he saw the Assyrian troops being

concentrated to bring him to reason, remained quiet.

* This seems, indeed, to be proved by a tablet in which

Esarhaddon, addressing the god Shamash, asks him if the

Cimmerians or Urartians will unite with a certain prince who

can be no other than the King of Shupria.

** It was about this time they were dealing the death-blow

to the kingdom of Phrygia.

The extension of Lubdi was not likely to meet with favour in the eyes

of Eusas; he did not respond to the advances made to him, and Esarhaddon

opened his campaign against the rebels without having to dread the

intervention of Urartu. Andaria, besieged in his capital of Ubbumi, laid

aside his royal robes, and, assuming the ragged garments of a slave,

appeared upon the ramparts and pleaded for mercy in a voice choked with

tears: “Shupria, the country which has sinned against thee, will yield

to thee of her own accord; place thy officers over her, she will vow

obedience to thee; impose on her a ransom and an annual tribute for

ever. I am a robber, and for the crime I have committed I will make

amends fifty-fold.” Esarhaddon would listen to no terms before a breach

had been effected in the city walls. This done, he pardoned the prince

who had taken refuge in the citadel, but resumed possession of Shupria:

its inhabitants were mercilessly punished, being condemned to slavery,

and their lands and goods divided among new colonists. Many Urartians

were numbered among the captives: these Esarhaddon separated from

the rest, and sent back to Rusas as a reward for his having remained

neutral. All this had barely occupied the space of one month, the month

of Tebet. The first-fruits of the spoil reserved for Uruk had already

reached that town by the month Kislev, and the year was not so far

advanced as to render further undertakings impossible, when the death of

the queen, on the 5th Adar, suspended all warlike enterprises. The last

months of the year were given up to mourning, and the whole of 671 B.C.

passed without further action. The Ethiopian king was emboldened by this

inactivity on the part of his foe to renew his intrigues with Syria with

redoubled energy; at one moment, indeed, the Philistines of Ashkelon,

secretly instigated, seemed on the point of revolt.*

* Ashkelon is mentioned in two of the prayers in which

Esarhaddon consults Shamash on the subject of his intended

campaign in Egypt; he seems to fear lest that city and the

Bedâwin of the Idumoan desert should espouse the cause of

the King of Ethiopia.

They held themselves, however, in check, and Esarhaddon, reassured as to

their attitude, entered into negotiations with the sheikhs of the Arab

tribes, and purchased their assistance to cross the desert of Sinai.

He bade them assemble at Raphia, at the western extremity of Palestine,

each chief bringing all the camels he could command, and as many skins

of water as their beasts could carry: this precaution, a wise one at any

time, might secure the safety of the army in case Taharqa should have

filled up the wells which marked the stages in the caravan route.*

When all was ready, Esarhaddon consulted the oracle of Shamash, and, on

receiving a favourable reply from the god, left Nineveh in the beginning

of the month Nisân, 670 B.C., to join the invading army in Syria.**

* This information is furnished by the fragment of the

_Annals_. The Assyrian text introduces this into the

narrative in such a manner that it would appear as if these

negotiations were carried on at the very commencement of the

campaign; it is, however, more probable that they were

concluded beforehand, as occurred later on, in the time of

Cambyses, when the Persians invaded Egypt.

** The published texts refer to the second Egyptian campaign

of Esarhaddon. The reply of the god is not easy to

interpret, but it was certainly favourable, since the

expedition took place.

He made a detour in order to inspect the lines of forts which his

generals had established along the coast opposite Tyre, and strengthened

their garrisons to prevent Bâal from creating a diversion in the rear

of his base of operations; he then proceeded southwards to the

neighbourhood of Aphek, in the territory of the tribe of Simeon. The

news which there met him must doubtless have informed him that the

Bedâwin had been won over in the interval by the emissaries of Taharqa,

and that he would run great risk by proceeding with his campaign before

bringing them back to a sense of their duty. On leaving Aphek* he

consequently turned southwards, and plunged into the heart of the

desert, as if he had renounced all designs upon Egypt for that season,

and was bent only on restoring order in Milukhkha and Magân before

advancing further. For six weeks he marched in short stages, without

other water than the supply borne, in accordance with his commands, by

the Arab camels, passing through tracts of desert infested by strange

birds and double-headed serpents; when he had at length dispersed the

bands which had endeavoured to oppose his advance, he suddenly turned in

a north-westerly direction, and, following the dry bed of the torrent of

Muzur, at length reached Raphia. From thence he did not select the usual

route, which follows the coast-line and leads to Pelusium, a place which

he may have feared was too well defended, but he again pressed forward

across the sands of the desert, and in the first days of Tammuz reached

the cultivated land of the Delta by way of the Wady Tumilât. The

frontier garrisons, defeated on the 3rd of Tammuz near Ishkhupri,**

retreated in good order.

* The defaced name of the country in which this Aphek was

situated was read as Samirina and translated “Samaria” by

the first editor. This interpretation has been adopted by

most historians, who have seen in Aphek the town of this

name belonging to the western portion of Manasseh. Budge

read it Samina, and this reading, verified by Craig, gave

Winckler the idea of identifying Samina or Simina with the

tribe of Simeon, and Aphek with the Aphckah (Josh. xv. 53)

in the mountains of Judah.

** The text on the stele at Zinjirli gives a total of

fifteen days’ march from Ishkhupri to Memphis, while

Pinches’ Babyl. Chron. indicates three battles as having

been fought on the 3rd, 16th, and 18th of Tammuz, and the

taking of Memphis as occurring on the 22nd of the same

month. If fifteen days is precisely accurate for the length

of march, Esarhaddon would have reached Ishkhupri about the

27th of Sivan.

Taharqa, hastening to their succour, disputed the ground inch by inch,

and engaged the invaders in several conflicts, two at least of which,

fought on the 16th and 18th of Tammuz, were regular pitched battles,

but in every case the Assyrian tactics triumphed in spite of the dashing

onslaught of the Egyptians; Memphis succumbed on the 22nd, after an

assault lasting merely a few hours, and was mercilessly sacked. The

Ethiopian king, with his army decimated and exhausted, gave up the

struggle, and beat a hasty retreat southwards. The attack had been made

with such rapidity that he had had no time to remove his court from the

“palace of the White Wall” to the Said; the queen, therefore, together

with other women of less exalted rank, fell into the hands of the

conqueror, besides the crown-prince, Ushana-horu, several younger sons

and daughters, and such of the children of Sabaco and Shabîtoku as

resided at court. But the victory had cost the Assyrians dearly, and

the enemy still appeared to them so formidable that Esarhaddon prudently

abstained from pursuing him up the Nile Valley. He favourably received

those feudal lords and petty kings who presented themselves to pay him

homage, and confirmed them in possession of their fiefs, but he placed

over them Assyrian governors and imposed new official names on their

cities; thus Athribis was officially called Limir-pateshî-assur,

and other cities received the names Assur-makan-tishkul,

Bîfc-marduk-sha-assur-taru, Shaîmuk-assur. He further imposed on them

a heavy annual tribute of more than six talents of gold and six hundred

talents of silver, besides robes and woven stuffs, wine, skins, horses,

sheep, and asses; and having accomplished this, he retraced his steps

towards the north-east with immense booty and innumerable convoys of

prisoners. The complete defeat of the Ethiopian power filled not only

Esarhaddon himself but all Asia with astonishment. His return to Nineveh

was a triumphal progress; travelling through Syria by short stages, he

paraded his captives and trophies before the peoples and princes who had

so long relied on the invincible power of the Pharaoh.

[Illustration: 156.jpg SOUTHERN PROMONTORY AT THE MOUTH OF THE

NAHR-EL-KELB]

Drawn by Boudier, from a photograph recently brought back by

Lortet.

