THE SEVEN GREAT MONARCHIES

OF THE

ANCIENT EASTERN WORLD;

OR, THE HISTORY, GEOGRAPHY, AND ANTIQUITIES OF CHALDAEA, ASSYRIA

BABYLON, MEDIA, PERSIA, PARTHIA, AND SASSANIAN, OR NEW PERSIAN EMPIRE. 

BY

GEORGE RAWLINSON, M. A. , CAMDEN PROFESSOR OF ANCIENT HISTORY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD

IN THREE VOLUMES. 

VOLUME I. 

With Maps and Illustrations

CONTENTS OF VOL. I. 

THE FIRST MONARCHY. 

CHALDAEA. 

CHAPTER I. GENERAL VIEW OF THE COUNTRY

CHAPTER II. CLIMATE AND PRODUCTIONS

CHAPTER III. THE PEOPLE

CHAPTER IV. LANGUAGE AND WRITING

CHAPTER V. ARTS AND SCIENCES

CHAPTER VI. MANNERS AND CUSTOMS

CHAPTER VII. RELIGION

CHAPTER VIII. HISTORY AND CHRONOLOGY

PREFACE TO FIVE GREAT MONARCHIES. 

The history of Antiquity requires from time to time to be rewritten. Historical knowledge continually extends, in part from the advance ofcritical science, which teaches us little by little the true value ofancient authors, but also, and more especially, from the new discoverieswhich the enterprise of travellers and the patient toil of students arecontinually bringing to light, whereby the stock of our information as tothe condition of the ancient world receives constant augmentation. Theextremest scepticism cannot deny that recent researches in Mesopotamiaand the adjacent countries have recovered a series of "monuments"belonging to very early times, capable of throwing considerable light onthe Antiquities of the nations which produced them. The author of thesevolumes believes that, together with these remains, the languages of theancient nations have been to a large extent recovered, and that a vastmass of written historical matter of a very high value is thereby addedto the materials at the Historian's disposal. This is, clearly, not theplace where so difficult and complicated a subject can be properlyargued. The author is himself content with the judgment of "experts, "and believes it would be as difficult to impose a fabricated language onProfessor Lassen of Bonn and Professor Max Miller of Oxford, as to palmoff a fictitious for a real animal form on Professor Owen of London. Thebest linguists in Europe have accepted the decipherment of the cuneiforminscriptions as a thing actually accomplished. Until some good linguist, having carefully examined into the matter, declares himself of contraryopinion, the author cannot think that any serious doubt rests on thesubject. 

 [Some writers allow that the Persian cuneiform inscriptions have been successfully deciphered and interpreted, but appear to doubt the interpretation of the Assyrian records. (See Edinburgh Review for July, 1862, Art Ill. , p. 108. ) Are they aware that the Persian inscriptions are accompanied in almost every instance by an Assyrian transcript, and that Assyrian interpretation thus follows upon Persian, without involving any additional "guess-work"]

The present volumes aim at accomplishing for the Five Nations of whichthey treat what Movers and Kenrick have accomplished for Phoenicia, or(still more exactly) what Wilkinson has accomplished for Ancient Egypt. Assuming the interpretation of the historical inscriptions as, ingeneral, sufficiently ascertained, and the various ancient remains asassigned on sufficient grounds to certain peoples and epochs, they seekto unite with our previous knowledge of the five nations, whether derivedfrom Biblical or classical sources, the new information obtained frommodern discovery. They address themselves in a great measure to the eye;and it is hoped that even those who doubt the certainty of the linguisticdiscoveries in which the author believes, will admit the advantage ofillustrating the life of the ancient peoples by representations of theirproductions. Unfortunately, the materials of this kind which recentexplorations have brought to light are very unequally spread among theseveral nations of which it is proposed to treat, and even where they aremost copious, fall short of the abundance of Egypt. Still in every casethere is some illustration possible; and in one--Assyria--both the"Arts" and the "Manners" of the people admit of being illustrated verylargely from the remains still extant. --[See Chapters VI. And VII. Of theSecond Monarchy]

The Author is bound to express his obligations to the following writers, from whose published works he has drawn freely: MM. Botta and Flandin, Mr. Layard, Mr. James Fergusson, Mr. Loftus, Mr. Cullimore, and Mr. Birch. He is glad to take this occasion of acknowledging himself alsogreatly beholden to the constant help of his brother, Sir HenryRawlinson, and to the liberality of Mr. Faux, of the British Museum. Thelatter gentleman kindly placed at his disposal, for the purposes of thepresent work, the entire series of unpublished drawings made by theartists who accompanied Mr. Loftus in the last Mesopotamian Expedition, besides securing him undisturbed access to the Museum sculptures, thusenabling him to enrich the present volume with a large number of mostinteresting illustrations never previously given to the public. In thesubjoined list these illustrations are carefully distinguished from suchas, in one shape or another, have appeared previously. 

Oxford, September, 1862. 

PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION. 

In preparing for the press, after an interval of seven years, a secondedition of this work, the author has found it unnecessary to make, excepting in two chapters, any important or exensive alterations. Theexceptions are the chapters on the History and Chronology of Chaldaea andAssyria. So much fresh light has been thrown on these two subjects byadditional discoveries, made partly by Sir Henry Rawlinson, partly by hisassistant, Mr. George Smith, through the laborious study of fragmentaryinscriptions now in the British Museum, that many pages of the twochapters in question required to be written afresh, and the ChronologicalSchemes required, in the one case a complete, and in the other a partial, revision. In making this revision, both of the Chronology and theHistory, the author has received the most valuable assistance both fromthe published papers and from the private communications of Mr. Smith--an assistance for which he desires to make in this place thewarmest and most hearty acknowledgment. He is also beholden to a recentEastern traveller, Mr. A. D. Berrington, for some valuable notes on thephysical geography and productions of Mesopotamia, which have beenembodied in the accounts given of those subjects. A few correctionshave likewise been made of errors pointed out by anonymous critics. Substantially, however, the work continues such as it was on its firstappearance, the author having found that time only deepened hisconviction of the reality of cuneiform decipherment, and of theauthenticity of the history obtained by means of it. 

OXFORD, November, 1870. 

PREFACE TO THE SIXTH MONARCHY. 

The following work is intended, in part, as a continuation of the ancientHistory of the East, already treated by the Author at some length in his"Five Great Monarchies"; but it is also, and more expressly, intended asa supplement to the ancient History of the West, as that history isordinarily presented to moderns under its two recognized divisions of"Histories of Greece" and "Histories of Rome. " Especially, it seemed tothe writer that the picture of the world during the Roman period, commonly put before students in "Histories of Rome, " was defective, notto say false, in its omission to recognize the real position of Parthiaduring the three most interesting centuries of that period, as acounterpoise to the power of Rome, a second figure in the picture notmuch inferior to the first, a rival state dividing with Rome theattention of mankind and the sovereignty of the known earth. Writers ofRoman history have been too much in the habit of representing the laterRepublic and early Empire as, practically, a Universal Monarchy, a Powerunchecked, unbalanced, having no other limits than those of the civilizedworld, engrossing consequently the whole attention of all thinking men, and free to act exactly as it pleased without any regard to opinionbeyond its own borders. One of the most popular enlarges on the idea--anidea quite inconsistent with the fact--that for the man who provoked thehostility of the ruler of Rome there was no refuge upon the whole face ofthe earth but some wild and barbarous region, where refinement wasunknown, and life would not have been worth having. To the presentwriter the truth seems to be that Rome never was in the positionsupposed--that from first to last, from the time of Pompey's EasternConquests to the Fall of the Empire, there was always in the world aSecond Power, civilized or semi-civilized, which in a true sense balancedRome, acted as a counterpoise and a check, had to be consulted orconsidered, held a place in all men's thoughts, and finally furnished anot intolerable refuge to such as had provoked Rome's master beyondforgiveness. 

This Power for nearly three centuries (B. C. 64 - A. D. 225) was Parthia, after which it was Persia under the Sassanian kings. In the hope ofgradually vindicating to Parthia her true place in the world's history, the Author has in his "Manual of Ancient History" (published by theDelegates of the Clarendon Press) placed the Parthians alongside of theRomans, and treated of their history at a moderate length. But it hasseemed to him that something more was requisite. He could not expectthat students would be able to give Parthia her proper place in theirthoughts unless her history were collected and put forth in a readableform with some fulness. He has, therefore, employed most of his leisureduring the last two years in writing the present work, which he commendsto students of the later Greek and Roman periods as supplemental to themodern Greek and Roman histories in which those periods are commonlystudied. 

The Parthian Chronology depends very much upon coins. In preparing thisportion of his work the Author has been greatly indebted to aid kindlyrendered him by M. R. Stuart Poole and Mr. Gardiner of the BritishMuseum. The representations of coins in the work have been, with oneexception, taken by the Author from the originals in the NationalCollection. For the illustrations of Parthian architecture and art he isindebted to the published works of Mr. Ainsworth, Mr. Ross, the late Mr. Loftus, and MM. Flandin and Coste. He feels also bound to express hisobligations to the late Mr. Lindsay, the numismatic portion of whose workon Parthia he has found of much service. 

CANTERBURY, December, 1872. 

PREFACE TO SEVENTH MONARCHY. 

This work completes the Ancient History of the East, to which the authorhas devoted his main attention during the last eighteen years. It is asequel to his "Parthians, " published in 1873; and carries down theHistory of Western Asia from the third century of our era to the middleof the seventh. So far as the present writer is aware, no Europeanauthor has previously treated this period from the Oriental stand-point, in any work aspiring to be more than a mere sketch or outline. Very manysuch sketches have been published; but they have been scanty in theextreme, and the greater number of them have been based on the authorityof a single class of writers. It has been the present author's aim tocombine the various classes of authorities which are now accessible tothe historical student, and to give their due weight to each of them. The labors of M. C. Muller, of the Abbe Gregoire Kabaragy Garabed, and ofM. J. St. Martin have opened to us the stores of ancient Armenianliterature, which were previously a sealed volume to all but a smallclass of students. The early Arab historians have been translated oranalyzed by Kosegarten, Zotenberg, M. Jules Mohl, and others. The coinage of the Sassanians has been elaborately--almostexhaustively--treated by Mordtmann and Thomas. Mr. Fergusson hasapplied his acute and practised powers to the elucidation of theSassanian architecture. By combining the results thus obtained with theold sources of information--the classical, especially the Byzantinewriters--it has become possible to compose a history of the SassanianEmpire which is at once consecutive, and not absolutely meagre. How theauthor has performed his task, he must leave it to the public to judge;he will only venture to say that he has spared no labor, but has gonecarefully through the entire series of the Byzantine writers who treatof the time, besides availing himself of the various modern works towhich reference has been made above. If he has been sometimes obligedto draw conclusions from his authorities other than those drawn byGibbon, and has deemed it right, in the interests of historic truth, toexpress occasionally his dissent from that writer's views, he must notbe thought blind to the many and great excellencies which render the"Decline and Fall" one of the best, if not the best, of our histories. The mistakes of a writer less eminent and less popular might have beenleft unnoticed without ill results. Those of an historian generallyregarded as an authority from whom there is no appeal could not be solightly treated. 

The author begs to acknowledge his great obligations, especially, to thefollowing living writers: M. Patkanian, M. Jules Mohl, Dr. Haug, HerrSpiegel, Herr Windischmann, Herr Mordtmann, Canon Tristram, Mr. JamesFergusson, and Mr. E. Thomas. He is also largely beholden to the worksof M. Texier and of MM. Flandin and Coste for the illustrations, which hehas been able to give, of Sassanian sculpture and architecture. Thephotographic illustrations of the newly-discovered palace at Mashita aredue to the liberality of Mr. R. C. Johnson (the amateur artist whoaccompanied Canon Tristram in his exploration of the "Land of Moab"), who, with Canon Tristram's kind consent, has allowed them to appear inthe present volume. The numismatic illustrations are chiefly derivedfrom Longperier; but one or two have been borrowed from other sources. For his frontispiece the author is indebted to his brother, Sir HenryRawlinson, who has permitted it to be taken from an original drawing inhis possession, which he believed to be a truthful representation of thegreat Sassanian building. 

CANTERBURY: December 1875. 

THE FIRST MONARCHY. 

CHALDAEA. 

CHAPTER I. 

GENERAL VIEW OF THE COUNTRY. 

"Behold the land of the Chaldaeans. "--ISAIAH xxiii. 13. 

The broad belt of desert which traverses the eastern hemisphere, in ageneral direction from west to east (or, speaking more exactly, ofW. S. W. To N. E. E. ), reaching from the Atlantic on the one hand nearlyto the Yellow Sea on the other, is interrupted about its centre by astrip of rich vegetation, which at once breaks the continuity of the aridregion, and serves also to mark the point where the desert changes itscharacter from that of a plain at a low level to that of an elevatedplateau or table-land. West of the favored district, the Arabian andAfrican wastes are seas of sand, seldom raised much above, often sinkingbelow, the level of the ocean; while east of the same, in Persia, Kerman, Seistan, Chinese Tartary, and Mongolia, the desert consists of a seriesof plateaus, having from 3000 to nearly 10, 000 feet of elevation. Thegreen and fertile region, which is thus interposed between the "highland"and the "lowland" deserts, participates, curiously enough, in bothcharacters. Where the belt of sand is intersected by the valley of theNile, no marked change of elevation occurs; and the continuous low desertis merely interrupted by a few miles of green and cultivable surface, thewhole of which is just as smooth and as flat as the waste on either sideof it. But it is otherwise at the more eastern interruption. There theverdant and productive country divides itself into two tracts, runningparallel to each other, of which the western presents features not unlikethose that characterize the Nile valley, but on a far larger scale; whilethe eastern is a lofty mountain region, consisting for the most part offive or six parallel ranges, and mounting in many places far above thelevel of perpetual snow. 

It is with the western or plain tract that we are here concerned. Between the outer limits of the Syro-Arabian desert and the foot of thegreat mountain range of Kurdistan and Luristan intervenes a territorylong famous in the world's history, and the chief site of three out ofthe five empires of whose history, geography, and antiquities it isproposed to treat in the present volumes. Known to the Jews asAram-Naharaim, or "Syria of the two rivers;" to the Greeks and Romans asMesopotamia, or "the between-river country;" to the Arabs as Al-Jezireh, or "the island, " this district has always taken its name from thestreams, which constitute its most striking feature, and to which, infact, it owes its existence. If it were not for the two greatrivers--the Tigris and Euphrates--with their tributaries, the morenorthern part of the Mesopotamian lowland would in no respect differfrom the Syro-Arabian desert on which it adjoins, and which in latitude, elevation, and general geological character it exactly resembles. Towards the south, the importance of the rivers is still greater; for ofLower Mesopotamia it may be said, with more truth than of Egypt, that itis "an acquired land, " the actual "gift" of the two streams which washit on either side; being, as it is, entirely a recent formation--adeposit which the streams have made in the shallow waters of a gulf intowhich they have flowed for many ages. 

The division, which has here forced itself upon our notice, between theUpper and the Lower Mesopotamian country, is one very necessary to engageour attention in connection with the ancient Chaldaea. There is noreason to think that the terns Chaldaea had at anytime the extensivesignification of Mesopotamia, much less that it applied to the entireflat country between the desert and the mountains. Chaldaea was not thewhole, but a part of, the great Mesopotamian plain; which was ampleenough to contain within it three or four considerable monarchies. According to the combined testimony of geographers and historians, Chaldaea lay towards the south, for it bordered upon the Persian Gulf;and towards the west, for it adjoined Arabia. If we are called uponto fix more accurately its boundaries, which, like those of mostcountries without strong natural frontiers, suffered many fluctuations, we are perhaps entitled to say that the Persian Gulf on the south, theTigris on the east, the Arabian desert on the west, and the limit betweenUpper and Lower Mesopotamia on the north, formed the natural bounds, which were never greatly exceeded and never much infringed upon. Theseboundaries are for the most part tolerably clear, though the northernonly is invariable. Natural causes, hereafter to be mentioned moreparticularly, are perpetually varying the course of the Tigris, the shoreof the Persian Gulf, and the line of demarcation between the sands ofArabia and the verdure of the Euphrates valley. But nature has set apermanent mark, half way down the Mesopotamian lowland, by a differenceof geological structure, which is very conspicuous. Near Hit on theEuphrates, and a little below Samarah on the Tigris, the traveller whodescends the streams, bids adieu to a somewhat waving and slightlyelevated plain of secondary formation, and enters on the dead flat andlow level of the mere alluvium. The line thus formed is marked andinvariable; it constitutes the only natural division between the upperand lower portions of the valley; and both probability and history pointto it as the actual boundary between Chaldaea and her northern neighbor. 

The extent of ancient Chaldaea is, even after we have fixed itsboundaries, a question of some difficulty. From the edge of the alluviuma little below Hit, to the present coast of the Persian Gulf at the mouthof the Shat-el-Arab, is a distance of above 430 miles; while from thewestern shore of the Bahr-i-Nedjif to the Tigris at Serut is a directdistance of 185 miles. The present area of the alluvium west of theTigris and the Shat-el-Arab maybe estimated at about 30, 000 square miles. But the extent of ancient Chaldaea can scarcely have been so great. Itis certain that the alluvium at the head of the Persian Gulf now growswith extraordinary rapidity, and not improbable that the growth may inancient times have been even more rapid than it is at present. Accurateobservations have shown that the present rate of increase amounts to asmuch as a mile each seventy years, while it is the opinion of those bestqualified to judge that the average progress during the historic periodhas been as much as a mile in every thirty years! Traces ofpost-tertiary deposits have been found as far up the country as TelEde and Hammam, 10 or more than 200 miles from the embouchure of theShat-el-Arab; and there is ample reason for believing that at the timewhen the first Chaldaean monarchy was established, the Persian Gulfreached inland, 120 or 130 miles further than at present. We mustdeduct therefore from the estimate of extent grounded upon the existingstate of things, a tract of land 130 miles long and some 60 or 70 broad, which has been gained from the sea in the course of about fortycenturies. This deduction will reduce Chaldaea to a kingdom of somewhatnarrow limits; for it will contain no more than about 23, 000 squaremiles. This, it is true, exceeds the area of all ancient Greece, including Thessaly, Acarnania, and the islands; it nearly equals that ofthe Low Countries, to which Chaldaea presents some analogy; it is almostexactly that of the modern kingdom of Denmark; but it is less thanScotland, or Ireland, or Portugal, or Bavaria; it is more than doubledby England, more than quadrupled by Prussia, and more than octupled bySpain, France, and European Turkey. Certainly, therefore, it was not inconsequence of its size that Chaldaea became so important a country inthe early ages, but rather in consequence of certain advantages of thesoil, climate, and position, which will be considered in the nextchapter. 

