The second campaign was partly in the same region and with the same

people. The Moschians, who were still loth to pay tribute, were again

attacked and reduced. Commagene was completely overrun, and the

territory was attached to the Assyrian empire. The neighboring tribes

were assailed in their fastnesses, their cities burnt, and their

territories ravaged. At the same time war was made upon several other

peoples or nations. Among these the most remarkable are the Khatti

(Hittites), two of whose tribes, the Kaskiaits and Urumians, had

committed an aggression on the Assyrian territory: for this they were

chastised by an invasion which they did not venture to resist, by the

plundering of their valuables, and the carrying off of 120 of their

chariots. In another direction the Lower Zab was crossed, and the

Assyrian arms were carried into the mountain region of Zagros, where

certain strongholds were reduced and a good deal of treasure taken.

The third campaign was against the numerous tribes of the Nairi, who

seem to have dwelt at this time partly to the east of the Euphrates, but

partly also in the mountain country west of the stream from Smmeisat to

the Gulf of Iskenderun. These tribes, it is said, had never previously

made their submission to the Assyrians. They were governed by a number

of petty chiefs or “kings,” of whom no fewer than twenty-three are

particularized. The tribes east of the Euphrates seem to have been

reduced with little resistance, while those who dwelt west of the river,

on the contrary, collected their troops together, gave battle to the

invaders, and made a prolonged and desperate defence. All, however, was

in vain. The Assyrian monarch gained a great victory, taking 120

chariots, and then pursued the vanquished Nairi and their allies as far

as “the Upper Sea,”--i.e., the Mediterranean. The usual ravage and

destruction followed, with the peculiarity that the lives of the “kings”

were spared, and that the country was put to a moderate tribute, viz.,

1200 horses and 200 head of cattle.

In the fourth campaign the Aramaeans or Syrians were attacked by the

ambitious monarch. They occupied at this time the valley of the

Euphrates, from the borders of the Tsukhi, or Shuhites, who held the

river from about Anah to Hit, as high up as Carchemish, the frontier

town and chief stronghold of the Khatti or Hittites. Carchemish was not,

as has commonly been supposed, Circesium, at the junction of the Khabour

with the Euphrates, but was considerably higher up the stream, certainly

near to, perhaps on the very site of, the later city of Mabog or

Hierapolis. Thus the Aramaeans had a territory of no great width, but

230 miles long between its north-western and its south-eastern

extremities. Tiglath-Pileser smote this region, as he tells us, “at one

blow.” First attacking and plundering the eastern or left bank of the

river, he then crossed the stream in boats covered with skins, took and

burned six cities on the right bank, and returned in safety with an

immense plunder.

The fifth and last campaign was against the country of Musr or Muzr, by

which some Orientalists have understood Lower Egypt. This, however,

appears to be a mistake. The Assyrian Inscriptions designate two

countries by the name of Musr or Muzr, one of them being Egypt, and the

other a portion of Upper Kurdistan. The expedition of Tiglath-Pileser I.,

was against the eastern Musr, a highly mountainous country, consisting

(apparently) of the outlying ranges of Zagros between the greater Zab

and the Eastern Khabour. Notwithstanding its natural strength and the

resistance of the inhabitants, this country was completely overrun in an

incredibly short space. The armies which defended it were defeated, the

cities burnt, the strongholds taken. Arin, the capital, submitted, and

was spared, after which a set tribute was imposed on the entire region,

the amount of which is not mentioned. The Assyrian arms were then turned

against a neighboring district, the country of the Comani. The Comani,

though Assyrian subjects, had lent assistance to the people of Musr, and

it was to punish this insolence that Tiglath-Pileser resolved to invade

their territory. Having defeated their main army, consisting of 20,000

men, he proceeded to the attack of the various castles and towns, some

of which were stormed, while others surrendered at discretion. In both

eases alike the fortifications were broken down and destroyed, the

cities which surrendered being spared, while those taken by storm were

burnt with fire. Ere long the whole of the “far-spreading country of the

Comani” was reduced to subjection, and a tribute was imposed exceeding

that which had previously been required from the people.

After this account of the fifth campaign, the whole result of the wars

is thus briefly summed up:--“There fell into my hands altogether,

between the commencement of my reign and my fifth year, forty-two

countries with their kings, from the banks of the river Zab to the banks

of the river Euphrates, the country of the Rhatti, and the upper ocean

of the setting sun. I brought them under one government; I took hostages

from them; and I imposed on them tribute and offerings.”

From describing his military achievements, the monarch turns to an

account of his exploits in the chase. In the country of the Hittites he

boasts that he had slain “four wild bulls, strong and fierce,” with his

arrows; while in the neighborhood of Harran, on the banks of the river

Khabour, he had killed ten large wild buffaloes (?), and taken four

alive. These captured animals he had carried with him on his return to

Asshur, his capital city, together with the horns and skins of the slain

beasts. The lions which he had destroyed in his various journeys he

estimates at 920. All these successes he ascribes to the powerful

protection of Nin and Nergal.

The royal historiographer proceeds, after this, to give an account of

his domestic administration, of the buildings which he had erected, and

the various improvements which he had introduced. Among the former he

mentions temples to Ishtar. Martu, Bel, Il or Ra, and the presiding

deities of the city of Asshur, palaces for his own use, and castles for

the protection of his territory. Among the latter he enumerates the

construction of works of irrigation, the introduction into Assyria of

foreign cattle and of numerous beasts of chase, the naturalization of

foreign vegetable products, the multiplication of chariots, the

extension of the territory, and the augmentation of the population of

the country.

A more particular account is then given of the restoration by the

monarch of two very ancient and venerable temples in the great city of

Asshur. This account is preceded by a formal statement of the

particulars of the monarch’s descent from Ninpala-zira, the king who

seems to be regarded as the founder of the dynasty--which breaks the

thread of the narrative somewhat strangely and awkwardly. Perhaps the

occasion of its introduction was, in the mind of the writer, the

necessary mention, in connection with one of the two temples, of

Asshur-dayan, the great-grandfather of the monarch. It appears that in

the reign of Asshur-dayan, this temple, which, having stood for 641

years, was in a very ruinous condition, had been taken down, while no

fresh building had been raised in its room. The site remained vacant for

sixty years, till Tiglath-Pileser, having lately ascended the throne,

determined to erect on the spot a new temple to the old gods, who were

Anu and Vul, probably the tutelary deities of the city. His own account

of the circumstances of the building and dedication is as follows:--

“In the beginning of my reign, Anu and Vul, the great gods, my lords,

guardians of my steps, gave me a command to repair this their shrine. So

I made bricks; I levelled the earth; I took its dimensions (?); I laid

down its foundations upon a mass of strong rock. This place, throughout

its whole extent, I paved with bricks in set order (?); fifty feet deep

I prepared the ground; and upon this substructure I laid the lower

foundations of the temple of Anu and Vul. From its foundations to its

roof I built it up better than it was before. I also built two lofty

towers (?) in honor of their noble godships, and the holy place, a

spacious hall, I consecrated for the convenience of their worshippers,

and to accommodate their votaries, who were numerous as the stars of

heaven. I repaired, and built, and completed my work. Outside the temple

I fashioned everything with the same care as inside. The mound of earth

on which it was built I enlarged like the firmament of the rising stars

(?), and I beautified the entire building. Its towers I raised up to

heaven, and its roofs I built entirely of brick. An inviolable shrine(?)

for their noble godships I laid down near at hand. Anu and Vul, the

great gods, I glorified inside the shrine. I set them up in their

honored purity, and the hearts of their noble godships I delighted.”

The other restoration mentioned is that of a temple to Vul only, which,

like that to Anu and Vul conjointly, had been originally built by

Shamas-Vul, the son of Ismi-Dagon. This building had likewise fallen

into decay, but had not been taken down like the other. Tiglath-Pileser

states that he “levelled its site,” and then rebuilt it “from its

foundations to its roofs.” enlarging it beyond its former limits, and

adorning it. Inside of it he “sacrificed precious victims to his lord,

Vul.” He also deposited in the temple a number of rare stones or

marbles, which he had obtained in the country of the Nairi in the course

of his expeditions.

The inscription then terminates with the following long invocation:--

“Since a holy place, a noble hall, I have thus consecrated for the use

of the Great Gods, my lords Anu and Vul, and have laid down an adytum

for their special worship, and have finished it successfully, and have

delighted the hearts of their noble godships, may Anu and Vul preserve

me in power! May they support the men of my government! May they

establish the authority of my officers! May they bring the rain, the joy

of the year, on the cultivated land and the desert, during my time! In

war and in battle may they preserve me victorious! Many foreign

countries, turbulent nations, and hostile kings I have reduced under my

yoke! to my children and my descendants, may they keep them in firm

allegiance! I will lead my steps” (or, “may they establish my feet”),

“firm as the mountains, to the last days, before Asshur and their noble

godships!

“The list of my victories and the catalogue of my triumphs over

foreigners hostile to Asshur, which Anu and Vul have granted to my arms,

I have inscribed on my tablets and cylinders, and I have placed, [to

remain] to the last days, in the temple of my lords, Ann and Vul. And I

have made clean (?) the tablets of Shamas-Vul, my ancestor; I have made

sacrifices, and sacrificed victims before them, and have set them up in

their places. In after times, and in the latter days..., if the temple

of the Great Gods, my lords Anu and Vul, and these shrines should become

old and fall into decay, may the Prince who comes after me repair the

ruins! May he raise altars and sacrifice victims before my tablets and

cylinders, and may he set them up again in their places, and may he

inscribe his name on them together with my name! As Anu and Vul, the

Great Gods, have ordained, may he worship honestly with a good heart and

full trust!

“Whoever shall abrade or injure my tablets and cylinders, or shall

moisten them with water, or scorch them with fire, or expose them to the

air, or in the holy place of God shall assign them a place where they

cannot be seen or understood, or shall erase the writing and inscribe

his own name, or shall divide the sculptures (?) and break them off from

my tablets, may Anu and Vul, the Great Gods, my lords, consign his name

to perdition! May they curse him with an irrevocable curse! May they

cause his sovereignty to perish! May they pluck out the stability of the

throne of his empire! Let not his offspring survive him in the kingdom!

Let his servants be broken! Let his troops be defeated! Let him fly

vanquished before his enemies! May Vul in his fury tear up the produce

of his land! May a scarcity of food and of the necessaries of life

afflict his country! For one day may he not be called happy! May his

name and his race perish!”

The document is then dated--“In the month Kuzalla (Chisleu), on the 29th

day, in the year presided over by Inailiya-pallik, the Rabbi-Turi.”

Perhaps the most striking feature of this inscription, when it is

compared with other historical documents of the same kind belonging to

other ages and nations, is its intensely religious character. The long

and solemn invocation of the Great Gods with which it opens, the

distinct ascription to their assistance and guardianship of the whole

series of royal successes, whether in war or in the chase; the pervading

idea that the wars were undertaken for the chastisement of the enemies

of Asshur, and that their result was the establishment in an

ever-widening circle of the worship of Asshur; the careful account which

is given of the erection and renovation of temples, and the dedication

of offerings; and the striking final prayer--all these are so many

proofs of the prominent place which religion held in the thoughts of the

king who set up the inscription, and may fairly be accepted as

indications of the general tone and temper of his people. It is evident

that we have here displayed to us, not a decent lip-service, not a

conventional piety, but a real, hearty earnest religious faith--a faith

bordering on fanaticism--a spirit akin to that with which the Jews were

possessed in their warfare with the nations of Canaan, or which the

soldiers of Mahomet breathed forth when they fleshed their maiden swords

upon the infidels. The king glorifies himself much; but he glorifies the

gods more. He fights, in part, for his own credit, and for the extension

of his territory; but he fights also for the honor of the gods, whom the

surrounding nations reject, and for the diffusion of their worship far

and wide throughout all known regions. His wars are religious wars, at

least as much as wars of conquest; his buildings, or, at any rate, those

on whose construction he dwells with most complacency, are religious

buildings; the whole tone of his mind is deeply and sincerely religious;

besides formal acknowledgments, he is continually letting drop little

expressions which show that his gods are “in all his thoughts,” and

represent to him real powers governing and directing all the various

circumstances of human life. The religious spirit displayed is, as might

have been expected, in the highest degree exclusive and intolerant; but

it is earnest, constant, and all-pervading.