Esarhaddon’s predecessors had more than once inscribed the record of

their campaigns on the rocks of the Nahr-el-Kelb, beside the bas-relief

engraved there by Ramses II., and it had been no small gratification to

their pride thus to place themselves on a footing of equality with one

of the most illustrious heroes of the ancient Egyptian empire.

[Illustration: 157.jpg STELE OF ESARHADDON AT THE NAHR-EL-KELB]

Drawn by Faucher-Gudin, from Lortet.

The footpath which skirts the southern bank of the river, and turning

to the south is continued along the seashore, was bordered by the great

stelæ in which, one after another, they had thought to immortalise

their glory; following their example, Esarhaddon was in like manner

pleased to celebrate his prowess, and exhibit the ancient lords of the

world subjugated to his will. He erected numerous triumphal monuments

along his route, and the stele which was discovered at one of the gates

of Zinjirli is, doubtless, but an example of those which he erected in

other important cities.

[Illustration: 158.jpg STELE OF Zinjirli]

Drawn by Faucher-Gudin, from a photograph of the original in

the Berlin Museum.

He is represented on the Zinjirli stele standing erect, while at his

feet are two kneeling prisoners, whom he is holding by a bridle of

cord fastened to metal rings passed through their lips; these figures

represent Bâal of Tyre and Taharqa of Napata, the latter with the uraaus

on his forehead. As a matter of fact, these kings were safe beyond his

reach, one surrounded by the sea, the other above the cataracts, and

the people were well aware that they did not form part of the band of

prisoners which denied before their eyes; but they were accustomed to

the vain and extravagant boastings of their conquerors, and these very

exaggerations enabled them to understand more fully the extent of the

victory. Esarhaddon thenceforward styled himself King of Egypt, King of

the Kings of Egypt, of the Said and of Kush, so great was his pride at

having trampled underfoot the land of the Delta. And, in fact, Egypt

had, for a century, been the only one of the ancient Eastern states

which had always eluded the grasp of Assyria. The Elamites had endured

disastrous defeats, which had cost them some of their provinces; the

Urartians had been driven back into their mountains, and no longer

attempted to emerge from them; Babylon had nearly been annihilated

in her struggles for independence; while the Khâti, the Phoenicians,

Damascus, and Israel had been absorbed one after another in the gradual

extension of Ninevehe supremacy. Egypt, although she had had a hand in

all then-wars and revolutions, had never herself paid the penalty of

her intrigues, and even when she had sometimes risked her troops on the

battle-fields of Palestine, her disasters had not cost her more than the

loss of a certain number of men: having once retired to the banks of the

Nile, no one had dared to follow, and the idea had gained credence among

her enemies as well as among her friends that Egypt was effectually

protected by the desert from every attack. The victory of Esarhaddon

proved that she was no more invulnerable than the other kingdoms of the

world, and that before a bold advance the obstacles, placed by nature

in the path of an invader, disappeared; the protecting desert had been

crossed, the archers and chariots of Egypt had fled before the Assyrian

cavalry and pikemen, her cities had endured the ignominy and misery of

being taken by storm, and the wives and daughters of her Pharaohs had

been carried off into servitude in common with the numerous princesses

of Elam and Syria of that day. Esarhaddon filled his palaces with

furniture and woven stuffs, with vases of precious metal and sculptured

ivories, with glass ornaments and statuettes looted from Memphis: his

workers in marble took inspiration from the sphinxes of Egypt to modify

the winged, human-headed lions upon which the columns of their palaces

rested, and the plans of his architects became more comprehensive at the

mere announcement of such a vast amount of spoil. The palace they had

begun to build at Nineveh, on the ruins of an ancient edifice, already

surpassed all previous architectural efforts. The alabaster quarries of

the Assyrian mountains and the forests of Phoenicia had alike been put

under contribution to face the walls of its state apartments;

twenty-two chiefs of the country of the Khâti, of Phoenicia, and of the

Mediterranean littoral--among them the Greek kings of Cyprus--had vied

with one another in supplying Esarhaddon with great beams of pine,

cedar, and cypress for its construction. The ceilings were of cedar

supported by pillars of cypress-wood encircled by silver and iron; stone

lions and bulls stood on either side of the gates, and the doors were

made of cedar and cypress, incrusted or overlaid with iron, silver and

ivory. The treasures of Egypt enabled Esarhaddon to complete this palace

and begin a new one at Calah, where the buildings erected somewhat

hurriedly by Tiglath-pileser III. had already fallen into ruin. Some

of the slabs on which the latter conqueror had engraved his Annals,

and recounted the principal episodes of his campaigns, were removed and

transferred to the site selected by Esarhaddon, and one of the surfaces

of each was pared down in order to receive new pictures and fresh

inscriptions. They had, however, hardly been placed in the stonemason’s

hands when the work was interrupted.*

* The date of the building of the palace at Calah is

furnished by the inscriptions, in which Esarhaddon assumes

the title of King of Egypt.

[Illustration: 161.jpg ASSYRIAN SPHINX IN EGYPTIAN STYLE SUPPORTING THE

BASE OF A COLUMN]

Drawn by Boudier, from the alabaster sculpture reproduced by

Layard.

It may have been that Esarhaddon had to suspend all his operations while

putting down some conspiracy. At any rate, we know that in 669 B.C. many

high personages of his court were seized and executed. The question of

the succession to the throne was still undecided; Sinidina-bal, the son

whom Esarhaddon had previously designated as his heir presumptive, was

dead, and the people feared lest he should choose from among his other

sons some prince who had not their interests at heart. The king’s

affection for Babylon had certainly aroused jealousy and anxiety among

his Assyrian subjects, and perhaps some further tokens of preference

made them uneasy lest’ he should select Shamash-shumukîn, one of his

children who manifested the same tendencies, and who was, moreover, the

son of a Babylonian wife. Most of the nobles who had been led to join

the conspiracy paid for their indiscretion with their heads, but their

opposition gave the sovereign cause for reflection, and decided him to

modify his schemes. Convinced that it was impossible to unite Babylon

and Nineveh permanently under the same ruler, he reluctantly decided

to divide his kingdom into two parts--Assyria, the strongest portion,

falling naturally to his eldest son, Assur-bani-pal, while Babylonia was

assigned to Shamash-shumukîn, on condition of his paying homage to his

brother as suzerain.* The best method to ensure his wishes being carried

into effect was to prepare their way for the fulfilment while he was

still alive; and rebellions which broke out about this time beyond the

isthmus afforded a good opportunity for so doing. Egypt was at this

period divided into twenty states of various dimensions, very nearly the

same as had existed a century before, when Piônkhi had, for the first

time, brought the whole country under Ethiopian rule.** In the south,

the extensive Theban province occupied both sides of the river from

Assuan to Thinis and Khemmis.

* Winokler considers that Assur-bani-pal was the leader of

tha conspiracy, and that he obliged his father to recognise

him as heir to the crown of Assyria, and to associate him on

the throne.

** The list of the principalities in the time of Esarhaddon

and Assur-bani-pal is found on the cylinders of Assur-bani-

pal.

It was nominally governed by Amenertas or her daughter, Shapenuapît, but

the administration was, as usual, entrusted to a member of the priestly

college, at that time to Montumihâît, Count of Thebes, and fourth

prophet of Anion.*

* The Assyrian name of this personage, spelt first

Mantimiankhi, has been more accurately transcribed

Mantimikhi. The identification with the Montumihâît of the

Theban documents, is now generally adopted.

