Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadMcClintock Biblical Encyclopedia: Nineveh
Subjects in this Topic:
(Heb. Nineveh', ðַéðְåֵä :); Sept. Íéíåõή or Íéíåõῆ , v. r. Íéíåõú v; Vulg. Ninive), the capital of the ancient kingdom and empire of Assyria; a city of great power, size, and renown, usually included among the most ancient cities of the world of which there is any historic record. In the following account we bring together the ancient and the modern notices, especially the Scripture relations.
I. Name. — This, if Shemitic, signifies dwelling of Ninus; but it is probably of foreign etymology. In cuneiform (q.v.) it is written or Josephus Graecizes it Íåíåýç , ‘(Ant. 9:10, 2), Ptolemy Íῖíïò ἡ êáὶ Íéíåõú v (8:21, § 3), Herodotus ἡ Íßíïò or Íῖíïò (1:193; 2:150); while the Romans wrote it Ninus (Tacit. Ann. 12:13) or Nineve (Amm. Marcianus, 18:7). The name appears to be derived from that of an Assyrian deity, “Nin,” corresponding, it is conjectured, with the Greek Hercules, and occurring in the names of several Assyrian kings, as in “Ninus,” the mythic founder, according to Greek tradition, of. the city. In the Assyrian inscriptions Nineveh is also supposed to be called “the city of Bel.” Fletcher, rather fancifully, taking Nin as meaning “a floating substance or fish,” and neveh “a resting-place,” supposes the city to have been built nigh to the spot where the ark of Noah rested, and in memory of the deliverance provided by that wondrous vessel (Notes from Nineveh, 2:90). The connection of the name of.the city with Ninus, its mythical founder, is not opposed to the statement in Gen_10:11; for the city might be named, not from Nimrod, its originator, but from a successor who gave it conquest and renown. In the Assyrian mythology Ninus is the son of Nimrod.
II. History. —
1. From Biblical and Later Accounts. The first reference to Nineveh in Scripture is in Gen_10:11, “Out of that land went forth Asshur and builded Nineveh,” as it is rendered in our version. The other and better version is, “Out of that land (the land of Shinar) went he (Nimrod) to Assyria, and builded Nineveh, and Rehoboth, and Calah, and Resen between Nineveh and Calah; the same is a great city.” The translation which we have adopted is that of the Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan, and is defended by Hyde, Bochart, Le Clerc, Tuch, Baumgarten, Keil, Delitzsch, Knobel, Kalisch, and Murphy. The other exegesis, which makes Asshur the subject of the verb, has support from the Septuagint, the Syrian version, and the Vulgate, and has been adopted by Luther, Calvin, Grotius. Michaelis, Schumann, Von Bohlen, Pye Smith, and is apparently preferred by Rawlinson. The arguments in its favor are not strong; yet it contains or implies the reason why the country was named Assyria after its first settler. It is also a plausible theory of Jacob Bryant, that Nimrod by his conquests forced Asshur to leave the territory of Shinar, so that, thus expelled and overpowered by the mighty hunter, he went out of that land and built Nineveh (Ancient Mythology, 6:192). Hence Assyria was subsequently known to the Jews as “the land of, Nimrod” (comp. Mic_5:6), and was believed to have been first peopled by a colony from Babylon.
The kingdom of Assyria and of the Assyrians is referred to in the O.T. as connected with the Jews at a very early period; as in Num_24:22; Num_24:24, and Psa_83:8 : but after the notice of the foundation of Nineveh in Genesis no further mention is made of the city until the time of the book of Jonah, or the 8th century B.C., supposing we accept the earliest date for that narrative, SEE JONAH, BOOK OF, which, however, according to some critics, must be brought down 300 years later, or to the 5th century B.C. In this book neither Assyria nor the Assyrians are mentioned, the king to whom the prophet .was sent being termed the “king of Nineveh.” Assyria is first called a kingdom ill the time of Menahem, about B.C. 770. Nahum (? B.C. 645) directs his prophecies against Nineveh; only once against the king of Assyria (Nah_3:18). In 2 Kings (2Ki_19:36) was Isaiah (Isa_37:37) the city is first distinctly mentioned as the residence of the monarch. Sennacherib was slain there when worshipping in the temple of Nisroch his god. In 2 Chronicles, (2Ch_32:21), where the same event is described, the name of the place where it occurred is omitted. Zephaniah, about B.C. 630, couples the capital and the kingdom together (Zep_2:13); and this is the last mention of Nineveh as an existing city. He probably lived to witness its destruction, an event impending at the time of his prophecies. Although Assyria and the Assyrians are alluded to by Ezekiel and Jeremiah, by the former as a nation in whose miserable ruin prophecy had been fulfilled (ch. 31), yet they do not refer by name to the capital. Jeremiah, when enumerating “all the kingdoms of the world which are upon the face of the earth” (ch. 25), omits all mention of the nation and the city. Habakkuk only speaks of the Chaldaeans, which may lead to the inference that the date of his prophecies is somewhat later than that usually assigned to them. SEE HABAKKUK, BOOK OF.
The fall of Nineveh, like its rise and history, is very much enveloped in obscurity. But the account of Ctesias, preserved in Diodorus Siculus (2:27, 28), has been thought to be substantially correct. It may, however, be observed that Mr. Rawlinson, in his latest work (The Ancient Monarchies, 1:52i), says that it “seems undeserving of a place in history.” According to that account, Cyaxares, the Median monarch, aided by the Babylonians, under Nabopolassar, laid siege to the city. His first efforts were in vain. He was more than once repulsed and obliged to take refuge in the mountains of the Zagros range; but, receiving reinforcements, he succeeded in routing the Assyrian army, and driving them to shut themselves up within the walls. He then attempted to reduce the city by blockade, but was unsuccessful for two years, till his efforts were unexpectedly assisted by an extraordinary rise of the Tigris, which swept away a part of the walls, and rendered it possible for the Medes to enter. The Assyrian monarch, Saracus, in despair, burned himself in his palace. With the ruthless barbarity of the times, the conquerors gave the whole city over to the flames, and razed its former magnificence to the ground. The cities dependent on Nineveh, and in its neighborhood, appear to have incurred a like fate, and the excavations show that the principal agent in their destruction was fire. Calcined sculptured alabaster, charcoal and charred wood buried in masses of brick and earth, slabs and statues split with heat, were objects continually encountered by Mr. Layard and his fellow-laborers at Khorsabad, Nimrud, and Kuyunjik.
From a comparison of these data, it has generally been assumed that the destruction of Nineveh and the extinction of the empire took place between the time of Zephaniah and that of Ezekiel and Jeremiah. The exact period of these events has consequently been fixed, with a certain amount of concurrent evidence derived from classical history, at B.C. 606 (Clinton, Fasti Hellen. 1:269). It has been shown that it may have occurred twenty years earlier. SEE ASSYRIA.
