CHAPTER VIII.

RELIGION.

“The graven image, and the molten image.”--NAHUM i. 14

The religion of the Assyrians so nearly resembled--at least in its

external aspect, in which alone we can contemplate it--the religion of

the primitive Chaldaeans, that it will be unnecessary, after the full

treatment which that subject received in an earlier portion of this

work, to do much more than notice in the present place certain

peculiarities by which it would appear that the cult of Assyria was

distinguished from that of the neighboring and closely connected

country. With the exception that the first god in the Babylonian

Pantheon was replaced by a distinct and thoroughly national deity in the

Pantheon of Assyria, and that certain deities whose position was

prominent in the one occupied a subordinate position in the other, the

two religious systems may be pronounced, not similar merely but

identical. Each of them, without any real monotheism, commences with the

same preeminence of a single deity, which is followed by the same

groupings of identically the same divinities; and after that, by a

multitudinous polytheism, which is chiefly of a local character. Each

country, so far as we can see, has nearly the same worship-temples,

altars, and ceremonies of the same type--the same religious emblems--the

same ideas. The only difference here is, that in Assyria ampler evidence

exists of what was material in the religious system, more abundant

representations of the objects and modes of worship; so that it will be

possible to give, by means of illustrations, a more graphic portraiture

of the externals of the religion of the Assyrians than the scantiness of

the remains permitted in the case of the primitive Chaldaeans.

At the head of the Assyrian Pantheon stood the “great god.” Asshur. His

usual titles are “the great Lord,” “the King of all the Gods,” “he who

rules supreme over the Gods.” Sometimes he is called “the Father of the

Gods,” though that is a title which is more properly assigned to Belus.

His place is always first in invocations. He is regarded throughout all

the Assyrian inscriptions as the especial tutelary deity both of the

kings and of the country. He places the monarchs upon their

CHAPTER VIII.

RELIGION.

“The graven image, and the molten image.”--NAHUM i. 14

The religion of the Assyrians so nearly resembled--at least in its

external aspect, in which alone we can contemplate it--the religion of

the primitive Chaldaeans, that it will be unnecessary, after the full

treatment which that subject received in an earlier portion of this

work, to do much more than notice in the present place certain

peculiarities by which it would appear that the cult of Assyria was

distinguished from that of the neighboring and closely connected

country. With the exception that the first god in the Babylonian

Pantheon was replaced by a distinct and thoroughly national deity in the

Pantheon of Assyria, and that certain deities whose position was

prominent in the one occupied a subordinate position in the other, the

two religious systems may be pronounced, not similar merely but

identical. Each of them, without any real monotheism, commences with the

same preeminence of a single deity, which is followed by the same

groupings of identically the same divinities; and after that, by a

multitudinous polytheism, which is chiefly of a local character. Each

country, so far as we can see, has nearly the same worship-temples,

altars, and ceremonies of the same type--the same religious emblems--the

same ideas. The only difference here is, that in Assyria ampler evidence

exists of what was material in the religious system, more abundant

representations of the objects and modes of worship; so that it will be

possible to give, by means of illustrations, a more graphic portraiture

of the externals of the religion of the Assyrians than the scantiness of

the remains permitted in the case of the primitive Chaldaeans.

At the head of the Assyrian Pantheon stood the “great god.” Asshur. His

usual titles are “the great Lord,” “the King of all the Gods,” “he who

rules supreme over the Gods.” Sometimes he is called “the Father of the

Gods,” though that is a title which is more properly assigned to Belus.

His place is always first in invocations. He is regarded throughout all

the Assyrian inscriptions as the especial tutelary deity both of the

kings and of the country. He places the monarchs upon their throne,

firmly establishes then in the government, lengthens the years of their

reigns, preserves their power, protects their forts and armies, makes

their name celebrated, and the like. To him they look to give them

victory over their enemies, to grant them all the wishes of their heart,

and to allow them to be succeeded on their thrones by their sons and

their sons’ sons, to a remote posterity. Their usual phrase when

speaking of him is “Asshur, my lord.” They represent themselves as

passing their lives in his service. It is to spread his worship that

they carry on their wars. They fight, ravage, destroy in his name.

Finally, when they subdue a country, they are careful to “set up the

emblems of Asshur,” and teach the people his laws and his worship.

The tutelage of Asshur over Assyria is strongly marked by the identity

of his name with that of the country, which in the original is complete.

It is also indicated by the curious fact that, unlike the other gods,

Asshur had no notorious temple or shrine in any particular city of

Assyria, a sign that his worship was spread equally throughout the whole

land, and not to any extent localized. As the national deity, he had

given name to the original capital; but even at Asshur (_Kileh-Sherghat_)

it may be doubted whether there was any building which was specially his.

Therefore it is a reasonable conjectures that all the shrines throughout

Assyria were open to his worship, to whatever minor god they might happen

to be dedicated.

In the inscriptions the Assyrians are constantly described as “the

servants of Asshur,” and their enemies as “the enemies of Asshur.” The

Assyrian religion is “the worship of Asshur.” No similar phrases are

used with respect to any of the other gods of the Pantheon.

We can scarcely doubt that originally the god Asshur was the great

progenitor of the race, Asshur, the son of Shen, deified. It was not

long, however, before this notion was lost, and Asshur came to be viewed

simply as a celestial being--the first and highest of all the divine

agents who ruled over heaven and earth. It is indicative of the

(comparatively speaking) elevated character of Assyrian polytheism that

this exalted and awful deity continued from first to last the main

object of worship, and was not superseded in the thoughts of men by the

lower and more intelligible divinities, such as Shamas and Sin, the Sun

and Moon, Nergal the God of War, Nin the God of Hunting, or Vul the

wielder of the thunderbolt.

[Illustration: PLATE 141]

The favorite emblem under which the Assyrians appear to have represented

Asshur in their works of art was the winged circle or globe, from which

a figure in a horned cap is frequently seen to issue, sometimes simply

holding a bow (Fig. I.), sometimes shooting his arrows against the

Assyrians’ enemies (Fig II.). This emblem has been variously explained;

but the most probable conjecture would seem to be that the circle

typifies eternity, while the wings express omnipresence, and the human

figure symbolizes wisdom or intelligence. The emblem appears under many

varieties. Sometimes the figure which issues from it has no bow, and is

represented as simply extending the right hand (Fig. III.); occasionally

both hands are extended, and the left holds a ring or chaplet (Fig.

IV.). [PLATE CXLI., Fig. 1.] In one instance we see a very remarkable

variation: for the complete human figure is substituted a mere pair of

hands, which seem to come from behind the winged disk, the right open

and exhibiting the palm, the left closed and holding a bow. [PLATE

CXLI., Fig. 2.] In a large number of cases all sign of a person is

dispensed with, the winged circle appearing alone, with the disk either

plain or ornamented. On the other hand, there are one or two instances

where the emblem exhibits three human heads instead of one--the central

figure having on either side of it, a head, which seems to rest upon the

feathers of the wing. [PLATE CXLI., Fig. 3.]

It is the opinion of some critics, based upon this form of the emblem,

that the supreme deity of the Assyrians, whom the winged circle seems

always to represent, was in reality a triune god. Now certainly the

triple human form is very remarkable, and lends a color to this

conjecture; but, as there is absolutely nothing, either in the

statements of ancient writers, or in the Assyrian inscriptions, so far

as they have been deciphered, to confirm the supposition, it can hardly

be accepted as the true explanation of the phenomenon. The doctrine of

the Trinity, scarcely apprehended with any distinctness even by the

ancient Jews, does not appear to have been one of those which primeval

revelation made known throughout the heathen world. It is a fanciful

mysticism which finds a Trinity in the Eicton, Cneph, and Phtha of the

Egyptians, the Oromasdes, Mithras, and Arhimanius of the Persians, and

the Monas, Logos and Psyche of Pythagoras and Plato. There are abundant

Triads in ancient mythology, but no real Trinity. The case of Asshur is,

however, one of simple unity, He is not even regularly included in any

Triad. It is possible, however, that the triple figure shows him to us

in temporary combination with two other gods, who may be exceptionally

represented in this way rather than by their usual emblems. Or the three

heads may be merely an exaggeration of that principle of repetition

which gives rise so often to a double representation of a king or a god,

and which is seen at Bavian in the threefold repetition of another

sacred emblem, the horned cap.

It is observable that in the sculptures the winged circle is seldom

found except in immediate connection with the monarch. The great King

wears it embroidered upon his robes, carries it engraved upon his

cylinder, represents it above his head in the rock-tablets on which he

carves his image a stands or kneels in adoration before it, fights under

its shadow, under its protection returns victorious, places it

conspicuously in the scenes where he himself is represented on his

obelisks. And in these various representations he makes the emblem in a

great measure conform to the circumstances in which he himself is

engaged at the time. Where he is fighting, Asshur too has his arrow on

the string, and points it against the king’s adversaries. Where he is

returning from victory, with the disused bow in the left hand and the

right hand outstretched and elevated, Asshur takes the same attitude. In

peaceful scenes the bow disappears altogether. If the king worships, the

god holds out his hand to aid; if he is engaged in secular arts, the

divine presence is thought to be sufficiently marked by the circle and

wings without the human figure.

An emblem found in such frequent connection with the symbol of Asshur as

to warrant the belief that it was attached in a special way to his

worship, is the sacred or symbolical tree. Like the winged circle, this

emblem has various forms. The simplest consists of a short pillar

springing from a single pair of rams’ horns, and surmounted by a capital

composed of two pairs of rams’ horns separated by one, two, or three

horizontal bands; above which there is, first, a scroll resembling that

which commonly surmounts the winged circle, and then a flower, very much

like the “honeysuckle ornament” of the Greeks. More advanced specimens

show the pillar elongated with a capital in the middle in addition to

the capital at the top, while the blossom above the upper capital, and

generally the stem likewise, throw out a number of similar smaller

blossoms, which are sometimes replaced by fir-cones or pomegranates.

[PLATE CXLI., Fig. 4. ] Where the tree is most elaborately portrayed, we

see, besides the stem and the blossoms, a complicated network of

branches, which after interlacing with one another form a sort of arch

surrounding the tree itself as with a frame. [PLATE CXLII., Fig.1.]

[Illustration: PLATE 142]

It is a subject of curious speculation, whether this sacred tree does

not stand connected with the _Asherah_ of the Phoenicians, which was

certainly not a “grove,” in the sense in which we commonly understand

that word. The _Asherah_ which the Jews adopted from the idolatrous

nations with whom they came in contact, was an artificial structure,

originally of wood, but in the later times probably of metal, capable of

being “set” in the temple at Jerusalem by one king, and “brought out” by

another. It was a structure for which “hangings” could be made, to cover

and protect it, while at the same time it was so far like a tree that it

could be properly said to be “cut down,” rather than “broken” or

otherwise demolished. The name itself seems to imply something which

stood, straight up; and the conjecture is reasonable that its essential

element was “the straight stem of a tree,” though whether the idea

connected with the emblem was of the same nature with that which

underlay the phallic rites of the Greeks is (to say the least) extremely

uncertain. We have no distinct evidence that the Assyrian sacred tree

was a real tangible object: it may have been, as Mr. Layard supposes, a

mere type. But it is perhaps on the whole more likely to have been an

actual object; in which case we can not but suspect that it stood in the

Assyrian system in much the same position as the _Asherah_ in the

Phoenician, being closely connected with the worship of the supreme god,

and having certainly a symbolic character, though of what exact kind it

may not be easy to determine.