The four principalities of Thinis, Siut, Hermopolis, and Heracleopolis

separated it from the small kingdom of Memphis and Sais, and each of the

regions of the Delta was divided into one or two fiefs, according to the

number and importance of the towns it contained. In the south, Thebes

was too directly under the influence of Ethiopia to be able to exercise

an independent policy with regard to the rest of the country. In the

north, two families contested the supremacy more or less openly. One of

them, whose hereditary domains included the Arabian, and parts of the

surrounding nomes, was then represented by a certain Pakruru. He had

united under his banner the numerous petty chiefs of the eastern side of

the Delta, the heirs of the ancient dynasties of Tanis and Bubastis, and

his energy or ability must have made a good impression on the minds of

his contemporaries, for they handed down his memory to their successors,

who soon metamorphosed him into a popular legendary hero, famed both for

his valour and wisdom. The nobles of the western nomes acknowledged as

their overlords the regents of Sais, the descendants of that Bocchoris

who had for a short while brought the whole valley of the Nile under

his sway. Sabaco, having put his rival to death, had installed in his

hereditary domains an Ethiopian named Ammeris, but this Ammeris had

disappeared from the scene about the same time as his patron, in 704

B.C., and after him three princes at least had succeeded to the throne,

namely, Stephinates, Nekhepsos, and Necho.* Stephinates had died about

680 B.C., without accomplishing anything which was worth recording.

Nekhepsos had had no greater opportunities of distinguishing himself

than had fallen to the lot of his father, and yet legends grew up round

his name as round that of Pakruru: he was reputed to have been a great

soothsayer, astrologist, and magician, and medical treatises were

ascribed to him, and almanacs much esteemed by the superstitious in the

Roman period.**

* The lists of Eusebius give the series Ammeres,

Stephinates, Nekhepsos, Necho I., but Lepsius displaced

Ammeres and identified him with the queen Amenertas; others

have thought to recognise in him Miamun Piônkhi, or

Tanuatamanu, the successor of Taharqa. He must, however, be

left in this place in the list, and we may perhaps consider

him as the founder of the XXVIth dynasty. If the number of

seven years for the reign of Stephinates is adopted, we must

suppose either that Manetho passed over the name of a prince

at the beginning of the XXVIth dynasty, or that Ammeris was

only enthroned at Memphis after the death of Sabaco; but the

lists of the Syncellus and of Sothis assign 27 years to the

reign of Stephinates.

** The astrological works of Nekhepsos are cited, among

others, by Pliny, and it is probably he whom a Greek papyrus

of the Salt Collection mentions under the name of Nekheus.

Necho had already occupied the throne for three or four years when the

invasion of 670 B.C. delivered him from the Ethiopian supremacy. He is

represented as being brave, energetic, and enterprising, ready to hazard

everything in order to attain the object towards which the ambition of

his ancestors had been tending for a century past, namely, to restore

unity to the ancient kingdom under the rule of the house of Sais. The

extent of his realm, and, above all, the possession of Memphis, gave him

a real superiority, and Esarhaddon did not hesitate to esteem him above

his competitors; the Ninevite scribes placed him in the first rank, and

he heads the list of the Egyptian vassals. He soon had an opportunity

of proving his devotion to his foreign suzerain. Taharqa did not

quietly accept his defeat, and Egypt looked to him to be revenged on the

Assyrian as soon as he should have reorganised his army. He once more,

accordingly, took the field in the middle of 669 B.C.; the barons of the

Said rallied to his standard without hesitation, and he soon re-entered

the “White Wall,” but there his advance was arrested. Necho and the

neighbouring chiefs of the Delta, held in check by the presence of

Semitic garrisons, did not venture to proclaim themselves on his

side, and awaited under arms the arrival of Assyrian reinforcements.*

Esarhaddon, in spite of failing health, assumed command of the troops,

and before leaving home carried out the project to which the conspiracy

of the preceding year had given rise; he assigned the government of

Babylon to Shamash-shumukin, and solemnly designated Assur-bani-pal

as the heir to Assyria proper, and to the suzerainty over the whole

empire.**

* The first Egyptian campaign of Assur-bani-pal is also the

last campaign of Esarhaddon, and Assur-bani-pal appropriated

all the earlier incidents of it, some of which belong to the

sole reign of his father, and some to the few weeks in which

he shared the throne with him.

** The association of Assur-bani-pal with his father on the

throne was pointed out by G. Smith, who thought he could fix

the date about 673 B.C., three or four years before the

death of Esarhaddon. Tielo showed that Assur-bani-pal was

then only made viceroy, and assigned his association in the

sovereignty to the year 671 or 670 B.C., about the time of

the second Egyptian campaign, while Hommel brought it down

to 669. Winckler has, with much reason, placed the date in

668 B.C. The Assyrian documents do not mention the

coronation of Shamash-shuniukîn, for Assur-bani-pal

afterwards affected to consider his brother a mere viceroy,

appointed by himself after the death of his father

Esarhaddon; but an examination of all the circumstances has

shown that the enthronement of Shamash-shumukîn at Babylon

was on a par with that of Assur-bani-pal at Nineveh, and

that both owed their elevation to their father.

On the 12th of Lyyar, 668 B.C., on the day of the feast of Gula, he

presented their new lord to all the inhabitants of Assyria, both small

and great, who had assembled to be present at the ceremony, which ended

in the installation of the prince in the palace of Bîtriduti, reserved

for the heirs-apparent. A few weeks later Esarhaddon set out for Egypt,

but his malady became more serious on the journey, and he died on the

10th of Arakhsamna, in the twelfth year of his reign.*

* Arakhsamna corresponds to the Jewish Marcheswân, and to

our month of May.

When we endeavour to conjure up his image before us, we fancy we

are right in surmising that he was not cast in the ordinary mould of

Assyrian monarchs. The history of his campaigns shows that he was as

active and resolute as Assur-nazir-pal and Shalmaneser III., but he did

not add to these good qualities their inflexible harshness towards their

subjects, nor their brutal treatment of conquered foes. Circumstances

in which they would have shown themselves merciless, he seized upon as

occasions for clemency, and if massacres and executions are recorded

among the events of his reign, at least he does not class them among

the most important: the records of his wars do not continually speak of

rebels flayed alive, kings impaled before the gates of their cities,

and whole populations decimated by fire and sword. Of all the Assyrian

conquerors, he is almost the only one for whom the historian can feel

any regard, or from the study of whose reign he passes on with regret to

pursue that of others in due course.

As soon as Esarhaddon had passed away, the separation of the two parts

of the empire which he had planned was effected almost automatically:

Assur-bani-pal proclaimed himself King of Assyria, and Shamash-shumukîn,

in like manner, King of Babylon. One fact, which seems insignificant

enough to us when we read it in the Annals, but was decisive in the

eyes of their contemporaries, sanctioned the transformation thus

accomplished: Bel and the gods of Accad quitted Assur in the month of

Iyyâr and returned to their resting-place in Babylon. The restoration

of the images to their own country became necessary as soon as it was

decided to have a king in Karduniash, even though he were an Assyrian.

To enable him to exercise legitimate authority, he must have celebrated

the rites and “taken the hands of Bel,” but it was a question whether

this obligation could be fulfilled if Bel remained a prisoner in the

neighbouring capital. Assur-bani-pal believed for a moment that this

difficulty could be obviated, and consulted Shamash on this delicate

question: “Shamash-shumukîn, the son of Esarhaddon, the King of Assyria,

can he in this year take the hands of Bel, the mighty lord Marduk, in

this very city, and then go to Babylon with the favour of Bel! If that

would be pleasing to thy great divinity and to the mighty lord Marduk,

thy great divinity must know it.” The reply was not favourable, and

Shamash gave it as his opinion that Bel could not act as a sovereign

lord while still languishing in prison in a city which was not his own.

Assur-bani-pal had to resign himself to the release of his captive,

and he did it with a good grace. He proceeded in pomp to the temple of

Assur, where Marduk was shut up, and humbly entreated the exiled deity

to vouchsafe to return to his own country.