In the next place, we cannot fail to be struck with the energetic

character of the monarch, so different from the temper which Ctesias

ascribes, in the broadest and most sweeping terms, to all the successors

of Ninus. Within the first five years of his reign the indefatigable

prince conducts in person expeditions into almost every country upon his

borders; attacks and reduces six important nations, besides numerous

petty tribes; receiving the submission of forty-two kings; traversing

the most difficult mountain regions; defeating armies, besieging towns,

destroying forts and strongholds, ravaging territories; never allowing

himself a moment of repose; when he is not engaged in military

operations, devoting himself to the chase, contending with the wild bull

and the lion, proving himself (like the first Mesopotamian king) in very

deed “a mighty hunter,” since he counts his victims by hundreds; and all

the while having regard also to the material welfare of his country,

adorning it with buildings, enriching it with the products of other

lands, both animal and vegetable, fertilizing it by means of works of

irrigation, and in every way “improving the condition of the people, and

obtaining for them abundance and security.”

With respect to the general condition of Assyria, it may be noted, in

the first place, that the capital is still Asshur, and that no mention

is made of any other native city. The king calls himself “king of the

four regions,” which would seem to imply a division of the territory

into districts, like that which certainly obtained in later times. The

mention of “four” districts is curious, since the same number was from

the first affected by the Chaldaeans, while we have also evidence that,

at least after the time of Sargon, there was a pre-eminence of four

great cities in Assyria. The limits of the territory at the time of the

Inscription are not very dearly marked; but they do not seem to extend

beyond the outer ranges of Zagros on the east, Niphates on the north,

and the Euphrates upon the west. The southern boundary at the time was

probably the commencement of the alluvium; but this cannot be gathered

from the Inscription, which contains no notice of any expedition in the

direction of Babylonia. The internal condition of Assyria is evidently

flourishing. Wealth flows in from the plunder of the neighboring

countries; labor is cheapened by the introduction of enslaved captives;

irrigation is cared for; new fruits and animals are introduced;

fortifications are repaired, palaces renovated, and temples beautified

or rebuilt.

The countries adjoining upon Assyria at the west, the north, and the

east, in which are carried on the wars of the period, present

indications of great political weakness. They are divided up among a

vast number of peoples, nations, and tribes, whereof the most powerful

is only able to bring into the field a force of 20,000 men. The peoples

and nations possess but little unity. Each consists of various separate

communities, ruled by their own kings, who in war unite their troops

against the common enemy; but are so jealous of each other, that they do

not seem even to appoint a generalissimo. On the Euphrates, between Hit

and Carchemish, are, first, the Tsukhi or Shuhites, of whom no

particulars are given; and, next, the Aramaeans or Syrians, who occupy

both banks of the river, and possess a number of cities, no one of which

is of much strength. Above the Aramaeans are the Khatti or Hittites,

whose chief city, Carchemish, is an important place; they are divided

into tribes, and, like the Aramaeans, occupy both banks of the great

stream. North and north-west of their country, probably beyond the

mountain-range of Amanus, are the Muskai (Moschi), an aggressive people,

who were seeking to extend their territory eastward into the land of the

Qummukh or people of Commagene. These Qummukh hold the mountain country

on both sides of the Upper Tigris, and have a number of strongholds,

chiefly on the right bank. To the east they adjoin on the Kirkhi, who

must have inhabited the skirts of Niphates, while to the south they

touch the Nairi, who stretch from Lake Van, along the line of the

Tigris, to the tract known as Commagene to the Romans. The Nairi have,

at the least, twenty-three kings, each of whom governs his own tribe

or city. South of the more eastern Nairi is the country of Muzra

mountain tract well peopled and full of castles, probably the region

about Amadiyeh and Rowandiz. Adjoining Muzr to the east or north-east,

are the __Quwanu or Comani, who are among the most powerful of Assyria’s

neighbors, being able, like the Moschi, to bring into the field an army

of 20,000 men. At this time they are close allies of the people of

Muzr--finally, across the lower Zab, on the skirts of Zagros, are

various petty tribes of small account, who offer but little resistance

to the arms of the invader.

Such was the position of Assyria among her neighbors in the latter part

of the twelfth century before Christ. She was a compact and powerful

kingdom, centralized under a single monarch, and with a single great

capital, in the midst of wild tribes which clung to a separate

independence, each in its own valley or village. At the approach of a

great danger, these tribes might consent to coalesce and to form

alliances, or even confederations; but the federal tie, never one of

much tenacity, and rarely capable of holding its ground in the presence

of monarchic vigor, was here especially weak. After one defeat of their

joint forces by the Assyrian troops, the confederates commonly

dispersed, each flying to the defence of his own city or territory, with

a short-sighted selfishness which deserved and ensured defeat. In one

direction only was Assyria confronted by a rival state pomsessing a

power and organization in character not unlike her own, though scarcely

of equal strength. On her southern frontier, in the broad flat plain

intervening between the Mesopotamian upland and the sea--the kingdom of

Babylon was still existing; its Semitic kings, though originally

established upon the throne by Assyrian influence, had dissolved all

connection with their old protectors, and asserted their thorough

independence. Here, then, was a considerable state, as much centralized

as Assyria herself, and not greatly inferior either in extent of

territory or in population, existing side by side with her, and

constituting a species of check, whereby something like a balance of

power was still maintained in Western Asia, and Assyria: was prevented

from feeling herself the absolute mistress of the East, and the

uncontrolled arbitress of the world’s destinies.

Besides the great cylinder inscription of Tiglath-Pileser there exist

five more years of his annals in fragments, from which we learn that he

continued his aggressive expeditious during this space, chiefly towards

the north west, subduing the Lulumi in Northern Syria, attacking and

taking Carchemish, and pursuing the inhabitants across the Euphrates in

boats.

No mention is made during this time of any collision between Assyria and

her great rival. Babylon. The result of the wars waged by

Asshur-ris-ilim against Nebuchadnezzar I., had, apparently, been to

produce in the belligerents a feeling of mutual respect; and

Tiglath-Pileser, in his earlier years, neither trespassed on the

Babylonian territory in his aggressive raids, nor found himself called

upon to meet and repel any invasion of his own dominions by his southern

neighbors. Before the close of his reign, however, active hostilities

broke out between the two powers. Either provoked by some border ravage

or actuated simply by lust of conquest, Tiglath-Pileser marched his

troops into Babylonia. For two consecutive years he wasted with fire and

sword the “upper” or northern provinces, taking the cities of

Kurri-Galzu--now Akkerkuf--Sippara of the Sun, and Sippara of Anunit

(the Sepharvaim or “two Sipparas” of the Hebrews), and Hupa or Opis, on

the Tigris; and finally capturing Babylon itself, which, strong as it

was, proved unable to resist the invader. On his return be passed up the

valley of the Euphrates, and took several cities from the Tsukhi. But

here, it would seem that he suffered a reverse. Merodach-iddiu-akhi, his

opponent, if he did not actually defeat his army, must, at any rate,

have greatly harassed it on its retreat; for he captured an important

part of its baggage. Indulging a superstition common in ancient times,

Tiglath-Pileser had carried with him in his expedition certain images of

gods, whose presence would, it was thought, secure victory to his arms.

Merodach-iddiu akhi obtained possession of these idols, and succeeded in

carrying them off to Babylon, where they were preserved for more than

400 years, and considered as mementoes of victory.

The latter days of this great Assyrian prince were thus, unhappily,

clouded by disaster. Neither he, nor his descendants, nor any Assyrian

monarch for four centuries succeeded in recovering the lost idols, and

replacing them in the shrines from which they were taken. A hostile and

jealous spirit appears henceforth in the relations between Assyria and

Babylon; we find no more intermarriages of the one royal house with the

other; wars are frequent--almost constant--nearly every Assyrian

monarch, whose history is known to us in any detail, conducting at least

one expedition into Babylonia.

A work still remains, belonging to the reign of this king, from which it

appears that the peculiar character of Assyrian mimetic art was already

fixed in his time, the style of representation being exactly such as

prevailed at the most flourishing period, and the workmanship,

apparently, not very inferior. In a cavern from which the Tsupnat river

or eastern branch of the Tigris rises, close to a village called

Korkhar, and about fifty or sixty miles north of Drarbekr, is a

bas-relief sculptured on the natural rock, which has been smoothed for

the purpose, consisting of a figure of the king in his sacerdotal dress

with the right arm extended and the left hand grasping the sacrificial

mace, accompanied by an inscription which is read as follows:--“By the

grace of Asshur, Shamas, and Vul, the Great Gods, I., Tiglath-Pileser,

king of Assyria, son of Asshurris-ilim, king of Assyria, who was the son

of Mutaggil-Nebo, king of Assyria, marching from the great sea of

Akhiri’ (the Mediterranean) to the sea of Nairi” (Lake of Van) “for the

third time have invaded the country of Nairi.” [PLATE CXLIV Fig. 3.]

The fact of his having warred in Lower Mesopotamia is almost the whole

that is known of Tiglath-Pileser’s son and successor, Asshur-bil-kala. A

contest in which he was engaged with the Babylonian prince,

Merodach-shapik-ziri (who seems to have been the successor of

Merodach-iddin-akhi), is recorded on the famous synchronistic tablet, in

conjunction with the Babylonian wars of his father and grandfather; but

the tablet is so injured in this place that no particulars can be

gathered from it. From a monument of Asshur-bil-kala’s own time--one of

the earliest Assyrian sculptures that has cone down to us--we may

perhaps further conclude that he inherited something of the religious

spirit of his father, and gave a portion of his attention to the

adornment of temples, and the setting up of images.

The probable date of the reign of Asshur-bil-kala is about B.C.

1110-1090. He appears to have been succeeded on the throne by his

younger brother, Shamas-Vul, of whom nothing is known, but that he

built, or repaired, a temple at Nineveh. His reign probably occupied the

interval between B.. 1090 and 1070. He would thus seem to have been

contemporary with _Smendes_ in Egypt and with Samuel or Saul in Israel.

So apparently insignificant an event as the establishment of a kingdom

in Palestine was not likely to disturb the thoughts, even if it came to

the knowledge, of an Assyrian monarch. Shamas-Vul would no doubt have

regarded with utter contempt the petty sovereign of so small a territory

as Palestine, and would have looked upon the new kingdom as scarcely

more worthy of his notice than any other of the ten thousand little

principalities which lay on or near his borders. Could he, however, have

possessed for a few moments the prophetic foresight vouchsafed some

centuries earlier to one who may almost be called his countryman, he

would have been astonished to recognize in the humble kingdom just

lifting its head in the far West, and struggling to hold its own against

Philistine cruelty and oppression, a power which in little more than

fifty years would stand forth before the world as the equal, if not the

superior, of his own state. The imperial splendor of the kingdom of

David and Solomon did, in fact, eclipse for awhile the more ancient

glories of Assyria. It is a notable circumstance that, exactly at the

time when a great and powerful monarchy grew up in the tract between

Egypt and the Euphrates, Assyria passed under a cloud. The history of

the country is almost a blank for two centuries between the reigns of

Shamas-Vul and the second Tiglathi-Nin, whose accession is fixed by the

Assyrian Canon to B.C. 889. During more than three-fourths of this time,

from about B.C. 1070 to B.C. 930, the very names of the monarchs are

almost wholly unknown to us. It seems as if there was not room in

Western Asia for two first-class monarchies to exist and flourish at the

same time; and so, although there was no contention, or even contact,

between the two empires of Judaea and Assyria, yet the rise of the one

to greatness could only take place under the condition of a coincident

weakness of the other.