An analogy has been suggested between this Assyrian emblem and the

Scriptural “tree of life,” which is thought to be variously reflected in

the multiform mythology of the East. Are not such speculations somewhat

over-fanciful There is perhaps, in the emblem itself, which combines the

horns of the ram--an animal noted for procreative power--with the image

of a fruit or flower-producing tree, ground for supposing that some

allusion is intended to the prolific or generative energy in nature; but

more than this can scarcely be said without venturing upon mere

speculation. The time perhaps ere long arrive when, by the

interpretation of the mythological tablets of the Assyrians, their real

notions on this and other kindred subjects may become known to us. Till

then, it is best to remain content with such facts as are ascertainable,

without seeking to penetrate mysteries at which we can but guess, and

where, even if we guess aright, we cannot know that we do so.

The gods worshipped in Assyria in the next degree to Asshur appear to

have been, in the early times, Anu and Vul; in the later, Bel, Sin,

Shamas, Vul, Nin or Ninip, and Nergal. Gula, Ishtar, and Beltis were

favorite goddesses. Hoa, Nebo, and Merodach, though occasional objects

of worship, more especially under the later empire, were in far less

repute in Assyria than in Babylonia; and the two last-named may almost

be said to have been introduced into the former country from the latter

during the historical period.

For the special characteristics of these various gods--common objects of

worship to the Assyrians and the Babylonians from a very remote

epoch--the reader is referred to the first part of this volume, where

their several attributes and their position in the Chaldaean Pantheon

have been noted. The general resemblance of the two religious systems is

such, that almost everything which has been stated with respect to the

gods of the First Empire may be taken us applying equally to those of

the Second; and the reader is requested to make this application in all

cases, except where some shade of difference, more or less strongly

marked, shall be pointed out. In the following pages, without repeating

what has been said in the first part of this volume, some account will

be given of the worship of the principal gods in Assyria and of the

chief temples dedicated to their service.

ANU.

The worship of Anu seems to have been introduced into Assyria from

Babylonia during the times of Chaldaean supremacy which preceded the

establishment of the independent Assyrian kingdom. Shamas-Vul, the son

of Ishii-Dagon, king of Chaldaea, built a temple to Anu and Vul at

Asshur, which was then the Assyrian capital, about B.C. 1820. An

inscription of Tiglath-Pileser I., states that this temple lasted for 621

years, when, having fallen into decay, it was taken down by Asshurdayan,

his own great-grandfather. Its site remained vacant for sixty years.

Then Tiglath-Pileser I., in the beginning of his reign, rebuilt the

temple more magnificently than before; and from that time it seems to

have remained among the principal shrines in Assyria. It was from a

tradition connected with this ancient temple of Shamas-Vul, that Asshur

in later times acquired the name of Telane, or “the Mound of Anu,” which

it bears in Stephen.

Anu’s place among the “Great Gods” of Assyria is not so well marked as

that of many other divinities. His name does not occur as an element in

the names of kings or of other important personages. He is omitted

altogether from many solemn invocations. It is doubtful whether he is

one of the gods whose emblems were worn by the king and inscribed upon

the rock-tablets. But, on the other hand, where he occurs in lists, he

is invariably placed directly after Asshur; and he is often coupled with

that deity in a way which is strongly indicative of his exalted

character. Tiglath-Pileser I., though omitting him from his opening

invocation, speaks of him in the latter part of his great Inscription,

as his lord and protector in the next place to Asshur. Asshur-izir-pal

uses expressions as if he were Anu’s special votary, calling himself

“him who honors Anu,” or “him who honors Anu and Dugan.” His son, the

Black-Obelisk king, assigns him the second place in the invocation of

thirteen gods with which he begins his record. The kings of the Lower

Dynasty do not generally hold him in much repute; Sargon, however, is an

exception, perhaps because his own name closely resembled that of a god

mentioned as one of Anu’s sons. Sargon not infrequently glorifies Anu,

coupling him with Bel or Bil, the second god of the first Triad. He even

made Anu the tutelary god of one of the gates of his new city,

Bit-Sargina (Khorsabad), joining him in this capacity with the goddess

Ishtar.

Anu had but few temples in Assyria. He seems to have had none at either

Nineveh or Calah, and none of any importance in all Assyria, except that

at Asshur. There is, however, reason, to believe that he was

occasionally honored with a shrine in a temple dedicated to another

deity.

BIL, or BEL.

The classical writers represent Bel as especially a Babylonian god, and

scarcely mention his worship by the Assyrians; but the monuments show

that the true Bel (called in the first part of this volume Bel-Nimrod)

was worshipped at least as much in the northern as in the southern

country. Indeed, as early as the time of Tiglath-Pileser I., the

Assyrians, as a nation, were especially entitled by their monarchs “the,

people of Belus;” and the same periphrasis was in use during the period

of the Lower Empire. According to some authorities, a particular quarter

of the city of Nineveh was denominated “the city of Belus” which would

imply that it was in a peculiar way under his protection. The word Bel

does not occur very frequently as an element in royal names: it was

borne, however, by at least three early Assyrian kings: and there is

evidence that in later times it entered as an element into the names of

leading personages with almost as much frequency as Asshur.

The high rank of Bel in Assyria is very strongly marked. In the

invocations his place is either the third or the second. The former is

his proper position, but occasionally Anu is omitted, and the name of

Bel follows immediately on that of Asshur. In one or two places he is

made third, notwithstanding that Anu is omitted, Shamas, the Sun-god,

being advanced over his head; but this is very unusual.

The worship of Bel in the earliest Assyrian times is marked by the royal

names of Bel-snmili-kapi and Bel-lush, borne by two of the most ancient

kings. He had a temple at Asshur in conjunction with Il or Ra, which

must have been of great antiquity, for by the time of Tiglath-Pileser I.

(B.C. 1130) it had fallen to decay and required a complete restoration,

which it received from that monarch. He had another temple at Calah;

besides which he had four “arks” or “tabernacles,” the emplacement of

which is uncertain. Among the latter kings, Sargon especially paid him

honor. Besides coupling him with Anu in his royal titles, he dedicated

to him--in conjunction with Beltis, his wife--one of the gates of his

city, and in many passages he ascribes his royal authority to the favor

of Bel and Merodach. He also calls Bel, in the dedication of the

eastern gate at Khorsabad, “the establisher of the foundations of his

city.”

It may be suspected that the horned cap, which was no doubt a general

emblem of divinity, was also in an especial way the symbol of this god.

Esarhaddon states that he setup over “the image of his majesty the

emblems of Asshur, the Sun, Bel, Nin, and Ishtar.” The other kings

always include Bel among the chief objects of their worship. We should

thus expect to find his emblem among those which the kings specially

affected; and as all the other common emblems are assigned to distinct

gods with tolerable certainty, the horned cap alone remaining doubtful,

the most reasonable conjecture seems to be that it was Bel’s symbol.

It has been assumed in some quarters that the Bel of the Assyrians was

identical with the Phoenician Dagon. A word which reads _Da-gan_ is

found in the native lists of divinities, and in one place the

explanation attached seems to show that the term was among the titles of

Bel. But this verbal resemblance between the name Dagon and one of Bel’s

titles is probably a mere accident, and affords no ground for assuming

any connection between the two gods, who have nothing in common one with

the other. The Bel of the Assyrians was certainly not their Fish-god;

nor had his epithet Da-gaga any real connection with the word _dag,_ “a

fish.” To speak of “Bel-Dagon” is thus to mislead the ordinary reader,

who naturally supposes from the term that he is to identify the great

god Belus, the second deity of the first Triad, with the fish forms upon

the sculptures.

HEA, or HOA.

Hen, or Hoa, the third god of the first Triad, was not a prominent

object of worship in Assyria. Asshur-izir-pal mentions him as having

allotted to the four thousand deities of heaven and earth the senses of

hearing, seeing, and understanding; and then, stating that the four

thousand deities had transferred all these senses to himself, proceeds

to take Hoa’s titles, and, as it were, to identify himself with the god.

His son, Shalmaneser II., the Black-Obelisk king gives Hoa his proper

place in his opening invocation, mentioning him between Bel and Sin.

Sargon puts one of the gates of his new city under Hoa’s care, joining

him with Bilat Ili--“the mistress of the gods”--who is, perhaps, the

Sun-goddess, Gula. Sennacherib, after a successful expedition across a

portion of the Persian Gulf, offers sacrifice to Hoa on the seashore,

presenting him with a golden boat, a golden fish, and a golden coffer.

But these are exceptional instances; and on the whole it is evident that

in Assyria Hoa was not a favorite god. The serpent, which is his emblem,

though found on the black stones recording benefactions, and frequent on

the Babylonian cylinder-seals, is not adopted by the Assyrian kings

among the divine symbols which they wear, or among those which they

inscribe above their effigies. The word Hoa does not enter as an element

into Assyrian names. The kings rarely invoke him. So far as we can tell,

he had but two temples in Assyria, one at Asshur (Kileh-Sherghat) and

the other at Calah (Nimrud). Perhaps the devotion of the Assyrians to

Nin--the tutelary god of their kings and of their capital--who in so

many respects resembled Hoa, caused the worship of Hoa to decline and

that of Nin gradually to supersede it.

MYLITTA, or BELTIS.

Beltis, the “Great Mother,” the feminine counterpart of Bel, ranked in

Assyria next to the Triad consisting of Anu, Bel, and Hoa. She is

generally mentioned in close connection with Bel, her husband, in the

Assyrian records. She appears to have been regarded in Assyria as

especially “the queen of fertility,” or “fecundity,” and so as “the

queen of the lands,” thus resembling the Greek Demeter, who, like

Beltis, was known as: “the Great Mother.” Sargon placed one of his gates

under the protection of Beltis in conjunction with her husband, Bel: and

Asshur-bani-pal, his great-grandson, repaired and rededicated to her a

temple at Nineveh, which stood on the great mound of Koyunjik. She had

another temple at Asshur, and probably a third at Calah. She seems to

have been really known as Beltis in Assyria, and as Mylitta (Mulita) in

Babylonia, though we should naturally have gathered the reverse from the

extant classical notices.

SIN, or THE MOON.

Sin, the Moon-god, ranked next to Beltis in Assyrian mythology, and his

place is thus either fifth or sixth in the full lists, according as

Beltis is, or is not, inserted. His worship in the time of the early

empire appears from the invocation of Tiglath-Pileser I., where he

occurs in the third place, between Bel and Shamas. [PLATE CXLII., Fig.