[Illustration: 168.jpg ASSUR-BANIPAL AS A BEARER OF OFFERINGS]

Drawn by Boudier, from a photograph in Lehmann.

“Think on Babylon, which thou didst bring to nought in the rage of thy

heart, and turn thy face towards the temple of E-sagilla, the lofty seat

of thy divinity! Revisit thy city which thou hast forsaken to inhabit a

place which is not worthy of thee, and do thou thyself, O Marduk, lord

of the gods, give the command to return to Babylon.” The statue set out

on its journey, and was escorted by a solemn procession headed by the

two kings. The gods, by one accord, came forth from their cities

and saluted the traveller as he passed by--Beltis of Agadê, Nebo of

Borsippa, Shamash of Sippara, and Nirgal. At length he reached his

beloved city, and entered E-sagilla in the midst of an immense throng

of people. The kings headed the _cortège_, and the delighted multitude

joined their two names with that of the god in their acclamations: it

was a day never to be forgotten. Assur-bani-pal, in his capacity of

suzerain, opened the sacred edifice, and then presented his brother, who

thereupon “took the hands of Bel.”

[Illustration: 169.jpg SIHAMASH-SHUMUKIN AS A BEARER OF OFFERINGS]

Drawn by Boudier, from a photograph in Lehmann.

A quarter of a century had not passed since the victorious Sennacherib

had, as he thought, inflicted a mortal blow on the one power which stood

in the way of Assyria’s supremacy in Western Asia; already, in spite of

his efforts, the city had sprung up from its ruins as vigorous as ever,

and his sons and grandsons had felt themselves irresistibly drawn

to resuscitate that which their ancestors had desired to annihilate

irrevocably. Babylon had rebuilt her palaces, her walls, and her

temples; she had received back her gods without a war, and almost

without any agitation, by the mere force of the prestige she exercised

over all around her, and even over her conquerors. As a matter of fact,

she had not regained her former position, and was still depressed and

enfeebled by the blow which had laid her low; in addition to this, her

king was an Assyrian, and a vassal of Assyria, but nevertheless he

was her own king, and hers alone. Her independence was already half

regained. Shamash-shumukîn established his court at Babylon, and applied

himself from the outset to restore, as far as he was able, the material

and moral forces of his kingdom. Assur-bani-pal, on his side, met with

no opposition from his subjects, but prudence cautioned him not to

estrange them; the troubles of the preceding year were perhaps not

so completely suppressed as to prevent the chiefs who had escaped

punishment from being encouraged by the change of sovereign to renew

their intrigues. The king, therefore, remained in Nineveh to inaugurate

his rule, and confided to his generals the charge of conducting the

expeditions which had been undertaken during his father’s lifetime.* One

of these undertakings was unimportant. Tandaî of Kirbît, a petty chief,

was continually engaged in harassing the inhabitants of Yamutbal; he

bore down upon them every year, and, after dealing a blow, retreated to

his hiding-place in the mountains. He was attacked in his stronghold,

and carried away captive with all his people into Egypt, at the furthest

extremity of the empire, to serve in Assyrian garrisons in the midst of

the fellahîn.**

* In the numerous documents relating to the reign of Assur-

bani-pal the facts are arranged in geographical order, not

by the dates of the successive expeditions, and the

chronological order of the campaigns is all the more

difficult to determine accurately, as _Pinches’ Babylonian

Chronicle_ fails us after the beginning of this reign,

immediately after the mention of the above-mentioned war

with Kirbît. Even the _Eponym Canon_ is only accurate down

to 666 B.C.; in that year there is a break, and although we

possess for the succeeding period more than forty names of

eponyms, their classification is not at present absolutely

certain.

** The expedition against Kirbît is omitted in certain

documents; it is inserted in the others in the fourth place,

between the wars in Asia Minor and the campaign against the

Mannai. The place assigned to it in the Bab. Chron. quite in

the beginning of the reign, is confirmed by a fragment of a

tablet quoted by Winckler. Perhaps it was carried out by a

Babylonian army: although Assur-bani-pal claimed the glory

of it, by reason of his suzerainty over Karduniash.

Meanwhile, the army which Esarhaddon had been leading against Taharqa

pursued its course under command of the Tartan.* Syria received it

submissively, and the twenty-two kings who still possessed a shadow of

autonomy in the country sent assurances of their devotion to the new

monarch: even Yakînlu, King of Arvad, who had aroused suspicion by

frequent acts of insubordination,** thought twice before rebelling

against his terrible suzerain, and joined the rest in paying both

homage and tribute. Cyprus and also Phoenicia remained faithful to their

allegiance, and, what was of still more consequence, the states which

lay nearest to Egypt--Philistia, Judah, Moab, and Ammon; the Assyrians

were thus able to push forward to the Delta without losing time in

repressing rebellions along their route. The Ethiopians had entrenched

themselves at Karbanîti;*** they were, however, once more defeated, and

left; so many of their soldiers dead upon the field, that Taharqa had

not sufficient troops left to defend Memphis.

* The text of Tablet K 2675-K 228 of the Brit. Mus., states

distinctly that the Tartan commanded the first army.

** Assur-bani-pal, acting in the name of his father,

Esarhaddon, King of Assyria, had consulted Shamash on the

desirability of sending troops against Arvad: the prince of

this city is called Ikkalu, which is a variant of Yakînlu.

Winckler concluded that the campaign against Arvad took

place before 668 B.C., in the reign of Esarhaddon. It seems

to me more natural to place it on the return from Egypt,

when the people of Arvad were demoralised by the defeat of

the Pharaoh whose alliance they had hoped for.

*** I had compared Karbanîti with the Qarbîna mentioned in

the _Great Harris Papyrus_, and this identification was

accepted by most Egyptologists, even after Brugsch

recognised in Qarbîna the name of Canopus or a town near

Canopus. It has been contested by Steindorf, and, in fact,

Karbanîti could not be identified with Canopus, any more

than the Qarbina of the Harris Papyrus; its site must be

looked for in the eastern or central part of the Delta.

He retreated upon Thebes, where he strongly fortified himself; but the

Tartan had not suffered less than his adversary, and he would have been

unable to pursue him, had not reinforcements promptly reached him. The

Bab-shakeh, who had been despatched from Nineveh with some Assyrian

troops, had summoned to his aid the principal Syrian feudal chiefs, who,

stimulated by the news of the victories achieved on the banks of the

Nile, placed themselves unreservedly at his disposal. He ordered

their vessels to proceed along the coast as far as the Delta, where

he purposed to collect a fleet to ascend the river, while their

troops augmented the force already under his command. The two Assyrian

generals, the Tartan and the Rabshakeh, quitted Memphis, probably in the

early part of 667 B.C., and, cautiously advancing southwards, covered

the distance separating the two Egyptian capitals in a steady march

of forty days. When the Assyrians had advanced well up the valley, the

princes of the Delta thought the opportunity had arrived to cut them

off by a single bold stroke. They therefore opened cautious negotiations

with the Ethiopian king, and proposed an arrangement which should secure

their independence: “We will divide the country between us, and neither

of us shall exercise authority over the other.” However secretly these

negotiations were conducted, they were certain to come to the knowledge

of the Assyrian generals: the couriers were intercepted; and discovering

from the despatches the extent of the danger, the Assyrians seized

as many of the leaders of the league as they could. As a warning they

sacked Sais, Mendes, and Tanis, demolishing the fortifications, and

flaying or impaling the principal citizens before their city gates;

they then sent two of the intriguing chiefs, Necho and Sharludari of

Pelusium, bound hand and foot with chains, to Nineveh. Pakruru, of the

Arabian nome, managed, however, to escape them. Taharqa, thus bereft of

his allies, was no longer in a condition to repel the invader: he fled

to Ethiopia, abandoning Thebes to its fate. The city was ransomed

by despoiling the temple of Amon of half its treasures: Montumihâît

transferred his allegiance unhesitatingly to Assur-bani-pal, and the

whole of Egypt from the Mediterranean to the first cataract once

more became Assyrian territory. The victory was so complete that

Assur-bani-pal thought he might without risk show clemency to his

prisoners. He summoned them to his presence, and there, instead of

putting out their eyes or subjecting them to some horrible form of

torture, he received them back into favour, and confirmed Necho in the

possession of all the honours which Esarhaddon had conceded to him. He

clothed him in a mantle of honour, and bestowed on him a straight-bladed

sword with an iron scabbard ornamented with gold, engraved with his

names and titles, besides rings, gold bracelets, chariots, horses, and

mules; in short, all the appurtenances of royalty. Not content with

restoring to him the cities of Sais and Memphis, he granted him the fief

of Athribis for his eldest son, Psammetichus.