It has been already noticed that in the ancient Chaldaea, thechief--almost the sole-geographical features, were the rivers. Nothingis more remarkable even now than the featureless character of the region, although in the course of ages it has received from man someinterruptions of the original uniformity. On all sides a dead levelextends itself, broken only by single solitary mounds, the remains ofancient temples or cities, by long lines of slightly elevated embankmentmarking the course of canals, ancient or recent, and towards thesouth--by a few sand-hills. The only further variety is that of color; forwhile the banks of the streams, the marsh-grounds, and the country for ashort distance on each side of the canals in actual operation, present tothe eye a pleasing, and in some cases a luxuriant verdure; the rest, except in early spring, is parched and arid, having little to distinguishit from the most desolate districts of Arabia. Anciently, except forthis difference, the tract must have possessed all the wearisomeuniformity of the steppe region; the level horizon must have shown itselfon all sides unbroken by a single irregularity; all places must haveappeared alike, and the traveller can scarcely have perceived hisprogress, or have known whither or how to direct his steps. The riversalone, with their broad sweeps and bold reaches, their periodical changesof swell and fall, their strength, motion, and life-giving power, canhave been objects of thought and interest to the first inhabitants; andit is still to these that the modern must turn who wishes to represent, to himself or others, the general aspect and chief geographical divisionsof the country. 

The Tigris and Euphrates rise from opposite sides of the samemountain-chain. This is the ancient range of Niphates (a prolongationof Taurus), the loftiest of the many parallel ridges which intervenebetween the Euxine and the Mesopotamian plain, and the only one whichtranscends in many places the limits of perpetual snow. Hence itsancient appellation, and hence its power to sustain unfailingly the twomagnificent streams which flow from it. The line of the Niphates isfrom east to west, with a very slight deflection to the south of west;and the streams thrown off from its opposite flanks, run at first invalleys parallel to the chain itself, but in opposite directions, theEuphrates flowing westward from its source near Ararat to Malatiyeh, while the Tigris from Diarbekr "goes eastward to Assyria. " The riversthus appear as if never about to meet; but at Malatiyeh, the course ofthe Euphrates is changed. Sweeping suddenly to the south-east, thisstream passes within a few miles of the source of the Tigris below LakeGoljik, and forces a way through the mountains towards the south, pursuing a tortuous course, but still seeming as if it intendedultimately to mingle its waters with those of the Mediterranean. It isnot till about Balis, in lat. 36 deg. , that this intention appears to befinally relinquished, and the convergence of the two streams begins. TheEuphrates at first flows nearly due east, but soon takes a course whichis, with few and unimportant deflections, about south-east, as far asSuk-es-Sheioukh, after which it runs a little north of east to Kurnah. The Tigris from Til to Mosul pursues also a south-easterly course, anddraws but a very little nearer to the Euphrates. From Mosul, however, to Samarah, its course is only a point east of south; and though, afterthat, for some miles it flows off to the east, yet resuming, a littlebelow the thirty-fourth parallel, its southerly direction, it is broughtabout Baghdad within twenty miles of the sister stream. From this pointthere is again a divergence. The course of the Euphrates, which fromHit to the mounds of Mohammed (long. 44 deg. ) had been E. S. E. , becomesmuch more southerly, while that of the Tigris--which, as we have seen, was for awhile due south--becomes once more only slightly south of east, till near Serut, where the distance between the rivers has increasedfrom twenty to a hundred miles. After passing respectively Serut and ElKhitr, the two streams converge rapidly. The flow of the Euphrates isat first E. S. E. , and then a little north of east to Kurnah, while thatof the Tigris is S. S. E. To the same point. The lines of the streams inthis last portion of their course, together with that which may be drawnacross from stream to stream, form nearly an equilateral triangle, thedistance being respectively 104, 110, and 115 miles. So rapid is thefinal convergence of the two great rivers. 

The Tigris and Euphrates are both streams of the first order. Theestimated length of the former, including main windings, is 1146 miles;that of the latter is 1780 miles. Like most rivers that have theirsources in high mountain regions, they are strong from the first, and, receiving in their early course a vast number of important tributaries, become broad and deep streams before they issue upon the plains. TheEuphrates is navigable from Sumeisat (the ancient Samosata), 1200 milesabove its embouchure; and even 180 miles higher up, is a river "ofimposing appearance, " 120 yards wide and very deep. The Tigris is often250 yards wide at Diarbekr, which is not a hundred miles from itssource, and is navigable in the flood time from the bridge of Diarbekrto Mosul, from which place it is descended at all seasons to Baghdad, and thence to the sea. Its average width below Mosul is 200 yards, witha depth which allows the ascent of light steamers, unless when there isan artificial obstruction. Above Mosul the width rarely exceeds 150yards, and the depth is not more in places than three or four feet. TheEuphrates is 250 yards wide at Balbi, and averages 350 yards from itsjunction with the Khabour to Hit: its depth is commonly from fifteen totwenty feet. Small steamers have descended its entire course from Bir tothe sea. The volume of the Euphrates in places is, however, somewhatless than that of the Tigris, which is a swifter and in its lattercourse a deeper stream. It has been calculated that the quantity ofwater discharged every second by the Tigris at Baghdad is 164, 103 cubicfeet, while that discharged by the Euphrates at Hit is 72, 804 feet. 

The Tigris and Euphrates are very differently circumstanced with respectto tributaries. So long as it runs among the Armenian mountains, theEuphrates has indeed no lack of affluents; but these, except the KaraSu, or northern Euphrates, are streams of no great volume, being chieflymountain-torrents which collect the drainage of very limited basins. After it leaves the mountains and enters upon a low country at Sumefsat, the affluents almost entirely cease; one, the river of Sajur, isreceived from the right, in about lat. 36 deg. 40'; and two of moreimportance flow in from the left-the Belik (ancient Bilichus), whichjoins it in long. 39 deg. 9'; and the Khabour (ancient Habor orChaboras), which effects a junction in long. 40 deg. 30', lat. 35 deg. 7'. The Belik and Khabour collect the waters which flow from thesouthern flank of the mountain range above Orfa, Mardin, and Nisibin, best known as the "Mons Masius" of Strabo. They are not, however, streams of equal importance. The Belik has a course which is nearlystraight, and does not much exceed 120 miles. The Khabour, on thecontrary, is sufficiently sinuous, and its course may be reckoned atfully 200 miles. It is navigable by rafts from the junction of its twomain branches near the volcanic cone of Koukab, and adds a considerablebody of water to the Euphrates. Below its confluence with this stream, or during the last 800 miles of its course, the Euphrates does notreceive a single tributary. On the contrary, it soon begins to give offits waters right and left, throwing out branches, which either terminatein marshes, or else empty themselves into the Tigris. After awhile, indeed, it receives compensation, by means of the Shat-el-Hie and otherbranch streams, which bring back to it from the Tigris, between Mugheirand Kurnah, the greater portion of the borrowed fluid. The Tigris, onthe contrary, is largely enriched throughout the whole of its course bythe waters of tributary streams. It is formed originally of three mainbranches: the Diarbekr stream, or true Tigris, the Myafarekin River, andthe Bitlis Chai, or Centrites of Xenophon, which carries a greater bodythan either of the other two. From its entry on the low country nearJezireh to the termination of its course at Kurnah, it is continuallyreceiving from the left a series of most important additions. The chainof Zagros, which, running parallel to the two main springs, shuts in theMesopotamian plain upon the east, abounds with springs, which are wellsupplied during the whole summer from its snows, and these whencollected form rivers of large size and most refreshing coolness. Theprincipal are, the eastern Khabour, which joins the Tigris in lat. 37deg. 12': the Upper Zabo which falls in by the ruins of Nimrud: theLower Zab, which joins some way below Kileh Sherghat: the Adhem, whichunites its waters half way between Samarah and Baghdad: and the Diyaleh(ancient Gyndes), which is received between Baghdad and the ruins ofCtesiphon. 

By the influx of these streams the Tigris continues to grow in depth andstrength as it nears the sea, and becomes at last (as we have seen) agreater river than the Euphrates, which shrinks during the latter partof its course, and is reduced to a volume very inferior to that which itonce boasted. The Euphrates at its junction with the Khabour, 700 milesabove Kurnah, is 400 yards wide and 18 feet deep; at Irzah or Verdi, 75miles lower down, it is 350 yards wide and of the same depth; atHadiseh, 140 miles below Werdi, it is 300 yards wide, and still of thesame depth; at Hit, 50 miles below Hadiseh, its width has increased to350 yards, but its depth has diminished to 16 feet; at Felujiah, 75miles from Hit, the depth is 20 feet, but the width has diminished to250 yards. From this point the contraction is very rapid and striking. The Saklawiyeh canal is given out upon the left, and some way furtherdown the Hindiyeh branches off upon the right, each carrying, when theEuphrates is full, a large body of water. The consequence is that atHillah, 90 miles-below Felujiah, the stream is no more than 200 yardswide and 15 feet deep; at Diwaniyeh, 65 miles further down, it is only160 yards wide; and at Lamlun, 20 miles below Diwaniyeh, it is reducedto 120 yards wide, with a depth of no more than 12 feet! Soon after, however, it begins to recover itself. The water, which left it by theHindiyeh, returns to it upon the one side, while the Shat-el-Hie andnumerous other branch streams from the Tigris flow in upon the other;but still the Euphrates never recovers itself entirely, nor evenapproaches in its later course to the standard of its earlier greatness. The channel from Kurnah to El Khitr was found by Colonel Chesney to havean average width of only 200 yards, and a depth of about 18 or 19 feet, which implies a body of water far inferior to that carried between thejunction with the Khabour and Hit. More recently, the decline of thestream in its latter course has been found to be even greater. Neglectof the banks has allowed the river to spread itself more and more widelyover the land: and it is said that, except in the flood time, verylittle of the Euphrates water reaches the sea. Nor is this anunprecedented or very unusual state of things. From the circumstance(probably) that it has been formed by the deposits of streams flowingfrom the east as well as from the north, the lower Mesopotamian plainslopes not only to the south, but to the west. The Euphrates, which haslow banks, is hence at all times inclined to leave its bed, and to flowoff to the right, where large tracts are below its ordinary level. Overthese it spreads itself, forming the well-known "Chaldaean marshes, "which absorb the chief proportion of the water that flows into them, andin which the "great river" seems at various times to have wholly, oralmost wholly, lost itself. No such misfortune can befall the Tigris, which runs in a deep bed, and seldom varies its channel, offering astrong contrast to the sister stream. 

Frequent allusion has been made, in the course of this description ofthe Tigris and Euphrates, to the fact of their having each a floodseason. Herodotus is scarcely correct when he says that in Babylonia"the river does not, as in Egypt, overflow the corn-lands of its ownaccord, but is spread over them by the help of engines. " Both theTigris and Euphrates rise many feet each spring, and overflow theirbanks in various places. The rise is caused by the melting of the snowsin the mountain regions from which the two rivers and their affluentsspring. As the Tigris drains the southern, and the Euphrates thenorthern side of the same mountain range, the flood of the former streamis earlier and briefer than that of the latter. The Tigris commonlybegins to rise early in March, and reaches its greatest height in thefirst or second week of May, after which it rapidly declines, andreturns to its natural level by the middle of June. The Euphrates firstswells about the middle of March, and is not in full flood till quitethe end of May or the beginning of June; it then continues high forabove a month, and does not sink much till the middle of July, afterwhich it gradually falls till September. The country inundated by theTigris is chiefly that on its lower course, between the 32d and 31stparallels, the territory of the Beni Lam Arabs. The territory which theEuphrates floods is far more extensive. As high up as its junction withthe Khabour, that stream is described as, in the month of April, "spreading over the surrounding country like a sea. " From Hitdownwards, it inundates both its banks, more especially the countryabove Baghdad (to which it is carried by the Saklawiyeh canal), thetract west of the Birs Nimrud and extending thence by way of Nedjif toSamava and the territory of the Affej Arabs, between the rivers aboveand below the 32d parallel. Its flood is, however, very irregular, owing to the nature of its banks, and the general inclination of theplain, whereof mention was made above. If care is taken, the inundationmay be pretty equally distrib uted on either side of the stream; but ifthe river banks are neglected, it is sure to flow mainly to the west, rendering the whole country on that side the river a swamp, and leavingthe territory on the left bank almost without water. This state ofthings may be traced historically from the age of Alexander to thepresent day, and has probably prevailed more or less since the time whenChaldaea received its first inhabitants. 

The floods of the Tigris and Euphrates combine with the ordinary actionof their streams upon their banks to produce a constant variation intheir courses, which in a long period of time might amount to somethingvery considerable. It is impossible to say, with respect to any portionof the alluvial plain, that it may not at some former period have beenthe bed of one or the other river. Still it would seem that, on thewhole, a law of compensation prevails, with the result that the generalposition of the streams in the valley is not very different now from whatit was 4000 years ago. Certainly between the present condition of thingsand that in the time of Alexander, or even of Herodotus, no greatdifference can be pointed out, except in the region immediately adjoiningon the gulf, where the alluvium has grown, and the streams, which wereformerly separate, have united their waters. The Euphrates still flowsby Hit and through Babylon; the Tigris passes near Opis, and at Baghdadruns at the foot of an embankment made to confine it by Nebuchadnezzar. The changes traceable are less in the main courses than in the branchstreams, which perpetually vary, being sometimes left dry within a fewyears of the time that they have been navigable channels. 

The most important variations of this kind are on the side of Arabia. Here the desert is always ready to encroach; and the limits of Chaldaeaitself depend upon the distance from the main river, to which some branchstream conveys the Euphrates water. In the most flourishing times of thecountry, a wide and deep channel, branching off near Hit, at the verycommencement of the alluvium, has skirted the Arabian rock and gravel fora distance of several hundred miles, and has entered the Persian Gulf bya mouth of its own. In this way the extent of Chaldaea has been at timeslargely increased, a vast tract being rendered cultivable, which isotherwise either swamp or desert. 

Such are the chief points of interest connected with the two greatMesopotamian rivers. These form, as has been already observed, the onlymarked and striking characteristics of the country, which, except forthem, and for one further feature, which now requires notice, would beabsolutely unvaried and uniform. On the Arabian side of the Euphrates, 50 miles south of the ruins of Babylon, and 25 or 30 miles from theriver, is a fresh-water lake of very considerable dimensions--theBahr-i-Nedjif, the "Assyrium stagnum" of Justin. This is a naturalbasin, 40 miles long, and from 10 to 20 miles broad, enclosed on threesides by sandstone cliffs, varying from 20 to 200 feet in height, andshut in on the fourth side--the north-east--by a rocky ridge, whichintervenes between the valley of the Euphrates and this inland sea. Thecliffs are water-worn, presenting distinct indications of more than onelevel at which the water has rested in former times. At the season ofthe inundation this lake is liable to be confounded with the extensivefloods and marshes which extend continuously from the country west ofthe Birs Nimrud to Samava. But at other tines the distinction betweenthe Bahr and the marshes is very evident, the former remaining when thelatter disappear altogether, and not diminishing very greatly in sizeeven in the driest season. The water of the lake is fresh and sweet, solong as it communicates with the Euphrates; when the communication iscut off it becomes very unpalatable, and those who dwell in the vicinityare no longer able to drink it. This result is attributed to theconnection of the lake with rocks of the gypsiferous series. 

It is obvious that the only natural divisions of Chaldaea a proper arethose made by the river-courses. The principal tract must always havebeen that which intervenes between the two streams. This was anciently adistrict some 300 miles in length, varying from 20 to 100 miles inbreadth, and perhaps averaging 50 miles, which must thus have containedan area of about 15, 000 square miles. The tract between the Euphratesand Arabia was at all times smaller than this, and in the mostflourishing period of Chaldaea must have fallen short of 10, 000 squaremiles. 

We have no evidence that the natural division of Chaldaea here indicatedwas ever employed in ancient times for political purposes. The divisionwhich appears to have been so employed was one into northern and southernChaldaea, the first extending from Hit to a little below Babylon, thesecond from Niffer to the shores of the Persian Gulf. In each of thesedistricts we have a sort of tetrarchy, or special pre-eminence of fourcities, such as appears to be indicated by the words--"The beginning ofhis kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad and Calneh, in the land ofShinar. " The southern tetrarchy is composed of the four cities, Ur orHur, Huruk, Nipur, and Larsa or Larancha, which are probably identifiedwith the Scriptural "Ur of the Chaldees, " Erech, Calneh, and Ellasar. The northern consists of Babel or Babylon, Borsippa, Cutha, and Sippara, of which all except Borsippa are mentioned in Scripture. Besides thesecities the country contained many others, --as Chilmad, Dur-Kurri-galzu, Ihi or Ahava, Rubesi, Duran, Tel-Humba, etc. It is not possible atpresent to locate with accuracy all these places. We may, however, inthe more important instances, fix either certainly, or with a very highdegree of probability, their position. 

Hur or Ur, the most important of the early capitals, was situated on theEuphrates, probably at no great distance from its mouth. It was probablythe chief commercial emporium in the early times; as in the bilingualvocabularies its ships are mentioned in connection with those ofEthiopia. The name is found to have attached to the extensive ruins (nowabout six miles from the river, on its right bank, and nearly oppositeits junction with the Shat-el-Hie) which are known by the name ofMugheir, or "the bitumened. " Hereon a dead flat, broken only by a fewsand-hills, are traces of a considerable town, consisting chiefly of aseries of low mounds, disposed in an oval shape, the largest diameter ofwhich runs from north to south, and measures somewhat more than half amile. The chief building is a temple, hereafter to be more particularlydescribed, which is a very conspicuous object even at a considerabledistance, its greatest height above the plain being about seventy feet. It is built in a very rude fashion, of large bricks, cemented withbitumen, whence the name by which the Arabs designate the ruins. 