2.] His emblem, the crescent, was worn by Asshur-izir-pal, and is found

wherever divine symbols are inscribed over their effigies by the

Assyrian kings. There is no sign which is more frequent on the

cylinder-seals, whether Babylonian or Assyrian, and it would thus seem

that Sin was among the most popular of Assyria’s deities. His name

occurs sometimes, though not so frequently as some others, in the

appellations of important personages, as _e, g._ in that of Sennacherib,

which is explained to mean “Sin multiplies brethren.” Sargon, who thus

named one of his sons, appears to have been specially attached to the

worship of Sin, to whom, in conjunction with Shamas, he built a temple

at Khorsabad, and to whom he assigned the second place among the

tutelary deities of his city.

The Assyrian monarchs appear to have had a curious belief in the special

antiquity of the Moon-god. When they wished to mark a very remote

period, they used the expression “from the origin of the god Sin.” This

is perhaps a trace of the ancient connection of Assyria with Babylonia,

where the earliest capital, Ur, was under the Moon-god’s protection, and

the most primeval temple was dedicated to his honor.

Only two temples are known to have been erected to Sin in Assyria. One

is that already mentioned as dedicated by Sargon at Bit-Sargina

(Khorsabad) to the Sun and Moon in conjunction. The other was at Calah,

and in that Sin had no associate.

SHAMAS.

Shamas, the Sun-god, though in rank inferior to Sin, seems to have been

a still more favorite and more universal object of worship. From many

passages we should have gathered that he was second only to Asshur in

the estimation of the Assyrian monarchs, who sometimes actually place

him above Bel in their lists. His emblem, the four-rayed orb, is worn by

the king upon his neck, and seen more commonly than almost any other

upon the cylinder-seals. It is even in some instances united with that

of Asshur, the central circle of Asshur’s emblem being marked by the

fourfold rays of Shamas.

The worship of Shamas was ancient in Assyria. Tiglath-Pileser I., not

only names him in his invocation, but represents himself as ruling

especially under his auspices. Asshur-izir-pal mentions Asshur and

Shamas as the tutelary deities under whose influence he carried on his

various wars. His son, the Black-Obelisk king, assigns to Shamas his

proper place among the gods whose favor he invokes at the commencement

of his long Inscription. The kings of the Lower Empire were even more

devoted to him than their predecessors. Sargon dedicated to him the

north gate of his city, in conjunction with Vul, the god of the air,

built a temple to him at Khorsabad in conjunction with Sin, and assigned

him the third place among the tutelary deities of his new town.

Sennacherib and Esarhaddon mention his name next to Asshur’s in passages

where they enumerate the gods whom they regard as their chief

protectors.

Excepting at Khorsabad, where he had a temple (as above mentioned) in

conjunction with Sin, Shamas does not appear to have had any special

buildings dedicated to his honor. His images are, however, often noticed

in the lists of idols, and it is probable therefore that he received

worship in temples dedicated to other deities. His emblem is generally

found conjoined with that of the moon, the two being placed side by

side, or the one directly under the other. [PLATE CXLII., Fig. 3.]

VUL, or IVA.

This god, whose name is still so uncertain, was known in Assyria from

times anterior to the independence, a temple having been raised in his

sole honor at Asshur, the original Assyrian capital, by Shamas-Vul, the

son of the Chaldaean king Ismi-Dagon, besides the temple (already

mentioned) which the same monarch dedicated to him in conjunction with

Anu. These buildings having fallen to ruin by the time of

Tiglath-Pileser I., were by him rebuilt from their base; and Vul, who

was worshipped in both, appears to have been regarded by that monarch as

one of his special “guardian deities.” In the Black-Obelisk invocation

Vul holds the place intermediate between Sin and Shamas, and on the same

monument is recorded the fact that the king who erected it held, on one

occasion, a festival to Vul in conjunction with Asshur. Sargon names Vul

in the fourth place among the tutelary deities of his city, and

dedicates to him the north gate in conjunction with the Sun-god, Shamas.

Sennacherib speaks of hurling thunder on his enemies like Vul, and other

kings use similar expressions. The term Vul was frequently employed as

an element in royal and other names; and the emblem which seems to have

symbolized him--the double or triple bolt--appears constantly among

those worn by the kings, and engraved above their heads on the

rock-tablets. [PLATE CXLII., Fig. 4.]

Vul had a temple at Calah besides the two temples in which he received

worship at Asshur. It was dedicated to him in conjunction with the

goddess Shala, who appears to have been regarded as his wife.

It is not quite certain whether we can recognize any representations of

Vul in the Assyrian remains. Perhaps the figure with four wings and a

horned cap, who wields a thunderbolt in either hand, and attacks

therewith the monster, half lion, half eagle, which is known to us from

the Nimrod sculptures, may be intended for this deity. If so, it will be

reasonable also to recognize him in the figure with uplifted foot,

sometimes perched upon an ox, and bearing, like the other, one or two

thunderbolts, which occasionally occurs upon the cylinders. It is

uncertain, however, whether the former of these figures is not one of

the many different representations of Nin, the Assyrian Hercules; and,

should that prove the true explanation in the one case, no very great

confidence could be felt in the suggested identification in the other.

GULA.

Gula, the Sum-goddess, does not occupy a very high position among the

deities of Assyria. Her emblem, indeed, the eight-rayed disk, is borne,

together with her husband’s, by the Assyrian monarchs, and is inscribed

on the rock-tablets, on the stones recording benefactions, and on the

cylinder-seals, with remarkable frequency. But her name occurs rarely in

the inscriptions, and, where it is found, appears low down in the lists.

In the Black-Obelisk invocation, out of thirteen deities named, she is

the twelfth. Elsewhere she scarcely appears, unless in inscriptions of a

purely religious character. Perhaps she was commonly regarded as so much

one with her husband that a separate and distinct mention of her seemed

not to be requisite.

Gula is known to have had at least two temples in Assyria. One of these

was at Asshur, where she was worshipped in combination with ten other

deities, of whom one only, Ishtar, was of high rank. The other was at

Calah, where her husband had also a temple. She is perhaps to be

identified with _Bilat-Ili_, “the mistress of the gods,” to whom Sargon

dedicated one of his gates in conjunction with Hoa.

NINIP, or NIN.

Among the gods of the second order, there is none whom the Assyrians

worshipped with more devotion than Nin, or Ninip. In traditions which

are probably ancient, the race of their kings was derived from him, and

after him was called the mighty city which ultimately became their

capital. As early as the thirteenth century B.C. the name of Nin was

used as an element in royal appellations; and the first king who has;

left us an historical inscription regarded himself as being in an

especial way under Nin’s guardianship. Tiglath-Pileser I., is “the

illustrious prince whom Asshur and Nin have exalted to the utmost wishes

of his heart.” He speaks of Nin sometimes singly, sometimes in

conjunction with Asshur, as his “guardian deity.” Nin and Nergal make

his weapons sharp for him, and under Nin’s auspices the fiercest beasts

of the field fall beneath them. Asshur-izir-pal built him a magnificent

temple at Nimrud (Calah). Shamas-Vul, the grandson of this king,

dedicated to him the obelisk which he set up at that place in

commemoration of his victories. Sargon placed his newly-built city in

part under his protection, and specially invoked him to guard his

magnificent palace. The ornamentation of that edifice indicated in a

very striking way the reverence of the builder for this god, whose

symbol, the winged bull, guarded all its main gateways, and who seems to

have been actually represented by the figure strangling a lion, so

conspicuous on the _Hareem_ portal facing the great court. Nor did

Sargon regard Nin as his protector only in peace. He ascribed to his

influence the successful issue of his wars; and it is probably to

indicate the belief which he entertained on this point that he

occasionally placed Nin’s emblems on the sculptures representing his

expeditions. Sennacherib, the son and successor of Sargon, appears to

have had much the same feelings towards Nin, as his father, since in his

buildings he gave the same prominence to the winged bull and to the

figure strangling the lion; placing the former at almost all his

doorways, and giving the latter a conspicuous position on the grand

facade of his chief palace. Esarhaddon relates that he continued in the

worship of Nin, setting up his emblem over his own royal effigy,

together with those of Asshur, Shamas, Bel, and Ishtar.

It appears at first sight as if, notwithstanding the general prominency

of Nin in the Assyrian religious system, there was one respect in which

he stood below a considerable number of the gods. We seldom find his

name used openly as an element in the royal appellations. In the list of

kings three only will be found with names into which the terms Nin

enters. But there is reason to believe that, in the case of this god, it

was usual to speak of him under a periphrasis; and this periphrasis

entered into names in lieu of the god’s proper designation. Five kings

(if this be admitted) may be regarded as named after him, which is as

large a number as we find named after any god but Vul and Asshur.

The principal temples known to have been dedicated to Nin in Assyria

were at Calah, the modern Nimrud. There the vast structure at the

north-western angle of the great mound, including the pyramidical

eminence which is the most striking feature of the ruins, was a temple

dedicated to the honor of Nin by Asshur-izir-pal, the builder of the

North-West Palace. We can have little doubt that this building

represents the “busta Nini” of the clasical writers, the place where

Ninus (Nin or Nin-ip), who was regarded by the Greeks as the

hero-founder of the nation, was interred and specially worshipped. Nin

had also a second temple in this town, which bore the name of _Bit-kura_

(or Beth-kura), as the other one did of _Bit-zira_ (or Beth-zira). It

seems to have been from the fame of Beth-zira that Nin had the title

_Pal-zira_, which forms a substitute for Nin, as already noticed, in one

of the royal names.

MERODACH.

Most of the early kings of Assyria mention Merodach in their opening

invocations, and we sometimes find an allusion in their inscriptions,

which seems to imply that he was viewed as a god of great power. But he

is decidedly not a favorite object of worship in Assyria until a

comparatively recent period. Vul-lush III., indeed claims to have been

the first to give him a prominent place in the Assyrian Pantheon; and it

may be conjectured that the Babylonian expeditions of this monarch

furnished the impulse which led to a modification in this respect of the

Assyrian religious system. The later kings, Sargon and his successors,

maintain the worship introduced by Vul-lush. Sargon habitually regards

his power as conferred upon him by the combined favor of Merodach and

Asshur, while Esarhaddon sculptures Merodach’s emblem, together with

that of Asshur, over the images of foreign gods brought to him by a

suppliant prince. No temple to Merodach, is, however, known to have

existed in Assyria, even under the later kings. His name, however, was

not infrequently used as an element in the appellations of Assyrians.

NERGAL.

Among the Minor gods, Nergal is one whom the Assyrians seem to have

regarded with extraordinary reverence. He was the divine ancestor from

whom the monarchs loved to boast that they derived their descent--the

line being traceable, according to Sargon, through three hundred and

fifty generations. They symbolized him by the winged lion with a human

head, or possibly sometimes by the mere natural lion; and it was to mark

their confident dependence on his protection that they made his emblems

so conspicuous in their palaces. Nin and Nergal--the gods of war and

hunting, the occupations in which the Assyrian monarchs passed their

lives--were tutelary divinities of the race, the life, and the homes of

the kings, who associate the two equally in their inscriptions and their

sculptures.