[Illustration: 174.jpg MONTUMIHÂÎT, PRINCE OF THEBES]

Drawn by Boudier, from the photograph by Miss Benson. It is

not quite certain that this statue represents Montumihâît,

as the inscription is wanting: the circumstances of the

discovery, however, render it very probable.

Moreover, he neglected no measure likely to show his supremacy. Athribis

received the new name of Limir-patesi-assur, _may the high priest of

Assur be glorious_, and Sais that of Kar-bel-matâti, _the fortress of

the lord of the countries_. Psammetichus was called Nebo-shezib-anni,

_Nebo, deliver me_, and residents were installed at his court and that

of his father, who were entrusted with the _surveillance_ of their

conduct, and the task of keeping them to the path of duty: Necho, thus

well guarded, thenceforward never faltered in his allegiance.

The subjection of Egypt reacted on Syria and Asia Minor. Of the only two

states still existing along the Phoenician seaboard, one, namely Tyre,

had been in revolt for many years, and the other, Arvad, showed symptoms

of disaffection.

[Illustration: 175.jpg PSAMMETICHUS]

Drawn by Faucher-Gudin, from a bas-relief in the British

Museum.

Esarhaddon, from lack of a sufficient fleet, had never been able to

subdue the former, but he had interrupted the communications of the

island with the mainland, and the blockade, which was constantly

increasing in strictness, had already lasted for four years. On receipt

of the news from Egypt, Bâal realised that further resistance was

hopeless; he therefore delivered up to the victor his heir-apparent,

Yahî-melek, and one of his daughters, together with other hostages,

besides silver, gold, and wood, and intreated for pardon. Assur-bani-pal

left him in possession of his kingdom on condition of paying the regular

tribute, but Yakînlu, the King of Arvad, met with harsher treatment. In

vain did he give up his sons, his daughters, and all his treasures; his

intractability had worn out the patience of his suzerain: he was carried

away captive to Nineveh, and replaced by Azîbaal, his eldest son.

Two chiefs of the Taurus--Mugallu of Tabal, who had given trouble

to Esarhaddon in the last years of his life, and Sanda-sarme of

Cilicia--purchased immunity from the punishment due for various acts

of brigandage, by gifts of horses, and by handing over each of them a

daughter, richly dowered, to the harem of the king at Nineveh. But these

were incidents of slight moment, and their very insignificance proves

how completely resigned to foreign domination the nations of the

Mediterranean coast had now become. Vassal kings, princes, cities,

peasants of the plain or shepherds of the mountains, all who were

subject directly or indirectly to Assyria, had almost ceased to imagine

that a change of sovereign afforded them any chance of regaining their

independence. They no longer considered themselves the subjects of a

conqueror whose death might free them from allegiance; they realised

that they were the subjects of an empire whose power did not depend on

the genius or incapacity of one man, but was maintained from age to

age in virtue of the prestige it had attained, whatever might be the

qualities of the reigning sovereign. The other independent states had at

length come to the same conclusion, and the news of the accession of a

fresh Assyrian king no longer awakened among them hopes of conquest or,

at all events, of booty; such an occasion was regarded as a suitable

opportunity for strengthening the bonds of neighbourly feeling or

conciliatory friendship which united them to Assyria, by sending an

embassy to congratulate the new sovereign. One of these embassies, which

arrived about 667 B.C., caused much excitement at the court of Nineveh,

and greatly flattered the vanity of the king. Reports brought back

by sailors or the chiefs of caravans had revealed the existence of a

kingdom of Lydia in the extreme west of Asia Minor, at the place of

embarcation for crossing the sea.*

* It is called _nagu sha nibirti tâmtim_, “the country of

the crossing of the sea,” or more concisely, “the country

this side the sea.”

It was known to be celebrated for its gold and its horses, but no direct

relations between the two courts had ever been established, and the

Lydian kings had hitherto affected to ignore the existence of Assyria.

A revolution had broken out in this province a quarter of a century

previously, which had placed on the throne of the Heraclidse that family

of the Mermnado whose previous history had been so tragic. Dascylus,

who had made his home for a long time among the White Syrians, had no

intention of abandoning his adopted country, when one day, about the

year 698 B.C., a messenger arrived bidding him repair to Sardes without

delay. His uncle Ardys, prince of Tyrrha, having no children, had

applied to Sadyattes, beseeching him to revoke the sentence of

banishment passed on his nephew. “My house is desolate,” said he, “and

all my kinsfolk are dead; and furthermore, Dascylus and his house have

already been pardoned by thine ancestors.” Sadyattes consented, but

Dascylus, preferring not to return, sent his son Gyges, then about

eighteen years of age, in his stead. Gyges was a tall and very beautiful

youth, and showed unusual skill as a charioteer and in the use of

weapons, so that his renown soon spread throughout the country.

Sadyattes desired to see him, and being captivated by his bold

demeanour, enrolled him in his bodyguard, loaded him with presents, and

took him into his entire confidence. Gyges was clever enough to utilise

the king’s favour in order to enlarge his domains and increase his

riches, and thus win partisans among the people and the body of

“Friends.” Carian mercenaries at that time formed one of the most

vigorous and best disciplined contingents in the armies of the period.*

The Carians were, above all, a military race, and are said to have

brought the shield and helmet to their highest perfection; at Sardes

they formed the garrison of the citadel, and their captains were in high

favour with the king. Gyges formed a fast friendship with Arselis of

Mylasa, one of the chief of these officers, and thus made sure of the

support of the garrison, and of the possibility of recruiting a corps

among the Carian clans who remained in their own country.** He thus

incurred the bitter jealousy of the Tylonidag, whose chief, Lixos, was

ready to adopt any measures which might damage his rival, even going so

far as to simulate madness and run through the streets of Sardes crying

out that Gyges, the son of Dascylus, was about to assassinate the king;

but this stratagem did not succeed any better than his other treacherous

devices. Meanwhile Sadyattes had sought the hand of Toudô,*** daughter

of Arnossos of Mysia, and sent his favourite to receive his affianced

bride at the hand of her father.

* Archilochus of Paros, a contemporary of Gyges, mentions

the Carian mercenaries, and later on Ephorus said of them,

that they had been the first to sell their services to

strangers.

** The connection between Arselis and Gyges is mentioned by

Plutarch.

*** It is not certain whether the name is Toudô or Trydô.

Gyges fell in love with her on the journey, and tried in vain to win

her favour. She repulsed his advances with indignation, and on the very

night of her marriage complained to her husband of the insult which

had been offered her. Sadyattes swore that he would avenge her on the

morrow; but Gyges, warned by a servant, slew the king before daybreak.