The city was then laid waste, its monuments destroyed, and its inhabitants scattered or carried away into captivity. It never rose again from its ruins. This total disappearance of Nineveh is fully confirmed by the records of profane history. There is no mention of it in the Persian cuneiform inscriptions of the Achaemenid dynasty. Herodotus (1:193) speaks of the Tigris as “the river upon which the town of Nineveh formerly stood.” He must have passed, in his journey to Babylon, very near the site of the city — perhaps actually over it. So accurate a recorder of what he saw would scarcely have omitted to mention, if not to describe, any ruins of importance that might have existed there. Not two centuries had then elapsed since the fall of the city. Equally conclusive proof of its condition is afforded by Xenophon, who with the ten thousand Greeks encamped during his retreat on, or very near, its site (B.C. 401). The very name had then been forgotten, or at least he does not appear to have been acquainted with it, for he calls one group of ruins “Larissa,” and merely states that a second group was near the deserted town of Mespila (Anab. iii, iv, § 7). The ruins, as he describes them, correspond in many respects with those which exist at the present day, except that he assigns to the walls near Mespila a circuit of six parasangs, or nearly three times their actual dimensions. Ctesias placed the city on the Euphrates (Frag. 1:2), a proof either of his ignorance or of the entire disappearance of the place. He appears to have led Diodorus Siculus into the same error (2:27, 28). The historians of Alexander, with the exception of Arrian (Ind. 42, 3), do not even allude to the city, over the ruins of which the conqueror must have actually marched. His great victory of Arbela was won almost in sight of them. It is evident that the later Greek and Roman writers, such as Strabo, Ptolemy, and Pliny, could only have derived any independent knowledge they possessed of Nineveh from traditions of no authority. They concur, however, in placing it on the eastern bank of the Tigris.
During the Roman period, a small castle or fortified town appears to have stood on some part of the site of the ancient city. It was probably built by the Persians (Amm. Marceli. 23:22); and subsequently occupied by the Romans, and erected by the emperor Claudius into a colony. It appears to have borne the ancient traditional name of Nineve, as well as its corrupted form of Ninos and Ninus, and also at one time that of Hierapolis. Tacitus (Anan. 12:13), mentioning its capture by Meherdates, calls it “Ninos;” on coins of Trajan it is “Ninus,” on those of Maximinus “Niniva,” in both instances the epithet Claudiopolis being added. Many Roman remains, such as sepulchral vases, bronze and other ornaments, sculptured figures in marble, terra-cottas, and coins, have been discovered in the rubbish covering the Assyrian ruins; besides wells and tombs, constructed long after the destruction of the Assyrian edifices. The Roman settlement appears to have been in its turn abandoned, for there is no mention of it when Heraclius gained the great victory over the Persians in the battle of Nineveh, fought on the very site of the ancient city, A.D. 627. After the Arab conquest, a fort on the east bank of the Tigris bore the name of “Ninawi” (Rawlinson, Assoc. Journal, 12:418). Benjamin of Tudela, in the. 12th century, mentions the site of Nineveh as occupied by numerous inhabited villages and small townships (ed. Asher, 1:91). The name remained attached to the ruins during the Middle Ages; and from them a bishop of the Chaldaean Church derived his title (Assemani, 4:459); but it is doubtful whether any town or fort was so called. Early English travelers merely allude to the site (Purchas, 2:1387). Niebuhr is the first modern traveler who speaks of “Nuniyah” as a village standing on one of the ruins which he describes as “a considerable hill” (2:353). This may be a corruption of “Nebbi Yunus,” the Prophet Jonah, a name still given to a village containing his apocryphal tomb. Mr. Rich, who surveyed the site in 1820, does not mention Nuniyah, and no such place now exists. Tribes of Turcomans and sedentary Arabs, and Chaldaean and Syrian Christians, dwell in small mudbuilt villages, and cultivate the soil in the country around the ruins; and occasionally a tribe of wandering Kurds, or of Bedouins driven by hunger from the desert, will pitch their tents among them. After the Arab conquest of the west of Asia, Mosul, at one time the flourishing capital of an independent kingdom, rose on the opposite or western bank of the Tigris. Some similarity in the names has suggested its identification with the Mespila of Xenophon; but its first actual mention only occurs after the Arab conquest (A.H. 16, or A.D. 637). It was sometimes known as Athur, and was united with Nineveh as an episcopal see of the Chaldaean Church (Assemani, 3:269). It has lost all its ancient prosperity, and the greater part of the town is now in ruins.
Traditions of the unrivaled size and magnificence of Nineveh were equally familiar to the Greek and Roman writers, and to the Arab geographers. But the city had fallen so completely into decay before the period of authentic history that new description of it, or even of any of its monuments, is to be found in any ancient author of trust. Diodorus Siculus asserts (2:3) that the city formed a quadrangle of 150 stadia by 90, or altogether of 480 stadia (no less than 60 miles), and was surrounded by walls 100 feet high, broad enough for three chariots to drive abreast upon them, and defended by 1500 towers, each 200 feet in height. According. to Strabo (16:737) it was larger than Babylon, which was 385 stadia in circuit. In the O.T. we find only vague allusions to the splendor and wealth of the city, and the very indefinite statement in the book of Jonah that it was “an exceeding great city,” or “a great city to God,” or “for God” (i.e. in the sight of God), “of three days' journey;” and that it contained “six score thousand persons who could not discern between their right hand and their left hand, and also much cattle” (4:11). It is obvious that the accounts of Diodorus are for the most part absurd exaggerations, founded upon fabulous traditions, for which existing remains afford no warrant. It may, however, be remarked that the dimensions he assigns to the area of the city would correspond to the three days' journey of Jonah — the Jewish day's journey being 20 miles — if that expression be applied to the circuit of the walls. “Persons not discerning between their right hand and their left” may either allude to children or to the ignorance of the whole population. If the first be intended, the number of inhabitants, according to the usual calculation, would have amounted to about 600,000. But such expressions are probably mere Eastern figures of speech to denote vastness, and far too vague to admit of exact interpretation.