Nergal, though thus honored by the frequent mention of his name and

erection of his emblem, did not (so far as appears) often receive the

tribute of a temple. Sennacherib dedicated one to him at Tarbisi (now

Sherif-khan), near Khorsabad; and he may have had another at Calah

(Nimrud), of which he is said to have been one of the “resident gods.”

But generally it would seem that the Assyrians were content to pay him

honor in other ways without constructing special buildings devoted

exclusively to his worship.

ISHTAR.

Ishtar was very generally worshipped by the Assyrian monarchs, who

called her “their lady,” and sometimes in their invocations coupled her

with the supreme god Asshur. She had a very ancient temple at Asshur,

the primeval capital, which Tiglath-Pileser I., repaired and beautified.

Asshur-izir-pal built her a second temple at Nineveh, and she had a

third at Arbela, which Asshur-bani-pal states that he restored. Sargon

placed under her protection, conjointly with Anu, the western gate of

his city; and his son, Sennacherib, seems to have viewed Asshur and

Ishtar as the special guardians of his progeny. Asshur-bani-pal, the

great hunting king was a devotee of the goddess, whom he regarded as

presiding over his special diversion, the chase.

What is most remarkable in the Assyrian worship of Ishtar is the local

character assigned to her. The Ishtar of Nineveh is distinguished from

the Ishtar of Arbela, and both from the Ishtar of Babylon, separate

addresses being made to them in one and the same invocation. It would

appear that in this case there was, more decidedly than in any other, an

identification of the divinity with her idols, from which resulted the

multiplication of one goddess into many.

The name of Ishtar appears to have been rarely used in Assyria in royal

or other appellations. It is difficult to account for this fact, which

is the more remarkable, since in Phoenicia Astarte, which corresponds

closely to Ishtar, is found repeatedly as an element in the royal

titles.

NEBO.

Nebo must have been acknowledged as a god by the Assyrians from very

ancient times, for his name occurs as an element in a royal appellation

as early as the twelfth century B.C. He seems, however, to have been

very little worshipped till the time of Vud-lush III., who first brought

him prominently forward in the Pantheon of Assyria after an expedition

which he conducted into Babylonia, where Nebo had always been in high

favor. Vul-lush set up two statues to Nebo at Calah and probably built

him the temple there which was known as Bit-Siggil, or Beth-Saggil, from

whence the god derived one of his appellations. He did not receive much

honor from Sargon; but both Sennacherib and Esarhaddon held him in

considerable reverence, the latter even placing him above Merodach in an

important invocation. Asshur-bani-pal also paid him considerable

respect, mentioning him and his wife Warmita, as the deities under whose

auspices he undertook certain literary labors.

It is curious that Nebo, though he may thus almost be called a late

importation into Assyria, became under the Later Dynasty (apparently)

one of most popular of the gods. In the latter portion of the list of

Eponyms obtained from the celebrated “Canon,” we find Nebo an element in

the names as frequently as any other god excepting Asshur. Regarding

this as a test of popularity we should say that Asshur held the first

place; but that his supremacy was closely contested by Bel and Nebo, who

were held in nearly equal repute, both being far in advance of any other

deity.

Besides these principal gods, the Assyrians acknowledged and worshipped

a vast number of minor divinities, of whom, however, some few only

appear to deserve special mention. It may be noticed in the first place,

as a remarkable feature of this people’s mythological system, that each

important god was closely associated with a goddess, who is commonly

called his wife, but who yet does not take rank in the Pantheon at all

in accordance with the dignity of her husband. Some of these goddesses

have been already mentioned, as Beltis, the feminine counterpart of Bel;

Gala, the Sun-goddess, the wife of Shamas; and Ishtar, who is sometimes

represented as the wife of Nebo. To the same class belong Sheruha, the

wife of Asshur; Anata or Anuta, the wife of Anu; Dav-Kina, the wife of

Hea or Hoa; Shales, the wife of Vul or Iva; Zir-banit, the wife of

Merodach; and Laz, the wife of Nergal. Nin, the Assyrian Hercules, and

Sin, the Moon-god, have also wives, whose proper names are unknown, but

who are entitled respectively “the Queen of the Land” and “the great

Lady.” Nebo’s wife, according to most of the Inscriptions, is Warmita;

but occasionally, as above remarked, this name is replaced by that of

Ishtar. A tabular view of the gods and goddesses, thus far, will

probably be found of use by the reader towards obtaining a clear

conception of the Assyrian Pantheon:

[Illustration: Page 358]

It appears to have been the general Assyrian practice to unite together

in the same worship, under the same roof, the female and the male

principle. The female deities had in fact, for the most part, an

unsubstantial character: they were ordinarily the mere reflex image of

the male, and consequently could not stand alone, but required the

support of the stronger sex to give then something of substance and

reality. This was the general rule; but at the same time it was not

without certain exceptions. Ishtar appears almost always as an

independent and unattached divinity; while Beltis and Gula are presented

to us in colors as strong and a form as distinct as their husbands, Bel

and Shamas. Again, there are minor goddesses, such as Telita, the

goddess of the great marshes near Babylon, who stand alone,

unaccompanied by any male. The minor male divinities are also, it would

seem, very generally without female counterparts.

Of these minor male divinities the most noticeable are Martu, a son of

Anu, who is called “the minister of the deep,” and seems to correspond

to the Greek Erebus; Sargana, another son of Anu, from whom Sargon is

thought by some to have derived his name Idak, god of the Tigris;

Supulat, lord of the Euphrates; and Il or Ra, who seems to be the

Babylonian chief god transferred to Assyria, and there placed in a

humble position. Besides these, cuneiform scholars recognize in the

Inscriptions some scores of divine names, of more or less doubtful

etymology, some of which are thought to designate distinct gods, while

others may be names of deities known familiarly to us under a different

appellation. Into this branch of the subject it is not proposed to enter

in the present work, which addresses itself to the general reader.

It is probable that, besides gods, the Assyrians acknowledged the

existence of a number of genii, some of whom they regarded as powers of

good, others as powers of evil. The winged figure wearing the horned

cap, which is so constantly represented as attending upon the monarch

when he is employed in any sacred function, would seem to be his

tutelary genius--a benignant spirit who watches over him, and protects

him from the spirits of darkness. This figure commonly bears in the

right hand either a pomegranate or a pine-cone, while the left is either

free or else supports a sort of plaited bag or basket. [PLATE CXLII.,

Fig. 6.] Where the pine-cone is carried, it is invariably pointed

towards the monarch, as if it were the means of communication between

the protector and the protected, the instrument by which grace and power

passed from the genius to the mortal whom he had undertaken to guard.

Why the pine-cone was chosen for this purpose it is difficult to form a

conjecture. Perhaps it had originally become a sacred emblem merely as a

symbol of productiveness after which it was made to subserve a further

purpose, without much regard to its old symbolical meaning.

The sacred basket, held in the left hand, is of still more dubious

interpretation. It is an object of great elegance, always elaborately

and sometimes very tastefully ornamented. Possibly it may represent the

receptacle in which the divine gifts are stored, and from which they can

be taken by the genius at his discretion, to be bestowed upon the mortal

under his care.

Another good genius would seem to be represented by the hawk-headed

figure, which is likewise found in attendance upon the monarch,

attentively watching his proceedings. This figure has been called that

of a god, and has been supposed to represent the Nisroch of Holy

Scripture; but the only ground for such an identification is the

conjectural derivation of Nisroch from a root _nisr_, which in some

Semitic languages signifies a “hawk” or “falcon.” As _nisr_, however,

has not been found with any such meaning in Assyrian, and as the word

“Nisroch” nowhere appears in the Inscriptions, it must be regarded as in

the highest degree doubtful whether there is any real connection between

the hawk-headed figure and the god in whose temple Sennacherib was

assassinated. [PLATE CXLII., Fig. 5.] The various readings of the

Septuagint version make it extremely uncertain what was the name

actually written in the original Hebrew text. Nisroch, which is utterly

unlike any divine name hitherto found in the Assyrian records, is most

probable a corruption. At any rate there are no sufficient grounds for

identifying the god mentioned, whatever the true reading of his name may

be, with the hawk-headed figure, which has the appearance of an

attendant genius rather than that of a god, and which was certainly not

included among the main deities of Assyria.

[Illustration: PLATE 143]

Representations of evil genii are comparatively infrequent; but we can

scarcely be mistaken in regarding as either an evil genius, or a

representation of the evil principle, the monster--half lion, half

eagle--which in the Nimrud sculptures retreats from the attacks of a

god, probably Vul, who assails him with thunderbolts. [PLATE CXLIII.,

Fig. I.] Again, in the case of certain grotesque statuettes found at

Khorsabad, one of which has already been represented, where a human

figure has the head of a lion with the ears of an ass, the most natural

explanation seems to be that an evil genius is intended. In another

instance, where we see two monsters with heads like the statuette just

mentioned, placed on human bodies, the legs of which terminate in

eagles’ claws--both of them armed with daggers and maces, and engaged in

a struggle with one another--we seem to have a symbolical representation

of the tendency of evil to turn upon itself, and reduce itself to

feebleness by internal quarrel and disorder. A considerable number of

instances occur in which a human figure, with the head of a hawk or

eagle, threatens a winged human-headed lion--the emblem of Nergal--with

a strap or mace. In these we may have a spirit of evil assailing a god,

or possibly one god opposing another--the hawk-headed god or genius

driving Nergal (i.e., War) beyond the Assyrian borders.

If we pass from the objects to the mode of worship in Assyria, we must

notice at the outset the strongly idolatrous character of the religion.

Not only were images of the gods worshipped set up, as a matter of

course, in every temple dedicated to their honor, but the gods were

sometimes so identified with their images as to be multiplied in popular

estimation when they had several famous temples, in each of which was a

famous image. Thus we hear of the Ishtar of Arbela, the Ishtar of

Nineveh, and the Ishtar of Babylon, and find these goddesses invoked

separately, as distinct divinities, by one and the same king in one and

the same Inscription. In other cases, without this multiplication, we

observe expressions which imply a similar identification of the actual

god with the mere image. Tiglath-Pileser I., boasts that he has set Anu

and Vul (i.e., their images) up in their places. He identifies

repeatedly the images which he carries off from foreign countries with

the gods of those countries. In a similar spirit Sennacherib asks, by

the mouth of Rabshakeh, “_Where are the gods_ of Hamath and of Arpad?

_Where are the gods_ of Sepharvaim, Hena, and Ivah?”--and again unable to

rise to the conception of a purely spiritual deity, supposes that,

because Hezekiah has destroyed all the images throughout Judaea, he has

left his people without any divine protection. The carrying off of the

idols from conquered countries, which we find universally practised, was

not perhaps intended as a mere sign of the power of the conqueror, and

of the superiority of his gods to those of his enemies; it was probably

designed further to weaken those enemies by depriving them of their

celestial protectors; and it may even have been viewed as strengthening

of the conqueror by multiplying his divine guardians. It was certainly

usual to remove the images in a reverential manner; and it was the

custom to deposit them in some of the principal temples of Assyria. We

may presume that there lay at the root of this practice a real belief in

the super-natural power of the in images themselves, and a notion that,

with the possession of the images, this power likewise changed sides and

passed over from the conquered to the conquerors.