Immediately after thus assassinating his sovereign, Gyges called

together the “Friends,” and ridding himself of those who were hostile

to him, induced the others by bribes to further his designs; then

descending to the place of public assembly, he summoned the people to a

conclave. After a long and stormy debate, it was decided to consult

the oracle at Delphi, which, corrupted by the gold from the Pactolus,

enjoined on the Lydians to recognise Gyges as their king. He married

Toudô, and by thus espousing the widow of the Heraclid sovereign,

obtained some show of right to the crown; but the decision of the oracle

was not universally acceptable, and war broke out, in which Gyges was

victorious, thanks to the bravery of his Carian mercenaries. His

career soon served as the fabric on which the popular imagination was

continually working fresh embroideries. He was reported at the outset to

have been of base extraction, a mere soldier of fortune, who had raised

himself by degrees to the highest posts and had finally supplanted his

patron. Herodotus, following the poet Archilochus of Paros, relates

how the last of the Heraclidas, whom he calls by his private name of

Kandaules, and not his official name of Sadyattes,* forcibly insisted

on exposing to the admiration of Gyges the naked beauty of his wife; the

queen, thus outraged, called upon the favourite to avenge the insult to

her modesty by the blood of her husband, and then bestowed on him her

hand, together with the crown.

* Schubert considers that the names Sadyattes and Kandaules

belong to two distinct persons. Kandaules, according to him,

was probably a second son of Myrsos, who, after the murder

of Sadyattes, disputed the possession of the crown with

Gyges; in this case he was killed in battle by the Carian

commander, Arselis, as related by Plutarch, and Gyges was

not really king till after the death of Kandaules.

Plato made this story the groundwork of a most fantastic tale. Gyges,

according to him, was originally a shepherd, who, after a terrible

storm, noticed a fissure in the ground, into which he crept; there he

discovered an enormous bronze horse, half broken, and in its side the

corpse of a giant with a gold ring on his finger. Chance revealed to him

that this ring rendered its wearer invisible: he set out for the court

in quest of adventures, seduced the queen, murdered the king and seized

his crown, accomplishing all this by virtue of his talisman.*

* This version is curious, because it has preserved for us

one of the earliest examples of a ring which renders its

wearer invisible; it is well known how frequently such a

talisman appears in Oriental tales of a later period.

According to a third legend, his crime and exaltation had been presaged

by a wondrous prodigy. Two eagles of supernatural size had alighted on

the roof of Toudô’s room while she was still dwelling in her father’s

house, and the soothsayers who were consulted prognosticated that the

princess would be the wife of two kings in a single night; and, in

fact, Gyges, having stabbed Sadyattes when his marriage was but just

consummated, forced Toudô to become his wife on the spot without waiting

for the morrow. Other stories were current, in which the events were

related with less of the miraculous element, and which attributed the

success of Gyges to the unbounded fidelity shown him by the Carian

Arselis. In whatever manner it was brought about, his accession marked

the opening of a new era for Lydia. The country had always been noted

for its valiant and warlike inhabitants, but the Heraclidse had not

expended its abundant resources on foreign conquest, and none of the

surrounding peoples suspected that it could again become the seat of a

brilliant empire as in fabulous times.

[Illustration: 181.jpg LYDIAN HORSEMEN]

Drawn by Faucher-Gudin, from a Lydian bas-relief now in the

British Museum.

Gyges endeavoured to awaken the military instincts of his subjects. If

he were not actually the first to organise that admirable cavalry corps

which for nearly a century proved itself invincible on the field of

battle, at least he enlarged and disciplined it, giving it cohesion

and daring; and it was well he did so, for a formidable danger already

menaced his newly acquired kingdom. The Cimmerians and Treres, so

long as they did not act in concert, had been unable to overcome the

resistance offered by the Phrygians; their raids, annually renewed, had

never resulted in more than the destruction of a city or the pillaging

of an ill-defended district. But from 690 to 680 B.C. the Cimmerians,

held in check by the bold front displayed by Sennacherib and Esarhaddon,

had at last broken away from the seductions of the east, and poured down

in force on the centre of the peninsula. King Midas, after an heroic

defence, at length gave way before their overwhelming numbers, and,

rather than fall alive into the hands of the barbarians, poisoned

himself by drinking the blood of a bull (676 B.C.).* The flower of his

nobility perished with him, and the people of lower rank who survived

were so terrified by the invasion, that they seemed in one day to lose

entirely the brave and energetic character which had hitherto been their

safeguard. The Cimmerians seized town after town;** they descended from

the basin of the Sangarios into that of the Bhyndakos; they laid waste

the Troad, and, about 670 B.C., they established themselves securely in

the stronghold of Antandros, opposite the magnificent Æolian island of

Lesbos, and ere long their advanced posts were face to face on all sides

with the outposts of Lydia.

* The date of 676 B.C. has been borrowed from Julius

Africanus by the Christian chronologists of the Byzantine

period; these latter made the fall of the Phrygian kingdom

coincide with the reign of Amon in Judæa, and this date is

accepted by most modern historians.

** One fact alone, probably taken from the Lydiaca of

Xanthus, is known to us concerning their operations in

Phrygia, namely, the taking of Syassos and the capture of

enormous stores of corn which were laid up in the silos in

that city.

Gyges resolutely held his own, and successfully repulsed them; but

the struggle was too unequal between their vast hordes, recruited

incessantly from their reserves in Thrace or the Caucasus, and his

scanty battalions of Lydians, Carians, and Creeks. Unaided, he had

no chance of reopening the great royal highway, which the fall of the

Phrygian monarchy had laid at the mercy of the barbarians along the

whole of its middle course, and yet he was aware that a cessation of the

traffic which passed between the Euphrates and the Hermos was likely

to lead in a short time to the decay of his kingdom. If the numerous

merchants who were wont to follow this ancient traditional route were

once allowed to desert it and turn aside to one of the coast-roads

which might replace it--either that of the Pontus in the north or of the

Mediterranean in the south--they might not be willing to return to it

even when again opened to traffic, and Lydia would lose for ever one of

her richest sources of revenue.*

* Radet deserves credit for being the first to point out the

economic reasons which necessarily led Gyges to make his

attempt at forming an alliance with Assur-bani-pal. He has

thus definitely dismissed the objections which some recent

critics had raised against the authenticity of this episode

in order to defend classic tradition and diminish the

authority of the Assyrian texts.

We may well conceive that Gyges, whose fortune and very existence was

thus in jeopardy, would seek assistance against these barbarians from

the sovereign whose interests appeared identical with his own. The

renown of the Assyrian empire had penetrated far into the west; the

Achæns of Cyprus who were its subjects, the Greek colonists of Cilicia,

and the soldiers whom the exigencies of the coast-trade brought to

Syrian ports, must all have testified to its splendour; and the fame

of its conquests over the Tabal and the peoples on the Halys had spread

abroad more than once during the previous century, and had reached as

far as the western extremity of the peninsula of Asia Minor, by means of

the merchants of Sardes or Ionia. The Cimmerians had harassed Assyria,

and still continued to be a source of anxiety to her rulers; Gyges

judged that participation in a common hatred or danger would predispose

the king in his favour, and a dream furnished him with a pretext for

notifying to the court of Nineveh his desire to enter into friendly

relations with it. He dreamed that a god, undoubtedly Assur, had

appeared to him in the night, and commanded him to prostrate himself

at the feet of Assur-bani-pal: “In his name thou shalt overcome thine

enemies.” The next morning he despatched horsemen to the great king,

but when the leader of the embassy reached the frontier and met the

Assyrians for the first time, they asked him, “Who, then, art thou,

brother, thou from whose land no courier has as yet visited our

country?” The language he spoke was unknown to them; they only gathered

that he desired to be conducted into the presence of the king, and

consequently sent him on to Nineveh under good escort. There the same

obstacle presented itself, for none of the official interpreters at

the court knew the Lydian tongue; however, an interpreter was at length

discovered, who translated the story of the dream as best he could.