It is very remarkable that exactly in this interval of darkness, when

Assyria would seem, from the failure both of buildings and records, to

have been especially and exceptionally weak, occurs the first appearance

of her having extended her influence beyond Syria into the great and

ancient monarchy of Egypt. In the twenty-second Egyptian dynasty, which

began with Sheshonk I., or Shishak, the contemporary of Solomon, about

B.C. 900, Assyrian names appear for the first time in the Egyptian

dynastic lists. It has been supposed from this circumstance that the

entire twenty-second dynasty, together with that which succeeded it, was

Assyrian; but the condition of Assyria at the time renders such a

hypothesis most improbable. The true explanation would seem to be that

the Egyptian kings of this period sometimes married. Assyrian wives, who

naturally gave Assyrian names to some of their children. These wives

were perhaps members of the Assyrian royal family; or perhaps they were

the daughters of the Assyrian nobles who from time to time were

appointed as viceroys of the towns and small states which the Ninevite

monarchs conquered on the skirts of their empire. Either of these

suppositions is more probable than the establishment in Egypt of a

dynasty really Assyrian at a time of extraordinary weakness and

depression.

When at the close of this long period of obscurity, Assyria once more

comes into sight, we have at first only a dim and indistinct view of her

through the mists which still enfold and shroud her form. We observe

that her capital is still fixed at Kileh-Sherghat, where a new series of

kings, bearing names which, for the most part, resemble those of the

earlier period, are found employing themselves in the repair and

enlargement of public buildings, in connection with which they obtain

honorable mention in an inscription of a later monarch. Asshur-dayan,

the first monarch of this group, probably ascended the throne about B.C.

930, shortly after the separation of the two kingdoms of Israel and

Judah. He appears to have reigned from about B.C. 930 to B.C. 911. He

was succeeded in B.C. 911 by his son Vul-lush II., who held the throne

from B.C. 911 to B.C. 889. Nothing is known at present of the history of

these two monarchs. No historical inscriptions belonging to their reigns

have been recovered; no exploits are recorded of them in the

inscriptions of later sovereigns. They stand up before us the mere

“shadows of mighty names”--proofs of the, uncertainty of posthumous

fame, which is almost as often the award of chance as the deserved

recompense of superior merit.

Of Tiglathi-Nin, the second monarch of the name, and the third king of

the group which we are considering, one important historical notice,

contained in an inscription of his son, has come down to us. In the

annals of the great Asshur-izirpal inscribed on the Nimrud monolith,

that prince, while commemorating his war-like exploits, informs us that

he set up his sculptures at the sources of the Tsupnat river alongside

of sculptures previously set up by his ancestors Tiglath-Pileser and

Tiglathi-Nin. That Tiglathi-Nin should have made so distant an

expedition is the more remarkable from the brevity of his reign, which

only lasted for six years. According to the Canon, he ascended the

throne in the year B.C. 889; he was succeeded in B.C. 883 by his son

Asshur-izir-pal.

With Asshur-izir-pal commences one of the most flourishing periods of

the Empire. During the twenty-five years of his active and laborious

reign. Assyria enlarged her bounds and increased her influence in almost

every direction, while, at the same time, she advanced rapidly in wealth

and in the arts; in the latter respect leaping suddenly to an eminence

which (so far as we know) had not previously been reached by human

genius. The size and magnificence of Asshur-izir-pal’s buildings, the

artistic excellence of their ornamentation, the pomp and splendor which

they set before us as familiar to the king who raised them, the skill in

various useful arts which they display or imply, have excited the

admiration of Europe, which has seen with astonishment that many of its

inventions were anticipated, and that its luxury was almost equalled, by

an Asiatic people nine centuries before the Christian era. It will be

our pleasing task at this point of the history, after briefly sketching

Asshur-izir-pal’s wars, to give such an account of the great works which

he constructed as will convey to the reader at least a general idea of

the civilization and refinement of the Assyrians at the period to which

we are now come.

Asshur-izir-pal’s first campaign was in north-western Kurdistan and in

the adjoining parts of Armenia. It does not present any very remarkable

features, though he claims to have penetrated to a region “never

approached by the kings his fathers.” His enemies are the Numi or Elami

(i.e., the mountaineers) and the Kirkhi, who seem to have left their

name in the modern Kurkh. Neither people appears to have been able to

make much head against him: no battle was fought: the natives merely

sought to defend their fortified places; but these were mostly taken and

destroyed by the invader. One chief, who was made prisoner, received

very barbarous treatment; he was carried to Arbela, and there flayed and

hung up upon the town wall.

The second expedition of Asshur-izir-pal, which took place in the same

year as his first, was directed against the regions to the west and

north-west of Assyria. Traversing the country of Qummukh, and receiving

its tribute, as well as that of Serki and Sidikan (Arban), he advanced

against the Laki, who seem to have been at this time the chief people of

Central Mesopotamia, extending from the vicinity of Hatra as far as, or

even beyond, the middle Euphrates. Here the people of a city called

Assura had rebelled, murdered their governor, and called in a foreigner

to rule over them. Asshur-izir-pal marched hastily against the rebels,

who submitted at his approach, delivering up to his mercy both their

city and their new king. The latter he bound with fetters and carried

with him to Nineveh; the former he treated with almost unexampled

severity. Having first plundered the whole place, he gave up the houses

of the chief men to his own officers, established an Assyrian governor

in the palace, and then, selecting from the inhabitants the most guilty,

he crucified some, burnt others, and punished the remainder by cutting

off their ears or their noses. We can feel no surprise when we are

informed that, while he was thus “arranging” these matters, the

remaining kings of the Laki submissively sent in their tribute to the

conqueror, paying it with apparent cheerfulness, though it was “a heavy

and much increased burden.”

In his third expedition, which was in his second year, Asshur-izir-pal

turned his arms to the north, and marched towards the Upper Tigris,

where he forced the kings of the Nairi, who had, it appears, regained

their independence, to give in their submission, and appointed them an

annual tribute in gold, silver, horses, cattle, and other commodities.

It was in the course of this expedition that, having ascended to the

sources of the Tsupnat river, or Eastern Tigris, Asshur-izir-pal set up

his memorial side by side with monuments previously erected on the same

site by Tiglath-Pileser and by the first or second Tiglathi-Nin.

Asshur-izir-pal’s fourth campaign was towards the south-east. He crossed

the Lesser Zab, and, entering the Zagros range, carried fire and sword

through its fruitful valleys--pushing his arms further than any of his

ancestors, capturing some scores of towns, and accepting or extorting

tribute from a dozen petty kings. The furthest extent of his march was

probably the district of Zohab across the Shirwan branch of the Diyaleh,

to which he gives the name of Edisa. On his return he built, or rather

rebuilt, a city, which a Babylonian king called Tsibir had destroyed at

a remote period, and gave to his new foundation the name of Dur-Asshur,

in grateful acknowledgment of the protection vouchsafed him by “the

chief of the gods.”

In his fifth campaign the warlike monarch once more directed his steps

towards the north. Passing through the country of the Qummukh, and

receiving their tribute, he proceeded to war in the eastern portion of

the Mons Masius, where he took the cities of Matyat (now Mediyat) and

Kapranisa. He then appears to have crossed the Tigris and warred on the

flanks of Niphates, where his chief enemy was the people of Kasiyara.

Returning thence, he entered the territory of the Nairi, where he

declares that he overthrew and destroyed 250 strong walled cities, and

put to death a considerable number of the princes.

The sixth campaign of Asshur-izir-pal was in a westerly direction.

Starting from Calah or Nimrud, he crossed the Tigris, and, marching

through the middle of Mesopotamia a little to the north of the Sinjar

range, took tribute from a number of subject towns along the courses of

the rivers Jerujer, Khabour, and Euphrates, among which the most

important were Sidikan (now Arban), Sirki, and Anat (now Anah). From

Anat, apparently his frontier-town in this direction, he invaded the

country of the Tsukhi (Shuhites), captured their city Tsur, and forced

them, notwithstanding the assistance which they received from their

neighbors the Babylonians, to surrender the themselves. He then entered

Chaldaea, and chastised the Chaldaeans, after which he returned in

triumph to his own country.

His seventh campaign was also against the Shuhites. Released from the

immediate pressure of his arms, they had rebelled, and had even ventured

to invade the Assyrian Empire. The Laki, whose territory adjoined that

of the Shuhites towards the north and east, assisted them. The combined

army, which the allies were able to bring into the field amounted

probably to 20,000 men, including a large number of warriors who fought

in chariots. Asshur-izir-pal first attacked the cities on the left bank

of the Euphrates, which had felt his might on the former occasion; and,

having reduced these and punished their rebellion with great severity,

he crossed the river on rafts, and fought a battle with the main army of

the enemy. In this engagement he was completely victorious, defeating

the Tsukhi and their allies with great slaughter, and driving their

routed forces headlong into the Euphrates, where great numbers perished

by drowning. Six thousand five hundred of the rebels fell in the battle;

and the entire country on the right bank of the river, which had escaped

invasion in the former campaign, was ravaged furiously with fire and

sword by the incensed monarch. The cities and castles were burnt, the

males put to the sword, the women, children, and cattle carried off. Two

kings of the Laki are mentioned, of whom one escaped, while the other

was made prisoner, and conveyed to Assyria by the conqueror. A rate of

tribute was then imposed on the land considerably in advance of that to

which it had previously been liable. Besides this, to strengthen his

hold on the country, the conqueror built two new cities, one on either

bank of the Euphrates, naming the city on the left bank after himself,

and that on the right bank after the god Asshur. Both of these places

were no doubt left well garrisoned with Assyrian soldiers, on whom the

conqueror could place entire reliance.

Asshur-izir-pal’s eighth campaign was nearly in the same quarter; but

its exact scene lay, apparently, somewhat higher up the Euphrates.

Hazilu, the king of the Laki, who escaped capture in the preceding

expedition, had owed his safety to the refuge given him by the people of

Beth-Adina. Asshur-izir-pal, who seems to have regarded their conduct on

this occasion as an insult to himself, and was resolved to punish their

presumption, made his eighth expedition solely against this bold but

weak people. Unable to meet his forces in the field, they shut

themselves up in their chief city, Kabrabi (?), which was immediately

besieged, and soon taken and burnt by the Assyrians. The country of

Beth-Adina, which lay on the left or east bank of the Euphrates, in the

vicinity of the modern Balis, was overrun and added to the empire. Two

thousand five hundred prisoners were carried off and settled at Calah.