The political history of Nineveh is that of Assyria (q.v.). It has been observed that the territory included within the boundaries of the kingdom of Assyria proper was comparatively limited in extent, and that almost within the immediate neighborhood of the capital petty kings appear to have ruled over semi-independent states, owning allegiance and paying tribute to the great lord of the empire, “the King of Kings,” according to his Oriental title, who dwelt at Nineveh. (Comp. Isa_10:8 : “Are not my princes altogether kings?”) These petty kings were in a. constant state of rebellion, which usually showed itself by their refusal to pay the apportioned tribute -the principal link between the sovereign and the dependent states-and repeated expeditions were undertaken against them to enforce this act of obedience. (Comp. 2Ki_16:7; 2Ki_17:4, where it is stated that the war made by the Assyrians upon the Jews was for the purpose of enforcing the payment of tribute.) There was, consequently, no bond of sympathy arising out of common interests between the various populations which made up the empire. Its political condition was essentially weak. When an independent monarch was sufficiently powerful to carry on a successful war against the great king, or a dependent prince sufficiently strong to throw off his allegiance, the empire soon came to an end. The fall of the capital was the signal for universal disruption. Each petty state asserted its independence, until reconquered by some warlike chief who could found a new dynasty and a new empire to replace those which had fallen. Thus on the borders of the great rivers of Mesopotamia arose in turn the first Babylonian, the Assyrian, the Median, the second Babylonian, the Persian, and the Seleucid empires. The capital was, however, invariably changed, and generally transferred to the principal seat of the conquering race. In the East men have rarely rebuilt great cities which have once fallen into decay — never perhaps on exactly the same site. If the position of the old capital was deemed, from political or commercial reasons, more advantageous than any other, the population was settled in its neighborhood, as at Delhi, and not amid its ruins. But Nineveh, having fallen with the empire, never rose again. It was abandoned at once, and suffered to perish utterly. It is probable that, in conformity with an Eastern custom, of which we find such remarkable illustrations in the history of the Jews, the entire population was removed by the conquerors, and settled as colonists in some distant province.
2. Monumental Records. — From the annals of Tiglath-Pileser I we learn that a temple had been founded at Asshur, or Kalah Sherghat, as early as the nineteenth century B.C., by Shamasiva, a son of Ismi-dagon, who was one of the early kings in the series answering to the great Chaldaean dynasty of Berosus, and from this circumstance may be inferred to have ruled over Assyria. In fact, as long as this dynasty lasted, Assyria probably occupied the position of an unimportant dependency of Babylonia, not being mentioned in one single, legend, and not furnishing the Chaldaean monarchs with one of their royal titles. At what period Assyria was enabled to achieve her independence, or under what circumstances she achieved it, we have no means of knowing, but the date at which, for several reasons, we may suppose it to have been accomplished is approximately B.C. 1273. Probably an Arabian conquest of Babylonia, which caused the overthrow of this Chaldaean dynasty in the sixteenth century, furnished the Assyrians with an opportunity of shaking off the Babylonian yoke, but it was not till three centuries later that they appear to have gained a position of importance.
During the period of Assyrian subjection to Chaldaea, and long after she became an independent empire, the vice-regal, or the royal city, was probably Asshur, on the west bank of the Tigris, sixty miles south of Nineveh, the name of which is still preserved in the designation given by the Arabs to the neighboring district. It may perhaps be as well to observe that the four kings in Genesis 14, according to Josephus, were only commanders in the army of the Assyrian king, who had then, he says, dominion over Asia. But this is very improbable, and is really contradicted by recent discoveries, which show, at least negatively, that Assyria was not then an independent power. Sir H. Rawlinson thinks that he has found the name of a king (Kudur-Mapula or Kudur-Mabuk) stamped upon bricks in Babylonia which corresponds to that of Chedorlaomer, and supposes that this king was the Elamitic founder of the great Chaldaean empire of Berosus. Mr. Stuart Poole thinks it not improbable that the expedition of Chedorlaomer was directed against the power of the Egyptian kings of the fifteenth dynasty and their Phoenician allies or subjects. Josephus also calls Chushan Rishathaim — who in Judges 3 is said to have been king of Mesopotamia — king of the Assyrians; but this again demands an earlier rise of the Assyrian power than the monuments warrant us in assuming. The first known king of Assyria is Bel-lush or Belukh, who, with three others in succession, viz. Pudil, Iva-lush, Shalmabar or Shalmarish, is reputed to have reigned shortly after its dependence on Babylon had been shaken off. The period from 1273 to 1200 may be assigned to the reign of these kings. They have left no other record but their names upon bricks, etc., which are found only at Kalah Sherghat; and the character in which these are inscribed is so ancient and so mixed with babylonian forms that they are assigned to this period, though the same effects might possibly have been produced at a later period of Babylonian ascendency. After these names, we are enabled to trace a continuous line of six hereditary monarchs, who, with the exception of the last, are enumerated on the oldest historic relic yet discovered in Assyria. This is the octagonal prism of Kalah Sherghalt, on which Tiglath-Pileser I records the events of the first five years of his reign, and traces back his pedigree to the fourth generation.
He calls himself the son of Asshur-rish-ili; the grandson of Mutaggil Nebu; the great grandson of Asshur-dapal-il, whose father was Nin-pala-kura, the supposed successor of Shalmabar or Shalmarish. Of his great-grandfather he relates that, sixty years previously, he had taken down the temple of Ann and Iva before alluded to, which had stood for 641 years, but was then in a ruined condition. His father seems to have been a great conqueror, and perhaps was the first to raise the character of the Assyrian arms, and to gain a foreign reputation. But whatever fame he acquired in this way was eclipsed by that of his son, who says that he won victories in Cappadocia, Syria, and in the Median and Armenian mountains. Particularly a people called Nairi, who probably dwelt at the north-west of Assyria proper, are conspicuous among his conquests. Now it so happens that the date of this king can be fixed in a remarkable way, by a rock inscription of Sennacherib at Bavian, which states that a Tiglath-Pileser occupied the throne of Assyria 418 years before the tenth year of his own reign, and as Sennacherib was reigning towards the end of the eighth, or the beginning of the seventh century, this would throw back the time of Tiglath-Pileser's reign to the latter part of the twelfth century B.C. We also learn from this same rock inscription that Tiglath-Pileser was himself defeated by Merodach-adan-akhi, the king of Babylon, who carried away with him images of certain Assyrian gods, showing that Babylon at this period was independent of Assyria, and a formidable rival to her power. Of Asshurbani-pal I, the son and successor of Tiglath-Pileser nothing is known. Only one record of him has been hitherto discovered, and this was found at Kuyunjik. This name was softened or corrupted by the Greeks into Sardanapalus. After this king a break occurs in the line of succession which cannot be supplied. It is thought, however, not to have been long, as Asshuradan-akhi is supposed to have begun to reign about 1050, and therefore to have been contemporary with David. This monarch, and the three kings who succeeded him, are obscure and unimportant, not being known for anything else than repairing and adding to the palaces at Kalah Sherghat. Their names are Asshur-danin-il, Iva-lush II, and Tiglathi-Nin.