Assyrian idols were in stone, baked clay, or metal. Some images of Nebo

and of Ishtar have been obtained from the ruins. Those of Nebo are

standing figures, of a larger size than the human, though not greatly

exceeding it. They have been much injured by time, and it is difficult

to pronounce decidedly on their original workmanship: but, judging by

what appears, it would seem to have been of a ruder and coarser

character than that of the slabs or of the royal statues. The Nebo

images are heavy, formal, inexpressive, and not over well-proportioned;

but they are not wanting in a certain quiet dignity which impresses the

beholder. They are unfortunately disfigured, like so many of the lions

and bulls, by several lines of cuneiform writing inscribed round their

bodies; but this artistic defect is pardoned by the antiquarian, who

learns from the inscribed lines the fact that the statues represent

Nebo, and the time and circumstances of their dedication.

Clay idols are very frequent. They are generally in a good material, and

are of various sizes, yet never approaching to the full stature of

humanity. Generally they are mere statuettes, less than a foot in

height. Specimens have been selected for representation in the preceding

volume, from which a general idea of their character is obtainable. They

are, like the stone idols, formal and inexpressive in style, while they

are even ruder and coarser than those figures in workmanship. We must

regard them as intended chiefly for private use among the mass of the

population, while we must view the stone idols as the objects of public

worship in the shrines and temples.

Idols in metal have not hitherto appeared among the objects recovered

from the Assyrian cities. We may conclude, however, from the passage of

Nahum prefixed to this chapter, as well as from general probability,

that they were known and used by the Assyrians, who seem to have even

admitted them--no less than stone statues--into their temples. The

ordinary metal used was no doubt bronze; but in Assyria, as in

Babylonia, silver, and perhaps in some few instances gold, may have been

employed for idols, in cases where they were intended as proofs to the

world at large of the wealth and magnificence of a monarch.

The Assyrians worshipped their gods chiefly with sacrifices and

offerings, Tiglath-Pileser I., relates that he offered sacrifice to Anu

and Vul on completing the repairs of their temple. Asshur-izir-pal says

that he sacrificed to the gods after embarking on the Mediterranean.

Vul-lush IV, sacrificed to Bel-Merodach, Nebo, and Nergal, in their

respective high seats at Babylon, Borsippa, and Cutha. Sennacherib

offered sacrifices to Hoa on the sea-shore after an expedition in the

Persian Gulf. Esarhaddon “slew great and costly sacrifices” at Nineveh

upon completing his great palace in that capital. Sacrifice was clearly

regarded as a duty by the kings generally, and was the ordinary mode by

which they propitiated the favor of the national deities.

[Illustration: PLATE 144]

With respect to the mode of sacrifice we have only a small amount of

information, derived from a very few bas-reliefs. These unite in

representing the bull as the special sacrificial animal. In one we

simply see a bull brought up to a temple by the king; but in another,

which is more elaborate, we seem to have the whole of a sacrificial

scene fairly, if not exactly, brought before us. [PLATE CXLIV., Fig. 1.]

Towards the front of the temple, where the god, recognizable by his

horned cap, appears seated upon a throne, with an attendant priest, who

is beardless, paying adoration to him, advances a procession consisting

of the king and six priests, one of whom carries a cup, while the other

five are employed about the animal. The king pours a libation over a

large bowl, fixed in a stand, immediately in front of a tall fire-altar,

from which flames are rising. Close behind this stands the priest with a

cup, from which we may suppose that the monarch will pour a second

libation. Next we observe a bearded priest directly in front of the

bull, checking the advance of the animal, which is not to be offered

till the libation is over. The bull is also held by a pair of priests,

who walk behind him and restrain him with a rope attached to one of his

fore-legs a little above the hoof. Another pair of priests, following

closely on the footsteps of the first pair, completes the procession:

the four seem, from the position of their heads and arms, to be engaged

in a solemn chant. It is probable, from the flame upon the altar, that

there is to be some burning of the sacrifice; while it is evident, from

the altar being of such a small size, that only certain parts of the

animal can be consumed upon it. We may conclude therefore that the

Assyrian sacrifices resembled those of the classical nations, consisting

not of whole burnt offerings, but of a selection of choice parts,

regarded as specially pleasing to the gods, which were placed upon the

altar and burnt, while the remainder of the victim was consumed by

priest or people.

Assyrian altars were of various shapes and sizes. One type was square,

and of no great height; it had its top ornamented with gradines, below

which the sides were either plain or fluted. Another which was also of

moderate height, was triangular, but with a circular top, consisting of

a single flat stone, perfectly plain, except that it was sometimes

inscribed round the edge. [PLATE CXLIII. Fig. 2.] A third type is that

represented in the sacrificial scene. [PLATE CXLIV.] This is a sort of

portable stand--narrow, but of considerable height, reaching nearly to a

man’s chin. Altars of this kind seem to have been carried about by the

Assyrians in their expeditions: we see them occasionally in the

entrenched camps, and observe priests officiating at them in their dress

of office. [PLATE CXLIII., Fig. 3.]

Besides their sacrifices of animals, the Assyrian kings were accustomed

to deposit in the temples of their gods, as thank-offerings, many

precious products from the countries which they overran in their

expeditions. Stones and marbles of various kinds, rare metals, and

images of foreign deities, are particularly mentioned; but it would seem

to be most probable that some portion of all the more valuable articles

was thus dedicated. Silver and gold were certainly used largely in the

adornment of the temples, which are sometimes said to have been made “as

splendid as the sun,” by reason of the profuse employment upon them of

these precious metals.

It is difficult to determine how the ordinary worship of the gods was

conducted. The sculptures are for the most part monuments erected by

kings; and when these have a religious character, they represent the

performance by the kings of their own religious duties, from which

little can be concluded as to the religious observances of the people.

The kings seem to have united the priestly with the regal character; and

in the religious scenes representing their acts of worship, no priest

ever intervenes between them and the god, or appears to assume any but a

very subordinate position. The king himself stands and worships in close

proximity to the holy tree; with his own hand he pours libations; and it

is not unlikely that he was entitled with his own arm to sacrifice

victims.

But we can scarcely suppose that the people had these privileges.

Sacerdotal ideas have prevailed in almost all Oriental monarchies, and

it is notorious that they had a strong hold upon the neighboring and

nearly connected kingdom of Babylon. The Assyrians generally, it is

probable, approached the gods through their priests; and it would seem

to be these priests who are represented upon the cylinders as

introducing worshippers to the gods, dressed themselves in long robes,

and with a curious mitre upon their heads. The worshipper seldom comes

empty-handed. He carries commonly in his arms an antelope or young goat,

which we may presume to be an offering intended to propitiate the deity.

[PLATE CXLIV., Fig. 2.]

It is remarkable that the priests in the sculptures are generally, if

not invariably, beardless. It is scarcely probable that they were

eunuchs, since mutilation is in the East always regarded as a species of

degradation. Perhaps they merely shaved the beard for greater

cleanliness, like the priests of the Egyptians and possibly it was a

custom only obligatory on the upper grades of the priesthood.

We have no evidence of the establishment of set festivals in Assyria.

Apparently the monarchs decided, of their own will, when a feast should

be held to any god; and, proclamation being made, the feast was held

accordingly. Vast numbers, especially of the chief men, were assembled

on such occasions; numerous sacrifices were offered, and the festivities

lasted for several days. A considerable proportion of the worshippers

were accommodated in the royal palace, to which the temple was

ordinarily a mere adjunct, being fed at the king’s cost, and lodged in

the halls and other apartments.

The Assyrians made occasionally a religious use of fasting. The evidence

on this point is confined to the Book of Jonah, which, however,

distinctly shows both the fact and the nature of the usage. When a fast

was proclaimed, the king, the nobles, and the people exchanged their

ordinary apparel for sackcloth, sprinkled ashes upon their heads, and

abstained alike from food and drink until the fast was over. The animals

also that were within the walls of the city where the fast was

commanded, had sackcloth placed upon them; and the same abstinence was

enforced upon them as was enjoined on the inhabitants. Ordinary business

was suspended, and the whole population united in prayer to Asshur, the

supreme god, whose pardon they entreated, and whose favor they sought to

propitiate. These proceedings were not merely formal. On the occasion

mentioned in the book of Jonah, the repentance of the Ninevites seems to

have been sincere. “God saw their works, that they turned from their

evil way; and God repented of the evil that he had said that he would do

unto them: and he did it not.”

The religious sentiment appears, on the whole, to have been strong and

deep-seated among the Assyrians. Although religion had not the

prominence in Assyria which it possessed in Egypt, or even in

Greece--although the temple was subordinated to the palace, and the most

imposing of the representations of the gods were degraded to mere

architectural ornaments--yet the Assyrians appear to have been really,

nay, even earnestly, religious. Their religion, it must be admitted, was

of a sensuous character. They not only practised image-worship, but

believed in the actual power of the idols to give protection or work

mischief; nor could they rise to the conception of a purely spiritual

and immaterial deity. Their ordinary worship was less one of prayer than

one by means of sacrifices and offerings. They could, however, we know,

in the time of trouble, utter sincere prayers; and we are bound

therefore to credit them with an honest purpose in respect of the many

solemn addresses and invocations which occur both in their public and

their private documents. The numerous mythological tablets testify to

the large amount of attention which was paid to religious subjects by

the learned; while the general character of their names, and the

practice of inscribing sacred figures and emblems upon their signets,

which was almost universal, seem to indicate a spirit of piety on the

part of the mass of the people.

The sensuous cast of the religion naturally led to a pompous ceremonial,

a fondness for processional display, and the use of magnificent

vestments. These last are represented with great minuteness in the

Nimrud sculptures. The dresses of those engaged in sacred functions seem

to have been elaborately embroidered, for the most part with religious

figures and emblems, such as the winged circle, the pine-cone, the

pomegranate, the sacred tree, the human-headed lion, and the like.

Armlets, bracelets, necklaces, and earrings were worn by the officiating

priests, whose heads were either encircled with a richly-ornamented

fillet, or covered with a mitre or high cap of imposing appearance.

Musicians had a place in the processions, and accompanied the religious

ceremonies with playing or chanting, or, in some instances, possibly

with both.