[Illustration: PLATE 1]

About thirty miles from Hur, in a north-westerly direction, and on theother side of the Euphrates, from which it is distant eight or ninemiles, are the ruins of a town, called in the inscriptions Larrak, orLarsa, in which some of the best Orientalists have recognized at once theBiblical Ellasar, the Laranchue of Berosus, and the Larissa ofApollodorus, where the king held his court who sent Memnon to the siegeof Troy. The identification is perhaps doubtful; but, at any rate, wehave here the remains of a second Chaldaean capital, dating from the veryearliest times. The ruins, which bear now the name of Senkereh orSinkara, consist of a low circular platform, about four and a half milesin circumference, rising gradually from the level of the plain to acentral mound, the highest point of which attains an elevation of seventyfeet above the plain itself, and is distinctly visible from a distance offifteen miles. The material used consists of the ordinary sun-dried andbaked bricks; and the basement platforms bear the inscriptions of thesame king who appears to have been the original founder of the chiefbuildings at Ur or Mugheir. 

[Illustration: PLATE 2]

Fifteen miles from Larsa, in a direction a little north of west, and onthe same side of the river, are ruins considerably more extensive thanthose of either Ur or Larsa, to which the natives apply the name ofWarka, which is no doubt a corruption of the original appellation. TheErech, or Orech, of the Hebrews, which appears as Huruk in the cuneiformgeographical lists, became known to the Greeks as Orchoe; and thisappellation, probably continuing in use to the time of the Arab conquest, was then corrupted into Urka or Warka, in which shape the name given byNimrod still attaches to the second of his cities. The ruins stand inlat. 31 deg. 19', long. 45 deg. 40', about four miles from the nearestbend of the Euphrates, on its left or east bank. They form an irregularcircle, nearly six miles in circumference, which is defined by the tracesof an earthen rampart, in some places forty feet high. A vast mass ofundulating mounds, intersected by innumerable channels and ravines, extends almost entirely across the circular space, in a direction, whichis nearly north and south, abutting at either end upon the rampart. Eastand west of this mass is a comparatively open space, where the mounds arescattered and infrequent; while outside the rampart are not only a numberof detached hillocks marking the site of ancient buildings, but in onedirection--towards the east--the city may be traced continuously by meansof ruined edifices, mounds, and pottery, fully three miles beyond therampart into the desert. The greatest height of the ruins is about 100feet; their construction is very rude and primitive, the date of somebuildings being evidently as early as that of the most ancient structuresof either Mugheir or Senkereh. 

Sixty miles to the north-west of these ruins, still on the left oreastern bank of the Euphrates, but at the distance of thirty miles fromits present course, are the remains of another city, the only Chaldaeanruins which can dispute, with those already described, the palm ofantiquity. They consist of a number of separate and distinct heaps, which seem to be the remains of different buildings, and are divided intotwo nearly equal groups by a deep ravine or channel 120 feet wide, apparently the dry bed of a river which once ran through the town. Conspicuous among the other hillocks is a conical heap, occupying acentral position on the eastern side of the river-bed, and rising to theheight of about seventy feet above the general level of the plain. Further on in this direction is a low continuous mound, which seems to bea portion of the outer wall of the city. The ruins are of considerableextent, but scarcely so large as those at either Senkereh or Warka. Thename which now attaches to them is Niffer: and it appears, from theinscriptions at the place, that the ancient Semitic appellation was butslightly different. This name, as read on the bilingual tablets, wasNipur; and as there can be little doubt that it is this word whichappears in the Talmud as Nopher, we are perhaps entitled, on theauthority of that treasure-house of Hebrew traditions, to identify theseruins with the Calneh of Moses, and the Calno of Isaiah. 

About sixty-five miles from Niffer, on the opposite side of theEuphrates, and in a direction only slightly north of west, are theremains of the ancient Borsippa. These consist of little more than theruins of a single building--the great temple of Merodach--which wasentirely rebuilt by Nebuchadnezzar. They have been sometimes regarded asreally a portion of the ancient Babylon; but this view is whollyincompatible with the cuneiform records, which distinctly assign to theruins in question the name of Borsip or Borsippa, a place known withcertainty to have been distinct from, though in the neighborhood of, thecapital. A remnant of the ancient name appears to be contained in themodern appellation, Birs-Nimrud or Birsi-Nimrud, which does not admit ofany explanation from the existing language of the country. 

Fifteen miles from thence, to the north-east, chiefly but not entirely onthe left or east bank of the Euphrates, are the remains of "Babylon theGreat, " which have been so frequently described by travellers, thatlittle need be said of them in this place. The chief ruins cover a spaceabout three miles long, and from one to two broad, and consist mainly ofthree great masses: the first a square mound, called "Babil" by theArabs, lying towards the north at some distance from the other remains;the second or central mound, a pile called the "Kasr" or Palace; and thethird, a great irregular heap lying towards the south, known as the"mound of Amram, " from a tomb which crowns its summit. The "Kasr" and"Amram" mounds are enclosed within two lines of rampart, lying at rightangles to each other, and forming, with the river, a sort of triangle, within which all the principal ruins are comprised, except the moundcalled "Babil". Beyond the rampart, towards the north, south, and east, and also across the river to the west, are various smaller detachedruins, while the whole ground, in every direction, is covered withfragments of brick and with nitre, the sure marks of former habitations. 

[Illustration: PLATE 3]

The other cities of ancient Chaldaea which may be located with anapproach to certainty, are Cutha, now Ibrahim, fifteen miles north-eastby north of Hymar; Sippara or Sepharvaim, which was at Sura, near Mosaibon the Euphrates, about twenty miles above Babylon by the direct route;and Dur-Kurri-galzu, now Akkerkuf, on the Saklawiyeh canal, six milesfrom Baghdad, and thirty from Mosaib, in a direction a little west ofnorth. [PLATE III. , Fig. 1. ] Ihi, or Ahava, is probably Hit, ninetymiles above Mosaib, on the right bank of the river; Chilmad may beKalwadha, near Baghdad; and Rubesi is perhaps Zerghul, near the left bankof the Shat-el-Hie, a little above its confluence with the Euphrates. Chaldaean cities appear likewise to have existed at Hymar, ten miles fromBabylon towards the east; at Sherifeh and Im Khithr, south and south-eastof Hymar; at Zibbliyeh, on the line of the Nil canal, fifteen milesnorth-west of Niffer; at Delayhim and Bisrniya, in the Affej marshes, beyond Niffer, to the south-east; at Phara and Jidr, in the same region, to the south-west and south-east of Bismiya; at Hammam [PLATE III. , Fig. 2], sixteen miles south-east of Phara, between the Affej and the Shatramarshes; at Tel-Ede, six miles from Hammam, to the south-south-west[PLATE IV. , Fig. 2]; at Tel-Medineh and Tel-Sifr, in the Shatra marshes, to the south-east of Tel-Ede and the north-east of Senkereh; at Yokha, east of Hammam, and Nuffdyji, north of Warka; at Lethami, near Niffer; atIskhuriyeh, north of Zibbliyeh, near the Tigris; at Tel-Kheir andTel-Dhalab, in the upper part of the alluvium, to the north of Akkerkuf;at Duair, on the right bank of the Euphrates, south of Hilleh andsouth-east of the Birs-Nimrud; at Jeb Mehari, south of theBahr-i-Nedjif; at Mal Battush, near Swaje; at Tel-el-Lahm, nine or tenmiles south of Suk-es-Sheioukh, and at Abu Shahrein, in the sameneighborhood, on the very border of the Arabian Desert. Furtherinvestigation will probably add largely to this catalogue, for manyparts of Babylonia are still to some extent unexplored. This isespecially true of the tract between the Shat-el-Hie and the lowerTigris, a district which, according to the geographers, abounds withruins. No doubt the most extensive and most striking of the old citieshave been visited; for of these Europeans are sure to hear through thereports of natives. But it is more than probable that a number of themost interesting sites remain unexplored, and even unvisited; for theseare not always either very extensive or very conspicuous. The processof gradual disintegration is continually lowering the height of theChaldaean ruins; and depressed mounds are commonly the sign of anancient and long-deserted city. Such remains give us an insight intothe character of the early people, which it is impossible to obtain fromruins where various populations have raised their fabrics in successionupon the same spot. 

[Illustration: PLATE 4]

The cities here enumerated may not perhaps, in all cases, have existed inthe Chaldaean period. The evidence hitherto obtained connects distinctlywith that period only the following--Babylon, Ur or Hur, Larrak or Larsa, Erech or Huruk, Calneh or Nopher, Sippara, Dur-Kurri-galzu, Chilmad, andthe places now called Abu Shahrein and Tel-Sifr. These sites, it will beobserved, were scattered over the whole territory from the extreme southalmost to the extreme north, and show the extent of the kingdom to havebeen that above assigned to it. They are connected together by asimilarity in building arrangements and materials, in language, in formof type and writing, and sometimes in actual names of monarchs. The mostancient, apparently, are those towards the south, at Warka, Senkereh, Mugheir, and Niffer; and here, in the neighborhood of the sea, which thenprobably reached inland as far as Suk-es-Sheioukh, there is sufficientreason to place the primitive seat of Chaldaean power. The capital ofthe whole region was at first Ur or Hur, but afterwards became Nipur, andfinally Babel or Babylon. 

The geography of Chaldaea is scarcely complete without a glance at thecountries which adjoin upon it. On the west, approaching generallywithin twenty or thirty miles of the present course of the Euphrates, isthe Arabian Desert, consisting in this place of tertiary sand andgravels, having a general elevation of a few feet above the Mesopotamianplain, and occasionally rising into ridges of no great height, whosedirection is parallel to the course of the great stream. Such are theHazem and the Qassaim, in the country between the Bahr-i-Nedjif and thePersian Gulf, low pebbly ridges which skirt the valley from the Bahr tobelow Suk-es-Sheioukh. Further west the desert becomes more stony, itssurface being strewn with numerous blocks of black granite, from which itderives its appellation of Hejerra. No permanent streams water thisregion; occasional "wadys" or torrent-courses, only full after heavyrains, are found; but the scattered inhabitants depend for water chieflyon their wells, which are deep and numerous, but yield only a scantysupply of a brackish and unpalatable fluid. No settled population can atany time have found subsistence in this region, which produces only a fewdates, and in places a poor and unsucculent herbage. Sandstorms arefrequent, and at times the baleful simoon sweeps across the entire tract, destroying with its pestilential breath both men and animals. 

Towards the north Chaldaea adjoined upon Assyria. From the foot of thatmoderately lofty range already described which the Greeks call Masius, and the modern Turks know as Jebel Tur and Karajah Dagh, extends, forabove 300 miles, a plain of low elevation, slightly undulating in places, and crossed about its centre by an important limestone ridge, known asthe Sinjar hills, which have a direction nearly east and west, beginningabout Mosul, and terminating a little below Rakkah. This track differsfrom the Chaldaean lowland, by being at once less flat and more elevated. Geologically it is of secondary formation, while Chaldaea proper istertiary or post-tertiary. It is fairly watered towards the north, butbelow the Sinjar is only very scantily supplied. In modern times it isfor nine months in the year a desert, but anciently it was wellinhabited, means having apparently been found to bring the whole intocultivation. As a complete account of this entire region must be givenin another part of the present volume, this outline (it is thought) maysuffice for our present purpose. 

Eastward of Chaldaea, separated from it by the Tigris, which in its lowercourse is a stream of more body than the Euphrates, was the country knownto the Jews as Elam, to the early Greeks as Cissia, and to the laterGreeks as Susis or Susiana. This territory comprised a portion of themountain country which separates Mesopotamia from Persia; but it waschiefly composed of the broad and rich flats intervening between themountains and the Tigris, along the courses of the Kerkhah, Kuran, andJerahi rivers. It was a rich and fertile tract, resembling Chaldaea inits general character, with the exception that the vicinity of themountains lent it freshness, giving it cooler streams, more frequentrains, and pleasanter breezes. 

Capable of maintaining with ease a dense population, it was likely, inthe early times, to be a powerful rival to the Mesopotamian kingdom, overwhich we shall find that in fact it sometimes exercised supremacy. 

On the south Chaldaea had no neighbor. Here a spacious sea, with fewshoals, land-locked, and therefore protected from the violent storms ofthe Indian Ocean, invited to commerce, offering a ready communicationwith India and Ceylon, as well as with Arabia Felix, Ethiopia, and Egypt. It is perhaps to this circumstance of her geographical position, as muchas to any other, that ancient Chaldaea owes her superiority over herneighbors, and her right to be regarded as one of the five greatmonarchies of the ancient world. Commanding at once the sea, whichreaches here deep into the land, and the great rivers by means of whichthe commodities of the land were most conveniently brought down to thesea, she lay in the highway of trade, and could scarcely fail to profitby her position. There is sufficient reason to believe that Ur, thefirst capital, was a great maritime emporium; and if so, it can scarcelybe doubted that to commerce and trade, at the least in part, the earlydevelopment of Chaldaean greatness was owing. 

CHAPTER II. 

CLIMATE AND PRODUCTIONS. 

"Ager totius Asiae fertilissimus. "--PLIN. H. N. Vi. 26. 

Lower Mesopotamia, or Chaldaea, which lies in the same latitude withCentral China, the Punjab, Palestine, Marocco, Georgia, Texas, andCentral California, has a climate the warmth of which is at least equalto that of any of those regions. Even in the more northern part of thecountry, the district about Baghdad, the thermometer often rises duringthe summer to 120 deg. Of Fahrenheit in the shade; and the inhabitantsare forced to retreat to their _serdabs_ or cellars, where they remainduring the day, in an atmosphere which, by the entire exclusion of thesun's rays, is reduced to about 100 deg. Lower down the valley, atZobair, Busrah, and Mohammrah, the summer temperature is still higher;and, owing to the moisture of the atmosphere, consequent on the vicinityof the sea, the heat is of that peculiarly oppressive character whichprevails on the sea-coast of Hindustan, in Ceylon, in the West IndianIslands, at New Orleans, and in other places whose situation is similar. The vital powers languish under this oppression, which produces in theEuropean a lassitude of body and a prostration of mind that wholly unfithim for active duties. On the Asiatic, however, these influences seem tohave little effect. The Cha'b Arabs, who at present inhabit the region, are a tall and warlike race, strong-limbed, and muscular; they appear toenjoy the climate, and are as active, as healthy, and as long-lived asany tribe of their nation. But if man by long residence becomesthoroughly inured to the intense heat of these regions, it is otherwisewith the animal creation. Camels sicken, and birds are so distressed bythe high temperature that they sit in the date-trees about Baghdad, withtheir mouths open, panting for fresh air. 

The evils proceeding from a burning temperature are augmented in placesunder the influence of winds, which, arising suddenly, fill the air withan impalpable sand, sometimes circling about a point, sometimes drivingwith furious force across a wide extent of country. The heatedparticles, by their contact with the atmosphere, increase its fervidglow, and, penetrating by the nose and mouth, dry up the moisture of thetongue, parch the throat, and irritate or even choke the lungs. Earthand sky are alike concealed by the dusty storm, through which no objectcan be distinguished that is removed many yards; a lurid gleam surroundsthe traveller, and seems to accompany him as he moves: every landmark ishid from view; and to the danger of suffocation is added that of becomingbewildered and losing all knowledge of the road. Such are the perilsencountered in the present condition of the country. It may be doubted, however, if in the times with which we are here concerned the evils justdescribed had an existence. The sands of Chaldaea, which are stillprogressive and advancing, seem to have reached it from the ArabianDesert, to which they properly belong: year by year the drifts gain uponthe alluvium, and threaten to spread over the whole country. If we maycalculate the earlier by the present rate of progress, we must concludethat anciently these shifting sands had at any rate not crossed theEuphrates. 

If the heat of summer be thus fierce and trying, the cold of winter mustbe pronounced to be very moderate. Frost, indeed, is not unknown in thecountry: but the frosts are only slight. Keen winds blow from the north, and in the morning the ground is often whitened by the congelation of thedew; the Arabs, impatient of a low temperature, droop and flag; but thereis at no time any severity of cold; ice rarely forms in the marshes; snowis unknown; and the thermometer, even on the grass, does not often sinkbelow 30 deg. The Persian kings passed their winter in Babylon, onaccount of the mildness of the climate; and Indian princes, expelled fromthe Peninsula, are wont, from a similar cause, to fix their residence atBusrah or Baghdad. The cold of which travellers speak is relative ratherthan positive. The range of the thermometer in Lower Chaldoea is perhaps100 deg. , whereas in England it is scarcely 80 deg. , there is thus agreater difference between the heat of summer and the cold of winterthere than here; but the actual greatest cold--that which benumbs theArabs and makes them fall from their horses--is no more than we oftenexperience in April, or even in May. 

The rainy season of Chaldaea is in the winter time. Heavy showers fallin November, and still more in December, which sensibly raise the levelof the rivers. As the spring advances the showers become lighter andless frequent; but still they recur from time to time, until the summersets in, about May. From May to November rain is very rare indeed. Thesky continues for weeks or even months without a cloud; and the sun'srays are only tempered for a short time at morning and at evening by agray mist or haze. It is during these months that the phenomenon of themirage is most remarkable. The strata of air, unequally heated, andtherefore differing in rarity, refract the rays of light, fantasticallyenlarging and distorting the objects seen through them, which frequentlyappear raised from the ground and hanging in mid-air, or else, by arepetition of their image, which is reflected in a lower stratum, givethe impression that they stand up out of a lake. Hence the delusionwhich has so often driven the traveller to desperation--the "image of acool, rippling, watery mirror, " which flies before him as he advances, and at once provokes and mocks his thirst. 