With the last of these, however, Asshur ceased to be the royal residence. The seat of government was transferred by his son Asshur-bani-pal to Calah, now supposed to be represented by Nimrud, forty miles to the north, near the confluence of the upper Zab and the Tigris, and on the east bank of the latter river. The reason of this change is not known; but it is thought that it was connected with the extension of the empire in the direction of Armenia, which would therefore demand greater vigilance in that quarter. This king, Sardanapalus II, pushed his conquests to the shores of the Mediterranean, levied tribute of the kings of Tyre and Sidon, and therefore perhaps of Ethbaal, the father of Jezebel. He was also the founder of the north-west palace at Nimrod, which is second only to that of Sennacherib, at Kuyunjik, in magnificence and extent. The next monarch who sat on the Assyrian throne was Shalmanu-bar, the son of Sardanapalus. He reigned thirty-one years, spread his conquests farther than any of his predecessors, and recorded them on the black obelisk now in the British Museum. In his reign the power of the first Assyrian empire seems to have culminated. He carried his victorious army over all the neighboring countries, imposing tribute upon all Babylonia, Mesopotamia, Syria, Media, Armenia, and the scriptural kingdoms of Hamath and Damascus. The latter under Benhadad and Hazael are alike conspicuous among his vanquished enemies. But what is of paramount interest in the records of this king is the identification in the second epigraph in the above-named obelisk of the name of Jehu the king of Israel, who there appears as Yahua the son of Khumri, and is said to have given the Assyrian monarch tribute of gold and silver. This name was discovered independently, but almost on the self-same day, both by Dr. Hincks and colonel Rawlinson, the latter being at Bagdad and the former in the north of Ireland. It is supposed that Jehu is called the son of Khumri or Omri, either as being king of Samaria, the city which Omri built. or as claiming descent from the founder of that city to strengthen his right to the throne, and possibly even as being descended from him on the mother's side.
Shalmanu-bar was the founder of the central palace at Nimrud, and probably reigned from about 900 to 850 or 860. He was succeeded by his second son Shamasiva, his eldest having made a revolt during the lifetime of his father, which probably lost him the succession, and was with difficulty quelled by his younger brother. The annals of Shamas-iva extend only over a period of four years. At this time the history is enveloped in much obscurity; but it is probable that the reign of Shamas-iva-lasted much longer, as it is with his son and successor, Iva-lush III, that the first Assyrian dynasty comes to a close, and the reigns of these two princes are all we have to fill up the interval from 850 to 747, which is about the time it is supposed to have ended. Iva-lush is perhaps the Pul of Scripture. Among those from whom he received tribute are mentioned the people of Khinuri. i.e. Samaria; and Menahem gave Pul 1000 talents of silver to confirm the kingdom in his hand.
There is a statue of the god Neboin the British Museum which is dedicated by the artist “to his lord Iva-lush and his lady Sammuramit.” This personage is in all probability the Semiramis of the Greeks, and her age remarkably agrees with that which Herodotus assigns her. viz. five generations prior to Nitocris, who seems with him to represent Nebuchadnezzar. He also speaks of her as, a Babylonian princess; and since Iva-lush asserts that Asshur had “granted him the kingdom of Babylon,” he may very likely have acquired it in right of his wife, or reigned conjointly with her. But we cannot here replace conjecture by certainty. As we are altogether ignorant of the causes which terminated the first Assyrian dynasty or established the second, the interval between both may have been considerable, and may account for the difficulty above mentioned with respect to the period from the death of Shalmanu-bar and the end of the first empire. Tiglath-Pileser II, who founded the second empire, appears before us “without father, without mother.” Unlike the kings before him, he makes no parade of his ancestry in his inscriptions, from which circumstance we may fairly assume that he was a usurper. Much uncertainty has arisen about the date of his accession, because he states that he took tribute from Menahem in his eighth year, which would make it B.C. 667 or 768 (received chronology), whereas it is more likely that it was connected in some way with the change of events in Babylon that gave rise to the sera of Nabonassar, or 747. However, as the Sept. gives the reign of Manasseh thirty-five years instead of fifty-five, this diminution of twenty years would exactly rectify the discrepancy, or else it is possible that in the said inscription Menahem may be by mistake for Pekah, since he is joined with Rezin, whom Scripture always couples with Pekah.
The annals of Tiglath-Pileser II extend over a period of seventeen years, and record his wars against Mesopotamia, Armenia, and Medaa; he also invaded Babylon, took the city of Sepharvaim or Sippara, and slew Rezin, the king of Syria. It was this king whom Ahaz met at Damascus when he saw the altar of which he sent the pattern to Urijah the priest at Jerusalem. Of Shalmaneser, his probable successor, little is known but what has come down to us in the sacred narrative. His name has not been found on the monuments. Shalmaneser twice invaded Israel; upon the first occasion it seems that Hoshea the king bought him off by tribute, but subsequently revolted upon having made an alliance with Sabaco or So, king of Egypt. Upon this Shalmaneser again invaded Israel, and besieged Samaria for the space of three years. He is supposed to have died or to have been deposed before the city surrendered, and to have left the final subjugation of it to his successor. This was Sargon or Sargina, who came to the throne in B.C. 721, was the founder of a dynasty, and is therefore suspected of being a usurper. He reigned nineteen years after the captives of Samaria had been brought to Assyria; he made war against Babylon, and perhaps placed Merodach-Baladan upon the throne. After this he marched in the direction of southern Syria and Egypt. At this time the latter country was under the dominion of the twenty-fifth or Ethiopian dynasty, and would seem to have recently gained possession of the five Philistine cities, according to the prediction of Isa_19:18. It is remarkable that Sargon speaks of Gaza as belonging to Egypt, and its king is said to have been defeated at Raphia by the Assyrian monarch. Upon this the Egyptian “Pharaoh” paid Sargon tribute of gold, horses, camels, etc. Afterwards he made war in Hamath, Cappadocia, and Armenia, turning his arms also against Mount Zagros and the Medes, whose cities he colonized with his Israelitish captives. Later he made a second expedition into Syria, and took Ashdod by his Tattan, or general (Isa_20:1), the king of that place flying to Egypt, which is said to be under the dominion of Mirukha or Meroe. At this time, also, Tyre fell under his power. Subsequently he made a second war upon Babylonia, and drove Merodach-Baladan, who seems to have offended him, into banishment.
Finally, the Greeks of Cyprus, who are called “the Yaha Nagd tribes of Yunau” or lonia. are named among those who paid him tribute. He appears to have removed the seat of government from Calah to Khorsabad, called from him Dur-Sargina. At this time the influence of Egyptian taste is manifest in Assyrian works of art. Sargon was succeeded in the year B.C. 702 by his son Sennacherib. He fixed his government at Nineveh, which, being now greatly decayed, he completely restored, and there he built the magnificent structure discovered and excavated by Layard. In the repairs of the great palace alone he is said to have employed no less than 360,000 men among his captives from Chaldaea, Armenia, and elsewhere. Sennacherib immediately after his accession proceeded to Babylon, where Merodach-Baladan had contrived to place himself again upon the throne with the aid of the Susianians. He fought a bloody battle with him, in which the Babylonian was entirely defeated, and then appointed Belibus, or Elibus, viceroy of Babylon. In his second year he marched on the north and east of Assyria,- and penetrated to certain Median tribes whom he asserts to have been quite unknown to his predecessors. The Philistines also were subdued by him, and the kings of Egypt who fought with him near Lachish were worsted. Lachish and Libnah fell before his arms, and Hezekiah, at Jerusalem, had to purchase peace by a tribute of 300 talents of silver and 30 talents of gold (2 Kings 18:13, 14).