It is remarkable that the religious emblems of the Assyrian are almost

always free from that character of grossness which in the classical

works of art, so often offends modern delicacy. The sculptured remains

present us with no representations at all parallel to the phallic

emblems of the Greeks. Still we are perhaps not entitled to conclude,

from this comparative purity, that the Assyrian religion was really

exempt from that worst feature of idolatrous systems--a licensed

religious sensualism. According to Herodotus the Babylonian worship of

Beltis was disgraced by a practice which even he, heathen as he was,

regarded as “most shameful.” Women were required once in their lives to

repair to the temple of this goddess, and there offer themselves to the

embrace of the first man who desired their company. In the Apocryphal

Book of Baruch we find a clear allusion to the same custom, so that

there can be little doubt of its having really obtained in Babylonia;

but if so, it would seem to follow, almost as a matter of course, that

the worship of the same identical goddess in the an joining country

included a similar usage. It may be to this practice that the prophet

Nahum alludes, where he denounces Nineveh as a “well-favored harlot,”

the multitude of whose harlotries was notorious.

Such then was the general character of the Assyrian religion. We have no

means of determining whether the cosmogony of the Chaldaeans formed any

part of the Assyrian system, or was confined to the lower country. No

ancient writer tells us anything of the Assyrian notions on this

subject, nor has the decipherment of the monuments thrown as yet any

light upon it. It would be idle therefore to prolong the present chapter

by speculating upon a matter concerning which we have at present no

authentic data.

CHAPTER IX.

CHRONOLOGY AND HISTORY.

The chronology of the Assyrian kingdom has long exercised, and divided,

the judgments of the learned. On the one hand, Ctesias and his numerous

followers--including, among the ancients, Cephalion, Castor, Diodorus

Siculus, Nicolas of Damascus, Trogus Pompeius, Velleius Paterculus,

Josephus, Eusebius, and Moses of Chorene; among the moderns, Freret,

Rollin, and Clinton have given the kingdom a duration of between

thirteen and fourteen hundred years, and carried hack its antiquity to a

time almost coeval with the founding of Babylon; on the other,

Herodotus, Volney, Ileeren, B. G. Niebuhr, Brandis, and many others,

have preferred a chronology which limits the duration of the kingdom to

about six centuries and a half, and places the commencement in the

thirteenth century B.C. when a flourishing empire had already existed in

Chaldaea, or Babylonia, for a thousand years, or more. The questions

thus mooted remain still, despite of the volumes which have been written

upon them, so far undecided, that it will be necessary to entertain and

discuss theirs at some length in this place, before entering on the

historical sketch which is needed to complete our account of the Second

Monarchy.

The duration of a single unbroken empire continuously for 1306 (or 1360)

years, which is the time assigned to the Assyrian Monarchy by Ctesias,

must be admitted to be a thing hard of belief, if not actually

incredible. The Roman State, with all its elements of strength, had (we

are told), as kingdom, commonwealth, and empire, a duration of no more

than twelve centuries. The Chaldaean Monarchy lasted, as we have seen,

about a thousand years, from the time of the Elamite conquest. The

duration of the Parthian was about five centuries of the first Persian,

less than two and a half; of the Median, at the utmost, one and a half;

of the later Babylonian, less than one. The only monarchy existing under

conditions at all similar to Assyria, whereto an equally long--or rather

a still longer--duration has been assigned with some show of reason, is

Egypt. But there it is admitted that the continuity was interrupted by

the long foreign domination of the Hyksos, and by at least one other

foreign conquest--that of the Ethiopian Sabacos or Shebeks. According to

Ctesias, one and the same dynasty occupied the Assyrian throne during

the whole period, of thirteen hundred years. Sardanapalus, the last king

in his list, being the descendant and legitimate successor of Ninus.

There can be no doubt that a monarchy lasting about six centuries and a

half, and ruled by at least two or three different dynasties, is per se

a thing far more probable than one ruled by one and the same dynasty for

more than thirteen centuries. And therefore, if the historical evidence

in the two cases is at all equal--or rather, if that which supports the

more improbable account does not greatly preponderate--we ought to give

credence to the more moderate and probable of the two statements.

Now, putting aside authors who merely re-echo the statements of others,

there seem to be, in the present case, two and two only distinct

original authorities--Herodotus and Ctesias. Of these two, Herodotus is

the earlier. He writes within two centuries of the termination of the

Assyrian rule, whereas Ctesias writes at least thirty years later. He is

of unimpeachable honesty, and may be thoroughly trusted to have reported

only what he had heard. He had travelled in the East, and had done his

best to obtain accurate information upon Oriental matters, consulting on

the subject, among others, the Chaldaeans of Babylon. He had, moreover,

taken special pains to inform himself upon all that related to Assyria,

which he designed to make the subject of an elaborate work distinct from

his general history.

Ctesias, like Herodotus, had had the advantage of visiting the East. It

may be argued that he possessed even better opportunities than the

earlier writer for becoming acquainted with the views which the

Orientals entertained of their own past. Herodotus probably devoted but

a few months, or at most a year or two, to his Oriental travels; Ctesias

passed seventeen years at the Court of Persia. Herodotus was merely an

ordinary traveller, and had no peculiar facilities for acquiring

information in the East; Ctesias was court-physician to Artaxerxes

Mnemon, and was thus likely to gain access to any archives which the

Persian kings might have in their keeping. But these advantages seem to

have been more than neutralized by the temper and spirit of the man. He

commenced his work with the broad assertion that Herodotus was “a liar,”

and was therefore bound to differ from him when he treated of the same

periods or nations. He does differ from him, and also from Thucydides,

whenever they handle the same transactions; but in scarcely a single

instance where he differs from either writer does his narrative seem to

be worthy of credit. The cuneiform monuments, while they generally

confirm Herodotus, contradict Ctesias perpetually. He is at variance

with Manetho on Egyptian, with Ptolemy on Babylonian, chronology. No

independent writer confirms him on any important point. His Oriental

history is quite incompatible with the narrative of Scripture. On every

ground, the judgment of Aristotle, of Plutarch, of Arrian, of Scaliger,

and of almost all the best critics of modern times, with respect to the

credibility of Ctesias, is to be maintained, and his authority is to be

regarded as of the very slightest value in determining any controverted

matter.

The chronology of Herodotus, which is on all accounts to be preferred,

assigns the commencement of the Assyrian Empire to about B.C. 1250, or a

little earlier, and gives the monarchy a duration of nearly 650 years

from that time. The Assyrians, according to him, held the undisputed

supremacy of Western Asia for 520 years, or from about B.C. 1250 to

about B.C. 730--after which they maintained themselves in an independent

but less exalted position for about 130 years longer, till nearly the

close of the seventh century before our era. These dates are not indeed

to be accepted without reserve; but they are approximate to the truth,

and are, at any rate, greatly preferable to those of Ctesias.

The chronology of Berosus was, apparently, not very different from that

of Herodotus. There can be no reasonable doubt that his sixth Babylonian

dynasty represents the line of kings which ruled in Babylon during the

period known as that of the Old Empire in Assyria. Now this line, which

was Semitic, appears to have been placed upon the throne by the

Assyrians, and to have been among the first results of that conquering

energy which the Assyrians at this time began to develop. Its

commencement should therefore synchronize with the foundation of an

Assyrian Empire. The views of Berosus on this latter subject may be

gathered from what he says of the former. Now the scheme of Berosus gave

as the date of the establishment of this dynasty about the year B.C.

1300; and as Berosus undoubtedly placed the fall of the Assyrian Empire

in B.C. 625, it may be concluded, and with a near approach to certainty,

that he would have assigned the Empire a duration of about 675 years,

making it commence with the beginning of the thirteenth century before

our era, and terminate midway in the latter half of the seventh.

If this be a true account of the ideas of Berosus, his scheme of

Assyrian chronology would have differed only slightly from that of

Herodotus; as will be seen if we place the two schemes side by side.

[Illustration: PAGE 371]

In the case of a history so ancient as that of Assyria, we might well be

content if our chronology were vague merely to the extent of the

variations here indicated. The parade of exact dates with reference to

very early times is generally fallacious, unless it be understood as

adopted simply for the sake of convenience. In the history of Assyria,

however, we may make a nearer approach to exactness than in most others

of the same antiquity, owing to the existence of two chronological

documents of first-rate importance. One of these is the famous Canon of

Ptolemy, which, though it is directly a Babylonian record, has important

bearings on the chronology of Assyria. The other is an Assyrian Canon,

discovered and edited by Sir H. Rawlinson in 1862, which gives the

succession of the kings for 251 years, commencing (as is thought) B.C.

911 and terminating B. C. 660, eight years after the accession of the

son and successor of Esarhaddon. These two documents, which harmonize

admirably, carry up an exact Assyrian chronology almost from the close

of the Empire to the tenth century before our era. For the period

anterior to this we have, in the Assyrian records, one or two isolated

dates, dates fixed in later times with more or less of exactness; and of

these we might have been inclined to think little, but that they

harmonize remarkably with the statements of Berosus and Herodotus, which

place the commencement of the Empire about B.C. 1300, or a little later.

We have, further, certain lists of kings, forming continuous lines of

descent from father to son, by means of which we may fill up the blanks

that would otherwise remain in our chronological scheme with approximate

dates calculated from an estimate of generations. From these various

sources the subjoined scheme has been composed, the sources being

indicated at the side, and the fixed dates being carefully distinguished

from those which are uncertain or approximate.

[Illustration: PAGE 372]

It will be observed that in this list the chronology of Assyria is

carried back to a period nearly a century and a half anterior to B.C.

1300, the approximate date, according to Herodotus and Berosus, of the

establishment of the “Empire.” It might have been concluded, from the

mere statement of Herodotus, that Assyria existed before the time of

which he spoke, since an empire can only be formed by a people already

flourishing. Assyria as an independent kingdom is the natural antecedent

of Assyria as an Imperial power: and this earlier phase of her existence

might reasonably have been presumed from the later. The monuments

furnish distinct evidence of the time in question in the fourth, fifth,

and sixth kings of the above list, who reigned while the Chaldaean

empire was still flourishing in Lower Mesopotamia. Chronological and

other considerations induce a belief that the four kings who follow

like-wise belonged to it; and that, the “Empire” commenced with

Tiglathi-Nin I., who is the first great conqueror.

The date assigned to the accession of this king, B.C. 1300, which

accords so nearly with Berosus’s date for the commencement of his 526

years, is obtained from the monuments in the following manner. First,

Sennacherib, in an inscription set up in or about his tenth year (which

was B.C. 694), states that he recovered from Babylon certain images of

gods, which had been carried thither by Meroclach-idbin-akhi, king of

Babylon, who had obtained them in his war with Tiglath-Pileser, king of

Assyria, 418 years previously. This gives for the date of the war with

Tiglath-Pileser the year B.C. 1112. As that monarch does not mention the

Babylonian war in the annals which relate the events of his early years,

we must suppose his defeat to have taken place towards the close of his

reign, and assign him the space from B.C. 1130 to B.C. 1110, as,

approximately, that during which he is likely to have held the throne.

Allowing then to the six monumental kings who preceded Tiglath-Pileser

average reigns of twenty years each, which is the actual average

furnished by the lines of direct descent in Assyria, where the length of

each reign is known, and allowing fifty years for the break between

Tiglathi-Nin and Bel-kudur-uzur, we are brought to (1130 + 120 + 50)

B.C. 1300 for the accession of the first Tiglathi-Nin, who took Babylon,

and is the first king of whom extensive conquests are recorded.