The most interesting of Asshur-izir-pal’s campaigns is the ninth, which

was against Syria. Marching across Upper-Mesopotamia, and receiving

various tributes upon his way, the Assyrian monarch passed the Euphrates

on rafts, and, entering the city of Carchemish, received the submission

of Sangara, the Hittite prince, who ruled in that town, and of various

other chiefs, “who came reverently and kissed his sceptre.” He then

“gave command” to advance towards Lebanon. Entering the territory of the

Patena, who adjoined upon the northern Hittites, and held the country

about Antioch and Aleppo, he occupied the capital, Kinalua, which was

between the Abri (or Afrin) and the Orontes; alarmed the rebel king,

Lubarna, so that he submitted, and consented to pay a tribute; and then,

crossing the Orontes and destroying certain cities of the Patena, passed

along the northern flank of Lebanon, and reached the Mediterranean. Here

he erected altars and offered sacrifices to the gods, after which he

received the submission of the principal Phoenician states, among which

Tyre, Sidon, Byblus, and Aradus may be distinctly recognized. He then

proceeded inland, and visited the mountain range of Amanus, where he cut

timber, set up a sculptured memorial, and offered sacrifice. After this

he returned to Assyria, carrying with him, besides other plunder, a

quantity of wooden beams, probably cedar, which he carefully conveyed to

Nineveh, to be used in his public buildings.

The tenth campaign of Asshur-izir-pai, and the last which is recorded,

was in the region of the Upper Tigris. The geographical details here are

difficult to follow. We can only say that, as usual, the Assyrian

monarch claims to have over-powered all resistance, to have defeated

armies, burnt cities, and carried off vast numbers of prisoners. The

“royal city” of the monarch chiefly attacked was Amidi, now Diarbekr,

which sufficiently marks the main locality of the expedition.

While engaged in these important wars, which were all included within

his first six years, Asshur-izir-pal, like his great predecessor,

Tiglath-Pileser, occasionally so far unbent as to indulge in the

recreation of hunting. He interrupts the account of his military

achievements to record, for the benefit of posterity, that on one

occasion he slew fifty large wild bulls on the left bank of the

Euphrates, and captured eight of the same animals; while, on another, he

killed twenty ostriches (?), and took captive the same number. We may

conclude, from the example of Tiglath-Pileser, and from other

inscriptions of Asshur-izir-pal himself, that the captured animals were

convoyed to Assyria either as curiosities, or, more probably, as objects

of chase. Asshur-izir-pal’s sculptures show that the pursuit of the wild

bull was one of his favorite occupations; and as the animals were scarce

in Assyria, he may have found it expedient to import them.

Asshur-izir-pal appears, however, to have possessed a menagerie park in

the neighborhood of Nineveh, in which were maintained a variety of

strange and curious animals. Animals called _paguts_ or

_pagats_--perhaps elephants--were received as tribute from the

Phoenicians during his reign, on at least one occasion, and placed in

this enclosure, where (he tells us) they throve and bred. So well was

his taste for such curiosities known, that even neighboring sovereigns

sought to gratify it; and the king of Egypt, a Pharaoh probably of the

twenty-second dynasty, sent him a present of strange animals when he was

in Southern Syria, as a compliment likely to be appreciated. This love

of the chase, which he no doubt indulged to some extent at home, found

in Syria, and in the country on the Upper Tigris, its amplest and most

varied exercise. In an obelisk inscription, designed especially to

commemorate a great hunting expedition into these regions, he tells us

that, besides antelopes of all sorts, which he took and sent to Asshur,

he captured and destroyed the following animals:--lions, wild sheep, red

deer, fallow-deer, wild goats or ibexes, leopards large and small,

bears, wolves, jackals, wild boars, ostriches, foxes, hyaenas, wild

asses, and a few kinds which have not been identified. From another

inscription we learn that, in the course of another expedition, which

seems to have been in the Mesopotamian desert, he destroyed 360 large

lions, 257 large wild cattle, and thirty buffaloes, while he took and

sent to Calah fifteen full-grown lions, fifty young lions, some

leopards, several pairs of wild buffaloes and wild cattle, together with

ostriches, wolves, red deer, bears, cheetas, and hyeenas. Thus in his

peaceful hours he was still actively employed, and in the chase of many

dangerous beasts was able to exercise the same qualities of courage,

coolness, and skill in the use of weapons which procured him in his wars

such frequent and such great successes.

[Illustration: PLATE 145]

Thus distinguished, both as a hunter and as a warrior, Asshur-izir-pal,

nevertheless, excelled his predecessors most remarkably in the grandeur

of his public buildings and the free use which he made of the mimetic

and other arts in their ornamentation. The constructions of the earlier

kings at Asshur (or Kileh-Sherghat), whatever merit they may have had,

were beyond a doubt far inferior to those which, from the time of

Asshur-izir-pal, were raised in rapid succession at Calah, Nineveh, and

Beth-Sargina by that monarch and his successors upon the throne. The

mounds of Kileh-Sherghat have yielded no bas-reliefs, nor do they show

any traces of buildings on the scale of those which, at Nimrud,

Koyunjik, and Khorsabad, provoke the admiration of the traveller. The

great palace of Asshur-izir-pal was at Calah, which he first raised from

a provincial town to be the metropolis of the empire. [PLATE CXLV., Fig.

1.] It was a building 360 feet long by 300 broad, consisting of seven or

eight large halls, and a far greater number of small chambers, grouped

round a central court 130 feet long and nearly 100 wide. The longest of

the halls, which faced towards the north, and was the first room entered

by one who approached from the town, was in length 154 and in breadth 33

feet. The others varied between a size little short of this, and a

length of 65 with a breadth of less than 20 feet. The chambers were

generally square, or nearly so, and in their greatest dimensions rarely

exceeded ten yards. The whole palace was raised upon a lofty platform,

made of sun-burnt brick, but externally cased on every side with hewn

stone. There were two grand facades, one facing the north, on which side

there was an ascent to the platform from the town: and the other facing

the Tigris, which anciently flowed at the foot of the platform towards

the west. On the northern front two or three gateways, flanked with

andro-sphinxes, gave direct access to the principal hall or audience

chamber, a noble apartment, but too narrow for its length, lined

throughout with sculptured slabs representing the various actions of the

king, and containing at the upper or eastern end a raised stone platform

cut into steps, which, it is probable, was intended to support at a

proper elevation the carved throne of the monarch. A grand portal in the

southern wall of the chamber, guarded on either side by winged

human-headed bulls in yellow limestone, conducted into a second hall

considerably smaller than the first, and having less variety of

ornament, which communicated with the central court by a handsome

gateway towards the south; and, towards the east, was connected with a

third hall, one of the most remarkable in the palace. This chamber was a

better-proportioned room than most, being about ninety feet long by

twenty-six wide; it ran along the eastern side of the great court, with

which it communicated by two gateways, and, internally, it was adorned

with sculptures of a more finished and elaborate character than any

other room in the building. Behind this eastern hall was another opening

into it, of somewhat greater length, but only twenty feet wide; and this

led to five small chambers, which here bounded the palace. South of the

Great Court were, again, two halls communicating with each other; but

they were of inferior size to those on the north and west, and were far

less richly ornamented. It is conjectured that there were also two or

three halls on the west side of the court between it and the river; but

of this there was no very clear evidence, and it may be doubted whether

the court towards the west was not, at least partially, open to the

river. Almost every hall had one or two small chambers attached to it,

which were most usually at the ends of the halls, and connected with

them by large doorways.

Such was the general plan of the palace of Asshur-izir-pal. Its great

halls, so narrow for their length, were probably roofed with beams

stretching across them from side to side, and lighted by small _louvres_

in their roofs after the manner already described elsewhere. Its square

chambers may have been domed, and perhaps were not lighted at all, or

only by lamps and torches. They were generally without ornamentation.

The grand halls, on the contrary, and some of the narrower chambers,

were decorated on every side, first with sculptures to the height of

nine or ten feet, and then with enamelled bricks, or patterns painted in

fresco, to the height, probably, of seven or eight feet more. The entire

height of the rooms was thus from sixteen to seventeen or eighteen feet.

The character of Asshur-izir-pal’s sculptures has been sufficiently

described in an earlier chapter. They have great spirit, boldness, and

force; occasionally they show real merit in the design; but they are

clumsy in the drawing and somewhat coarse in the execution. What chiefly

surprises us in regard to them is the suddenness with which the art they

manifest appears to have sprung up, without going through the usual

stages of rudeness and imperfection. Setting aside one mutilated statue,

of very poor execution, and a single rock tablet, we have no specimens

remaining of Assyrian mimetic art more ancient than this monarch. That

art almost seems to start in Assyria, like Minerva from the head of

Jove, full-grown. Asshur-izir-pal had undoubtedly some constructions of

former monarchs to copy from, both in his palatial and in his sacred

edifices; the old palaces and temples at Kileh-Sherghat must have had a

certain grandeur; and in his architecture this monarch may have merely

amplified and improved upon the models left him by his predecessors; but

his ornamentation, so far as appears, was his own. The mounds of

Kileh-Sherghat have yielded bricks in abundance, but not a single

fragment of a sculptured slab. We cannot prove that ornamental

bas-reliefs did not exist before the time of Asshur-izir-pal; indeed the

rock tablets which earlier monarchs set up were sculptures of this

character; but to Asshur-izir-pal seems at any rate to belong the merit

of having first adopted bas-reliefs on an extensive scale as an

architectural ornament, and of having employed them so as to represent

by their means all the public life of the monarch.

The other arts employed by this king in the adornment of his buildings

were those of enamelling bricks and painting in fresco upon a plaster.

Both involve considerable skill in the preparation of colors, and the

former especially implies much dexterity in the management of several

very delicate processes.

The sculptures of Asshur-izir-pal, besides proving directly the high

condition of mimetic art in Assyria at this time, furnish indirect

evidence of the wonderful progress which had been made in various

important manufactures. The metallurgy which produced the swords,

sword-sheaths, daggers, earrings, necklaces, armlets, and bracelets of

this period, must have been of a very advanced description. The

coach-building which constructed the chariots, the saddlery which made

the harness of the horses, the embroidery which ornamented the robes,

must, similarly, have been of a superior character. The evidence of the

sculptures alone is quite sufficient to show that, in the time of

Asshur-izir-pal, the Assyrians were already a great and luxurious

people, that most of the useful arts not only existed among them, but

were cultivated to a high pitch, and that in dress, furniture, jewelry,

etc., they were not very much behind the moderns.

Besides the magnificent palace which he built at Calah, Asshur-izir-pal

is known also to have erected a certain number of temples. The most

important of these have been already described. They stood at the

north-western corner of the Nimrud platform, and consisted of two

edifices, one exactly at the angle, comprising the higher tower or

_ziggurat_, which stood out as a sort of corner buttress from the great

mound, and a shrine with chambers at the tower’s base; the other, a

little further to the east, consisting of a shrine and chambers without

a tower. These temples were richly ornamented both within and without;

and in front of the larger one was an erection which seems to show that

the Assyrian monarchs, either during their lifetime, or at any rate

after their decease, received divine honors from their subjects. On a

plain square pedestal about two feet in height was raised a solid block

of limestone cut into the shape of an arched frame, and within this

frame was carved the monarch in his sacerdotal dress, and with the

sacred collar round his neck, while the five principal divine emblems

were represented above his head. In front of this figure, marking

(apparently) the object of its erection, was a triangular altar with a

circular top, very much resembling the tripod of the Greeks. Here we may

presume were laid the offerings with which the credulous and the servile

propitiated the new god,--many a gift, not improbably, being intercepted

on its way to the deity of the temple. [PLATE CXLV., Fig. 2.]

Another temple built by this monarch was one dedicated to Beltis at

Nineveh. It was perhaps for the ornamentation of this edifice that he

cut “great trees” in Amanus and elsewhere during his Syrian expedition,

and had them conveyed across Mesopotamia to Assyria. It is expressly

stated that these beams were carried, not to Calah, where

Asshur-izir-pal usually resided, but to Nineveh.