Assur-bani-pal joyfully accepted the homage offered to him from such

a far-off land, and from thenceforward some sort of alliance existed

between Assyria and Lydia--an alliance of a very Platonic order, from

which Gyges at least derived no sensible advantage. Some troops

sent into the country of the White Syrians may have disquieted the

Cimmerians, and, by causing a diversion in their rear, procured a

respite for Lydia; but the caravan route across Asia Minor was only

of secondary importance to the prosperity of Nineveh and the Syrian

provinces, since the Phoenician navy provided sufficient outlets for

their trade in the west. Assur-bani-pal lavished friendly speeches on

the Lydians, but left them to bear the brunt of the attack alone, and

devoutly thanked Assur for the security which their determined courage

procured for the western frontier of his empire.

The Cimmerian peril being, for the present at least, averted, there

no longer remained any foe to trouble the peace of the empire on the

northern or eastern frontier, Urartu, the Mannai, and the Medes having

now ceased to be formidable. Urartu, incessantly exposed to the ravages

of the barbarians, had drawn closer and closer to Assyria; and though

not actually descending to the point of owning its rival’s superiority

in order to obtain succour against these terrible foes, it yet carefully

avoided all pretexts for war, and persistently maintained friendly

relations with its powerful neighbour. Its kings, Eusas II. and his

successor Erimenas, no longer meditated feats of arms and successful

raids, but devoted themselves to building their city walls, erecting

palaces and temples, and planning pleasant retreats in the mountain

fastnesses, where they lived surrounded by gardens planted at great

cost, watered by streams brought thither from distant springs. The

Mannai submitted without a murmur to their Assyrian governors, and the

Medes, kept in check by the garrisons of Parsua and Kharkhar, seemed

to have laid aside much of their fierce and turbulent disposition.

Esarhaddon had endeavoured to conciliate the good will of Elam by a

signal service. He had supplied its inhabitants with corn, wine, and

provisions of all sorts during a famine which had afflicted the country

about 670 B.C.; nor had his good will ended there. He refused to bring

into servitude those Elamite subjects who had taken refuge with their

families on Assyrian territory to escape the scourge, although the

rights of nations authorised him so to do, but having nourished them

as long as the dearth lasted, he then sent them back to their

fellow-citizens. Urtaku of Elam had thenceforward maintained a kind of

sullen neutrality, entering only into secret conspiracies against the

Babylonian prefects on the Tigris. The Aramaeans in the valleys of the

Ulaî, indeed, were restless, and several of their chiefs, Bel-ikîsha

of the G-ambula, and Nabo-shumirîsh, plotted in secret with

Marduk-shumibni, the Elamite general in command on the frontier. But no

hint of this had yet transpired, and peace apparently reigned there as

elsewhere. Never had the empire been so respected; never had it united

so many diverse nations under one sceptre--Egyptians, Syrians, tribes of

the Taurus, and the mountain districts round the Tigris and Euphrates,

Mannai, Medes, Babylonians, and Arabs; never, moreover, had it possessed

greater resources wherewith to compel obedience from the provinces or

defend them against foreign attack.

[Illustration: 187.jpg ASSUR-BANI-PAL]

Drawn by Faucher-Gudin, from one of the bas-reliefs from

Kouyunjik in the British Museum.

Doubtless the population of Assyria proper, and the ancient districts

whose contingents formed the nucleus of the army, were still suffering

from the results of the civil war which had broken out more than fifteen

years before, after the assassination of Sennacherib; but under the easy

rule of Esarhaddon the natural increase of population, unchecked by any

extraordinary call for recruits, must have almost repaired their losses.

The Egyptian campaigns, partially carried out by Syrian auxiliaries,

had not sensibly retarded this progress, and, provided that peace were

maintained for some years longer, the time seemed at hand when the king,

having repaired his losses, could call upon the nation to make fresh

efforts in offensive or defensive warfare, without the risk of seeing

his people melt and disappear before his eyes. It seems, indeed, as if

Assur-bani-pal, either by policy or natural disposition, was inclined

for peace. But this did not preclude, when occasion demanded, his

directing his forces and fighting in person like any other Assyrian

monarch; he, however, preferred repose, and when circumstances forced

war upon him, he willingly delegated the conduct of the army to his

generals. He would probably have renounced possession of Egypt if he

could have done so with safety and such a course would not have been

without wisdom, the retention of this newly acquired province being

difficult and costly. Not to speak of differences in language, religion,

and manners, which would prevent it from ever becoming assimilated to

Assyria as Damascus, Hamath, and Samaria, and most of the Asiatic states

had been, it was merely connected with the rest of the empire by the

thin chain of rocks, desert, and marshes stretching between the Red Sea

and the Mediterranean. A revolt of the cities of the Philistines, or

of one of the Idumsean sheikhs, would have sufficed to isolate it, and,

communications once interrupted, the safety of the numerous Assyrian

officers and garrisons would be seriously jeopardised, all of whom must

be maintained there if the country was to be permanently retained. The

inclination to meddle in the affairs of Syria always displayed by the

Pharaohs, and their obsolete claims to rule the whole country as far as

the Euphrates, did not allow of their autonomy being restored to them at

the risk of the immediate renewal of their intrigues with Tyre or Judah,

and the fomenting of serious rebellions among the vassal princes of

Palestine. On the other hand, Egypt was by its natural position so

detached from the rest of the empire that it was certain to escape

from the influence of Nineveh as soon as the pressure of circumstances

obliged the suzerain to relax his efforts to keep it in subjection.

Besides this, Ethiopia lay behind Egypt, almost inaccessible in the

fabled realms of the south, always ready to provoke conspiracies or

renew hostilities when the occasion offered. Montumihâît had already

returned to Thebes on the retreat of the Assyrian battalions, and though

Taharqa, rendered inactive, as it was said, by a dream which bade him

remain at Napata,* had not reappeared north of the cataract, he had sent

Tanuatamanu, the son of his wife by Sabaco, to administer the province

in his name.** Taharqa died shortly after (666 B.C.), and his stepson

was preparing to leave Thebes in order to be solemnly crowned at Gebel

Barkal, when he saw one night in a dream two serpents, one on his right

hand, the other on his left. The soothsayers whom he consulted on the

matter prognosticated for him a successful career: “Thou holdest the

south countries; seize thou those of the north, and let the crowns of

the two regions gleam upon thy brow!” He proceeded at once to present

himself before his divine father Amon of Napata, and, encountering no

opposition from the Ethiopian priests or nobles, he was able to fulfil

the prediction almost immediately after his coronation.***

* The legend quoted by Herodotus relates that Sabaco, having

slain Necho I., the father of Psammetichus, evacuated Egypt

which he had conquered, and retired to Ethiopia in obedience

to a dream. The name of Sabaco was very probably substituted

for that of Taharqa in the tradition preserved in Sais and

Memphis, echoes of which reached the Greek historian in the

middle of the fifth century B.C.

** It appears, from the _Stele of the Dream_, that

Tanuatamanu was in the Thebaid at the time of his accession

to the throne.

*** Steindorff thinks that Tanuatamanu had been officially

associated with himself on the throne by Taharqa, and

Schsefer supposes that the dream dates from the first year

of their joint reign. The presence of Tanuatamanu beside

Taharqa, in the small Theban temple, the bas-reliefs of

which were published by Mariette, does not necessarily prove

that the two kings reigned conjointly: it may equally well

indicate that the one accomplished the work commenced by the

other.

The Said hailed his return with joy, and the inhabitants, massed upon

either bank of the river, acclaimed him as he glided past them on his

boat: “Go in peace! mayest thou have peace! Restore life to Egypt!

Rebuild the ruined temples, set up once more the statues and emblems

of the deities! Reestablish the endowments raised to the gods and

goddesses, even the offerings to the dead! Restore the priest to his

place, that he may minister at all the rites!”