Secondly. Sennacherib in another inscription reckons 600 years from his

first conquest of Babylon (B.C. 703) to a year in the reign of this

monarch. This “six hundred” may be used as a round number; but as

Sennacherib considered that he had the means of calculating exactly, he

would probably not have used a round number, unless it was tolerably

near to the truth. Six hundred years before B.C. 703 brings us to B.C.

1303.

The chief uncertainty which attaches to the numbers in this part of the

list arises from the fact that the nine kings from Tiglathi-Nin

downwards do not form a single direct line. The inscriptions fail to

connect Bel-kudur-uzur with Tiglathi-Nin, and there is thus a probable

interval between the two reigns, the length of which can only be

conjectured.

The dates assigned to the later kings, from Vul-lush II., to Esarhaddon

inclusive, are derived from the Assyrian Canon taken in combination with

the famous Canon of Ptolemy. The agreement between these documents, and

between the latter and the Assyrian records generally, is exact; and a

conformation is thus afforded to Ptolemy which is of no small

importance. The dates from the accession of Vul-lush II. (B.C. 911) to

the death of Esarhaddon (B.C. 668) would seem to have the same degree of

accuracy and certainty which has been generally admitted to attach to

the numbers of Ptolemy. They have been confirmed by the notice of a

great eclipse in the eighth year of Asshur-dayan III., which is

undoubtedly that of June 15, B.C. 763.

The reign of Asshur-bani-pal (Sardanapalus), the son and successor of

Esarhaddon, which commenced B.C. 668, is carried down to B.C. 626 on the

combined authority of Berosus, Ptolemy, and the monuments. The monuments

show that Asshur-bani-pal proclaimed himself king of Babylon after the

death of Saul-mugina whose last year was (according to Ptolemy) B.C.

647: and that from the date of this proclamation he reigned over Babylon

at least twenty years. Polyhistor, who reports Berosus, has left us

statements which are in close accordance, and from which we gather that

the exact length of the reign of Asshur-bani-pal over Babylon was

twenty-one years. Hence, B.C. 626 is obtained as the year of his death.

As Nineveh appears to have been destroyed B.C. 625 or 624, two

years only are left for Asshur-bani-pal’s son and successor,

Asshur-emid-illin, the Saracus of Abydenus.

The framework of Assyrian chronology being thus approximately, and, to

some extent, provisionally settled, we may proceed to arrange upon it

the facts so far as they have come down to us, of Assyrian history.

In the first place, then, if we ask ourselves where the Assyrians came

from, and at what time they settled in the country which thenceforth

bore their name, we seem to have an answer,at any rate to the former of

these two questions, in Scripture. “Out of that land”--the land of

Shinar--“went forth Asshur, and builded Nineveh.” The Assyrians,

previously to their settlement on the middle Tigris, had dwelt in the

lower part of the great valley--the flat alluvial plain towards the

mouths of the two streams. It was here, in this productive region, where

nature does so much for man, and so little needs to be supplied by

himself, that they had grown from a family into a people; that they had

learnt or developed a religion, and that they had acquired a knowledge

of the most useful and necessary of the arts. It has been observed in a

former chapter that the whole character of the Assyrian architecture is

such as to indicate that their style was formed in the low flat

alluvium, where there were no natural elevations, and stone was not to

be had. It has also been remarked that their writing is manifestly

derived from the Chaldaean; and that their religion is almost identical

with that which prevailed in the lower country from a very early time.

The evidence of the monuments accords thus, in the most striking way,

with the statement of the Bible, exhibiting to us the Assyrians as a

people who had once dwelt to the south, in close contact with the

Chaldaeans, and had removed after awhile to a more northern position.

With regard to the date of their removal, we can only say that it was

certainly anterior to the time of the Chaldaean kings, Purna-puriyas and

Kurri-galzu, who seem to have reigned in the fifteenth century before

our era. If we could be sure that the city called in later times Asshur

bore that name when Shamas-Vul, the son of Ismi-Dagon, erected a temple

there to Anu and Vul, we might assign to the movement a still higher

antiquity for Shamas-Vul belongs to the nineteenth century B.C. As,

however, we have no direct evidence that either the city or the country

was known as Asshur until four centuries later, we must be content to

lay it down that the Assyrians had moved to the north certainly as early

as B.C. 1440, and that their removal may not improbably have taken place

several centuries earlier.

The motive of the removal is shrouded in complete obscurity. It may have

been a forced colonization, commanded and carried out by the Chaldaean

kings, who may have originated a system of transplanting to distant

regions subject tribes of doubtful fidelity; or it may have been the

voluntary self-expatriation of an increasing race, pressed for room and

discontented with its condition. Again, it may have taken place by a

single great movement, like that of the Tartar tribes, who transferred

their allegiance from Russia to China in the reign of the Empress

Catherine, and emigrated in a body from the banks of the Dun to the

eastern limits of Mongolia or it may have been a gradual and protracted

change, covering a long term of years, like most of the migrations

whereof we read in history. On the whole, there is perhaps some reason

to believe that a spirit of enterprise about this time possessed the

Semitic inhabitants of Lower Mesopotamia, who voluntarily proceeded

northwards in the hope of bettering their condition. Terah conducted one

body from Ur to Harran: another removed itself from the shores of the

Persian Gulf to those of the Mediterranean; while probably a third,

larger than either of these two, ascended the course of the Tigris,

occupied Adiabene, with the adjacent regions, and, giving its own tribal

name of Asshur to its chief city and territory, became known to its

neighbors first as a distinct, and then as an independent and powerful

people.

The Assyrians for some time after their change of abode were probably

governed by Babylonian rulers, who held their office under the Chaldaean

Emperor. Bricks of a Babylonian character have been found at

Kileh-Sherghat, the original Assyrian capital, which are thought to be

of greater antiquity than any of the purely Assyrian remains, and which

may have been stamped by these provincial governors. Ere long, however,

the yoke was thrown off, and the Assyrians established a separate

monarchy of their own in the upper country, while the Chaldaean Empire

was still flourishing under native monarchs of the old ethnic type in

the regions nearer to the sea. The special evidence which we possess of

the co-existence side by side of these two kingdoms is furnished by a

broken tablet of a considerably later date, which seems to have

contained, when complete, a brief but continuous sketch of the

synchronous history of Babylonia and Assyria, and of the various

transactions in which the monarchs of the two countries had been engaged

one with another, from the most ancient times. This tablet has preserved

to its the names of three very early Assyrian kings--Asshur-bil-nisi-su,

Buzur Asshur, and Asshur-upallit, of whom the two former are recorded to

have made treaties of peace with the contemporary kings of Babylon;

while the last-named intervened in the domestic affair’s of the country,

depriving an usurping monarch of the throne, and restoring it to the

legitimate claimant, who was his own relation. Intermarriages, it

appears, took place at this early date between the royal families of

Assyria and Chaldaea; and Asshur-upallit, the third of the three kings,

had united one of his daughters to Purna-puriyas, a Chaldaean monarch

who has received notice in the preceding volume. On the death of

Purna-puriyas, Kara-khar-das, the issue of this marriage, ascended the

throne; but he had not reigned long before his subjects rebelled against

his authority. A struggle ensued, in which he was slain, whereupon a

certain Nazi-bugas, an usurper, became king, the line of Purna-puriyas

being set aside. Asshur-upallit, upon this, interposed. Marching an army

into Babylonia, he defeated and slew the usurper, after which he placed

on the throne another son of Purna-puriyas, the Kurri-galzu already

mentioned in the account of the king’s of Chaldaea.

What is most remarkable in the glimpse of history which this tablet

opens to us is the power of Assyria, and the apparent terms of equality

on which she stands with her neighbor. Not only does she treat as an

equal with the great Southern Empire--not only is her royal house deemed

worthy of furnishing wives to its princes but when dynastic troubles

arise there, she exercises a predominant influence over the fortunes of

the contending parties, and secures victory to the side whose cause she

espouses. Jealous as all nations are of foreign inter-position in their

affairs, we may be sure that Babylonia would not have succumbed on this

occasion to Assyria’s influence, had not her weight been such that,

added to one side in a civil struggle, it produced a preponderance which

defied resistance.

After this one short lift, the curtain again drops over the history of

Assyria for a space of about sixty years, during which our records tell

us nothing but the mere names of the king’s. It appears from the bricks

of Kileh-Sherghat that Asshur-upallit was succeeded upon the throne by

his son, Bel-lush, or Behiklhus (Belochush), who was in his turn

followed by his son, Pudil, his grandson. Vul-lush, and his

great-grandson, Shahmaneser, the first of the name. Of Bel-lush, Pudil,

and Vul-lush I., we know only that they raised or repaired important

buildings in their city of Asshur (now Kileh-Sherghat), which in their

time, and for some centuries later, was the capital of the monarchy.

This place was not very favorably situated, being on the right bank of

the Tigris, which is a far less fertile region than the left, and not

being naturally a place of any great strength. The Assyrian territory

did not at this time, it is probable, extend very far to the north: at

any rate, no need was as yet felt for a second city higher up the Tigris

valley, much less for a transfer of the seat of government in that

direction. Calah was certainly, and Nineveh probably, not yet built; but

still the kingdom had obtained a name among the nations; the term

Assyria was applied geographically to the whole valley of the middle

Tigris; and a prophetic eye could see in the hitherto quiescent power

the nation fated to send expeditions into Palestine, and to bear off its

inhabitants into captivity.

Shahnaneser I. (ab. B.C. 1320) is chiefly known in Assyrian history as

the founder of Calah (Nimrud), the second, apparently, of those great

cities which the Assyrian monarchs delighted to build and embellish.

This foundation would of itself be sufficient to imply the growth of

Assyria in his time towards the north, and would also mark its full

establishment as the dominant power on the left as well as the right

bank of the Tigris. Calah was very advantageously situated in a region

of great fertility and of much natural strength, being protected on one

side by the Tigris, and on the other by the Shor-Derreh torrent, while

the Greater Zab further defended it at the distance of a few miles on

the south and south-east, and the Khazr or Ghazr-Su on the north east.

Its settlement must have secured to the Assyrians the undisturbed

possession of the fruitful and important district between the Tigris and

the mountains, the Aturia or Assyria Proper of later times, which

ultimately became the great metropolitan region in which almost all the

chief towns were situated.

It is quite in accordance with this erection of a sort of second

capital, further to the north than the old one, to find, as we do, by

the inscriptions of Asshur-izir-pal, that Shalmaneser undertook

expeditions against the tribes on the upper Tigris, and even founded

cities in those parts, which he colonized with settlers brought from a

distance. We do not know what the exact bounds of Assyria towards the

north were before his time, but there can be no doubt that he advanced

them; and he is thus entitled to the distinction of being the first

known Assyrian conqueror.