A remarkable work, probably erected by this monarch, and set up as a

memorial of his reign at the same city, is an obelisk in white stone,

now in the British Museum. On this monument, which was covered on all

its four sides with sculptures and inscriptions, now nearly obliterated,

Asshur-izir-pal commemorated his wars and hunting exploits in various

countries. The obelisk is a monolith, about twelve or thirteen feet

high, and two feet broad at the base. It tapers slightly, and, like the

Black Obelisk erected by this monarch’s son, is crowned at the summit by

three steps or gradines. This thoroughly Assyrian ornamentation seems to

show that the idea of the obelisk was not derived from Egypt, where the

pyramidical apex was universally used, being regarded as essential to

this class of ornaments. If we must seek a foreign origin for the

invention, we may perhaps find it in the pillars [Greek ---- ----] which

the Phoenicians employed, as ornaments or memorials, from a remote

antiquity, objects possibly seen by the monarch who took tribute from

Tyre, Sidon, Aradus, Byblus, and most of the maritime Syrian cities.

Another most important work of this great monarch was the tunnel and

canal already described at length, by which at a vast expenditure of

money and labor he brought the water of the Greater Zab to Calah.

Asshur-izir-pal mentions this great work as his in his annals; and he

was likewise commemorated as its author in the tablet set up in the

tunnel by Sennacherib, when, two centuries later, he repaired it and

brought it once more into use.

It is evident that Asshur-izir-pal, though he adorned and beautified

both the old capital, Asshur, and the now rising city of Nineveh,

regarded the town of Calah with more favor than any other, making it the

ordinary residence of his court, and bestowing on it his chief care and

attention. It would seem that the Assyrian dominion had by this time

spread so far to the north that the situation of Asshur (or

Kileh-Sherghat) was no longer sufficiently central for the capital. The

seat of government was consequently moved forty miles further up the

river. At the same time it was transferred from the west bank to the

east, and placed in the fertile region of Adiabene, near the junction of

the Greater Zab with the Tigris. Here, in a strong and healthy position,

on a low spur from the Jebel Maklub, protected on either side by a deep

river, the new capital grew to greatness. Palace after palace rose on

its lofty platform, rich with carved woodwork, gilding, painting,

sculpture, and enamel, each aiming to outshine its predecessors; while

stone lions, sphinxes, obelisks, shrines,and temple-towers embellished

the scene, breaking its monotonous sameness by variety. The lofty

_ziggurat_ attached to the temple of Nin or Hercules, dominating over

the whole, gave unity to the vast mass of palatial and sacred edifices.

The Tigris, skirting the entire western base of the mound, glassed the

whole in its waves, and, doubling the apparent height, rendered less

observable the chief weakness of the architecture. When the setting sun

lighted up the view with the gorgeous hues seen only under an eastern

sky, Calah must have seemed to the traveller who beheld it for the first

time like a vision from fairy-land.

After reigning gloriously for twenty-five years, from B.C. 883 to B.C.

858, this great prince--“the conqueror” (as he styles himself), “from

the upper passage of the Tigris to Lebanon and the Great Sea, who has

reduced under his authority all countries from the rising of the sun to

the going down of the same”--died, probably at no very advanced age, and

left his throne to his son, who bore the name of Shalmaneser.

Shalmaneser II., the son of Asshur-izir-pal, who may probably have been

trained to arms under his father, seems to have inherited to the full

his military spirit, and to have warred with at least as much success

against his neighbors. His reign was extended to the unusual length of

thirty-five years, during which time he conducted in person no fewer

than twenty-three military expeditions, besides entrusting three or four

others to a favorite general. It would be a wearisome task to follow out

in detail these numerous and generally uninteresting campaigns, where

invasion, battle, flight, siege, submission, and triumphant return

succeeded one another with monotonous uniformity. The style of the court

historians of Assyria does not improve as time goes on. Nothing can well

be more dry and commonplace than the historical literature of this

period, which recalls the early efforts of the Greeks in this

department, and exhibits a decided inferiority to the compositions of

Stowe and Holinshed. The historiographer of Tiglath-Pileser I., between

two and three centuries earlier, is much superior, as a writer, to those

of the period to which we are come, who eschew all graces of style,

contenting themselves with the curtest and dryest of phrases, and with

sentences modelled on a single unvarying type.

Instead, therefore, of following in the direct track of the annalist

whom Shalmaneser employed to record his exploits, and proceeding to

analyze his account of the twenty-seven campaigns belonging to this

reign, I shall simply present the reader with the general result in a

few words, and then draw his special attention to a few of the

expeditions which are of more than common importance.

It appears, then, that Shalmaneser, during the first twenty-seven years

of his reign, led in person twenty-three expeditions into the

territories of his neighbors, attacking in the course of these inroads,

besides petty tribes, the following nations and countries:--Babylonia,

Chaldaea, Media, the Zimri, Armenia, Upper Mesopotamia, the country

about the head-streams of the Tigris, the Hittites, the Patena, the

Tibareni, the Hamathites, and the Syrians of Damascus. He took tribute

during the same time from the Phoenieian cities of Tyre, Sidon, and

Byblus, from the Tsukhi or Shuhites, from the people of Muzr, from the

Bartsu or Partsu, who are almost certainly the Persians, and from the

Israelites. He thus traversed in person the entire country between the

Persian Gulf on the south and Mount Niphates upon the north, and between

the Zagros range (or perhaps the Persian desert) eastward, and, westward,

the shores of the Mediterranean. Over the whole of this region he made

his power felt, and even beyond it the nations feared him and gladly

placed themselves under his protection. During the later years of his

reign, when he was becoming less fit for warlike toils, he seems in

general to have deputed the command of his armies to a subject in whom

he had great confidence, a noble named Dayan-Asshur. This chief, who

held an important office as early as Shahnaneser’s fifth year, was in

his twenty-seventh, twenty-eighth, thirtieth, and thirty-first employed

as commander-in-chief, and sent out, at the head of the main army of

Assyria, to conduct campaigns against the Armenians, against the

revolted Patena, and against the inhabitants of the modern Kurdistan. It

is uncertain whether the king himself took any part in the campaigns of

these years, the native record the first and third persons are

continually interchanged, some of the actions related being ascribed to

the monarch and others to the general; but on the whole the impression

left by the narrative is that the king, in the spirit of a well-known

legal maxim assumes as his own the acts which he has accomplished

through his representative. In his twenty-ninth year, however,

Shalmaneser seems to have led an expedition in person into Khirki (the

Niphates country), where he “overturned, beat to pieces, and consumed

with fire the towns, swept the country with his troops, and impressed on

the inhabitants the fear of his presence.”

The campaigns of Shalmaneser which have the greatest interest are those

of his sixth, eighth, ninth, eleventh, fourteenth, eighteenth, and

twenty-first years. Two of these were directed against Babylonia, three

against Ben-hadad of Damascus, and two against Khazail (Hazael) of

Damascus.

In his eighth year Shalmaneser took advantage of a civil war in

Babylonia between King Merodach-sum-adin and a younger brother,

Merodach-bel-usati (?), whose power was about evenly balanced, to

interfere in the affairs of that country, and under pretence of helping

the legitimate monarch, to make himself master of several towns. In the

following year he was still more fortunate. Having engaged, defeated,

and slain the pretender to the Babylonian crown, he marched on to

Babylon itself, where he was probably welcomed as a deliverer, and from

thence proceeded into Chaldaea, or the tract upon the coast, which was

at this time independent of Babylon, and forced its kings to become his

tributaries. “The power of his army,” he tells us, “struck terror as far

as the sea.”

The wars of Shalmaneser in Southern Syria commenced as early as his

ninth year. He had succeeded to a dominion in Northern Syria which

extended over the Patena, and probably over most of the northern

Hittites; and this made his territories conterminous with those of the

Phoenicians, the Hamathites, the southern Hittites, and perhaps the

Syrians of Damascus. At any rate the last named people felt themselves

threatened by the growing power on or near their borders, and, convinced

that they would soon be attacked, prepared for resistance by entering

into a close league with their neighbors. The king of Damascus, who was

the great Ben-hadad, Tsakhulena, king of Hamath, Ahab, king of Israel,

the kings of the southern Hittites, those of the Phoenician cities on

the coast, and others, formed an alliance, and, uniting their forces,

went out boldly to meet Shalnaneser, offering him battle. Despite,

however, of this confidence, or perhaps in consequence of it, the allies

suffered a defeat. Twenty thousand men fell in the battle. Many chariots

and much of the material of war were captured by the Assyrians. But

still no conquest was effected. Shalmaneser does not assert that he

either received submission or imposed a tribute; and the fact that he

did not venture to renew the war for five years seems to show that the

resistance which he had encountered made him hesitate about continuing

the struggle.

Five years, however, having elapsed, and the power of Assyria being

increased by her successes in Lower Mesopotamia, Shalmaneser, in the

eleventh year of his reign, advanced a second time against Hamath and

the southern Hittites. Entering their territories unexpectedly, he was

at first unopposed, and succeeded in taking a large number of their

towns. But the troops of Ben-hadad soon appeared in the field.

Phoenicia, apparently, stood aloof, and Hamath was occupied with her own

difficulties; but Ben-hadad, having joined the Hittites, again gave

Shalmaneser battle; and though that monarch, as usual, claims the

victory, it is evident that he gained no important advantage by his

success. He had once more to return to his own land without having

extended his sway, and this time (as it would seem) without even any

trophies of conquest.

Three years later, he made another desperate effort. Collecting his

people “in multitudes that were not to be counted,” he crossed the

Euphrates with above a hundred thousand men. Marching southwards, he

soon encountered a large army of the allies, Damascenes, Hamathites,

Hittites, and perhaps Phoenicians, the first-named still commanded by

the undaunted Ben-hadad. This time the success of the Assyrians is

beyond dispute. Not only were the allies put to flight, not only did

they lose most of their chariots and implements of war, but they appear

to have lost hope, and, formally or tacitly, to have forthwith dissolved

their confederacy. The Hittites and Hamathites probably submitted to the

conqueror; the Phoenicians withdrew to their own towns, and Damascus was

left without allies, to defend herself as she best might, when the tide

of conquest should once more flow in this direction.

In the fourth year the flow of the tide came. Shalmaneser, once more

advancing southward, found the Syrians of Damascus strongly posted in

the fastnesses of the Anti-Lebanon. Since his last invasion they had

changed their ruler. The brave and experienced Ben-hadad had perished by

the treachery of an ambitious subject, and his assassin, the infamous

Hazael, held the throne. Left to his own resources by the dissolution of

the old league, this monarch had exerted himself to the utmost in order

to repel the attack which he knew was impending. He had collected a very

large army, including above eleven hundred chariots, and, determined to

leave nothing to chance, had carefully taken up a very strong position

in the mountain range which separated his territory from the neighboring

kingdom of Hamath, or valley of Coele-Syria. Here he was attacked by

Shalmaneser, and completely defeated, with the loss of 16,000 of his

troops, 1121 of his chariots, a quantity of his war material, and his

camp. This blow apparently prostrated him; and when, three years later,

Shalmaneser invaded his territory, Hazael brought no army into the

field, but let his towns, one after another, be taken and plundered by

the Assyrians.

It was probably upon this last occasion, when the spirit of Damascus was

cowed, and the Phoenician cities, trembling at the thought of their own

rashness in having assisted Hazael and Ben-hadad, hastened to make their

submission and to resume the rank of Assyrian tributaries, that the

sovereign of another Syrian country, taking warning from the fate of his

neighbors, determined to anticipate the subjection which he could not

avoid, and, making a virtue of necessity, to place himself under the

Assyrian yoke. Jehu, “son of Omri,” as he is termed in the

Inscription--i.e., successor and supposed descendant of the great Omri

who built Samaria, sent as tribute to Shalmaneser a quantity of gold and

silver in bullion, together with a number of manufactured articles in

the more precious of the two metals. In the sculptures which represent

the Israelitish ambassadors presenting this tribute to the great king,

these articles appear carried in the hands, or on the shoulders, of the

envoys, but they are in general too indistinctly traced for us to

pronounce with any confidence upon their character. [PLATE CXLVI., Fig.