The fertility of Chaldaea in ancient times was proverbial. 

"Of all countries that we know, " says Herodotus, "there is none that isso fruitful in grain. It makes no pretension, indeed, of growing thefig, the olive, the vine, or any other tree of the kind; but in grain itis so fruitful as to yield commonly two hundred-fold, and when theproduction is at the greatest, even three hundred-fold. The blade of thewheat-plant and of the barley-plant is often four fingers in breadth. Asfor the millet and the sesame, I shall not say to what height they grow, though within my own knowledge; for I am not ignorant that what I havealready written concerning the fruitfulness of Babylonia must seemincredible to those who have not visited the country. " Theophrastus, thedisciple of Aristotle, remarks--"In Babylon the wheat-fields areregularly mown twice, and then fed off with beasts, to keep down theluxuriance of the leaf; otherwise the plant does not run to ear. Whenthis is done, the return, in lands that are badly cultivated, isfifty-fold; while, in those that are well farmed, it is a hundred-fold. "Strabo observes--"The country produces barley on a scale not knownelsewhere, for the return is said to be three hundred-fold. All otherwants are supplied by the palm, which furnishes not only bread, but wine, vinegar, honey, and meal. " Pliny follows Theophrastus, with theexception that he makes the return of the wheat-crop, where the land iswell farmed, a hundred and fifty-fold. The wealth of the region wasstrikingly exhibited by the heavy demands which were made upon it by thePersian kings, as well as by the riches which, notwithstanding thesedemands, were accumulated in the hands of those who administered itsgovernment. The money-tribute paid by Babylonia and Assyria to thePersians was a thousand talents of silver (nearly a quarter of a millionof our money) annually; while the tribute in kind was reckoned at onethird part of the contributions of the whole empire. Yet, despite thisdrain on its resources, the government was regarded as the best that thePersian king had to bestow, and the wealth accumulated by Babyloniansatraps was extraordinary. Herodotus tells us of a certainTritanteechmes, a governor, who, to his own knowledge, derived from hisprovince nearly two bushels of silver daily! This fortunate individualhad a "stud of sixteen thousand mares, with a proportionate number ofhorses. " Another evidence of the fertility of the region may be tracedin the fear of Artaxerxes Mnemon, after the battle of Cunaxa, lest theTen Thousand should determine to settle permanently in the vicinity ofSittace upon the Tigris. Whatever opinion may be held as to the exactposition of this place, and of the district intended by Xenophon, it iscertain that it was in the alluvial plain and so contained within thelimits of the ancient Chaldaea. 

Modern travellers, speaking of Chaldaea in its present condition, expressthemselves less enthusiastically than the ancients; but, on the whole, agree with them as to the natural capabilities of the country. "Thesoil, " says one of the most judicious, "is extremely fertile, producinggreat quantities of rice, dates, and grain of different kinds, though itis not cultivated to above half the degree of which it is susceptible. ""The soil is rich, " says another, "not less bountiful than that on thebanks of the Egyptian Nile. " "Although greatly changed by the neglect ofman, " observes a third, "those portions of Mesopotamia which are stillcultivated, as the country about Hillah, show that the region has all thefertility ascribed to it by Herodotus. " There is a general recognitionof the productive qualities of the district, combined with a generallamentation over the existing neglect and apathy which allow such giftsof Nature to run to waste. Cultivation, we are told, is now theexception, instead of the rule. "Instead of the luxuriant fields, thegroves and gardens of former times, nothing now meets the eye but an aridwaste. " Many parts of Chaldaea, naturally as productive as any others, are at present pictures of desolation. Large tracts are covered byunwholesome marshes, producing nothing but enormous reeds; others liewaste and bare, parched up by the fierce heat of the sun, and utterlydestitute of water; in some places, as has been already mentioned, sand-drifts accumulate, and threaten to make the whole region a mereportion of the desert. 

The great cause of this difference between ancient and modern Chaldaea isthe neglect of the water-courses. Left to themselves, the rivers tend todesert some portions of the alluvium wholly, which then become utterlyunproductive; while they spread themselves out over others, which areconverted thereby into pestilential swamps. A well-arranged system ofembankments and irrigating canals is necessary in order to develop thenatural capabilities of the country, and to derive from the rich soil ofthis vast alluvium the valuable and varied products which it can be madeto furnish. 

Among the natural products of the region two stand out as pre-eminentlyimportant-the wheat-plant and the date-palm. [PLATE IV. , Fig. 2. ]According to the native tradition, wheat was indigenous in Chaldaea; andthe first comers thus found themselves provided by the bountiful hand ofNature with the chief necessary of life. The luxuriance of the plant wasexcessive. Its leaves were as broad as the palm of a man's hand, and itstendency to grow leaves was so great that (as we have seen) theBabylonians used to mow it twice and then pasture their cattle on it forawhile, to keep down the blade and induce the plant to run to ear. Theultimate return was enormous; on the most moderate computation itamounted to fifty-fold at the least, and often to a hundred-fold. Themodern oriental is content, even in the case of a rich soil, with atenfold return. 

The date-palm was at once one of the most valuable and one of the mostornamental products of the country. "Of all vegetable forms, " says thegreatest of modern naturalists, "the palm is that to which the prize ofbeauty has been assigned by the concurrent voice of nations in all ages. "And though the date-palm is in form perhaps less graceful and lovely thansome of its sister species, it possesses in the dates themselves a beautywhich they lack. These charming yellow clusters, semi-transparent, whichthe Greeks likened to amber, and moderns compare to gold, contrast, bothin shade and tint, with the green feathery branches beneath whose shadethey hang, and give a richness to the landscape they adorn which addsgreatly to its attractions. And the utility of the palm has been at alltimes proverbial. A Persian poem celebrated its three hundred and sixtyuses. The Greeks, with more moderation, spoke of it as furnishing theBabylonians with bread, wine, vinegar, honey, groats, string and ropes ofall kinds, firing, and a mash for fattening cattle. The fruit wasexcellent, and has formed at all times an important article ofnourishment in the country. It was eaten both fresh and dried, formingin the latter case a delicious sweetmeat. The wine, "sweet butheadachy, " was probably not the spirit which it is at present customaryto distil from the dates, but the slightly intoxicating drink called_lagby_ in North Africa, which may be drawn from the tree itself bydecapitating it, and suffering the juice to flow. The vinegar wasperhaps the same fluid corrupted, or it may have been obtained from thedates. The honey was palm-sugar, likewise procurable from the sap. Howthe groats were obtained we do not know; but it appears that the pith ofthe palm was eaten formerly in Babylonia, and was thought to have a veryagreeable flavor. Ropes were made from the fibres of the bark; and thewood was employed for building and furniture. It was soft, light andeasily worked; but tough, strong and fibrous. 

The cultivation of the date-palm was widely extended in Chaldaea, probably from very early times. The combination of sand, moisture, and a moderately saline soil, in which it delights, was there found inperfection, more especially in the lower country, which had but recentlybeen reclaimed from the sea. Even now, when cultivation is almost whollylaid aside, a thick forest of luxuriant date-trees clothes the banks ofthe Euphrates on either side, from the vicinity of Mugheir to itsembouchure at the head of the Persian Gulf. Anciently the tract was muchmore generally wooded with them. "Palm-trees grow in numbers over thewhole of the flat country, " says one of the most observant and truthfulof travellers--Herodotus. According to the historians of Julian, aforest of verdure extended from the upper edge of the alluvium, which hecrossed, to Mesene, and the shores of the sea. When the Arabianconquerors settled themselves in the lower country, they were so charmedwith the luxuriant vegetation and the abundant date-groves, that theycompared the region with the country about Damascus and reckoned it amongtheir four earthly paradises. The propagation of the date-palm waschiefly from seed. In Chaldaea, however, it was increased sometimes fromsuckers or offshoots thrown up from the stem of the old tree; at othertimes by a species of cutting, the entire head being struck off withabout three feet of stem, notched, and then planted in moist ground. Several varieties of the tree were cultivated; but one was esteemed aboveall the rest, both for the size and flavor of the fruit. It bore thename of "Royal, " and grew only in one place near Babylon. 

Beside these two precious products, Chaldaea produced excellent barley, millet, sesame, vetches and fruits of all kinds. It was, however, deficient in variety of trees, possessing scarcely any but the palm andthe cypress. Pomegranates, tamarisks, poplars, and acacias are even nowalmost the only trees besides the two above mentioned, to be foundbetween Samarah and the Persian Gulf. The tamarisk grows chiefly as ashrub along the rivers, but sometimes attains the dimensions of a tree, as in the case of the "solitary tree" still growing upon the ruins ofBabylon. The pomegranates with their scarlet flowers, and the acaciaswith their light and graceful foliage, ornament the banks of the streams, generally intermingled with the far more frequent palm, while oranges, apples, pears, and vines are successfully cultivated in the gardens andorchards. 

[Illustration: PLATE 5]

Among the vegetable products of Chaldaea must be noticed, as almostpeculiar to the region, its enormous reeds. [PLATE V. ] These, whichare represented with much spirit in the sculptures of Sennacherib, coverthe marshes in the summer-time, rising often to the height of fourteen orfifteen feet. The Arabs of the marsh region form their houses of thismaterial, binding the stems of the reeds together, and bending them intoarches, to make the skeleton of their buildings; while, to form thewalls, they stretch across from arch to arch mats made of the leaves. From the same fragile substance they construct their _terradas_ or lightboats, which, when rendered waterproof by means of bitumen, will supportthe weight of three or four men. 

In mineral products Chaldaea was very deficient indeed. The alluvium iswholly destitute of metals, and even of stone, which must be obtained, ifwanted, from the adjacent countries. The neighboring parts of Arabiacould furnish sandstone and the more distant basalt; which appears tohave been in fact transported occasionally to the Chaldaean Cities. Probably, however, the chief importation of stone was by the rivers, whose waters would readily convey it to almost any part of Chaldaea fromthe regions above the alluvium. This we know to have been done in somecases, but the evidence of the ruins makes it clear that such importationwas very limited. The Chaldaeans found, in default of stone, a verytolerable material in their own country; which produced an inexhaustiblesupply of excellent clay, easily moulded into bricks, and not evenrequiring to be baked in order to fit it for the builder. Exposure tothe heat of the summer sun hardened the clay sufficiently for mostpurposes, while a few hours in a kiln made it as firm and durable asfreestone, or even granite. Chaldaea, again, yielded various substancessuitable for mortar. Calcareous earths abound on the western side of theEuphrates towards the Arabian frontier; while everywhere a tenaciousslime or mud is easily procurable, which, though imperfect as a cement, can serve the purpose, and has the advantage of being always at hand. Bitumen is also produced largely in some parts, particularly at Hit, where are the inexhaustible springs which have made that spot famous inall ages. Naphtha and bitumen are here given forth separately in equalabundance; and these two substances, boiled together in certainproportions, form a third kind of cement, superior to the slime or mud, but inferior to lime-mortar. Petroleum, called by the Orientals _mumia_, is another product of the bitumen-pits. 

The wild animals indigenous in Babylonia appear to be chiefly thefollowing:--the lion, the leopard, the hyeena, the lynx, the wild-cat, the wolf, the jackal, the wild-boar, the buffalo, the stag, the gazelle, the jerboa, the fox, the hare, the badger, and the porcupine. TheMesopotamian lion is a noble animal. Taller and larger than a Mount St. Bernard dog, he wanders over the plains their undisputed lord, unlesswhen an European ventures to question his pre-eminence. The Arabstremble at his approach, and willingly surrender to him the choicest oftheir flocks and herds. Unless urged by hunger, he seldom attacks man, but contents himself with the destruction of buffaloes, camels, dogs, andsheep. When taken young, he is easily tamed, and then manifestsconsiderable attachment to his master. In his wild state he haunts themarshes and the banks of the various streams and canals, concealinghimself during the day, and at night wandering abroad in search of hisprey, to obtain which he will approach with boldness to the very skirtsof an Arab encampment. His roar is not deep or terrible, but like thecry of a child in pain, or the first wail of the jackal after sunset, only louder, clearer and more prolonged. Two varieties of the lionappear to exist: the one is maneless, while the other has a long mane, which is black and shaggy. The former is now the more common in thecountry; but the latter, which is the fiercer of the two, is the oneordinarily represented upon the sculptures. The lioness is nearly asmuch feared as the lion; when her young are attacked, or when she haslost them, she is perhaps even more terrible. Her roar is said to bedeeper and far more imposing than of the male. 

[Illustration: PLATE 6]

The other animals require but few remarks. Gazelles are plentiful in themore sandy regions; buffaloes abound in the marshes of the south, wherethey are domesticated, and form the chief wealth of the inhabitants;troops of jackals are common, while the hyaena and wolf are comparativelyrare; the wild-boar frequents the river banks and marshes, as depicted inthe Assyrian sculptures [PLATE VI. , Fig. 1]; hares abound in the countryabout Baghdad; porcupines and badgers are found in most places--leopards, lynxes, wild-cats, and deer, are somewhat uncommon. 

Chaldaea possesses a great variety of birds. Falcons, vultures, kites, owls, hawks and crows of various kinds, francolins or black partridges, pelicans, wild-geese, ducks, teal, cranes, herons, kingfishers, andpigeons, are among the most common. The sand-grouse (Pteroclesarenarius) is occasionally found, as also are the eagle and thebee-eater. Fish are abundant in the rivers and marshes, principallybarbel and carp, which latter grow to a great size in the Euphrates. Barbel form an important element in the food of the Arabs inhabiting theAffej marshes, who take them commonly by means of a fish-spear. In theShat-el-Arab, which is wholly within the influence of the tides, thereis a species of goby, which is amphibious. This fish lies in myriads onthe mud-banks left uncovered by the ebb of the tide, and moves withgreat agility on the approach of birds. Nature seems to have made thegoby in one of her most freakish moods. It is equally at home in theearth, the air, and the water; and at different times in the day may beobserved swimming in the stream, basking upon the surface of the tidalbanks, and burrowing deep in the mud. 

The domestic animals are camels, horses, buffaloes, cows and oxen, goats, sheep, and dogs. The most valuable of the last mentioned are grayhounds, which are employed to course the gazelle and the hare. The camels, horses, and buffaloes are of superior quality; but the cows and oxen seemto be a very inferior breed. The goats and the sheep are small, andyield a scanty supply of a somewhat coarse wool. Still their flocks andherds constitute the chief wealth of the people, who have nearly forsakenthe agriculture which anciently gave Chaldaea its pre-eminence, and haverelapsed very generally into a nomadic or semi-nomadic condition. Theinsecurity of property consequent upon bad government has in a greatmeasure caused this change, which render; the bounty of Nature useless, and allows immense capabilities to run to waste. The present conditionof Babylonia gives a most imperfect idea of its former state, which mustbe estimated not from modern statistics, but from the accounts of ancientwriters and the evidences which he country itself presents. From them weconclude that this region was among the most productive upon the face ofthe earth, spontaneously producing some of the best gifts of God to man, and capable, under careful management, of being made one continuousgarden. 

CHAPTER III. 

THE PEOPLE. 

"A mighty nation, an ancient nation. "--JEREM. V. 15. 

That the great alluvial plain at the mouth of the Euphrates and Tigriswas among the countries first occupied by man after the Deluge, isaffirmed by Scripture, and generally allowed by writers upon ancienthistory. Scripture places the original occupation at a time whenlanguage had not yet broken up into its different forms, and when, consequently, races, as we now understand the term, can scarcely haveexisted. It is not, however, into the character of these primevalinhabitants that we have here to inquire, but into the ethnic affinitiesand characteristics of that race, whatever it was, which firstestablished an important kingdom in the lower part of the plain--akingdom which eventually became an empire. According to the ordinarytheory, this race was Aramaic or Semitic. "The name of Aramaeans, Syrians, or Assyrians, " says Niebuhr, "comprises the nations extendingfrom the mouth of the Euphrates and Tigris to the Euxine, the riverHalys, and Palestine. They applied to themselves the name of Aram, andthe Greeks called them Assyrians, which is the same as Syrians(?). Within that great extent of country there existed, of course, variousdialectic differences of language; and there can be little doubt but thatin some places the nation was mixed with other races. " The earlyinhabitants of Lower Mesopotamia, however, he considers to have been pureAramaeans, closely akin to the Assyrians, from whom, indeed, he regardsthem as only separate politically. 

Similar views are entertained by most modern writers. Baron Bunsen, inone of his latest works, regards the fact as completely established bythe results of recent researches in Babylonia. Professor M. Muller, though expressing himself with more caution, inclines to the sameconclusion. Popular works, in the shape of Cyclopaedias and shortgeneral histories, diffuse the impression. Hence a difficulty is feltwith regard to the Scriptural statement concerning the first kingdom inthese parts, which is expressly said to have been Cushite or Ethiopian. "And _Cush begat Nimrod:_ (he began to be a mighty one in the earth;he was a mighty hunter before the Lord; wherefore it is said, Even asNimrod, the mighty hunter before the Lord;) and the beginning of hiskingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh, in the land ofShinar. " According to this passage the early Chaldaeans should beHamites, not Semites--Ethiopians, not Aramaans; they should presentanalogies and points of connection with the inhabitants of Egypt andAbyssinia, of Southern Arabia and Mekran, not with those of UpperMesopotamia, Syria, Phoenicia, and Palestine. It will be one of theobjects of this chapter to show that the Mosaical narrative conveys theexact truth--a truth alike in accordance with the earliest classicaltraditions, and with the latest results of modern comparative philology. 