This, however, is not recorded in his annals, which extend only to his eighth year, and therefore may have occurred subsequently to the period at which they close. In the year 699 he again marched against Babylon, defeated the party of Merodach-Baladan, deposed the viceroy Belibus, whom he had himself appointed three years before, and placed his own eldest son, Asshur-nadin, upon the throne. We know that Sennacherib reigned twenty-two years, because we have his twenty-second year stamped on a clay tablet, but it is uncertain when his second expedition to Syria was undertaken; some, however, consider his two Syrian expeditions to have been identical. The object of the second was to recover the cities of Lachish and Libnah, which had again fallen .under the power of Egypt. While he was warring against Lachish he heard of the agreement that Hezekiah had entered into with the king of Egypt, and sent a detachment of his host against Jerusalem, under Rab-Saris and Rab-Shakeh. For some reason which we are not told, these generals found it expedient to retire from Jerusalem and join their master, who had raised the siege of Lachish, at Libnah. Meanwhile Tirhakah, the Ethiopian, perhaps not yet king of Egypt, advanced from the south to meet Sennhcherib, and reinforce the Egyptian party against whom he was contending; but before the decisive battle could he fought, the Angel of the Lord had smitten in the camp of the Assyrians 185,000 men. Sennacherib, with the rest of his army, fled in dismay, and the Egyptians perhaps commemorated his disaster in the manner related by Herodotus (2:141). It is not a matter of surprise that this event is unnoticed on the Assyrian monuments. In all probability the murder of Sennacherib by his sons did not immediately follow his defeat at Libnah, but this also we have no means of knowing from the Assyrian records. He was succeeded by one of his younger sons (not his eldest, who had been regent in Babylon, and was probably dead), Esarhaddon, or Asshur-akh-iddina. He was celebrated for his victories and his magnificent buildings. He carried on his father's war with Egypt, Which county, as well as Ethiopia, he seems to have subdued.
He is also thought to have reigned in his own person at Babylon, and perhaps to have held his court indifferently either at Nineveh or Babylon, which would account for Manasseh being carried by the captains of the king of Assyria to Babylon (2Ch_33:11); but in B.C 667, thirteen years after his accession, he was succeeded on the throne of Babylon by Saosduchinus, who was either a rebel or a viceroy appointed by Esarhaddon. About the year 660 his son Asshur-bani-pal, or Sardanapalus III, succeeded to “the throne of Assyria, and with him began the fall of the empire. He may have reigned till 640; but he feebly imitated the conquests; of his predecessors, and appears to have contented himself with hunting. He was succeeded by his son Asshuremit-ili, the last king of whom any records have been discovered. Under him Assyria was hastening its downfall, and- Cyaxares, with his victorious Medes, was preparing for the final attack. If he was not the last king, he was the last but one, and the Saracus of Berosus, perhaps his brother, may have succeeded him, or else we must consider Saracus to be identical with Asshur-emitiii, who corresponded in fate with the warlike Sardanapalus of the Greeks.
III. Present Ruins. — Previous to recent excavations and researches, the ruins which occupied the presumed site of Nineveh seemed to consist of mere shapeless heaps or mounds of earth and rubbish. Unlike the vast masses of brick masonry which mark the site of Babylon, they showed externally no signs of artificial construction, except perhaps here and there the traces of a rude wall of sun-dried bricks. Some of these mounds were of enormous dimensions, looking in the distance rather like natural elevations than the work of men's hands. Upon and around them, however, were scattered innumerable fragments of pottery-the unerring evidence of former habitations. Some had been chosen by the scattered population of the land as sites for villages, or for small mud-built forts, the mound itself affording means of refuge and defense against the marauding parties of Bedouins and Kurds which for generations have swept over the face of. the country. The summits of others were sown with corn or barley. During the spring months they were covered with grass and flowers, bred by the winter rains. The Arabs call these mounds “Tell,” the Turcomans and Turks “Teppeh,” both words being equally applied to natural hills and elevations, and the first having been used in the same double sense by the most ancient Shemitic races (comp. Hebrew úֵּì , “a hill,” “a mound, “a heap of rubbish” [Eze_3:15; Ezr_2:59; Neh_7:61; 2Ki_19:12]).
They are found in vast numbers throughout the whole region watered by the Tigris and Euphrates and their confluents, from the Taurus to the Persian Gulf. They are seen, but are less numerous, in Syria, parts of Asia Minor, and in the plains of Armenia. Wherever they have been examined they appear to have furnished remains which identify the period of their construction with that of the alternate supremacy of the Assyrian, Babylonian, and Persian empires. They differ greatly in form, size, and height. Some are mere conical heaps, varying from fifty to one hundred and fifty feet high; others have a broad, flat summit, and very precipitous. cliff-like sides, furrowed by deep ravines worn by the winter rains. Such mounds are especially numerous in the region to the east of the Tigris, in which Nineveh stood, and some of them must mark the ruins of the Assyrian capital. There is no edifice mentioned by ancient authors as forming part of the city, which we are required, as in the case of Babylon, to identify with any existing remains, except the tomb, according to some, of Ninus, according to others, of Sardanapalus, which is recorded to have stood at the entrance of Nineveh (Diod. Sic. 2:7; Amynt. Frag. [ed.Muller], p. 36). The only difficulty is to determine which ruins are to be comprised within the actual limits of the ancient city.
1. The northern extremity of the principal collection of mounds on the eastern bank of the Tigris may be fixed at Sherif Khan, and the southern at Nimfid, about six and a half miles from the junction of that river with the great Zab, the ancient Lycus. Eastward they extend to Khorsabad, about ten miles north by east of Sherif Khan, and to Karamless, about fifteen miles north-east of Nimrod. Within the area of this irregular quadrangle are to be found, in every direction, traces of ancient edifices and of former population. It comprises various separate and distinct groups of ruins, four of which, if not more, are the remains of fortified enclosures or strongholds, defended by walls and ditches, towers and ramparts. The principal are: (1) the group immediately opposite Mosul, including the great mounds of Kuyunjik (also called by the Arabs Armushiyah) and Nebbi Yunus; (2) that near the junction of the Tigris and Zab, comprising the mounds of Nimruid and Athur; (3) Khorsabad, about ten miles to the east of the former river; (4) Sherif Khan, about five and a half miles to the north of Kuyunjik; and (5) Selamlyah, three miles to the north of Nimrod. Other large mounds are Baaskeikhah, Karamless, where the remains of fortified enclosures may perhaps be traced; Baazani, Yarumieh, and Bellawat. It is scarcely necessary to observe that all these names are comparatively modern, dating from after the Mohammedan conquest. The respective position of these ruins will be seen in the accompanying map. We will describe the most important.