1]

[Illustration: PLATE 146]

Shalmaneser had the same taste as his father for architecture and the

other arts. He completed the _ziggurat_ of the Great Temple of Nin at

Calah, which his father had left unfinished, and not content with the

palace of that monarch, built for himself a new and (probably) more

magnificent residence on the same lofty platform, at the distance of

about 150 yards. This edifice was found by Mr. Layard in so ruined a

condition, through the violence which it had suffered, apparently at the

hands of Esarhaddon, that it was impossible either to trace its plan or

to form a clear notion of its ornamentation. Two gigantic winged bulls,

partly destroyed, served to show that the grand portals of the chambers

were similar in character and design to those of the earlier monarch,

while from a number of sculptured fragments it was sufficiently plain

that the walls had been adorned with bas-reliefs of the style used in

Asshur-izir-pal’s edifice. The only difference observable was in the

size and subjects of the sculptures, which seemed to have been on a

grander scale and more generally mythological than those of the

North-West palace.

The monument of Shalmaneser which has attracted most attention in this

country is an obelisk in black marble, similar in shape and general

arrangement to that of Asshur-izir-pal, already described, but of a

handsomer and better material. This work of art was discovered in a

prostrate position under the debris which covered up Shalmaneser’s

palace. It contained bas-reliefs in twenty compartments, five on each of

its four sides; the space above, between, and below then being covered

with cuneiform writing, sharply inscribed in a minute character. The

whole was in most excellent preservation.

The bas-reliefs represent the monarch, accompanied by his vizier and

other chief officers, receiving the tribute of five nations, whose

envoys are ushered into the royal presence by officers of the court, and

prostrate themselves at the Great King’s feet ere they present their

offerings. The gifts brought are, in part, objects carried in the

hand--gold, silver, copper in bars and cubes, goblets, elephants’ tusks,

tissues, and the like--in part, animals such as horses, camels, monkeys

and baboons of different kinds, stags, lions, wild bulls, antelopes,

and--strangest of all--the rhinoceros and the elephant. One of the

nations, as already mentioned, is that of the Israelites. The others

are, first, the people of Kirzan, a country bordering on Armenia, who

present gold, silver, copper, horses, and camels, and fill the four

highest compartments with a train of nine envoys: secondly, the Muzri,

or people of Muzr, a country nearly in the same quarter, who are

represented in the four central compartments, with six envoys conducting

various wild animals; thirdly, the Tsukhi, or Shuhites, from the

Euphrates, to whom belong the four compartments below the Muzri, which

are filled by a train of thirteen envoys, bringing two lions, a stag,

and various precious articles, among which bars of metal, elephants’

tusks, and shawls or tissues are conspicuous; and lastly, the Patera,

from the Orontes, who fill three of the lowest compartments with a train

of twelve envoys bearing gifts like those of the Israelites.

Besides this interesting monument, there are very few remains of art

which can be ascribed to Shalmaneser’s time with any confidence. The

sculptures found on the site of his palace belonged to a later monarch,

who restored and embellished it. His own bas-reliefs were torn from

their places by Esarhaddon, and by him defaced and used as materials in

the construction of a new palace. We are thus left almost without

materials for judging of the progress made by art during Shalmaneser’s

reign. Architecture, it may be conjectured, was modified to a certain

extent, precious woods being employed more frequently and more largely

than before; a fact of which we seem to have an indication in the

frequent expeditions made by Shalmaneser into Syria, for the single

purpose of cutting timber in its forests. Sculpture, to judge from the

obelisk, made no advance. The same formality, the same heaviness of

outline, the same rigid adherence to the profile in all representations

both of man and beast, characterize the reliefs of both reigns equally,

so far as we have any means of judging.

Shalmaneser seems to have held his court ordinarily at Calah, where he

built his palace and set up his obelisk; but sometimes he would reside

for a time at Nineveh or at Asshur. He does not appear to have built any

important edifice at either of these two cities, but at the latter he

left a monument which possesses some interest. This is the stone statue,

now in a mutilated condition, representing a king seated, which was

found by Mr. Layard at Kileh-Sherghat, and of which some notice has

already been taken. Its proportions are better than those of the small

statue of the monarch’s father, standing in his sacrificial dress, which

was found at Nimrud; and it is superior to that work of art, in being of

the size of life; but either its execution was originally very rude, or

it must have suffered grievously by exposure, for it is now wholly rough

and unpolished.

The later years of Shahuaneser appear to have been troubled by a

dangerous rebellion. The infirmities of age were probably creeping upon

him. He had ceased to go out with his armies; and had handed over a

portion of his authority to the favorite general who was entrusted with

the command of his forces year after year. The favor thus shown may have

provoked jealousy and even alarm. It may have been thought that the

legitimate successor was imperilled by the exaltation of a subject whose

position would enable him to in gratiate himself with the troops, and

who might be expected, on the death of his patron, to make an effort to

place the crown on his own head. Fears of this kind may very probably

have so worked on the mind of the heir apparent as to determine him not

to await his father’s demise, but rather to raise the standard of revolt

during his lifetime, and to endeavor, by an unexpected _coup-de-main,_

to anticipate and ruin his rival. Or, possibly, Asshur-danin-pal, the

eldest son of Shalmaneser, like too many royal youths, may have been

impatient of the long life of his father, and have conceived the guilty

desire, with which our fourth Henry is said to have taxed his

first-born, a “hunger for the empty chair” of which the aged monarch,

still held possession. At any rate, whatever may have been the motive

that urged him on, it is certain that Asshur-danin-pal rebelled against

his sire’s authority, and, raising the standard of revolt, succeeded in

carrying with him a great part of the kingdom. At Asshur, the old

metropolis, which may have hoped to lure back the Court by its

subservience, at Arbela in the Zab region, at Amidi on the Upper Tigris,

at Tel-Apni near the site of Orfa, and at more than twenty other

fortified places, Asshur-danin-pal was pro-claimed king, and accepted by

the inhabitants for their sovereign. Shalmaneser must have felt himself

in imminent peril of losing his crown. Under these circumstances he

called to his assistance his second son Shamas-Vul, and placing him at

the head of such of his troops as remained firm to their allegiance,

invested him with full power to act as he thought best in the existing

emergency. Shamas-Vul at once took the field, attacked and reduced the

rebellious cities one after another, and in a little time completely

crushed the revolt and reestablished peace throughout the empire.

Asshur-danin-pal, the arch conspirator, was probably put to death; his

life was justly forfeit; and neither Shamas-Vul nor his father is likely

to have been withheld by any inconvenient tenderness from punishing

treason in a near relative, as they would have punished it in any other

person. The suppressor of the revolt became the heir of the kingdom; and

when, shortly afterwards, Shalmaneser died, the piety or prudence if his

faithful son was rewarded by the rich inheritance of the Assyrian

Empire.

Shalmaneser reigned, in all, thirty-five years, from B.C. 858 to B.C.

823. His successor, Shamas-Vul, held the throne for thirteen years, from

B.C. 823 to B.C. 810. Before entering upon the consideration of this

latter monarch’s reign, it will be well to cast your eyes once more over

the Assyrian Empire, such as it has now become, and over the nations

with which its growth had brought it into contact. Considerable changes

had occurred since the time of Tiglath-Pileser I., the Assyrian

boundaries having been advanced in several directions, while either this

progress, or the movements of races beyond the frontier, had brought

into view many new and some very important nations.

The chief advance which the “Terminus” of the Assyrians had made was

towards the west and the north-west. Instead of their dominion in this

quarter being bounded by the Euphrates, they had established their

authority over the whole of Upper Syria, over Phoenicia, Hamath, and

Samaria, or the kingdom of the Israelites. These countries were not

indeed reduced to the form of provinces; on the contrary, they still

retained their own laws, administration, and native princes; but they

were henceforth really subject to Assyria, acknowledging her suzerainty,

paying her an annual tribute, and giving a free passage to her armies

through their territories. The limit of the Assyrian Empire towards the

west was consequently at this time the Mediterranean, from the Gulf of

Iskanderun to Cape Carmel, or perhaps we should say to Joppa. Their

north-western boundary was the range of Taurus next beyond Amanus, the

tract between the two belonging to the Tibareni (Tubal), who had

submitted to become tributaries. Northwards, little if any progress had

been made. The chain of Niphates--“the high grounds over the effluents

of the Tigris and Euphrates”--where Shalmaneser set up “an image of his

majesty,” seems still to be the furthest limit. In other words, Armenia

is unconquered, the strength of the region and the valor of its

inhabitants still protecting it from the Assyrian arms. Towards the east

some territory seems to have been gained, more especially in the central

Zagros region, the district between the Lower Zab and Holwan, which at

this period bore the name of Hupuska; but the tribes north and south of

this tract were still for the most part unsubdued. The southern frontier

may be regarded as wholly unchanged: for although Shalmaneser warred in

Babylonia, and even took tribute on one occasion from the petty kings of

the Chaldaean towns, he seems to have made no permanent impression in

this quarter. The Tsukhi or Shuhites are still the most southern of his

subjects.

The principal changes which time and conquest had made among the

neighbors of Assyria were the following. Towards the west she was

brought into contact with the kingdom of Damascus, and, through her

tributary Samaria with Judea. On the north-west she had new enemies in

the _Quins_ (Coans?) who dwelt on the further side of Amanus, near the

Tibareni, in a part of the country afterwards called Cilicia, and the

Cilicians themselves, who are now first mentioned. The Moschi seem to

have withdrawn a little from this neighborhood, since they no longer

appear either among Assyria’s enemies or her tributaries. On the north

all minor powers had disappeared; and the Armenians (Urarda) were now

Assyria’s sole neighbors. Towards the east she had come into contact

with the _Mannai,_ or Minni, about Lake Urumiyeh, with the Harkhar in

the Van region and in north-western Kurdistan, with the Bartsu or

Persians and the Mada or Medes in the country east of Zagros, the modern

province of Ardelan, and with the Tsimri, or Zimri, in Upper Luristan.

Among all her fresh enemies, she had not, however, as yet found one

calculated to inspire any serious fear. No new organized monarchy

presented itself. The tribes and nations upon her borders were still

either weak in numbers or powerless from their intestine divisions; and

there was thus every reason to expect a long continuance of the success

which had naturally attended a large centralized state in her contests

with small kingdoms or loosely-united confederacies. Names celebrated in

the after history of the world, as those of the Medes and Persians, are

now indeed for the first time emerging into light from the complete

obscurity which has shrouded there hitherto; and tinged as they are with

the radiance of their later glories, they show brightly among the many

insignificant tribes and nations with which Assyria has been warring for

centuries; but it would be a mistake to suppose that these names have

any present importance in the narrative or represent powers capable as

yet of contending on equal terms with the Assyrian Empire, or even of

seriously checking the progress of her successes. The Medes and Persians

are at this period no more powerful than the Zimri, the Minni, the

Urarda, or than half a dozen others of the border nations, whose

appellations sound strange in the ears even of the advanced student.

Neither of the two great Arian peoples had as yet a capital city,

neither was united under a king: separated into numerous tribes, each

under its chief, dispersed in scattered towns and villages, poorly

fortified or not fortified at, all, they were in the same condition as

the Nairi, the Qummukh, the Patena, the Hittites, and the other border

races whose relative weakness Assyria had abundantly proved in a long

course of wars wherein she had uniformly been the victor.