It will be desirable, however, before proceeding to establish thecorrectness of these assertions, to examine the grounds on which theopposite belief has been held so long and so confidently. Heeren drawshis chief argument from the supposed character of the language. Assumingthe form of speech called Chaldee to be the original tongue of thepeople, he remarks that it is "an Aramaean dialect, differing butslightly from the proper Syriac. " Chaldee is known partly from theJewish Scriptures, in which it is used occasionally, partly from theTargums (or Chaldaean paraphrases of different portions of the SacredVolume), some of which belong to about the time of the Apostles. Andpartly from the two Talmuds, or collections of Jewish traditions, made inthe third and fifth centuries of our era. It has been commonly regardedas the language of Babylon at the time of the Captivity, which the Jews, as captives, were forced to learn, and which thenceforth took the placeof their own tongue. But it is extremely doubtful whether this is a trueaccount of the matter. The Babylonian language of the age ofNebuchadnezzar is found to be far nearer to Hebrew than to Chaldee, whichappears therefore to be misnamed, and to represent the western ratherthan the eastern Aramaic. The Chaldee argument thus falls to the ground:but in refuting it an admission has been made which may be thought tofurnish fully as good proof of early Babylonian Semitism as the rejectedtheory. 

It has been said that the Babylonian language in the time ofNebuchadnezzar is found to be far nearer to Hebrew than to Chaldee. Itis, in fact, very close indeed to the Hebrew. The Babylonians of thatperiod, although they did not speak the tongue known to modern linguistsas Chaldee, did certainly employ a Semitic or Aramaean dialect, and sofar may be set down as Semites. And this is the ground upon which suchmodern philologists as still maintain the Semitic character of theprimitive Chaldaeans principally rely. But it can be proved from theinscriptions of the country, that between the date of the firstestablishment of a Chaldaean kingdom and the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, thelanguage of Lower Mesopotamia underwent an entire change. To whatevercauses this may have been owing--a subject which will be hereafterinvestigated--the fact is certain; and it entirely destroys the force ofthe argument from the language of the Babylonians at the later period. 

Another ground, and that which seems to have had the chief weight withNiebuhr, is the supposed identity or intimate connection of theBabylonians with the Assyrians. That the latter people were Semites hasnever been denied; and, indeed, it is a point supported by such an amountof evidence as renders it quite unassailable. If, therefore theprimitive Babylonians were once proved to be a mere portion of the fargreater Assyrian nation, locally and politically, but not ethnicallyseparate from them, their Semitic character would thereupon be fullyestablished. Now that this was the belief of Herodotus must be at onceallowed. Not only does that writer regard the later Babylonians asAssyrians--"Assyrians of Babylon, " as he expresses it--and look onBabylonia as a mere "district of Assyria, " but, by adopting the mythicgenealogy, which made Ninus the son of Belus, he throws back theconnection to the very origin of the two nations, and distinctlypronounces it a connection of race. But Herodotus is a very weakauthority on the antiquities of any nation, even his own; and it is notsurprising that he should have carried back to a remote period a state ofthings which he saw existing in his own age. If the later Babylonianswere, in manners and customs, in religion and in language, a close, counterpart of the Assyrians, he would naturally suppose them descendedfrom the same stock. It is his habit to transfer back to former timesthe condition of things in his own day. Thus he calls the inhabitants ofthe Peloponnese before the Dorian invasion "Dorians, " regards Athens asthe second city in Greece when Creesus sent his embassies, and describesas the ancient Persian religion that corrupted form which existed underArtaxerxes Longimanus. He is an excellent authority for what he hadhimself seen, or for what he had laboriously collected by inquiry fromeye witnesses; but he had neither the critical acumen nor the linguisticknowledge necessary for the formation of a trust worthy opinion on amatter belonging to the remote history of a distant people. And theopinion of Herodotus as to the ethnic identity of the two nations iscertainly not confirmed by other ancient writers. Berosus seems to havevery carefully distinguished between the Assyrians and the Babylonians orChaldaeans, as may be seen even through the doubly-distorting medium ofPolyhistor and the Armenian Eusebius. Diodorus Siculus made the twonations separate and hostile in very early times. Pliny draws a clearline between the "Chaldaean races, " of which Babylon was the head, andthe Assyrians of the region above them. Even Herodotus in one placeadmits a certain amount of ethnic difference; for, in his list of thenations forming the army of Xerxes, he mentions the Chaldaeans as servingwith, but not included among, the Assyrians. 

The grounds, then, upon which the supposed Semitic character of theancient Chaldaeans has been based, fail, one and all; and it remains toconsider whether we have data sufficient to justify us in determinatelyassigning them to any other stock. 

Now a large amount of tradition--classical and other--brings Ethiopiansinto these parts, and connects, more or less distinctly, the earlydwellers upon the Persian Gulf with the inhabitants of the Nile valley, especially with those upon its upper course. Homer, speaking of theEthiopians, says that they were "divided, " and dwelt "at the ends ofearth, towards the setting and the rising sun. " This passage has beenvariously apprehended. It has been supposed to mean the mere division ofthe Ethiopians south of Egypt by the river Nile, whereby some inhabitedits eastern and some its western bank. Again it has been explained asreferring to the east and west coasts of Africa, both found by voyagersto be in the possession of Ethiopians, who were "divided" by the vastextent of continent that lay between them. But the most satisfactoryexplanation is that which Strabo gives from Ephorus, that the Ethiopianswere considered as occupying all the south coast both of Asia and Africa, and as "divided" by the Arabian Gulf (which separated the two continents)into eastern and western-Asiatic and African. This was an "old opinion"of the Greeks, we are told; and, though Strabo thinks it indicated theirignorance, we may perhaps be excused for holding it that it might notimprobably have arisen from real, though imperfect, knowledge. 

The traditions with respect to Memnon serve very closely to connect Egyptand Ethiopia with the country at the head of the Persian Gulf. Memnon, King of Ethiopia, according to Hesiod and Pindar, is regarded by'Eschylus as the son of a Cissian woman, and by Herodotus and others asthe founder of Susa. He leads an army of combined Susianians andEthiopians to the assistance of Priam, his father's brother, and, aftergreatly distinguishing himself, perishes in one of the battles beforeTroy. At the same time he is claimed as one of their monarchs by theEthiopians upon the Nile, and identified by the Egyptians with theirking, Amunoph III. , whose statue became known as "the vocal Memnon. "Sometimes his expedition is supposed to have started from the AfricanEthiopia, and to have proceeded by way of Egypt to its destination. There were palaces, called "Memnonia, " and supposed to have been builtby him, both in Egypt and at Susa; and there was a tribe, calledMemnones, near Meroe. Memnon thus unites the Eastern and the WesternEthiopians; and the less we regard him as an historical personage, themore must we view him as personifying the ethnic identity of the tworaces. 

The ordinary genealogies containing the name of Belus point in the samedirection, and serve more definitely to connect the Babylonians with theCushites of the Nile. Pherecydes, who is an earlier writer thanHerodotus, makes Agenor, the son of Neptune, marry Damno, the daughter ofBelus, and have issue Phoenix, Isaea, and Melia, of whom Melia marriesDanaus, and Isaea Aegyptus. Apollodorus, the disciple of Eratosthenes, expresses the connection thus:--"Neptune took to wife Libya (or Africa), and had issue Belus and Agenor. Belus married Anchinoe, daughter ofNile, who gave birth to AEgyptus, Danaus, Cepheus, and Phineus. Agenormarried Telephassa, and had issue Europa, Cadmus, Phoenix, and Cilix. "Eupolemus, who professes to record the Babylonian tradition on thesubject, tells us that the first Belus, whom he identifies with Saturn, had two sons, Belus and Canaan. Canaan begat the progenitor of thePhoenicians (Phoenix?), who had two sons, Chum and Mestraim, theancestors respectively of the Ethiopians and the Egyptians. Charax ofPergamus spoke of AEgyptus as the son of Belus. John of Antioch agreeswith Apollodorus, but makes certain additions. According to him, Neptuneand Lybia had three children, Agenor, Belus, and Enyalius or Mars. Belusmarried Sida, and had issue AEgyptus and Danaus; while Agenor marriedTyro, and became the father of five children--Cadmus, Phoenix, Syrus, Cilix, and Europa. 

Many further proofs might be adduced, were they needed, of the Greekbelief in an Asiatic Ethiopia, situated somewhere between Arabia andIndia, on the shores of the Erythraean Sea. Herodotus twice speaks ofthe Ethiopians of Asia, whom he very carefully distinguishes from thoseof Africa, and who can only be sought in this position. Ephorus, as wehave already seen, extended the Ethiopians along the whole of the coastwashed by the Southern Ocean. Eusebius has preserved a tradition that, in the reign of Amenophis III. , a body of Ethiopians migrated from thecountry about the Indus, and settled in the valley of the Nile. Hesiodand Apollodorus, by making Memnon, the Ethiopian king, son of the Dawn(Greek) imply their belief in an Ethiopia situated to the east ratherthan to the south of Greece. These are a few out of the many similarnotices which it would be easy to produce from classical writers, establishing, if not the fact itself, yet at any rate a full belief inthe fact on the part of the best informed among the ancient Greeks. 

The traditions of the Armenians are in accordance with those of theGreeks. The Armenian Geography applies the name of Cush, or Ethiopia, tothe four great regions, Media, Persia, Susiana or Elymais, and Aria, orto the whole territory between the Indus and the Tigris. Moses ofChorene, the great Armenian historian, identifies Belus, King of Babylon, with Nimrod; while at the same time he adopts for him a genealogy onlyslightly different from that in our present copies of Genesis, makingNimrod the grandson of Cush, and the son of Mizraim. He thus connects, in the closest way, Babylonia, Egypt, and Ethiopia Proper, unitingmoreover, by his identification of Nimrod with Belus, the Babylonians oflater times who worshipped Belus as their hero-founder, with theprimitive population introduced into the country by Nimrod. 

The names of Belus and Cush, thus brought into juxtaposition, haveremained attached to some portion or other of the region in question fromancient times to the present day. The tract immediately east of theTigris was known to the Greeks as Cissia or Cossaea, no less than asElymais or Elam. The country east of Kerman was named Kusan throughoutthe Sassanian period. The same region is now Beloochistan, the countryof the Belooches or Belus, while adjoining it on the east is Cutch, orKooch, a term standing to Cush is Belooch stands to Belus. Again, Cissiaor Cossaea is now Khuzistan, or the land of Khuz a name not very remotefrom Cush; but perhaps this is only a coincidence. 

To the traditions and traces here enumerated must be added, as of primaryimportance, the Biblical tradition, which is delivered to us very simplyand plainly in that precious document the "Toldoth Beni Noah, " or "Bookof the Generations of the Sons of Noah, " which well deserves to be called"the most authentic record that we possess for the affiliation ofnations. " "The sons of Ham, " we are told, "were Cush, and Mizraim, andPhut, and Canaan . . . . And Cush begat Nimrod . . . . And thebeginning of his kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh, inthe land of Shinar. " Here a primitive Babylonian kingdom is assigned toa people distinctly said to have been Cushite by blood, and to have stoodin close connection with Mizraim, or the people of Egypt, Phut, or thoseof Central Africa, and Canaan, or those of Palestine. It is the simplestand the best interpretation of this passage to understand it as assertingthat the four races--the Egyptians, Ethiopians, Libyans, andCanaanites--were ethnically connected, being all descended from Ham; andfurther, that the primitive people of Babylon were a subdivision of oneof these races, namely of the Cushites or Ethiopians, connected in somedegree with the Canaanites, Egyptians, and Libyans, but still moreclosely with the people which dwelt anciently upon the Upper Nile. 

The conclusions thus recommended to us by the consentient primitivetraditions of so many races, have lately received most important andunexpected confirmation from the results of linguistic research. Afterthe most remarkable of the Mesopotamian mounds had yielded theirtreasures, and supplied the historical student with numerous and copiousdocuments bearing upon the history of the great Assyrian and Babylonianempires, it was determined to explore Chaldaea Proper, where mounds ofless pretension, but still of considerable height, marked the sites of anumber of ancient cities. The excavations conducted at these places, especially at Niffer, Senkereh, Warka, and Mugheir, were eminentlysuccessful. Among their other unexpected results was the discovery, inthe most ancient remains, of a new form of speech, differing greatly fromthe later Babylonian language and presenting analogies with the earlylanguage of Susiana, as well as with that of the second column of theAchoemenian inscriptions. In grammatical structure this ancient tongueresembles dialects of the Turanian family, but its vocabulary has beenpronounced to be "decidedly Cushite or Ethiopian;" and the modernlanguages to which it approaches the nearest are thought to be the Mahraof Southern Arabia and the Galla of Abyssinia. Thus comparative philologyappears to confirm the old traditions. An Eastern Ethiopia instead ofbeing the invention of bewildered ignorance, is rather a reality whichhenceforth it will require a good deal of scepticism to doubt; and theprimitive race which bore sway in Chaldaea Proper is with muchprobability assigned to this ethnic type. The most striking physicalcharacteristics of the African Ethiopians were their swart complexions, and their crisp or frizzled hair. According to Herodotus the AsiaticEthiopian: were equally dark, but their hair was straight and notfrizzled. Probably in neither case was the complexion what we understandby black, but rather a dark red-brown or copper color, which is the tintof the modern Gallas and Abyssinians, as well as of the Cha'b andMontefik Arabs and the Belooches. The hair was no doubt abundant; but itwas certainly not woolly like that of the negroes. There is a markeddistinction between the negro hair and that of the Ethiopian race, whichis sometimes straight, sometimes crisp, but never woolly. Thisdistinction is carefully marked in the Egyptian monuments, as is also thedistinction between the Ethiopian and negro complexions; whence we mayconclude that there was as much difference between the two races inancient as in modern times. The African races descended from theEthiopians are on the whole a handsome rather than an ugly people; theirfigure is slender and well shaped; their features are regular, and havesome delicacy; the forehead is straight and fairly high; the nose long, straight, and fine, but scarcely so prominent as that of Europeans; thechin is pointed and good. [PLATE VI. , Fig. 2. ]

The principal defect is in the mouth, which has lips too thick and fullfor beauty, though they are not turned out like a negro's. We do notpossess any representations of the ancient people which can be distinctlyassigned to the early Cushite period. Abundant hair has been noticed inan early tomb; and this in the later Babylonians, who must have beendescended in great part from the earlier, was very conspicuous; butotherwise we have as yet no direct evidence with respect to the physicalcharacteristics of the primitive race. That they were brave and warlike, ingenious, energetic, and persevering, we have ample evidence, which willappear in later chapters of this work; but we can do little more thanconjecture their physical appearance, which, however, we may fairlysuppose to have resembled that of other Ethiopian nations. 

When the early inhabitants of ChaldAea are pronounced to have belonged tothe same race with the dwellers upon the Upper Nile, the questionnaturally arises, which were the primitive people, and which thecolonists? Is the country at the head of the Persian Gulf to be regardedas the original abode of the Cushite race, whence it spread eastward andwestward, on the one hand to Susiana, Persia Proper, Carmania, Gedrosia, and India itself; on the other to Arabia and the east coast of Africa?Or are we to suppose that the migration proceeded in one directiononly--that the Cushites, having occupied the country immediately to thesouth of Egypt, sent their colonies along the south coast of Arabia, whence they crept on into the Persian Gulf, occupying Chaldaea andSusiana, and thence spreading into Mekran, Kerman, and the regionsbordering upon the Indus? Plausible reasons maybe adduced in support ofeither hypothesis. The situation of Babylonia, and its proximity to thatmountain region where man must have first "increased and multiplied"after the Flood, are in favor of its being the original centre fromwhich the other Cushite races were derived. The Biblical genealogy ofthe sons of Ham points, however, the other way; for it derives Nimrodfrom Cush, not Cush from Nimrod. Indeed this document seems to followthe Hamites from Africa--emphatically "the land of Ham"--in one linealong Southern Arabia to Shinar or Babylonia, in another from Egyptthrough Canaan into Syria. The antiquity of civilization in the valleyof the Nile, which preceded by many centuries that even of primitiveChaldaea, is another argument in favor of the migration having been fromwest to east; and the monuments and traditions of the Chaldaeansthemselves have been thought to present some curious indications of anEast African origin. On the whole, therefore, it seems most probablethat the race designated in Scripture by the hero-founder Nimrod, andamong the Greeks by the eponym of Belus, passed from East Africa, by wayof Arabia, to the valley of the Euphrates, shortly before the opening ofthe historical period. 

Upon the ethnic basis here indicated, there was grafted, it would seem, at a very early period, a second, probably Turanian, element, which veryimportantly affected the character and composition of the people. The_Burbur_ or _Akkad, _ who are found to have been a principal tribe underthe early kings, are connected by name, religion, and in some degree bylanguage, with an important people of Armenia, called _Burbur_ and_Urarda, _ the Alarodians (apparently) of Herodotus. It has beenconjectured that this race at a very remote date descended upon the plaincountry, conquering the original Cushite inhabitants, and by degreesblending with them, though the fusion remained incomplete to the time ofAbraham. The language of the early inscriptions, though Cushite in itsvocabulary, is Turanian in many points of its grammatical structure, asin its use of post-positions, particles, and pronominal suffixes; and itwould seem, therefore, scarcely to admit of a doubt that the Cushites ofLower Babylon must in some way or other have become mixed with a Turanianpeople. The mode and time of the commixture are matters altogetherbeyond our knowledge. We can only note the fact as indicated by thephenomena, and form, or abstain from forming, as we please, hypotheseswith respect to its accompanying circumstances. 

Besides these two main constituents of the Chaldaean race, there isreason to believe that both a Semitic and an Arian element existed in theearly population of the country. The subjects of the early kings arecontinually designated in the inscriptions by the title of_kiprat-arbat, _ "the four nations, " or _arba lisun, _ "the four tongues. "In Abraham's time, again, the league of four kings seems correspondentto a fourfold ethnic division, Cushite, Turanian, Semitic, and Arian, the chief authority and ethnic preponderance being with the Cushites. The language also of the early inscriptions is thought to contain tracesof Semitic and Arian influence; so that it is at least probable that the"four tongues" intended were not mere local dialects, but distinctlanguages, the representatives respectively of the four great familiesof human speech. 

It would result from this review of the linguistic facts and other ethnicindications, that the Chaldaeans were not a pure, but a very mixedpeople. Like the Romans in ancient and the English in modern Europe, they were a "colluvio gentium omnium, " a union of various races betweenwhich there was marked and violent contrast. It is now generallyadmitted that such races are among those which play the mostdistinguished part in the world's history, and most vitally affect itsprogress. 