The Assyrian officials and the princes of the north, with Necho at

their head, were drawn up beneath the walls of Memphis to defy him. He

overcame them, however, captured the city, and pushed on into the Delta

in pursuit of the retreating foe. Necho either fell in a skirmish, or

was taken prisoner and put to death: his son Psammetichus escaped to

Syria, but the remaining princes shut themselves up, each in his own

stronghold, to await reinforcements from Asia, and a series of tedious

and interminable sieges began. Impatient at this dilatory method of

warfare, Tanuatamanu at length fell back on Memphis, and there opened

negotiations in the hope of securing at least a nominal submission,

which might enable him to withdraw from the affair with honour.

[Illustration: 190.jpg MURAL DECORATIONS FROM THE GROTTOES]

The princes of the east received his overtures favourably, and consented

to prostrate themselves before him at the White Wall under the auspices

of Pakruru. “Grant us the breath of life, for he who acknowledges thee

not cannot live, and we will be thy vassals, as thou didst declare at

the beginning, on the day in which thou becamest king!”

[Illustration: 191.jpg KING TANUATAMANU IN ADORATION BEFORE THE GODS OF

THEBES]

Drawn by Boudier, from a photograph by Legrain, taken in the

small temple at Thebes.

The heart of his Majesty was filled with joy when he heard this

discourse: he bestowed upon them in abundance bread, beer, and all

manner of good things. After sojourning some days at the court of

Pharaoh their lord, they said to him, “Why stay we here, O prince

our master?” His Majesty replied, “Wherefore?” They answered then,

“Graciously permit us to return to our own cities, that we may give

commands to our subjects, and may bring thee our tribute offerings!”

They returned ere long, bringing the promised gifts, and the king

withdrew to Napata loaded with spoil.* The Delta proper at once ceased

to obey him, but Memphis, as well as Thebes, still acknowledged his sway

for some two or three years longer.**

* Tanuatamanu was at first identified by Haigh with the

person whose name Assyriologists read as Urdamani, but the

impossibility of recognising the name _Tanuatamanu_ in

_Urdamani_ decided E. de Rougé, and subsequently others, to

admit an Urdamani different from Tanuatamanu. The discovery

of the right reading of the name _Tandamanu_ by Steindorff

has banished all doubts, and it is now universally admitted

that the person mentioned in the Assyrian documents is

identical with the king who erected the _Stele of the Dream_

at Gebel Barkal.

** A monument still exists which was dedicated at Thebes in

the third year of Tanuatamanu.

It was neither indolence nor fear which had kept Assur-bani-pal from

marching to the succour of his subjects as soon as the movement under

Tanuatamanu became manifest, but serious complications had arisen in

the south-east which had for the moment obliged him to leave Egypt to

itself. Elam had at last laid aside the mask, and Urtaku, yielding

to the entreaties of the Aramæan sheikhs, who were urged on by

Marduk-shumibni, had crossed the Tigris. Shamash-shumukîn, thus taken

unawares, could only shut himself up in Babylon, and in all haste send

information of his plight to his brother and suzerain. Assur-bani-pal,

preoccupied with the events taking place on the Nile, was for a moment

in doubt whether this incursion was merely a passing raid or the opening

of a serious war, but the reports of his scouts soon left no doubt as to

the gravity of the danger: “The Elamite, like a swarm of grasshoppers,

covers the fields, he covers Accad; against Babylon he has pitched his

camp and drawn out his lines.” The city was too strong to be taken by

storm. The Assyrians hastened to relieve it, and threatened to cut off

the retreat of the aggressors: the latter, therefore, gave up the siege,

and returned to their own country, but their demeanour was still so

undaunted that Assur-bani-pal did not cross the frontier in pursuit of

them (665 B.C.). He doubtless fully expected that they would soon return

in larger numbers, and perhaps his fear would not have proved unfounded

had not fate suddenly deprived them of all their leaders. Bel-ikîsha

was killed in hunting by a wild boar, Nabu-shumirîsh was struck down

by dropsy, and Marduk-shumibni perished in a mysterious manner. Finally

Urtaku succumbed to an attack of apoplexy, and the year which had been

so fatal to his allies proved not less so to himself (664 B.C.). It

now seemed as if Assur-bani-pal might breathe freely, and inflict his

long-deferred vengeance on Tanuatamanu, but the death of Urtaku did not

remove all causes of uneasiness. Peace was not yet concluded, and it

depended on the new King of Elam whether hostilities would be renewed.

Fortunately for the Assyrians, the transmission of power had rarely

taken place at Susa for a century past without a disturbance, and Urtaku

himself had gained the throne by usurpation, possibly accompanied by

murder. As he had treated his elder brother Khumbân-khaldash and the

children of the latter, so did his younger brother Tammaritu now treat

his sons. Tammaritu was “a devil” incarnate, whose whole thoughts were

of murder and rapine; at least, this was the idea formed of him by his

Assyrian contemporaries, who declared that he desired to put to death

the sons of his two predecessors out of sheer cruelty. But we do not

need a very vivid imagination to believe that these princes were anxious

to dethrone him, and that in endeavouring to rid himself of them he

was merely forestalling their secret plots. They escaped his murderous

designs, however, and fled to Assyria,--Khumbân-igash, Khumbân-appa,

and Tammaritu, sons of Uxtaku, and Kuduru and Parru, sons of

Khumbân-khaldash, followed by sixty other princes of royal blood,

together with archers and servants--forming, in fact, a small army of

Elamites. Assur-bani-pal received them with honour, for their defection

furnished him with a powerful weapon against the usurper: by succouring

them he could rouse half Elam and involve it in civil war, in which the

pretenders would soon exhaust their resources. It was now a favourable

moment to renew hostilities in Egypt, while Tammaritu, still insecure on

his throne, would not venture to provoke a conflict.*

* The time of the war against Urtaku and the expedition

against Tanuatamanu is indicated by a passage in a cylinder

as yet unedited. There we read that the invasion of Urtaku

took place at the moment when Tanuatamanu ascended the

throne. These preliminary difficulties with Elam would thus

have coincided with the two years which elapsed between the

accession of Tanuatamanu and his conquest of Memphis, up to

the third year mentioned in the Berlin inscription; the

testimony of the Egyptian monuments would thus be in almost

complete accord with the Assyrian documents on this point.

As a matter of fact, Tanuatamanu did not risk the defence of Memphis,

but concentrated his forces at Thebes. Once more the Assyrian generals

ascended the Nile, and, after a voyage lasting six weeks, at length

reached the suburbs of the great city. Tanuatamanu had fled towards

Kipkip, leaving Thebes at the mercy of the invaders. It was given up to

pillage, its population was carried off into slavery, and its temples

and palaces were despoiled of their treasures--gold, silver, metals,

and precious stones, broidered and richly dyed stuffs, and horses of the

royal stud.

[Illustration: 195.jpg ASSYRIAN HELMET FOUND AT THEBES]

Drawn by Faucher-Gudin, from the photograph by Pétrie.

Two of the obelisks which adorned the temple of Amon were taken down

from their pedestals and placed on rafts to be transported to Nineveh,

and we shall perhaps unearth them some day from its ruins. This work of

reprisal accomplished, the conquerors made their way northwards, and the

bulk of the army recrossed the isthmus: Ethiopian rule had ceased north

of the cataract, and Egypt settled down once more under the Assyrian

yoke (663-662 B.C.).*

* The dates which I have adopted follow from the date of 666

B.C. given for the death of Taharqa and the accession of

Psammetichus I. The expedition against Thebes must have

taken place at the end of the third or beginning of the

fourth year of the reign of Tanuatamanu, shortly after the

inscription of the third year, and was engraved either in

663 or 662 B.C. at the latest.