(1.) The ruins opposite Mosul consist of an enclosure formed by a continuous line of mounds, resembling a vast embankment of earth, but marking the remains of a wall, the western face of which is interrupted by the two great mounds of Kuyunjik and Nebbi Yunus. To the east of this enclosure are the remains of an extensive line of defenses, consisting of moats and ramparts. The inner wall forms an irregular quadrangle with very unequal sides — the northern being 2333 yards, the western or the river-face, 4533, the eastern (where the wall is almost the segment of a circle) 5300 yards, and the southern but little more than 1000; altogether 13,200 yards, or seven English miles and four furlongs. The present height of this earthen wall is between forty and fifty feet. Here and there a mound more lofty than the rest covers the remains. of a tower or a gateway. The walls appear to have been originally faced, at least to a certain height, with stone masonry, some remains of which have been discovered. The mound of Kuyunjik is of irregular form, being ‘nearly square at the southwest corner, and ending almost in a point at the northeast. It is about 1300 yards in length, by 500 in its greatest width; its greatest height is 96 feet, and its sides are precipitous, with occasional deep ravines or watercourses.
The summit is nearly flat, but falls from the west to the east. A small village formerly stood upon it, but has of late years been abandoned. The Khosr. a narrow but deep and sluggish stream, sweeps around the southern side of the mound on its way to join the Tigris. Anciently dividing itself into two branches, it completely surrounded Kuyunjik. Nebbi Yunus is considerably smaller than Kuyunjik, being about 530 yards by 430, and occupying an area of about 40 acres. In height it is about the same. It is divided into two nearly equal parts by a depression in the surface. Upon it is a Turcoman village containing the apocryphal tomb of Jonah, and a burial-ground held in great sanctity by Mohammedans from its Vicinity to this sacred edifice. Remains of entrances or gateways have been discovered' in the northern and eastern walls (b and c). The Tigris formerly ran beneath the western wall, and at the foot of the two great mounds. It is now about a mile distant from them, but during very high spring floods it sometimes reaches its ancient bed. The western face of the enclosure (a) was thus protected by the river. The northern and southern faces — b and d — were strengthened by deep and broad moats. The eastern (c), being most accessible to an enemy, was most strongly fortified, and presents the remains of a very elaborate system of defenses. The Khosr, before entering the enclosure, which it divides into two nearly equal parts, ran for some distance almost parallel to it (f), and supplied the place of an artificial ditch for about half the length of the eastern wall. The remainder of the wall was protected by two wide moats (h), fed by the stream, the supply of water being regulated by dams, of which traces still exist. In addition, one or more ramparts of earth were thrown up, and a moat excavated between the inner walls and the Khosr, the eastern bank of which was very considerably raised by artificial means. Below, or to the south of the stream, a third stream, excavated in the compact conglomerate rock, and about two hundred feet broad, extended almost the whole length of the eastern face, joining the moat on the south. An enormous outer rampart of earth, still in some places above eighty feet in height (i), completed the defenses on this side. - A-few mounds outside this rampart probably mark the sites of detached towers or fortified posts. This elaborate system of fortifications was singularly well devised to resist the attacks of an enemy. It is remarkable that within the enclosure, with the exception of Kuyunjik and Nebbi Yunus, no mounds or irregularities in the surface of the soil denote ruins of any size. The ground is, however, strewed in every direction with fragments of brick, pottery, and the usual signs of ancient population.
(2.) Nimrod consists of a similar enclosure of consecutive mounds-the remains of ancient walls. The system of defenses is, however, very inferior in importance and completeness to that of Kuyunjik. The indications of towers occur at regular intervals; 108 may still be traced on the northern and eastern sides. The area forms an irregular square, about 2331 yards by 2095, containing about 1000 acres. The northern and eastern sides were defended by moats, the western and southern walls by the river, which once flowed immediately beneath them. On the south-western face is a great mound, 700 yards by 400, and covering about 60 acres, with a cone or pyramid of earth about 140 feet high rising in the north-western corner of it. At the southeastern angle of the enclosure is a group of lofty mounds called by the Arabs. after Nimrod's lieutenant, Athur (comp. Gen_10:11). According to the Arab geographers this name at one time applied to all the ruins of Nimrod (Layard, Nin. and its Remains, 2:245, note). Within the enclosure a few slight irregularities in the soil mark the sites of ancient habitations, but there are no indications of ruins of buildings of any size. Fragments of brick and pottery abound. The Tigris is now one and a half miles distant from the mounds, but sometimes reaches them during extraordinary? floods.
(3) The enclosure-walls of Khorsabad form a square of about 2000 yards. They show the remains of towers and gateways. There are apparently no traces of moats or ditches. The mound which gives its name to this group of ruins rises on the north-west face. It may be divided into two parts or stages, the upper about 650 feet square and 30 feet high, and the lower, adjoining it, about 1350 by 300. Its summit was formerly occupied by an Arab village. In one corner there is a pyramid or cone, similar to that at Nimrod, but very inferior in height and size. Within the interior are a few mounds marking the sites of propylaea and similar detached monuments, but no traces of considerable buildings. These ruins were known to the early Arab geographers by the name of “Sarain,” probably a traditional corruption of the name of Sargon, the king who founded the palaces discovered there.
(4.) Sherif Khan, so called from a small village in the neighborhood, consists of a group of mounds of no great size when compared with other Assyrian ruins, and without traces of an outer wall. Selamlyah is an enclosure of irregular form, situated upon a high bank overlooking the Tigris, about 5000 yards in circuit, and containing an area of about 410 acres, apparently once surrounded by a ditch or moat. It contains no mound or ruin, and even the earthen rampart which marks the walls has in many places nearly disappeared. The name is derived from an Arab town once of some importance, -but now reduced to a miserable village inhabited by Turcomans.