The short reign of Shamas-Vul II., presents but little that calls for

remark. Like Shalmaneser II., he resided chiefly at Calah, where,

following the example of his father and grandfather, he set up an

obelisk (or rather a stele) in commemoration of his various exploits.

This monument, which is covered on three sides with an inscription in

the hieratic or cursive character, contains an opening invocation to Nin

or Hercules, conceived in the ordinary terms, the genealogy and titles

of the king, an account of the rebellion of Asshur-bani-pal, together

with its suppression, and Shamas-Vul’s own annals for the first four

years of his reign. From these we learn that he displayed the same

active spirit as his two predecessors, carrying his arms against the

Nairi on the north, against Media and Arazias on the east, and against

Babylonia on the south. The people of Hupuska, the Minni, and the

Persians (Bartsu) paid him tribute. His principal success was that of

his fourth campaign, which was against Babylon. He entered the country

by a route often used, which skirted the Zagros mountain range for some

distance, and then crossed the flat, probably along the course of the

Diyaleh, to the southern capital. The Babylonians, alarmed at his

advance, occupied a strongly fortified place on his line of route, which

he besieged and took after a vigorous resistance, wherein the blood of

the garrison was shed like water. Eighteen thousand were slain; three

thousand were made prisoners; the city itself was plundered and burnt,

and Shamas-Vul pressed forward against the flying enemy. Hereupon the

Babylonian monarch, Merodach-belatzu-ikbi, collecting his own troops and

those of his allies, the Chaldaeans, the Aramaeans or Syrians, and the

Zimri--a vast host--met the invader on the river Daban--perhaps a branch

of the Euphrates--and fought a great battle in defence of his city. He

was, however, defeated by the Assyrians, with the loss of 5000 killed,

2000 prisoners, 100 chariots, 200 tents, and the royal standard and

pavilion. What further military or political results the victory may

have had is uncertain. Shamas-Vul’s annals terminate abruptly at this

point, and we are left to conjecture the consequences of the campaign

and battle. It is possible that they were in the highest degree

important; for we find, in the next reign, that Babylonia, which has so

long been a separate and independent kingdom, is reduced to the

condition of a tributary, while we have no account of its reduction by

the succeeding monarch, whose relations with the Babylonians, so far as

we know, were of a purely peaceful character.

The stele of Shamas-Vul contains one allusion to a hunting exploit, by

which we learn that this monarch inherited his grandfather’s partiality

for the chase. He found wild bulls at the foot of Zagros when he was

marching to invade Babylonia, and delaying his advance to hunt them, was

so fortunate as to kill several.

We know nothing of Shamas-Vul as a builder, and but little of him as a

patron of art. He seems to have been content with the palaces of his

father and grandfather, and to have been devoid of any wish to outshine

them by raising edifices which should throw theirs into the shade. In

his stele he shows no originality; for it is the mere reproduction of a

monument well known to his predecessors, and of which we have several

specimens from the time of Asshur-izir-pal downwards. It consists of a

single figure in relief--a figure representing the king dressed in his

priestly robes, and wearing the sacred emblems round his neck, standing

with the right arm upraised, and enclosed in the customary arched frame.

This figure, which is somewhat larger than life, is cut on a single

solid block of stone, and then placed on another broader block, which

serves as a pedestal. It closely resembles the figure of

Asshur-izir-pal, whereof a representation has been already given.

The successor of Shamas-Vul was his son Vul-lush, the third monarch of

that name, who ascended the throne B.C. 810, and held it for twenty-nine

years, from B.C. 810 to B.C. 781. The memorials which we possess of this

king’s reign are but scanty. They consist of one or two slabs found at

Nimrod, of a short dedicatory inscription on duplicate statues of the

god Nebo brought from the same place, of some brick inscriptions from

the mound of Nebbi Vunus, and of the briefest possible notices of the

quarters in which he carried on war, contained in one copy of the Canon.

As none of these records are in the shape of annals except the last, and

as only these and the slab notices are historical, it is impossible to

give any detailed account of this long and apparently important reign.

We can only say that Vul-lush III., was as warlike a monarch as any of

his predecessors, and that his efforts seem to have extended the

Assyrian dominion in almost every quarter. He made seven expeditions

across the Zagros range into Media, two into the Van country, and three

into Syria. He tells us that in one of these expeditions he succeeded in

making himself master of the great city of Damascus, whose kings had

defied (as we have seen) the repeated attacks of Shalmaneser. He reckons

as his tributaries in these parts, besides Damascus, the cities of Tyre

and Sidon, and the countries of Khumri or Samaria, of Palestine or

Philistia, and of Hudum (Idumaea or Edom). On the north and east he

received tokens of submission from the Nairi, the Minni, the Medes, and

the Partsu, or Persians. On the south, he exercised a power, which seems

like that of a sovereign, in Babylonia; where homage was paid him by the

Chaldaeans, and where, in the great cities of Babylon, Borsippa, and

Cutha (or Tiggaba), he was allowed’to offer sacrifice to the gods Bel,

Nebo, and Nergal. There is, further, some reason to suspect that, before

quitting Babylonia, he established one of his sons as viceroy over the

country; since he seems to style himself in one place “the king to whose

son Asshur, the chief of the gods, has granted the kingdom of Babylon.”

It thus appears that by the time of Vul-lush III., or early in the

eighth century u.e., Assyria had with one hand grasped Babylonia, while

with the other she had laid hold of Philistia and Edom. She thus touched

the Persian Gulf on the one side, while on the other she was brought

into contact with Egypt. At the same time she had received the

submission of at least some portion of the great nation of the Medes,

who were now probably moving southwards from Azerbijan and gradually

occupying the territory which was regarded as Media Proper by the Greeks

and Romans. She held Southern Armenia, from Lake Van to the sources of

the Tigris; she possessed all Upper Syria, including Commagene and

Amanus she had tributaries even on the further side of that mountain

range; she bore sway over the whole Syrian coast from Issus to Gaza; her

authority was acknowledged, probably, by all the tribes and kingdoms

between the coast and the desert, certainly by the Phoenicians, the

Hamathites, the Patena, the Hittites, the Syrians of Damascus, the

people of Israel, and the Idumaeans, or people of Edom. On the east she

had reduced almost all the valleys of Zagros, and had tributaries in the

great upland on the eastern side of the range. On the south, if she had

not absorbed Babylonia, she had at least made her influence paramount

there. The full height of her greatness was not indeed attained till a

century later; but already the “tall cedar” was “exalted above all the

trees of the field; his boughs were multiplied; his branches had become

long; and under his shadow dwelt great nations.”

Not much is known of Vul-lush III., as a builder, or as a patron of art.

He calls himself the “restorer of noble buildings which had gone to

decay,” an expression which would seem to imply that he aimed rather at

maintaining former edifices in repair than at constructing new ones. He

seems, however, to have built some chambers on the mound of Nimrod,

between the north-western and the south-western palaces, and also to

have had a palace at Nineveh on the mound now called Nebbi Ynnus. The

Nimrud chambers were of small size and poorly ornamented; they contained

no sculptures; the walls were plastered and then painted in fresco with

a variety of patterns. They may have been merely guard-rooms, since they

appear to have formed a portion of a high tower. The palace at Nebbi

Ynnus was probably a more important work; but the superstitious regard

of the natives for the supposed tomb of Jonah has hitherto frustrated

all attempts made by Europeans to explore that mass of ruins.

Among all the monuments recovered by recent researches, the only works

of art assignable to the reign of Vul-lush are two rude statues of the

god Nebo, almost exactly resembling one another. From the representation

of one of them, given on a former page of this volume, the reader will

see that the figures in question have scarcely any artistic merit. The

head is disproportionately large, the features, so far as they can be

traced, are coarse and heavy, the arms and hands are poorly modelled,

and the lower part is more like a pillar than the figure of a man. We

cannot suppose that Assyrian art was incapable, under the third

Vul-lush, of a higher flight than these statues indicate; we must

therefore regard them as conventional forms, reproduced from old models,

which the artist was bound to follow. It would seem, indeed, that while

in the representation of animals and of men of inferior rank, Assyrian

artists were untrammelled by precedent, and might aim at the highest

possible perfection, in religious subjects, and in the representation of

kings and nobles, they were limited, by law or custom, to certain

ancient forms and modes of expression, which we find repeated from the

earliest to the latest times with monotonous uniformity.

If these statues, however, are valueless as works of art, they have yet

a peculiar interest for the historian, as containing the only mention

which the disentombed remains have furnished of one of the most

celebrated names of antiquity--a name which for many ages vindicated to

itself a leading place, not only in the history of Assyria, but in that

of the world. To the Greeks and Romans Semiramis was the foremost of

women, the greatest queen who had ever held a sceptre, the most

extraordinary conqueror that the East had ever produced. Beautiful as

Helen or Cleopatra, brave as Tomyris, lustful as Messalina, she had the

virtues and vices of a man rather than a woman, and performed deeds

scarcely inferior to those of Cyrus or Alexander the Great. It is an

ungrateful task to dispel illusions, more especially such as are at once

harmless and venerable for their antiquity; but truth requires the

historian to obliterate from the pages of the past this well-known

image, and to substitute in its place a very dull and prosaic figure--a

Semiramis no longer decked with the prismatic hues of fancy, but clothed

instead in the sober garments of fact. The Nebo idols are dedicated, by

the Assyrian officer who had them executed, “to his lord Vul-lush and

his lady _Sammuramit_” from whence it would appear to be certain, in the

first place, that that monarch was married to a princess who bore this

world-renowned name, and, secondly, that she held a position superior to

that which is usually allowed in the East to a queen-consort. An

inveterate Oriental prejudice requires the rigid seclusion of women; and

the Assyrian monuments, thoroughly in accord with the predominant tone

of Eastern manners, throw a veil in general over all that concerns the

weaker sex, neither representing to us the forms of the Assyrian women

in the sculptures, nor so much as mentioning their existence in the

inscriptions. Very rarely is there an exception to this all but

universal reticence. In the present instance, and in about two others,

the silence usually kept is broken; and a native woman comes upon the

scene to tantalize us by her momentary apparition. The glimpse that we

here obtain does not reveal much. Beyond the fact that the principal

queen of Vul-lush III., was named Semiramis, and the further fact,

implied in her being mentioned at all, that she had a recognized

position of authority in the country, we can only conclude,

conjecturally, from the exact parallelism of the phrases used, that she

bore sway conjointly with her husband, either over the whole or over a

part of his dominions. Such a view explains, to some extent, the

wonderful tale of the Ninian Semiramis, which was foisted into history

by Ctesias; for it shows that he had a slight basis of fact to go upon.

It also harmonizes, or may be made to harmonize, with the story of

Semiramis as told by Herodotus, who says that she was a Babylonian

queen, and reigned five generations before Nitocris, or about B.C. 755.