With respect to the name of Chaldaean, under which it has been customaryto designate this mixed people, it is curious to find that in the nativedocuments of the early period it does not occur at all. Indeed it firstappears in the Assyrian inscriptions of the ninth century before our era, being then used as the name of the dominant race in the country aboutBabylon. Still, as Berosus, who cannot easily have been ignorant of theancient appellation of his race, applies the term Chaldaean to theprimitive people, and as Scripture assigns Ur to the Chaldees as early asthe time of Abraham, we are entitled to assume that this term, wheneverit came historically into use, is in fact no unfit designation for theearly inhabitants of the country. Perhaps the most probable account ofthe origin of the word is that it designates properly the inhabitants ofthe ancient capital, Ur or Hur-Khaldi being in the Burbur dialect theexact equivalent of Hur, which was the proper name of the Moon-God, andChaldaeans being thus either "Moon-worshippers, " or simply "inhabitantsof the town dedicated to, and called after, the Moon. " Like the term"Babylonian, " it would at first have designated simply the dwellers inthe capital, and would subsequently have been extended to the peoplegenerally. 

A different theory has of late years been usually maintained with respectto the Chaldaeans. It has been supposed that they were a race entirelydistinct from the early Babylonians--Armenians, Arabs, Kurds, or Sclaves--who came down from the north long after the historical period, andsettled as the dominant race in the lower Mesopotamian valley. Philological arguments of the weakest and most unsatisfactory characterwere confidently adduced in support of these views; but they obtainedacceptance chiefly on account of certain passages of Scripture, whichwere thought to imply that the Chaldaeans first colonized Babylonia inthe seventh or eighth century before Christ. The most important of thesepassages is in Isaiah. That prophet, in his denunciation of woe uponTyre, says, according to our translation, --"Behold the land of theChaldaeans this people was not, till the Assyrian founded it for themthat dwell in the wilderness; they set up the towers thereof, they raisedup the palaces thereof; and he brought it to ruin;" or, according toBishop Lowth, "Behold the land of the Chaldaeans. This people was of noaccount. (The Assyrians founded it for the inhabitants of the desert, they raised the watch-towers, they setup the palaces thereof. ) Thispeople hath reduced her and shall reduce her to ruin. " It was arguedthat we had here a plain declaration that, till a little before Isaiah'stime, the Chaldaeans had never existed as a nation. Then, it was said, they obtained for the first time fixed habitations from one of theAssyrian kings, who settled them in a city, probably Babylon. Shortlyafterwards, following the analogy of so many Eastern races, they suddenlysprang up to power. Here another passage of Scripture was thought tohave an important bearing on their history. "Lo! I raise up theChaldaeans, " says Habakkuk, "that bitter and hasty nation, which shallmarch through the breadth of the land to possess the dwelling places thatare not theirs. They are terrible and dreadful; their judgment and theirdignity shall proceed of themselves; their horses also are swifter thanthe leopards, and are more fierce than the evening wolves: and theirhorsemen shall spread themselves, and their horsemen shall come from far;they shall fly as an eagle that hasteth to eat; they shall come all forviolence; their faces shall nip as the east wind, and they shall gatherthe captivity as the sand. And they shall scoff at the kings, and theprinces shall be a scorn unto them; they shall deride every stronghold;they shall heap dust and take it. " The Chaldaeans, recent occupants ofLower Mesopotamia, and there only a dominant race, like the Normans inEngland or the Lombards in North Italy, were, on a sudden, "raised"elevated from their low estate of Assyrian colonists to the conqueringpeople which they became under Nebuchadnezzar. 

Such was the theory, originally advanced by Gesenius, which, variouslymodified by other writers, held its ground on the whole as theestablished view, until the recent cuneiform discoveries. It was, fromthe first, a theory full of difficulty. The mention of the Chaldaeans inJob, and even in Genesis, as a well-known people, was in contradiction tothe supposed recent origin of the race. The explanation of the obscurepassage in the 23d chapter of Isaiah, on which the theory was mainlybased, was at variance with other clearer passages of the same prophet. Babylon is called by Isaiah the "_daughter_ of the Chaldaeans, " and isspoken of as an ancient city, long "the glory of kingdoms, " the oppressorof nations, the power that "smote the people in wrath with a continualstroke. " She is "the lady of kingdoms, " and "the beauty of the Chaldees'excellency. " The Chaldaeans are thus in Isaiah, as elsewhere generallyin Scripture, the people of Babylonia, the term "Babylonians" not beingused by him; Babylon is their chief city, not one which they haveconquered and occupied, but their "daughter"--"the beauty of theirexcellency;" and so all the antiquity and glory which is assigned toBabylon belong necessarily in Isaiah's mind to the Chaldaeans. Theverse, therefore, in the 23d chapter, on which so much has been built, can at most refer to some temporary depression of the Chaldaeans, whichmade it a greater disgrace to Tyre that she should be conquered by them. Again, the theory of Gesenius took no account of the native historian, who is (next to Scripture) the best literary authority for the facts ofBabylonian history. Berosus not only said nothing of any influx of analien race into Babylonia shortly before the time of Nebuchadnezzar, butpointedly identified the Chaldaeans of that period with the primitivepeople of the country. Nor can it be said that he would do this fromnational vanity, to avoid the confession of a conquest, for he admits nofewer than three conquests of Babylon, a "Midian, an Arabian, and anAssyrian. " Thus, even apart from the monuments, the theory in questionwould be untenable. It really originated in linguistic speculations, which turn out to have been altogether mistaken. 

The joint authority of Scripture and of Berosus will probably be acceptedas sufficient to justify the adoption of a term which, if not strictlycorrect, is yet familiar to us, and which will conveniently serve todistinguish the primitive monarchy, whose chief seats were in ChaldaeaProper (or the tract immediately bordering upon the Persian Gulf), fromthe later Babylonian Empire, which had its head-quarters further to thenorth. The people of this first kingdom will therefore be calledChaldaeans, although there is no evidence that they applied the name tothemselves, or that it was even known to them in primitive times. 

The general character of this remarkable people will best appear from theaccount, presently to be given, of their manners, their mode of life, their arts, their science, their religion, and their history. It is notconvenient to forestall in this place the results of almost all ourcoming inquiries. Suffice it to observe that, though possessed of notmany natural advantages, the Chaldaean people exhibited a fertility ofinvention, a genius, and an energy which place them high in the scale ofnations, and more especially in the list of those descended from aHamitic stock. For the last 3000 years the world has been mainlyindebted for its advancement to the Semitic and Indo-European races; butit was otherwise in the first ages. Egypt and Babylon--Mizraim andNimrod--both descendants of Ham--led the way, and acted as the pioneersof mankind in the various untrodden fields of art, literature, andscience. Alphabetic writing, astronomy, history, chronology, architecture, plastic art, sculpture, navigation, agriculture, textileindustry, seem, all of them, to have had their origin in one or other ofthese two countries. The beginnings may have been often humble enough. We may laugh at the rude picture-writing, the uncouth brick pyramid, thecoarse fabric, the homely and ill-shapen instruments, as they presentthemselves to our notice in the remains of these ancient nations; butthey are really worthier of our admiration than of our ridicule. Thefirst inventors of any art are among the greatest benefactors of theirrace; and the bold step which they take from the unknown to the known, from blank ignorance to discovery, is equal to many steps of subsequentprogress. "The commencement, " says Aristotle, "is more than half of thewhole. " This is a sound judgment; and it will be well that we shouldbear it in mind during the review, on which we are about to enter, of thelanguage, writing, useful and ornamental art, science, and literature ofthe Chaldaeans. "The child is father of the man, " both in the individualand the species; and the human race at the present day lies underinfinite obligations to the genius and industry of early ages. 

CHAPTER IV. 

LANGUAGE AND WRITING. 

It was noted in the preceding chapter that Chaldaea, in the earliesttimes to which we can go back, seems to have been inhabited by fourprincipal tribes. The early kings are continually represented on themonuments as sovereigns over the Kiprat-arbat, or, Four Races. These"Four Races" are called sometimes the Arba Lisun, or "Four Tongues, "whence we may conclude that they were distinguished from one another, among other differences, by a variety in their forms of speech. Theextent and nature of the variety could not, of course, be determinedmerely from this expression; but the opinion of those who have mostclosely studied the subject appears to be that the differences were greatand marked-the languages in fact belonging to the four great varieties ofhuman speech--Hamitic, Semitic, Arian, and Turanian. 

The language which the early inscriptions have revealed to us is not, ofcourse, composed equally of these four elements. It does, however, contain strong marks of admixture. It is predominantly Cushite in itsvocabulary, Turanian in its structure. Its closest analogies are withsuch dialects as the _Mahra_ of Arabia, the _Galla_ and _Wolaitsa_ ofAbyssinia, and the ancient language of Egypt, but in certain cases itmore resembles the Turkish. Tatar, and Magyar (Turanian) dialects; whilein some it presents Semitic and in others Arian affinities. This willappear sufficiently from the following list:

[Illustration: PAGE 42]

_Dingir, or Dimir, _ "God. " Compare Turkish _Tengri_. _Atta, _ "father. " Compare Turkish atta. _Etea_ is "father" in theWolaitsa (Abyssinian) dialect. _Sis, _ "brother. " Compare Wolaitsa and Woratta _isha_. _Tur, _ "a youth, " "a son, " Compare the _tur-khan_ of the Parthians (Turanians), who was the Crown Prince. _E, _ "a house. " Compare ancient Egyptian _e, _ and Turkish _ev_. _Ka, _ "a gate. " Compare Turkish _kapi_. _Kharran, _ "a road. " Compare Galla _kara_. _Huru, _ "a town. " Compare Heb. [--]_Ar, _ "a river. " Compare Heb. [--], Arab. _nahr_. _Gabri_, "a mountain. " Compare Arabic _jabal_. _Ki, _ "the earth. "_Kingi, _ "a country. "_San, _ "the sun. "_Kha, _ "a fish"(?). _Kurra, _ "a horse. " Compare Arabic _gurra_. _Guski, _ "gold. " Compare Galla _irerke_. _Guski_ means also "red" and"the evening. "_Babar, _ "silver, " "white, " "the morning. " Compare Agau _ber, _ Tigre _burrur_. _Zabar, _ "copper. " Compare Arabic _sifr_. _Hurud, _ "iron. " Compare Arabic _hadid_. _Zakad, _ "the head. " Compare Gonga _toko_. _Kat, _ "the hand. " Compare Gonga _kiso_. _Si, _ "the eye. "_Pi, _ "the ear. " Compare Magyar _ful_. _Gula, _ "great. " Compare Galla _guda_. _Tura, _ "little. " Compare Gonga _tu_ and Galla _tina_. _Kelga, _ "powerful. "_Ginn, _ "first. "_Mis, _ "many. " Compare Agau _minch_ or _mench_. _Gar, _ "to do. "_Egir, _ "after. " Compare Hhamara (Abyssinian) _igria_. 

The grammar of this language is still but very little known. Theconjugations of verbs are said to be very intricate and difficult, agreat variety of verbal forms being from the same root as in Hebrew, bymeans of preformatives. Number and person in the verbs are marked bysuffixes--the third person singular (masculine) by _bi_ (compare Gonga_bi, _ "he"), or _ani_ (compare Galla _enni, _ "he"), the third personplural by _bi-nini_. 

The accusative case in nouns is marked by a postposition, _ku_, as inHindustani. The plural of pronouns and substantives is formed sometimesby reduplication. Thus _ni_ is "him, " while _nini_ is "them;" and_Chanaan, Yavnan, Libnan_ seem to be plural forms from _Chna, Yavan_ and_Liban_. 

A curious anomaly occurs in the declension of pronouns. ' When accompaniedby the preposition kita, "with, " there is a tmesis of the preposition, and the pronouns are placed between its first and second syllable; e. G. Vi, him''-ki-ni-ta, "with him. " This takes place in every number andperson, as the following scheme will show:--

 1st person. 2d person. 3d person. 

 Sing. _ki-mu-ta_ _ki-zu-ta_ _ki-ni-ta_ (with me) (with thee) (with him)

 Plur. _ki mi-ta_ _ki zu-nini-ta_ _ki-nini-ta_ (with us) (with you) (with them)

N. B. --The formation of the second person plural deserves attention. Theword _zu-nini_ is, clearly, composed of the two elements, _zu, _ "thee, "and _nini, _ "them"--so that instead of having a word for "you, " theChaldaeans employed for it the periphrasis "thee-them"! There is, Ibelieve, no known language which presents a parallel anomaly. 

Such are the chief known features of this interesting but difficult formof speech. A specimen may now be given of the mode in which it waswritten. Among the earliests of the monuments hitherto discovered are aset of bricks bearing the following cuneiform inscription [PLATE VI. , Fig. 3]:

This inscription is explained to mean:--"Beltis, his lady, has causedUrukh (?), the pious chief, King of Hur, and King of the land (?) of theAkkad, to build a temple to her. " In the same locality where it occurs, bricks are also found bearing evidently the same inscription, but writtenin a different manner. Instead of the wedge and arrow-head being theelements of the writing, the whole is formed by straight lines of almostuniform thickness, and the impression seems to have been made by a singlestamp. [PLATE VII. , Fig. 1. ]

[Illustration: PLATE 7]

This mode of writing, which has been called without much reason "thehieratic, " and of which we have but a small number of instances, hasconfirmed a conjecture, originally suggested by the early cuneiformwriting itself, that the characters were at first the pictures ofobjects. In some cases the pictorial representation is very plain andpalpable. 

 [Etext Editor's Note: the next two pages contain many examples of heiratic symbols [--] which can be seen only in the html file or the jpg image ]

[Illustration: PAGE 44]

For instance, the "determinative" of a god--the sign that is, which marksthat the name of a god is about to follow, in this early rectilinearwriting is [--] an eight-rayed star. The archaic cuneiform keeps closelyto this type, merely changing the lines into wedges, thus [--], while thelater cuneiform first unites the oblique wedges in one [--], and thenomits them as unnecessary, retaining only the perpendicular and thehorizontal ones [--] . Again, the character representing the word "hand"is, in the rectilinear writing [--], in the archaic cuneiform [--], in the later cuneiform [--] . The five lines (afterwards reduced to four)clearly represent the thumb and the four fingers. So the characterordinarily representing "a house" is evidently formed from the original--, the ground-plan of a house; and that denoting "the sun" [--], comesfrom [--], through [--], and [--], the original [--] being the bestrepresentation that straight lines could give of the sun. In the case of_ka, _ "a gate, " we have not the original design; but we may see posts, bars, and hinges in [--], the ordinary character. 

Another curious example of the pictorial origin of the letters isfurnished by the character [--], which is the French _une, _ the feminineof "one. " This character may be traced up through several known forms toan original picture, which is thus given on a Koyunjik tablet [--] . It hasbeen conjectured that the object here represented is "a sarcophagus. "But the true account seems to be that it is a _double-toothed comb, _ atoilet article peculiar to women, and therefore one which might well betaken to express "a woman, " or more generally the feminine gender. It isworth notice that the emblem is the very one still in use among the Lurs, in the mountains overhanging Babylonia. And it is further remarkablethat the phonetic power of the character here spoken of is _it_ (or_yat_)the ordinary Semitic feminine ending. 

The original writing, it would therefore seem, was a picture-writing asrude as that of the Mexicans. Objects were themselves represented, butcoarsely and grotesquely--and, which is especially remarkable, withoutany curved lines. This would seem to indicate that the system grew upwhere a hard material, probably stone, was alone used. The cuneiformwriting arose when clay took the place of stone as a material. A smalltool with a square or triangular point, impressed, by a series ofdistinct touches, the outline of the old pictured objects on the softclay of tablets and bricks. In course of time simplifications tookplace. The less important wedges were omitted. One stroke took theplace of two, or sometimes of three. In this way the old form of objectsbecame, in all but a few cases, very indistinct; while generally it waslost altogether. 

Originally each character had, it would seem, the phonetic power of thename borne by the object which it represented. But, as this namee wasdifferent in the languages of the different tribes inhabiting thecountry, the same character came often to have several distinct phoneticvalues. For instance, the character [--] representing "a house, " had thephonetic values of _e, bit, _ and _mal, _ because those were the wordsexpressive of "a house, " among the Hamitic, Semitic, and Arianpopulations respectively. Again, characters did not always retain theiroriginal phonetic powers, but abbreviated them. Thus the character whichoriginally stood for _Assur, _ "Assyria, " came to have the sound of _as, _that denoting _bil_, "a lord, " had in addition the sound of _bi, _ and soon. Under these circumstances it is almost impossible to feel anycertainty in regard to the phonetic representation of a single line ofthese old inscriptions. The meaning of each word may be well known; butthe articulate sounds which were in the old times attached to them may bematter almost of conjecture. 

The Chaldaean characters are of three kinds-letters proper, monograms, and determinatives. With regard to the letters proper, there is nothingparticular to remark, except that they have almost always a syllabicforce. The monograms represent in a brief way, by a wedge or a group ofwedges, an entire word, often of two or three syllables, as Nebo, Babil, Merodach, etc. The determinatives mark that the word which theyaccompany is a word of a certain class, as a god, a man, a country, atown, etc. These last, it is probable, were not sounded at all when theword was read. They served, in some degree, the purpose of our capitalletters, in the middle of sentences, but gave more exact notice of thenature of the coming word. Curiously enough, they are retainedsometimes, where the word which they accompany has merely its phoneticpower, as (generally) when the names of gods form a part of the namesof monarchs. 

It has been noticed already that the chief material on which the ancientChaldaeans wrote was moist clay, in the two forms of tablets and bricks. On bricks are found only royal inscriptions, having reference to thebuilding in which the bricks were used, commonly designating its purpose, and giving the name and titles of the-monarch who erected it. Theinscription does not occupy the whole brick, but a square or rectangularspace towards its centre. It is in some cases stamped, in some impressedwith a tool. The writing--as in all cuneiform inscriptions, exceptingthose upon seals--is from left to right, and the lines are carefullyseparated from one another. Some specimens have been already given. 