With Tiglathi-Nin, the son and successor of Shalmaneser I., the spirit

of conquest displayed itself in a more signal and striking manner. The

probable date of this monarch has already been shown to synchronize

closely with the time assigned by Berosus to the connnencement of his

sixth Babylonian dynasty, and by Herodotus to the beginning of his

Assyrian Empire. Now Tiglathi-Nin appears in the Inscriptions as the

prince who first aspired to transfer to Assyria the supremacy hitherto

exercised, or at any rate claimed, by Babylon. He made war upon the

southern kingdom, and with such success that he felt himself entitled to

claim its conquuest, and to inscribe upon his signet-seal the proud

title of “Conqueror of Babylonia.” This signet-seal, left by him (as is

probable) at Babylon, and recovered about six hundred years later by

Sennacherib, shows to us that he reigned for some time in person at the

southern capital, where it would seem that he afterwards established an

Assyrian dynasty--a branch perhaps of his own family. This is probably

the exact event of which Berosus spoke as occurring 526 years before

Phul or Pul, and which Herodotus regarded as marking the commencement of

the Assyrian “Empire.” We must not, however, suppose that Babylonia was

from this time really subject continuously to the Court of Nineveh. The

subjection may have been maintained for a little less than a century;

but about that time we find evidence that the yoke of Assyria had been

shaken off, and that the Babylonian monarchs, who have Semitic names,

and are probably Assyrians by descent, had become hostile to the

Ninevite kings, and were engaged in frequent wars with them. No real

permanent subjection of the Lower country to the Upper was effected till

the time of Sargon; and even under the Sargonid dynasty revolts were

frequent; nor were the Babylonians reconciled to the Assyrian sway till

Esarhaddon united the two Crowns in his own person, and reigned

alternately at the two capitals. Still, it is probable that, from the

time of Tiglathi-Nin, the Upper country was recognized as the superior

of the two: it had shown its might by a conquest and the imposition of a

dynasty--proofs of power which were far from counterbalanced by a few

retaliatory raids adventured upon under favorable circumstances by the

Babylonian princes. Its influence was therefore felt, even while its

yoke was refused; and the Semitizing of the Chaldaeans, commenced under

Tiglathi-Nin, continued during the whole time of Assyrian preponderance;

no effectual Turanian reaction ever set in; the Babylonian rulers,

whether submissive to Assyria or engaged in hostilities against her,

have equally Semitic names; and it does not appear that any effort was

at any time made to recover to the Turanian element of the population

its early supremacy.

The line of direct descent, which has been traced in uninterrupted

succession through eight monarchs, beginning with Asshur-bel-nisi-su,

here terminates; and an interval occurs which can only be roughly

estimated as probably not exceeding fifty years. Another consecutive

series of eight kings follows, known to us chiefly through the famous

Tiglath-Pileser cylinder (which gives the succession of five of them),

but completed from the combined evidence of several other documents.

These monarchs, it is probable, reigned from about B.C. 1230 to B C.

1070.

Bel-kudur-uzur, the first monarch of this second series, is known to us

wholly through his unfortunate war with the contemporary king of

Babylon. It seems that the Semitic line of kings, which the Assyrians

had established in Babylon, was not content to remain very long in a

subject position. In the time of Bel-kudur-uzur, Vul-baladan, the

Babylonian vassal monarch, revolted; and a war followed between him and

his Assyrian suzerain, which terminated in the defeat and death of the

latter, who fell in a great battle, about B.C. 1210.

Nin-pala-zira succeeded. It is uncertain whether he was any relation to

his predecessor, but clear that he avenged him. He is called “the king

who organized the country of Assyria, and established the troops of

Assyria in authority.” It appears that shortly after his accession,

Vul-baladan of Babylon, elated by his previous successes, made an

expedition against the Assyrian capital, and a battle was fought under

the walls of Asshur in which Nin-pala-zira was completely successful.

The Babylonians fled, and left Assyria in peace during the remainder of

the reign of this monarch.

Asshur-dayan, the third king of the series, had a long and prosperous

reign. He made a successful inroad into Babylonia, and returned into his

own land with a rich and valuable booty. He likewise took down the

temple which Shamas-Vul, the son of Ismi-Dagon, had erected to the gods

Asshur and Vul at Asshur, the Assyrian capital, because it was in a

ruinous condition, and required to be destroyed or rebuilt. Asshur-dayan

seems to have shrunk from the task of restoring so great a work, and

therefore demolished the structure which was not rebuilt for the space

of sixty years from its demolition. He was succeeded upon the throne by

his son Mutaggil-Nebo.

Mutaggil-Nebo reigned probably from about B.C. 1170 to B.C. 1150. We are

informed that “Asshur, the great Lord, aided him according to the wishes

of his heart, and established him in strength in the government of

Assyria.” Perhaps these expressions allude to internal troubles at the

commencement of his reign, over which he was so fortunate as to triumph.

We have no further particulars of this monarch.

Asshur-ris-ilim, the fourth king of the series, the son and successor of

Mutaggil-Nebo, whose reign may be placed between B.C. 1150 and B.C.

1130, is a monarch of greater pretensions than most of his predecessors.

In his son’s Inscription he is called “the powerful king, the subduer of

rebellious countries, he who has reduced all the accursed.” These

expressions are so broad, that we must conclude from them, not merely

that Asshur-ris-ilim, unlike the previous kings of the line, engaged in

foreign wars, but that his expeditions had a great success, and paved

the way for the extensive conquests of his son and successor,

Tiglath-Pileser. Probably he turned his arms in various directions, like

that monarch. Certainly he carried them south-wards into Babylonia,

where, as we learn from the synchronistic tablet of Babylonian and

Assyrian history, he was engaged for some time in a war with

Nebuchadnezzar (_Nabuk-udor-uzur_), the first known king of that name.

It has been conjectured that he likewise carried them into Southern

Syria and Palestine, and that, in fact, he is the monarch designated in

the book of Judges by the name of Chushan-ris-athaim, who is called “the

king of Mesopotamia (Aram-Naharaim),” and is said to have exercised

dominion over the Israelites for eight years. This identification,

however, is too uncertain to be assumed without further proof. The

probable date of Chushan-ris-athaim is some two (or three) centuries

earlier; and his title, “king of Mesopotamia,” is one which is not

elsewhere applied to Assyrians monarchs.

A few details have come clown to us with respect to the Babylonian war

of Asshur-ris-ilim. It appears that Nebuchadnezzar was the assailant. He

began the war by a march up the Diyalch and an advance on Assyria along

the outlying Zegros hills, the route afterwards taken by the great

Persian road described by Herodotus. Asshur-ris-ilim went out to meet

him in person, engaged him in the mountain region, and repulsed his

attack. Upon this the Babylonian monarch retired, and after an interval;

the duration of which is unknown, advanced a second time against

Assyria, but took now the direct line across the plain. Asshur-ris-ilim

on this occasion was content to employ a general against the invader. He

“sent” his chariots and his soldiers towards his southern border, and

was again successful, gaining a second victory over his antagonist, who

fled away, leaving in his hands forty chariots and a banner.

Tiglath-Pileser I., who succeeded Asshur-ris-ilim about B.C. 1130, is

the first Assyrian monarch of whose history we possess copious details

which can be set forth at some length. This is owing to the preservation

and recovery of a lengthy document belonging to his reign in which are

recorded the events of his first five years. As this document is the

chief evidence we possess of the condition of Assyria, the character and

tone of thought of the king, and indeed of the general state of the

Eastern world, at the period in question--which synchronizes certainly

with some portion of the dominion of the Judges over Israel, and

probably with the early conquests of the Dorians in Greece--it is

thought advisable to give in this place such an account of it, and such

a number of extracts as shall enable the reader to form his own judgment

on these several points.

The document opens with an enumeration and glorification of the “great

gods” who “rule over heaven and earth,” and are “the guardians of the

kingdom of Tiglath-Pileser.” These are “Asshur, the great Lord, ruling

supreme over the gods; Bel, the lord, father of the gods, lord of the

world; Sin, the leader(?) the lord of empire(?); Shamus, the establisher

of heaven and earth; Vul, he who causes the tempest to rage over hostile

lands; Nin, the champion who subdues evil spirits and enemies; and

Ishtar, the source of the gods, the queen of victory, she who arranges

battles.” These deities, who (it is declared) have placed

Tiglath-Pileser upon the throne, have “made him firm, have confided to

him the supreme crown, have appointed him in might to the sovereignty of

the people of Bel, and have granted him preeminence, exaltation, and

warlike power,” are invoked to make the “duration of his empire continue

forever to his royal posterity, lasting as the great temple of

Kharris-Matira.”

In the next section the king glorifies himself, enumerating his royal

titles as follows: “Tiglath-Pileser, the powerful king, king of the

people of various tongues; king of the four regions; king of all kings;

lord of lords; the supreme (?); monarch of monarchs; the illustrious

chief, who, under the auspices of the Sun-god, being armed with the

sceptre and girt with the girdle of power over mankind, rules over all

the people of Bel; the mighty prince, whose praise is blazoned forth

among the kings; the exalted sovereign, whose servants Asshur has

appointed to the government of the four regions, and whose name he has

made celebrated to posterity; the conqueror of many plains and mountains

of the Upper and Lower country; the victorious hero, the terror of whose

mane has overwhelmed all regions; the bright constellation who, as he

wished, has warred against foreign countries, and under the auspices of

Bel--there being no equal to him--has subdued the enemies of Asshur.”

The royal historian, after this introduction, proceeds to narrate his

actions first in general terms declaring that he has subdued all the

lands and the peoples round about, and then proceeding to particularize

the various campaigns which he had conducted during the first five years

of his reign. The earliest of these was against the Muskai, or

Moschians, who are probably identical with the Meshech of Holy

Scripture--a people governed (it is said) by five kings, and inhabiting

the countries of Alzi and Purukhuz, parts (apparently) of Taurus or

Niphates. These Moschians are said to have neglected for fifty years to

pay the tribute due from them to the Assyrians, from which it would

appear that they had revolted during the reign of Asshur-dayan, having

previously been subject to Assyria. At this time, with a force amounting

to 20,000 men, they had invaded the neighboring district of Qummukh

(Commagene), an Assyrian dependency, and had made themselves masters of

it. Tiglath-Pileser attacked them in this newly-conquered country, and

completely defeated their army. He then reduced Commagene, despite the

assistance which the inhabitants received from some of their neighbors.

He burnt the cities, plundered the temples, ravaged the open country,

and carried off, either in the shape of plunder or of tribute, vast

quantities of cattle and treasure.

The character of the warfare is indicated by such a passage as the

following:

“The country of Kasiyara, a difficult region, I passed through. With

their 20,000 men and their five kings, in the country of Qummukh I

engaged. I defeated them. The ranks of their warriors in fighting the

battle were beaten down as if by the tempest. Their carcasses covered

the valleys and the tops of the mountains, I cut off their heads. Of the

battlements of their cities I made heaps, like mounds of earth (?).

Their moveables, their wealth, and their valuables I plundered to a

countless amount. Six thousand of their common soldiers, who fled before

my servants, and accepted my yoke, I took and gave over to the men of my

own territory as slaves.”