2. The greater part of the discoveries which, of late years, have thrown so much light upon. the history and condition of the ancient inhabitants of Nineveh were made in the ruins of Nimrud, Kuvunjik, and Khorsabad. The first traveler who carefully examined the supposed site of the city was Mr. Rich, formerly political agent for the East India Company at Bagdad; but his investigations were almost entirely confined to Kuyunjik and the surrounding mounds, of which he made a survey in 1820. From them he obtained a few relics, such as inscribed pottery and bricks, cylinders, and gems. Some time before a bass-relief representing men and animals had been discovered, but had been destroyed by the Mohammedans. He subsequently visited the mound of Nimrud, of which, however, he was unable to make more than a hasty examination (Narrative of a Residence in Kurdistan, 2:131). Several travelers described the ruins after Mr. Rich, but no attempt was made to explore them systematically until M. Botta was appointed French consul at Mosul in 1843. While excavating in the mound of Khorsabad, to which he had been directed by a peasant, he discovered a row of upright alabaster slabs, forming the paneling or skirting of the lower part of the walls of a chamber. This chamber was found to communicate with others of similar construction, and it soon became evident that the remains of an edifice of considerable size were buried in the mound.: The French government having given the necessary funds, the ruins were fully explored. They consisted of the lower part of a number of halls, rooms, and passages, for the most part wainscoted with slabs of coarse gray alabaster, sculptured with figures in relief,; the principal entrances being formed by colossal human-headed winged bulls. No remains of exterior architecture of any great importance were discovered. The calcined limestone and the great accumulation;of charred wood and charcoal showed that the building had been destroyed by fire. Its upper part had entirely disappeared, and its general plan could only be restored by the remains of the lower story. The collection of Assyrian sculptures in the Louvre came from these ruins. The excavations subsequently carried on by MM. Place and Fresnel at Khorsabad led to the discovery, in the enclosure below the platform, of propylaea, flanked by colossal human-headed bulls, and of other detached buildings forming the approaches to the palace, and also of some of the gateways in the enclosure-walls, ornamented with similar mythic figures.
M. Botta's discoveries at Khorsabad were followed by those of Mr. Lavard at Nimrud and Kuyunjik, made between the years 1845 and 1850. The mound of Nimrrd was found to contain the ruins of several distinct edifices, erected at different periods — materials for the construction of the latest having been taken from an earlier building. The most ancient stood at the northwest corner of the platform, the most recent at the south-east. In general plan and in construction they resembled the ruins of Khorsabad- consisting of a number of halls, chambers, and galleries, panelled with sculptured and inscribed alabaster slabs, and opening one into the other by doorways generally formed by pairs of colossal human-headed winged bulls or lions. The exterior architecture could not be traced. The lofty cone or pyramid of earth adjoining this edifice covered the ruins of a building the basement of which was a square of 165 feet, and consisted, to the height. of 20 feet, of a solid mass of sun-dried bricks, faced on “the four sides by blocks of stone carefully squared, bevelled, and adjusted.
This stone facing singularly enough coincides exactly with the height assigned by Xenophon to the stone plinth of the walls (Anab. 3:4), and is surmounted, as he describes the plinth to have been, by a superstructure of bricks, nearly every kiln-burned brick bearing an inscription. Upon this solid substructure there probably rose, as in the Babylonian temples, a succession of platforms or stages, diminishing in size, the highest having a shrine or altar upon it (Layard, Nin. and Bab. ch. v). A vaulted chamber or gallery, 100 feet long, 6 broad, and 12 high, crossed the center of the mound on a level with the summit of the stone-masonry. It had evidently been broken into and rifled of its contents at some remote period, and may have been a royal sepulcher — the tomb of Ninus or Sardanapalus, which stood at the entrance of Nineveh. It is the tower described by Xenophon at Larissa as being 1. plethron (100 feet) broad and 2 plethra high. It appears to have been raised by the son of the king who built the north-west palace, and whose name in the cuneiform inscriptions is supposed to be identified with that of Sardanapalus. Shalmanubar or Shalmaneser, the builder of this tomb or tower, also erected in the center of the great mound a second palace, which appears to have been destroyed to furnish materials for later buildings. The black obelisk now in the British Museum was found among its ruins. On the west face of the mound, and adjoining the center palace, are the remains of a third edifice, built by the grandson of Shalmanubar, whose name is read Iva-lush, and who is believed to be the Pul of the Hebrew Scriptures.
It contained some important inscribed slabs, but no sculptures. Esarhaddon raised (about B.C. 680) at the south-west corner of the platform another royal abode of considerable extent, but constructed principally of materials brought from his predecessor's palaces. In the opposite or south-east corner are the ruins of a still later palace built by his grandson Asshur-emit-ili, very inferior in size and in splendor to other Assyrian edifices. Its rooms were small; it appears to have had no great halls, and the chambers were paneled with slabs of common stone, without sculpture or inscriptions. Some important detached figures, believed to bear the name of the historical Semiramis, were, however, found in its ruins. At the south-west corner of the mound of Kuyunjik stood a palace built by Sennacherib (about B.C. 700), exceeding in size and in magnificence of decoration all others hitherto explored. It occupied nearly 100 acres. Although much of the building yet remains to be examined, and much has altogether perished, about 60 courts, halls (some nearly 150 feet square), rooms, and passages (one 200 feet long) have been discovered, all paneled with sculptured slabs of alabaster. The entrances to the edifice and to the principal chambers were flanked by groups of winged human-headed lions and bulls of colossal proportions — some nearly 20 feet in height; 27 portals thus formed were excavated by Mr. Layard. A second palace was erected on the same platform by the son of Esarhaddon, the third king of the name of Sardanapalus. In it were discovered sculptures of great interest and beauty, among them the series representing the lion-hunt now in the British Museum. Owing to the sanctity attributed by Mohammedans to the supposed tomb of Jonah, great difficulties were experienced in examining the mound upon which it stands. A shaft sunk within the walls of a private house led to the discovery of sculptured slabs; and excavations subsequently carried on by agents of the Turkish government proved that they formed part of a palace erected by Esarhaddon. Two entrances or gateways in the great enclosure-walls have been excavated — one (at b on plan) flanked by colossal human-headed bulls and human figures. They, as well as the walls, appear, according to the inscriptions, to have been constructed by Sennacherib. No propylaea or detached buildings have as yet been discovered within the enclosure. At Sherif Khan are the ruins of a temple, but no sculptured slabs have been dug up there. It was founded by Sennacherib, and added to by his grandson. At Selamiyah no remains of buildings nor any fragments of sculpture or inscriptions have been discovered.