The tablets of the Chaldaeans are among the most remarkable of theirremains, and will probably one day throw great additional light on themanners and customs, the religion, and even, perhaps, the science andlearning, of the people. They are small pieces of clay, somewhat rudelyshaped into a form resembling a pillow, and thickly inscribed withcuneiform characters, which are sometimes accompanied by impressions ofthe cylindrical seals so common in the museums of Europe. The seals arerolled across the body of the document, as in the accompanying figure. [PLATE VII. , Fig. 2. ] Except where these impressions occur, the clay iscommonly covered on both sides with minute writing. What is mostcurious, however, is that the documents thus duly attested have ingeneral been enveloped, after they were baked, in a cover of moist clay, upon which their contents have been again inscribed, so as to presentexternally a duplicate of the writing within; and the tablet in its coverhas then been baked afresh. That this was the process employed isevident from the fact that the inner side of the envelope bears a cast, in relief, of the inscription beneath it. Probably the object in viewwas greater security--that if the external cover became illegible, or wastampered with, there might be a means of proving beyond a doubt what thedocument actually contained. The tablets in question have in aconsiderable number of cases been deciphered; they are for the most partdeeds, contracts, or engagements, entered into by private persons andpreserved among the archives of families. 

Besides their writings on clay, the Chaldaeans were in the habit, fromvery early times, of engraving inscriptions on gems. The signet cylinderof a very ancient king exhibits that archaic formation of letters whichhas been already noted as appearing upon some of the earliest bricks. [PLATE VII. , Fig. 3. ] That it belongs to the same period is evident, not only from the resemblance of the literal type, but from the fact thatthe same king's name appears upon both. This signet inscription--so faras it has been hitherto deciphered--is read as follows:--"The signet ofUrukh, the pious chief, king of Ur, . . . . High-Priest (?) of . . . . Niffer. " Another similar relic, belonging to a son of this monarch, hasthe inscription, "To the manifestation of Nergal, king of Bit-Zida, ofZurgulla, for the saving of the life of Ilgi, the powerful hero, the kingof Ur, . . . . Son of Urukh . . . . May his name be preserved. " A thirdsignet, which belongs to a later king in the series, bears the followinglegend: "--_sin, the powerful chief, the king of Ur, the king of theKiprat-arbat (or four races) . . . . His seal. " The cylinders, however, of this period are more usually without inscriptions, being often plain, and often engraved with figures, but without a legend. 

CHAPTER V. 

ARTS AND SCIENCES. 

"Chaldaei cognitione astrorum sollertiaque ingeniorum antecellunt. "Cic. _de Div. _ i. 41. 

Among the arts which the first Ethiopic settlers on the shores of thePersian Gulf either brought with them from their former homes, or veryearly invented in their new abode, must undoubtedly have been the twowhereby they were especially characterized in the time of their greatestpower--architecture and agriculture. Chaldaea is not a country disposingmen to nomadic habits. The productive powers of the soil would at onceobtrude themselves on the notice of the new comers, and would tempt tocultivation and permanency of residence. If the immigrants came by sea, and settled first in the tract immediately bordering upon the gulf, asseems to have been the notion of Berosus, their earliest abodes may havebeen of that simple character which can even now be witnessed in theAffej and Montefik marshes--that is to say, reed cabins, supported by thetall stems of the growing plants bent into arches, and walled with matscomposed of flags or sedge. Houses of this description last for forty orfifty years and would satisfy the ideas of a primitive race. Whengreater permanency began to be required, palm-beams might take the placeof the reed supports, and wattles plastered with mud that of the rushmats; in this way habitations would soon be produced quite equal to thosein which the bulk of mankind reside, even at the present day. 

In process of time however, a fresh want would be felt. Architecture, as has been well observed, has its origin, not in nature only, but inreligion. The common worship of God requires temples; and it is soondesired to give to these sacred edifices a grandeur, a dignity, and apermanency corresponding to the nature of the Being worshipped in them. Hence in most countries recourse is had to stone, as the material ofgreatest strength and durability; and by its means buildings are raisedwhich seem almost to reach the heaven whereof they witness. InBabylonia, as it has been already observed, this material was entirelywanting. Nowhere within the limits of the alluvium was a quarry to befound; and though at no very great distance, on the Arabian border, acoarse sandstone might have been obtained, yet in primitive times, beforemany canals were made, the difficulty of transporting this weightysubstance across the soft and oozy soil of the plain would necessarilyhave prevented its adoption generally, or, indeed, anywhere, except inthe immediate vicinity of the rocky region. Accordingly we find thatstone was never adopted in Babylonia as a building material, except to anextremely small extent; and that the natives were forced, in its default, to seek for the grand edifices, which they desired to build, a differentsubstance. 

The earliest traditions, and the existing remains of the earliestbuildings, alike inform us that the material adopted was brick. Anexcellent clay is readily procurable in all parts of the alluvium; andthis, when merely exposed to the intense heat of an Eastern sun for asufficient period, or still more when kiln-dried, constitutes a verytolerable substitute for the stone employed by most nations. The bakedbricks, even of the earliest tines, are still sound and hard; while thesun-dried bricks, though they have often crumbled to dust or blendedtogether in one solid earthen mass, yet sometimes retain their shape andoriginal character almost unchanged, and offer a stubborn resistance tothe excavator. In the most ancient of the Chaldaean edifices weoccasionally find, as in the Bowariyeh ruin at Warka, the entirestructure composed of the inferior material; but the more ordinarypractice is to construct the mass of the building in this way, and thento cover it completely with a facing of burnt brick, which sometimesextends to as much as ten feet in thickness. The burnt brick was thusmade to protect the unburnt from the influence of the weather, whilelabor and fuel--were greatly economized by the employment to so large anextent of the natural substance. The size and color of the bricks vary. The general shape is square, or nearly so, while the thickness is, tomodern ideas, disproportionately small; it is not, however, so small asin the bricks of the Romans. The earliest of the baked bricks hithertodiscovered in Chaldaea are 11 1/4 inches square, and 2 1/2 inches thick, while the Roman are often 15 inches square, and only an inch and aquarter thick. The baked bricks of later date are of larger size thanthe earlier; they are commonly about 13 inches square, with a thicknessof three inches. The best quality of baked brick is of ayellowish-white tint, and very much resembles our Stourbridge or firebrick; another kind, extremely hard, but brittle, is of a blackish blue;a third, the coarsest of all, is slack-dried, and of a pale red. Theearliest baked bricks are of this last color. The sun-dried bricks haveeven more variety of size than the baked ones. They are sometimes aslarge as 16 inches square and seven inches thick, sometimes as small assix inches square by two thick. Occasionally, though not very often, bricks are found differing altogether in shape from those abovedescribed, being formed for special purposes. Of this kind are thetriangular bricks used at the corners of walls, intended to give greaterregularity to the angles than would otherwise be attained; and thewedge-shaped bricks, formed to be employed in arches, which were knownand used by this primitive people. 

The modes of applying these materials to building purposes were various. Sometimes the crude and the burnt brick were used in alternate layers, each layer being several feet in thickness; more commonly the crude brickwas used (as already noticed) for the internal parts of the building, anda facing of burnt brick protected the whole from the weather. Occasionally the mass of an edifice was composed entirely of crude brick;but in such cases special precautions had to be taken to secure thestability of this comparatively frail material. In the first place, atintervals of four or five feet, a thick layer of reed matting wasinterposed along the whole extent of the building, which appears to havebeen intended to protect the earthy mass from disintegration, by itsprotection beyond the rest of the external surface. The readers ofHerodotus are familiar with this feature, which (according to him)occurred in the massive walls whereby Babylon was surrounded. If thiswas really the case, we may conclude that those walls were not composedof burnt brick, as he imagined, but of the sun-dried material. Reedswere never employed in buildings composed of burnt brick, being uselessin such cases; where their impression is found, as not unfrequentlyhappens, on bricks of this kind, the brick has been laid upon reedmatting when in a soft state, and afterwards submitted to the action offire. In edifices of crude brick, the reeds were no doubt of greatservice, and have enabled some buildings of the kind to endure to thepresent day. They are very strikingly conspicuous where they occur, since they stripe the whole building with continuous horizontal lines, having at a distance somewhat the effect of the courses of dark marble inan Italian structure of the Byzantine period. 

Another characteristic of the edifices in which crude brick is thuslargely employed, is the addition externally of solid and massivebuttresses of the burnt material. These buttresses have sometimes a veryconsiderable projection; they are broad, but not high, extending lessthan half way up the walls against which they are placed. 

Two kinds of cement are used in the early structures. One is a coarseclay or mud, which is sometimes mixed with chopped straw; the other isbitumen. This last is of an excellent quality, and the bricks which itunites adhere often so firmly together that they can with difficulty beseparated. As a gen eral rule, in the early buildings, the crude brickis laid in mud, while the bitumen is used to cement together the burntbricks. 

[Illustration: PLATE 8]

These general remarks will receive their best illustration from adetailed description of the principal early edifices which recentresearches in Lower Mesopotamia have revealed to us. These are for themost part temples; but in one or two cases the edifice explored isthought to have been a residence, so that the domestic architecture ofthe period may be regarded as known to us, at least in some degree. Thetemples most carefully examined hitherto are those at Warka, Mugheir, andAbu-Shahrein, the first of which was explored by Mr. Loftus in 1854, thesecond by Mr. Taylor in the same year, and the third by the sametraveller in 1855. The Warka ruin is called by the natives Bowariyeh, which signifies "reed mats, " in allusion to a peculiarity, alreadynoticed, in its construction. [PLATE VIII. , Fig. 1. ] It is at once themost central and the loftiest ruin in the place. At first sight itappears to have been a cone or pyramid; but further examination provesthat it was in reality a tower, 200 feet square at the base, built in twostories, the lower story being composed entirely of sun-dried bricks laidin mud, and protected at intervals of four or five feet by layers ofreeds, while the upper one was composed of the same material, faced withburnt brick. Of the upper stage very little remains; and this little isof a later date than the inferior story, which bears marks of a very highantiquity. The sundried bricks whereof the lower story is composed are"rudely moulded of very incoherent earth, mixed with fragments of potteryand fresh-water shells, " and vary in size and shape, being sometimessquare, seven inches each way; sometimes oblong, nine inches by seven, and from three to three and a half inches thick. The whole presentheight of the building is estimated at 100 feet above the level of theplain. Its summit, except where some slight remains of the second storyconstitute an interruption, is "perfectly flat, " and probably continuesvery much in the condition in which it was when the lower stage was firstbuilt. This stage, being built of crude brick, was necessarily weak; itis therefore supported by four massive buttresses of baked brick, eachplaced exactly in the centre of one of the sides, and carried to aboutone-third of the height. Each buttress is nineteen feet high, six feetone inch wide, and seven and a half feet in depth; and each is divideddown the middle by a receding space, one foot nine inches in width. Allthe bricks composing the buttresses are inscribed, and are very firmlycemented together with bitumen, in thick layers. The buttresses wereentirely hidden under the mass of rubbish which had fallen from thebuilding, chiefly from the upper story, and only became apparent when Mr. Loftus made his excavations. 

It is impossible to reconstruct the Bowariyeh ruin from the facts andmeasurements hitherto supplied to us even the height of the first storyis at present uncertain; and we have no means of so much as conjecturingthe height of the second. The exact emplacement of the second upon thefirst is also doubtful, while the original mode of access isundiscovered; and thus the plan of the building is in many respects stilldefective. We only know that it was a square; that it had two stories atthe least; and that its entire height above the plain considerablyexceeded 100 feet. The temple at Mugheir has been more accuratelyexamined. [PLATE VIII. , Fig. 2. ] On a mound or platform of some size, raised about twenty feet above the level of the plain, there stands arectangular edifice, consisting at present of two stories, both of themruined in parts, and buried to a considerable extent in piles of rubbishcomposed of their debris. The angles of the building exactly face thefour cardinal points. It is not a square, but a parallelogram, havingtwo longer and two shorter sides. [PLATE IX. , Fig. 1. ] The longer sidesfront to the north-east and south-west respectively, and measure 198feet; while the shorter sides, which face the north-west and south-east, measure 133 feet. The present height of the basement story is 27 feet;but, allowing for the concealment of the lower part by the rubbish, andthe destruction of the upper part by the hand of time, we may presumethat the original height was little, if at all, short of 40 feet. Theinterior of this story is built of crude or sun-dried bricks of smallsize, laid in bitumen; but it is faced through out with a wall, ten feetin thickness, composed of red kiln dried bricks, likewise cemented withbitumen. This external wall is at once strengthened and diversified tothe eye by a number of shallow buttresses or pilasters in the samematerial; of these there are nine, including the corner ones, on thelonger, and six on the shorter sides. The width of the buttresses iseight feet, and their projection a little more than a foot. The wallsand buttresses alike slope inwards at an angle of nine degrees. On thenorth-eastern side of the building there is a staircase nine feet wide, with sides or balustrades three feet wide, which leads up from theplatform to the top of the first story. It has also been conjecturedthat there was a second or grand staircase on the south-east face, equalin width to the second story of the building, and thus occupying nearlythe whole breadth of the structure on that side. A number of narrowslits or air-holes are carried through the building from side to side;they penetrate alike the walls and buttresses, and must have tended topreserve the dryness of the structure. The second story is, like thefirst, a parallelogram, and not of very different proportions. Itslonger sides measure 119 feet, and its shorter ones 75 feet at the base. Its emplacement upon the first story is exact as respects the angles, butnot central as regards the four sides. While it is removed from thesouth-eastern edge a distance of 47 feet, from the northwestern it isdistant only 30 feet. From the two remaining sides its distance isapparently about 28 feet. The present height of the second story, including the rubbish upon its top, is 19 feet; but we may reasonablysuppose that the original height was much greater. The material of whichits inner structure is composed, seems to be chiefly (or wholly)partially-burnt brick, of a light red color, laid in a cement composed oflime and ashes. This central mass is faced with kiln-dried bricks oflarge size and excellent quality, also laid, except on the north-westface, in lime mortar. No buttresses and no staircase are traceable onthis story; though it is possible that on the south-east side the grandstaircase may have run the whole height of both stories. 

According to information received by Mr. Taylor from the Arabs of thevicinity, there existed, less than half a century ago, some remains of athird story, on the summit of the rubbish which now crowns the second. This building is described as a room or chamber, and was probably theactual shrine of the god in whose honor the whole structure was erected. Mr. Taylor discovered a number of bricks or tiles glazed with a blueenamel, and also a number of large copper nails, at such a height in therubbish which covers up much of the second story, that he thinks theycould only have come from this upper chamber. The analogy of laterBabylonian buildings, as of the Birs-Nimrud and the temple of Belus atBabylon confirms this view, and makes it probable that the earlyChaldaean temple was a building in three stages, of which the first andsecond were solid masses of brickwork, ascended by steps on the outside, while the third was a small house or chamber highly ornamented, containing the image and shrine of the god. [PLATE IX. , Fig. 2. ]

[Illustration: PLATE 9]

In conclusion, it must be observed that only the lower story of theMugheir temple exhibits the workmanship of the old or Chaldaean period. Clay cylinders found in the upper story inform us that in its presentcondition this story is the work of Nabonidus, the last of the Babyloniankings; and most of its bricks bear his stamp. Some, however, have thestamp of the same monarch who built the lower story and this issufficient to show that the two stories are a part of the originaldesign, and therefore that the idea of building in stages belongs to thefirst kingdom and to primitive times. There is no evidence to provewhether the original edifice had, or had not, a third story; since thechamber seen by the Arabs was no doubt a late Babylonian work. The thirdstory of the accompanying sketch must therefore be regarded asconjectural. 

It is not necessary for our present purpose to detain the reader with aminute description of the ancient temple at Abu-Shahrein. The generalcharacter of this building seems to have very closely resembled that ofthe Mugheir temple. Its angles fronted the cardinal points: it had twostories, and an ornamented chamber at the top; it was faced with burntbrick, and strengthened by buttresses; and in most other respectsfollowed the type of the Mugheir edifice. Its only very notablepeculiarities are the partial use of stone in the construction, and theoccurrence of a species of pillar, very curiously composed. Theartificial platform on which the temple stands is made of beaten clay, cased with a massive wall of sandstone and limestone, in some placestwenty feet thick. There is also a stone or rather marble, staircasewhich leads up from the platform to the summit of the first story, composed of small polished blocks, twenty-two inches long, thirteenbroad, and four and a half thick. The bed of the staircase is made ofsun dried brick, and the marble was fastened to this substratum by copperbolts, some portion of which was found by Mr. Taylor still adhering tothe blocks. At the foot of the staircase there appear to have stood twocolumns, one on either side of it. The construction of these columns isvery singular. A circular nucleus composed of sandstone slabs and smallcylindrical pieces of marble disposed in alternate layers, was coatedexternally with coarse lime, mixed with small stones and pebbles, untilby means of many successive layers the pillar had attained the desiredbulk and thickness. Thus the stone and marble were entirely concealedunder a thick coating of plaster; and a smoothness was given to the outersurface which it would have otherwise been difficult to obtain. The dateof the Abu-Shahrein temple is thought to be considerably later than thatof the other buildings above described; and the pillars would seem to bea refinement on the simplicity of the earlier times. The use of stone isto be accounted for, not so much by the advance of architectural science, as by the near vicinity of the Arabian hills, from which that materialcould be readily derived. 

It is evident, that if the Chaldaean temples were of the character andconstruction which we have gathered from their remains, they could havepossessed no great architectural beauty, though they may not have lackeda certain grandeur. In the dead level of Babylonia, an elevation even of100 or 150 feet must have been impressive; and the plain massiveness ofthe structures no doubt added to their grand effect on the beholder. Butthere was singularly little in the buildings, architecturally viewed, toplease the eye or gratify the sense of beauty. No edifices in the world--not even the Pyramids--are more deficient in external ornament. Thebuttresses and the air-holes, which alone break the flat uniformity ofthe walls, are intended simply for utility, and can scarcely be said tobe much embellishment. If any efforts were made to delight by theordinary resources of ornamental art, it seems clear that such effortsdid not extend to the whole edifice, but were confined to the shrineitself--the actual abode of the god--the chamber which crowned the whole, and was alone, strictly speaking, "the temple. " Even here there is noreason to believe that the building had externally much beauty. Nofragments of architraves or capitals, no sculptured ornaments of anykind, have been found among the heaps of rubbish in which Chaldaeanmonuments are three-parts buried. 