For it is quite possible that the Sammuramit married to Vul-lush III.,

was a Babylonian princess, the last descendant of a long line of kings,

whom the Assyrian monarch wedded to confirm through her his title to the

southern provinces; in which case a portion of his subjects would regard

her as their legitimate sovereign, and only recognize his authority as

secondary and dependent upon hers. The exaggeration in which Orientals

indulge, with a freedom that astonishes the sober nations of the West,

would seize upon the unusual circumstance of a female having possessed a

conjoint sovereignty, and would gradually group round the name a host of

mythic details, which at last accumulated to such an extent that, to

prevent the fiction from becoming glaring, the queen had to be thrown

back into mythic times, with which such details were in harmony. The

Babylonian wife of Vul-lush III., who gave him his title to the regions

of the south, and reigned conjointly with him both in Babylonia and

Assyria, became first a queen of Babylon, ruling independently and

alone, and then an Assyrian empress, the conqueror of Egypt and

Ethiopia, the invader of the distant India, the builder of Babylon, and

the constructor of all the great works which were anywhere to be found

in Western Asia. The grand figure thus produced imposed upon the

uncritical ancients, and was accepted even by the moderns for many

centuries. At length the school of Heeren and Niebuhr, calling common

sense to their aid, pronounced the figure a myth. It remained for the

patient explorers of the field of Assyrian antiquity in our own day to

discover the slight basis of fact on which the myth was founded, and to

substitute for the shadowy marvel of Ctesias a very prosaic and

commonplace princess, who, like Atossa or Elizabeth of York,

strengthened her husband’s title to his crown, but who never really made

herself conspicuous by either great works or by exploits.

With Vul-lush III., the glories of the Nimrud line of monarchs come to a

close, and Assyrian history is once more shrouded in a partial darkness

for a space of nearly forty years, from B.C. 781 to B.C. 745. The

Assyrian Canon shows us that three monarchs bore sway during this

interval--Shalmaneser III., who reigned from B.C. 78l to B.C. 771,

Asshur-dayan III., who reigned from B. C. 771 to B.C. 753, and

Asshur-lush, who held the throne from the last-mentioned date to B.C..

745, when he was succeeded by the second Tiglatli-Pileser. The brevity

of these reigns, which average only twelve years apiece, is indicative

of troublous times, and of a disputed, or, at any rate, a disturbed

succession. The fact that none of the three monarchs left buildings of

any importance, or, so far as appears, memorials of any kind, marks a

period of comparative decline, during which there was a pause in the

magnificent course of Assyrian conquests, which had scarcely known a

check for above a century. The causes of the temporary inaction and

apparent decline of a power which had so long been steadily advancing,

would form an interesting subject of speculation to the political

philosopher; but they are too obscure to be investigated here, where our

space only allows us to touch rapidly on the chief known facts of the

Assyrian history.

One important difficulty presents itself at this point of the narrative,

in an apparent contradiction between the native records of the Assyrians

and the casual notices of their history contained in the Second Book of

Kings. The Biblical Pul--“the king of Assyria” who came up against the

land of Israel and received from Menahem a thousand talents of silver,

“that his hand might be with him to confirm the kingdom in his hand,” is

unnoticed in the native inscriptions, and even seems to be excluded from

the royal lists by the absence of any name at all resembling his in the

proper place in the famous Canon. Pul appears in Scripture to be the

immediate predecessor of Tiglath Pileser. At any rate, as his expedition

against Menahem is followed within (at the utmost) thirty-two years by

an expedition of Tiglath Pileser against Pekah, his last year (if he was

indeed a king of Assyria) cannot have fallen earlier than thirty-two

years before Tiglath-Pileser’s first. In other words, if the Hebrew

numbers are historical some portion of Pul’s reign must necessarily fill

into the interval assigned by the Canon to the kings for which it is the

sole authority--Shalmaneser III., Asshur-dayan III., and Asshur-lush.

But these names are so wholly unlike the name of Pul that no one of them

can possibly be regarded as its equivalent, or even as the original from

which it was corrupted. Thus the Assyrian records do not merely omit

Pul, but exclude him: and we have to inquire how this can be accounted

for, and who the Biblical Pul is, if he is not a regular and recognized

Assyrian monarch.

Various explanations of the difficulty have been suggested. Some would

regard Pul as a general of Tiglath-Pileser (or of some earlier Assyrian

king), mistaken by the Jews for the actual monarch. Others would

identify him with Tiglath-Pileser himself. But perhaps the most probable

supposition is, that he was a pretender to the Assyrian crown, never

acknowledged at Nineveh, but established in the western (and southern)

provinces so firmly, that he could venture to conduct an expedition into

Lower Syria, and to claim there the fealty of Assyrians vassals. Or

possibly he may have been a Babylonian monarch, who in the troublous

times that had now evidently come upon the northern empire, possessed

himself of the Euphrates valley, and thence descended upon Syria and

Palestine. Berosus, it must be remembered, represented Pul as a

Chaldaean king; and the name itself, which is wholly alien to the

ordinary Assyrian type, has at least one counterpart among known

Babylonian namies.

The time of Pul’s invasion may be fixed by combining the Assyrian and

the Hebrew chronologies within very narrow limits. Tiglath-Pileser

relates that he took tribute from Menahem in a war which lasted from his

fourth to his eighth year, or from B.C. 742 to B.C. 738. As Menahem only

reigned ten years, the earliest date that can be assigned to Puls

expedition will be B.C. 752, while the latest possible date will be B.C.

746, the year before the accession of Tiglath-Pileser. In any case the

expedition fells within the eight years assigned by the Assyrian Canon

to the reign of Asshur-lush, Tiglath-Pileser’s immediate predecessor.

It is remarkable that into this interval falls also the famous era of

Nabonassar, which must have marked some important change, dynastic or

other, at Babylon. The nature of the change will be considered at length

in the Babylonia a section. At present it is sufficient to observe that,

in the declining condition of Assyria under the kings who followed

Vul-lush III., there was naturally a growth of power and independence

among the border countries. Babylon, repenting of the submission which

she had made either to Vul-lush III., or to his father, Shamas-Vul II.,

once more vindicated her right to freedom, and resumed the position of a

separate and hostile monarchy. Samaria, Damascus, Judaea, ceased to pay

tribute. Enterprising kings, like Jeroboam II., and Menahem, taking

advantage of Assyria’s weakness, did not content themselves with merely

throwing off her yoke, but proceeded to enlarge their dominions at the

expense of her feudatories. Judging of the unknown from the known, we

may assume that on the north and east there were similar defections to

those on the west and south--that the tribes of Armenia and of the

Zagros range rose in revolt, and that the Assyrian boundaries were thus

contracted in every quarter.

At the same time, within the limits of what was regarded as the settled

Empire, revolts began to occur. In the reign of Asshur-dayan III. (B.C.

771-753), no fewer than three important insurrections are recorded--one

at a city called Libzu, another at Arapkha, the chief town of

Arrapachitis, and a third at Gozan, the chief city of Gauzanitis or

Mygdonia. Attempts were made to suppress these revolts; but it may be

doubted whether they were successful. The military spirit had declined;

the monarchs had ceased to lead out their armies regularly year by year,

preferring to pass their time in inglorious ease at their rich and

luxurious capitals. Asshur-dayan III., during nine years of his

eighteen, remained at home, under-taking no warlike enterprise.

Asshur-lush, his successor, displayed even less of military vigor.

During the eight years of his reign he took the field twice only,

passing six years in complete inaction. At the end of this time, Calah,

the second city in the kingdom, revolted; and the revolution was brought

about which ushered in the splendid period of the Lower Empire.

It was probably during the continuance of the time of depression, when

an unwarlike monarch was living in inglorious ease amid the luxuries and

refinements of Nineveh, and the people, sunk in repose, gave the

themselves up to vicious indulgences more hateful in the eye of God than

even the pride and cruelty which they were want to exhibit in war, that

the great capital was suddenly startled by a voice of warning in the

streets--a voice which sounded everywhere, through corridor, and lane,

and square, bazaar and caravanserai, one shrill monotonous cry--“Yet

forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown.” A strange wild man,

clothed in a rough garment of skin, moving from place to place,

announced to the inhabitants their doom. None knew who he was or whence

he had come; none had ever beheld him before; pale, haggard,

travel-stained, he moved before then like a visitant from another

sphere; and his lips still framed the fearful words--“Yet forty days,

and Nineveh shall be overthrown.” Had the cry fallen on them in the

prosperous time, when each year brought its tale of victories, and every

nation upon their borders trembled at the approach of their arms, it

would probably have been heard with apathy or ridicule, and would have

failed to move the heart of the nation. But coming, as it did, when

their glory had declined; when their enemies, having been allowed a

breathing space, had taken courage and were acting on the offensive in

many quarters; when it was thus perhaps quite within the range of

probability that some one of their numerous foes might shortly appear in

arms before the place, it struck them with fear and consternation. The

alarm communicated itself from the city to the palace; and his trembling

attendants “came and told the king of Nineveh,” who was seated on his

royal throne in the great audience-chamber, surrounded by all the pomp

and magnificence of his court. No sooner did he hear, than the heart of

the king was touched, like that of his people; and he “arose from his

throne, and laid aside his robe from him, and covered himself with

sackcloth and sat in ashes.” Hastily summoning his nobles, he had a

decree framed, and “caused it to be proclaimed and published through

Nineveh, by the decree of the king and his nobles, saying, Let neither

man nor beast, herd nor flock, taste anything; let them not feed, nor

drink water: but let man and beast be covered with sackcloth, and cry

mightily unto God: yea, let them turn every one from his evil way, and

from the violence that is in their hands.” Then the fast was proclaimed,

and the people of Nineveh, fearful of God’s wrath, put on sackcloth

“from the greatest of them even to the least of them.” The joy and

merriment, the revelry and feasting of that great city were changed into

mourning and lamentation; the sins that had provoked the anger of the

Most High ceased; the people humbled themselves; they “turned from their

evil way,” and by a repentance, which, if not deep and enduring, was

still real and unfeigned, they appeased for the present the Divine

wrath. Vainly the prophet sat without the city, on its eastern side,

under his booth woven of boughs, watching, waiting, hoping (apparently)

that the doom which he had announced would come, in spite of the

people’s repentance. God was more merciful than man. He had pity on the

“great city,” with its “six score thousand persons that could not

discern between their right hand and their left,” and, sparing the

penitents, left their town to stand unharmed for more than another

century.

The circumstances under which Tiglath-Pileser II., ascended the throne in

the year B.C. 745 are unknown to us. No confidence can be placed in the

statement of Bion and Polyhistor which seems to have been intended to

refer to this monarch, whom they called Beletaras--a corruption perhaps

of the latter half of the name--that he was, previously to his elevation

to the royal dignity, a mere vine-dresser, whose occupation was to keep

in order the gardens of the king. Similar tales of the low origin of

self-raised and usurping monarchs are too common in the East, and are

too often contradicted by the facts, when they come known to us, for

much credit to attach to the story told by these late writers, the

earlier of whom, must have written five or six hundred years after

Tiglath-Pileser’s time. We aught, however, conclude, without much chance

of mistake, from such a story being told, that the king-intended

acquired the throne irregularly; that either he was not of the blood

royal, or that, being so, he was at any rate not the legitimate heir.

And the conclusion at which we should thus arrive is confirmed by the

monarch’s inscriptions; for though he speaks repeatedly of “the kings

his fathers.” and even calls the royal buildings at Galati. “the palaces

of his fathers,” yet he never mentions his actual father’s name in any

record that has come down to us. Such a silence is so contrary to the

ordinary practice of Assyrian monarchs, who glory in their descent and

parade it on every possible occasion, that, where it occurs, we are

justified in concluding the monarch to have been an usurper, deriving

his title to the crown, not from his ancestry or from any law of

succession, but from a successful revolution, in which he played the

principal part. It matters little that such a monarch, when he is

settled upon the throne, claims, in a vague and general way, connection

with the kings of former times. The claim may often have a basis of

truth; for in monarchies where polygamy prevails, and the kings have

numerous daughters to dispose of, almost all the nobility can boast that

they are of the blood royal. Where the claim is in no sense true, it

will still be made; for it flatters the vanity of the monarch, and there

is no one to gainsay it.

Only in such cases we are sure to find a prudent vagueness--an assertion

of the fact of the connection, expressed in general terms, without any

specification of the particulars on which the supposed fact rests.