3. The most recent explorer in this field is Mr. George Smith, of the British Museum. The commencement of Mr. Smith's studies and researches in the field of Assyrian archaeology practically took place in the year 1866, when he engaged in the examination of Sir Henry Rawlinson's casts and fragments of inscriptions in the British Museum, with a view to the elucidation of several questions in the Old-Testament history. He first lighted upon a curious inscription of Shalmaneser II, giving an account ‘of the war against Hazael, king of Syria, and relating that it was in the eighteenth year of Shalmaneser when he received tribute from Jehu. His next labors were devoted to the cylinders containing the history of Asshur- bani-pal, the Sardanapalus of the Greeks. The annals of this monarch were then in considerable confusion, but by dint of patient comparison of the various copies, Mr. Smith at length succeeded in obtaining a fair text of the earlier part of these inscriptions. Pursuing his investigations, he discovered several important fragments of the annals of TiglathPileser, containing notices of Azariah, king of Judah,” and of Pekah and Hoshea, — kings of Israel. In the course of four years he had discovered new portions of the Assyrian canon, several accounts of the early conquest of Babylonia by the Elamites, and a religious calendar of the Assyriais, in which every month is divided into four weeks, and the seventh days marked out as Sabbaths, in which no work was to be performed. During 1.870 he was occupied with preparing the large work on the history of Asshur-bani-pal, giving the cuneiform texts, transcriptions, and translations, which was published in 1871. In 1872 Mr. Smith discovered the tablets containing the Chaldaean account of the Deluge, which attracted a good deal of attention both at home and abroad.
The interest taken in these discoveries prompted the proprietors of the London Telegraph newspaper to advance the sum of one thousand guineas for fresh researches at Nineveh, Mr. Smith to conduct the expedition. He accordingly started from London Jan. 20, 1873. and on March 2 arrived at the ruins of Nineveh. After an excursion to Bagdad and Babylon, he returned to Nineveh about April 1, and commenced excavations on the mound of Nimrod on the third of that month. His work at first, which was on a small scale, was directed to the temple of Nebo. Here he discovered some inscriptions, but most of them were duplicates of texts already known. Excepting the stone basement of the temple and a few chambers around it, the whole was in a ruinous condition. After the city had declined, this part of the mound appears to have been used as a granary.
A large tunnel was burrowed through the walls and chambers on the eastern face. This was found packed with grain, black and rotten from age. In the central part excavations had been made for tombs, destroying considerable portions of the temple. The more prominent parts of the building were of large square red blocks of stone at the bottom, and sun-dried bricks at the top. On each side of the entrance stood a colossal figure of Nebo, with crossed arms, in the attitude of meditation. In one of the eastern chambers Mr. Smith discovered a fragment of the reign of Tiiglath-Pileser, but there was nothing else' of great interest in the neighborhood. Many of the inscriptions have suffered very much since the excavations of Mr. Layard. The explorations at Nimrud were closed on May 8, without any important results, and Mr. Smith proceeded to prepare for his researches among the ruins of Nineveh, opposite the town of Mosul. After commencing operations on one of these mounds, with a view to recover inscribed terra- cotta tablets, Mr. Smith found several valuable inscriptions, which served in some degree as compensation for his labors. Much to his surprise, one of the fragments contained the greater portion of seventeen lines of inscription belonging to the first column of the Chaldaean account of the Deluge, fitting into the only place where there was a serious blank in the story. Among other discoveries were a small tablet of Esarhaddon, king of Assyria, some new fragments of one of the historical cylinders of Asshur- banipal, and a curious fragment of the history of Sargon, king of Assyria, relating to his expedition against Ashdod. On the same fragment was a part of the list of Median chiefs who paid tribute to Sargon. Part of an inscribed cylinder of Sennacherib, and half of an amulet in onyx, with the name and titles of this monarch, were subsequently found, with implements of bronze, iron, and glass. There was part of a crystal throne, a most magnificent article of furniture, closely resembling in shape the bronze throne discovered by Mr. Layard at Nimruid. Near the close of his excavations, while preparing to return to England, Mr. Smith disinterred a fragment of a curious syllabary, divided into four perpendicular columns. In the first, column was given the phonetic value of the cuneiform characters; the characters themselves were written in the second column; the third column contained the names and meanings of the signs; while the fourth column gave the words and ideas which it represented. The work was brought to a close on June 9, and on the same day Mr. Smith Started on his return journey to Europe, with the antiquities which he had collected.
The arrival of the antiquities in England called forth great interest in the results of the expedition, and the trustees of the British Museum directed Mr. Smith to return to Mosul, setting aside a sum of £1000 for the enterprise. On this occasion he left London Nov. 25, 1873, and, traversing his former route, arrived at Alexandretta on Dec. 9. He arrived at Mosul Jan. 1:1874, and at once engaged a number of men to dig over the earth on the spot of the last year's excavations. Soon afterwards they commenced work on the mound, bringing a fine fragment of a tablet and a bronze figure as the first-fruits of the excavation. In spite of the embarrassments caused by the Turkish officials, Mr. Smith continued the work of excavation with great diligence and with considerable success. Remains of culptures were discovered with inscriptions from the temples of Nebo and Merodach. There were also inscriptions from Shalnaneser I, king of Assyria, recording that he founded the palace of Nineveh; and mixed ap with these were remains of inscriptions belonging to the same monarch, stating that he restored the temple of Ishtar. From the same spot came inscriptions of his son, Tugulti-ninip, the conqueror of Babylonia, relating that he also restored the temple of Ishtar, and inscriptions of a similar purport of the monarchs Asshurnazir-pal and Shalmaneser II. Some curiousnspecimens of pottery, ornamented with figures laid on the clay, were found near the same spot. Between the chambers in the center of the mound and the eastern edge there were fragments of a palace and temple. The remains of the temple were most of them found in a square chamber, seemingly of later date, built up of stones from the Assyrian buildings near it. All along the walls were placed small square. slabs with inscriptions of Asshur-bani-pal, dedicated to the goddess of Nineveh, none of them in their original position. Near this chamber were fragments of an obelisk in black stone-built into a later wall, and many fragments of a palace which stood in the neighborhood. Among these was an inscription of a king of Assyria, B.C. 1:170, and several fragments from sculptured walls representing processions of warriors. Near one corner of the palace was found the head of a female divinity, the hair arranged in bunches of curls on each side, the face exhibiting the usual corpulent style of Assyrian female beauty. Among other fragments was the opening portion of a copy from an early Babylonian inscription, giving the names of six new Babylonian kings, and some curious details of early Babylonian history. At a subsequent date was found a new portion of the sixth tablet of the Deluge series.
The principal excavation was carried on over what Layard calls the library- chamber of the south-west palace. Upon removing the top earth from a section of the palace around the region of the library-chamber, Mr. Smith was rewarded with a variety of discoveries of a valuable character. At first nothing turned up but modern objects, coins, pottery, and glass, but on going deeper the Assyrian cuneiform tablets were of frequent occurrence. In front of one of the entrances Mr. Smith discovered the lintel of a door- way, formed of a block of stone six feet long, and sculptured along the face. In the center was an ornamental cup or vase with two handles; on each side stood a winged griffin or dragon; and over the cup and the dragon was an, ornament of honeysuckles. This curious lintel is the first Assyrian object of the kind which has been discovered, and it is no wonder that when lifted out of the ex