The ornaments which have been actually discovered, are such as suggestthe idea of internal rather than external decoration; and they render itprobable that such decoration was, at least in some cases, extremelyrich. The copper nails and blue enamelled tiles found high up in theMugheir mound, have been already noticed. At Abu-Shahrein the groundabout the basement of the second story was covered with small pieces ofagate, alabaster, and marble, finely cut and polished, from half an inchto two inches long, and half an inch (or somewhat less) in breadth, eachwith a hole drilled through its back, containing often a fragment of acopper bolt. 

[Illustration: PAGE 56]

It was strewn less thickly with small plates of pure gold, and with anumber of gold-headed or gilt, headed nails, used apparently to attachthe gold plates to the internal plaster or wood-work. These fragmentsseem to attest the high ornamentation of the shrine in this instance, which we have no reason to regard is singular or in any way exceptional. 

The Chaldaean remains which throw light upon the domestic architecture ofthe people are few and scanty. A small house was disinterred by Mr. Taylor at Mugheir, and the plan of some chambers was made out atAbu-Shahrein; but these are hitherto the only specimens which can beconfidently assigned to the Chaldaean period. The house stood on aplatform of sundried bricks, paved on the top with burnt bricks. It wasbuilt in the form of a cross, but with a good deal of irregularity, everywall being somewhat longer or shorter than the others. The material usedin its construction was burnt brick, the outer layer imbedded in bitumen, and the remainder in a cement of mud. Externally the house wasornamented with perpendicular stepped recesses, while internally thebricks had often a thin coating of gypsum or enamel, upon whichcharacters were inscribed. The floors of the chambers were paved withburnt brick, laid in bitumen. Two of the doorways were arched, the archextending through the whole thickness of the walls; it was semicircular, and was constructed with bricks made wedge-shaped for the purpose. Agood deal of charred date-wood was found in the house, probably theremains of rafters which had supported the roof. 

The chambers at Abu-Shahrein were of sun-dried brick, with an internalcovering of fine plaster, ornamented with paint. In one theornamentation consisted of a series of red, black, and white bands, threeinches in breadth; in another was represented, but very rudely, thefigure of a man holding a bird on his wrist, with a smaller figure nearhim, in red paint. The favorite external ornamentation for houses seemsto have been by means of colored cones in terra cotta, which wereimbedded in moist mud or plaster, and arranged into a variety ofpatterns. [PLATE IX. , Fig. 3. ]

[Illustration: PLATE 10]

But little can be said as to the plan on which houses were built. [Illustration: PLATE X. , Fig. 2. ] The walls were generally of vastthickness, the chambers long and narrow, with the outer doors openingdirectly into them. The rooms ordinarily led into one another, passagesbeing rarely found. Squared recesses, sometimes stepped or dentated, were common in the rooms; and in the arrangement of these something ofsymmetry is observable, as they frequently correspond to or face eachother. The roofs were probably either flat-beams of palm-wood beingstretched across from wall to wall--or else arched with brick. Noindication of windows has been found as yet; but still it is thought thatthe chambers were lighted by them, only they were placed high, near theceiling or roof, and thus do not appear in the existing ruins, whichconsists merely of the lower portion of walls, seldom exceeding theheight of seven or eight feet. The doorways, both outer and inner, aretowards the sides rather than in the centre of the apartments--a featurecommon to Chaldaean with Assyrian buildings. 

Next to their edifices, the most remarkable of the remains which theChaldaeans have left to after-ages, are their burial-places. Whileancient tombs are of very rare occurrence in Assyria and Upper Babylonia, Chaldaea Proper abounds with them. It has been conjectured, with someshow of reason, that the Assyrians, in the time of their power, may havemade the sacred land of Chai the general depository of their dead, muchin the same way as the Persians even now use Kerbela and Nedjif or MeshedAli as special cemetery cities, to which thousands of corpses are broughtannually. At any rate, the quantity of human relics accumulated uponcertain Chaldaean sites is enormous, and seems to be quite beyond whatthe mere population of the surrounding district could furnish. At Warka, for instance, excepting the triangular space between the three principalruins, the whole remainder of the platform, the whole space within thewalls, and an unknown extent of desert beyond them, are everywhere filledwith human bones and sepulchres. In places coffins are piled uponcoffins, certainly to the depth of 30, probably to the depth of 60 feet;and for miles on every side of the ruins the traveller walks upon a soilteeming with the relics of ancient, and now probably extinct, races. Sometimes these relics manifestly belong to a number of distinct andwidely separate eras; but there are places where it is otherwise. However we may account for it--and no account has been yet given whichis altogether satisfactory--it seems clear, from the comparativehomogeneousness of the remains in some places, that they belong to asingle race, and if not to a single period, at any rate to only two, or, at the most, three distinct periods, so that it is no longer verydifficult to distinguish the more ancient from the later relics. Suchis the character of the remains at Mugheir, which are thought to containnothing of later date than the close of the Babylonian period, B. C. 538; and such is, still more remarkably, the character of the ruins atAbu-Shahrein and Tel-el-Lahm, which seem to be entirely, or almostentirely, Chaldaean. In the following account of the coffins and mode ofburial employed by the early Chaldaeans, examples will be drawn fromthese places only; since otherwise we should be liable to confoundtogether the productions of very different ages and peoples. 

[Illustration: PLATE 11]

The tombs to which an archaic character most certainly attaches are ofthree kinds-brick vaults, clay coffins shaped like a dish-cover, andcoffins in the same material, formed of two large jars placed mouth tomouth, and cemented together with bitumen. The brick vaults are foundchiefly at Mugheir. [PLATE XI. , Fig. 1. ] They are seven feet long, threefeet seven inches broad, and five feet high, composed of sun-dried bricksimbedded in mud, and exhibit a very remarkable form and construction ofthe arch. The side walls of the vaults slope outwards as they ascend;and the arch is formed, like those in Egyptian buildings and Scythiantombs, by each successive layer of bricks, from the point where the archbegins, a little overlapping the last, till the two sides of the roof arebrought so near together that the aperture may be closed by a singlebrick. The floor of the vaults was paved with brick similar to that usedfor the roof and sides; on this floor was commonly spread a matting ofreeds, and the body was laid upon the matting. It was commonly turned onits left side, the right arm falling towards the left, and the fingersresting on the edge of a copper bowl, usually placed on the palm of theleft hand. The head was pillowed on a single sun-dried brick. Variousarticles of ornament and use were interred with each body, which will bemore particularly described hereafter. Food seems often to have beenplaced in the tombs, and jars or other drinking vessels are universal. The brick vaults appear to have been family sepulchres; they have oftenreceived three or four bodies, and in one case a single vault containedeleven skeletons. 

[Illustration: PLATE 12]

The clay coffins, shaped like a dish-cover, are among the most curious ofthe sepulchral remains of antiquity. [PLATE XI. , Fig. 2; PLATE XII. , Fig. 1. ] On a platform of sun-dried brick is laid a mat exactly similarto those in common use among the Arabs of the country at the present day;and hereon lies the skeleton disposed as in the brick vaults, andsurrounded by utensils and ornaments. Mat, skeleton, and utensils arethen concealed by a huge cover in burnt clay, formed of a single piece, which is commonly seven feet long, two or three feet high, and two feetand a half broad at the bottom. It is rarely that modern potters producearticles of half the size. Externally the covers have commonly someslight ornament, such as rims and shallow indentations, as represented inthe sketch (No. 1). Internally they are plain. Not more than twoskeletons have ever been found under a single cover; and in these casesthey were the skeletons of a male and a female. Children were interredseparately, under covers about half the size of those for adults. Tombsof this kind commonly occur at some considerable depth. None werediscovered at Mugheir nearer the surface than seven or eight feet. 

The third kind of tomb, common both at Mugheir and at Telel-Lahm, isalmost as eccentric as the preceding. Two large open-mouthed jars (a andb), shaped like the largest of the water-jars at present in use atBaghdad, are taken, and the body is disposed inside them with the usualaccompaniments of dishes, vases, and ornaments. [PLATE XII. Fig. 2. ]The jars average from two and a half feet to three feet in depth, andhave a diameter of about two feet; so that they would readily containa full-sized corpse if it was slightly bent at the knees. 

Sometimes the two jars are of equal size, and are simply united at theirmouths by a layer of bitumen (dd); but more commonly one is slightlylarger than the other, and the smaller mouth is inserted into the largerone for a depth of three or four inches, while a coating of bitumen isstill applied externally at the juncture. In each coffin there is anair-hole at one extremity (c) to allow the escape of the gases generatedduring decomposition. 

Besides the coffins themselves, some other curious features are found inthe burial-places. The dead are commonly buried, not underneath thenatural surface of the ground, but in extensive artificial mounds, eachmound containing a vast number of coffins. The coffins are arranged sideby side, often in several layers; and occasionally strips of masonry, crossing each other at right angles, separate the sets of coffins fromtheir neighbors. The surface of the mounds is sometimes paved withbrick; and a similar pavement often separates the layers of coffins onefrom another. But the most remarkable feature in the tomb-mounds istheir system of drainage. Long shafts of baked clay extend from thesurface of the mound to its base, composed of a succession of rings twofeet in diameter, and about a foot and a half in breadth, joined togetherby thin layers of bitumen. [PLATE XII. , Fig. 3. ] To give the ringsadditional strength, the sides have a slight concave curve and, stillfurther to resist external pressure, the shafts are filled from bottom totop with a loose mass of broken pottery. At the top the shaft contractsrapidly by means of a ring of a peculiar shape, and above this ring are aseries of perforated bricks leading up to the top of the mound, thesurface of which is so arranged as to conduct the rain-water into theseorifices. For the still more effectual drainage of the mound, thetop-piece of the shaft immediately below the perforated bricks, and alsothe first rings, are full of small holes to admit any stray moisture;and besides this, for the space of a foot every way, the shafts aresurrounded with broken pottery, so that the real diameter of each drainis as much as four feet. By these arrangements the piles have been keptperfectly dry; and the consequence is the preservation, to the presentday, not only of the utensils and ornaments placed in the tombs, but ofthe very skeletons themselves, which are seen perfect on opening a tomb, though they generally crumble to dust at the first touch. 

The skill of the Chaldaeans as potters has received considerableillustration in the foregoing pages. No ordinary ingenuity was needed tomodel and bake the large vases, and still larger covers, which were theordinary receptacles of the Chaldaean dead. The rings and top-pieces ofthe drainage-shafts also exhibit much skill and knowledge of principles. Hitherto, however, the reader has not been brought into contact with anyspecimens of Chaldaean fictile art which can be regarded as exhibitingelegance of form, or, indeed, any sense of beauty as distinguished fromutility. Such specimens are, in fact, somewhat scarce, but they are notwholly wanting. Among the vases and drinking vessels with which theChaldaean tombs abound, while the majority are characterized by a certainrudeness both of shape and material, we occasionally meet with specimensof a higher character, which would not shrink from a comparison with theordinary productions of Greek fictile art. A number of these arerepresented in the second figure [PLATE XIII. , Fig 2], which exhibitsseveral forms not hitherto published-some taken from drawings by Mr. Churchill, the artist who accompanied Mr. Loftus on his first journey;others drawn for the present work from vases now in the British Museum. 

[Illustration: PLATE 13]

It is evident that, while the vases of the first group are roughlymoulded by the hand, the vases and lamps of the second have beencarefully shaped by the aid of the potter's wheel. These last are formedof a far finer clay than the early specimens, and have sometimes a slightglaze upon them, which adds much to their beauty. 

In a few instances the works of the Chaldaeans in this material belong tomimetic art, of which they are rude but interesting specimens. Some ofthe primitive graves at Senkareh yielded tablets of baked clay, on whichwere represented, in low relief, sometimes single figures of men, sometimes groups, sometimes men in combination with animals. A scene inwhich a lion is disturbed in its feast off a bullock, by a man armed witha club and a mace or hatchet, possesses remarkable spirit, and, were itnot for the strange drawing of the lion's unlifted leg, might be regardedas a very creditable performance. In another, a lion is representeddevouring a prostrate human being; while a third exhibits a pugilisticencounter after the most approved fashion of modern England. It isperhaps uncertain whether these tablets belong to the Chaldaean or to theBabylonian period, but on the whole their rudeness and simplicity favorthe earlier rather than the later date. 

[Illustration: PLATE 14]

The only other works having anything of an artistic character, that canbe distinctly assigned to the primitive period, are a certain number ofengraved cylinders, some of which are very curious. [PLATE XIV. , Fig. 1]It is clearly established that the cylinders in question, which aregenerally of serpentine, meteoric stone, jasper, chalcedony, or othersimilar substance, were the seals or signets of their possessors, whoimpressed them upon the moist clay which formed the ordinary material forwriting. They are round, or nearly so, and measure from half an inch tothree inches in length; ordinarily they are about one-third of theirlength in diameter. A hole is bored through the stone from end to end, so that it could be worn upon a string; and cylinders are found in someof the earliest tombs which have been worn round the wrist in this way. In early times they may have been impressed by the hand; but afterwardsit was common to place them upon a bronze or copper axis attached to ahandle, by means of which they were rolled across the clay from one endto the other. The cylinders are frequently unengraved, and this is mostcommonly their condition in the primitive tombs; out there is some verycurious evidence, from which it appears that the art of engraving themwas really known and practised (though doubtless in rare instances) at avery early date. The signet cylinder of the monarch who founded the mostancient of the buildings at Mugheir, Warka, Senkareh, and Niffer, and whothus stands at the head of the monumental kings, was in the possession ofSir R. Porter; and though it is now lost, an engraving made from it ispreserved in his "Travels. " [PLATE XIV. , Fig. 2. ] The signet cylinderof this monarch's son has been recently recovered, and is now in theBritish Museum. We are entitled to conclude from the data thus in ourpossession that the art of cylinder-engraving had, even at this earlyperiod, made considerable progress. The letters of the inscriptions, which give the names of the kings and their titles, are indeed somewhatrudely formed, as they are on the stamped bricks of the period; but thefigures have been as well cut, and as flowingly traced, as those of alater date. It was thought possible that the artist employed by Sir R. Porter had given a flattering representation of his original, but thenewly recovered relic, known as the "cylinder of Ilgi, " bears upon itfigures of quite as great excellence: and we are thus led to theconclusion that both mechanical and artistic skill had reached a verysurprising degree of excellence at the most remote period to which theChaldaean records carry us back. 

[Illustration: PLATE 15]

It increases the surprise which we naturally feel at the discovery ofthese relics to reflect upon the rudeness of the implements with whichsuch results would seem to have been accomplished. In the primitiveChaldaean ruins, the implements which have been discovered are either instone or bronze. Iron in the early times is seemingly unknown, and whenit first appears is wrought into ornaments for the person. Knives offlint or chert [PLATE XIV. , Fig. 3], stone hatchets, hammers, adzes, andnails, are common in the most ancient mounds, which contain also a numberof clay models, the centres, as it is thought, of moulds into whichmolten bronze was run, and also occasionally the bronze instrumentsthemselves, as (in addition to spear heads and arrow-heads) hammers, adzes, hatchets, knives, and sickles. It will be seen by the engravedrepresentations that these instruments are one and all of a rude andcoarse character. [PLATE XV. ], [PLATE XVI. ] The flint and stone knives, axes, and hammers, which abound in all the true Chaldaean mounds, aresomewhat more advanced indeed than those very primitive implements whichhave been found in a drift; but they are of a workmanship at least asunskilled as that of the ordinary stone celts of Western and NorthernEurope, which till the discoveries of M. Perthes were regarded as themost ancient human remains in our quarter of the globe. They indicatesome practical knowledge of the cleavage of silicious rocks, but theyshow no power of producing even such finish as the celts frequentlyexhibit. In one case only has a flint instrument been discoveredperfectly regular in form, and presenting a sharp angular exactness. The instrument, which is figured [PLATE XVI. , Fig. 2], is a sort of longparallelogram, round at the back, and with a deep impression down itsface. Its use is uncertain; but, according to a reasonable conjecture, it may have been designed for impressing characters upon the moist clayof tablets and cylinders--a purpose for which it is said to beexcellently fitted. 

[Illustration: PLATE 16]

The metallurgy of the Chaldaeans, though indicative of a higher state ofcivilization and a greater knowledge of the useful arts than their stoneweapons, is still of a somewhat rude character, and indicates a nationbut just emerging out of an almost barbaric simplicity. Metal seems tobe scarce, and not many kinds are found. There is no silver, zinc, orplatinum; but only gold, copper, tin, lead, and iron. Gold is found inbeads, ear-rings, and other ornaments, which are in some instances of afashion that is not inelegant. [PLATE XVI. , Fig. 3. ] Copper occurspure, but is more often hardened by means of an alloy of tin, whereby itbecomes bronze, and is rendered suitable for implements and weapons. Lead is rare, occurring only in a very few specimens, as in one jar orbottle, and in what seems to be a portion of a pipe, brought by Mr. Loftus from Mugheir. [PLATE XVII. , Fig. 1. ] Iron, as already observed, is extremely uncommon; and when it occurs, is chiefly used for the ringsand bangles which seem to have been among the favorite adornments of thepeople. Bronze is, however, even for these, the more common material. [PLATE XVII, Fig. 2. ] It is sometimes wrought into thin and elegantshapes, tapering to a point at either extremity; sometimes the form intowhich it is cast is coarse and massive, resembling a solid bar twistedinto a rude circle. For all ordinary purposes of utility it is thecommon metal used. A bronze or copper bowl is found in almost everytomb; bronze bolts remain in the pieces of marble used for tesselating;bronze rings sometimes strengthen the cones used for ornamenting walls;bronze weapons and instruments are, as we have seen, common, and in thesame material have been found chains, nails, toe and finger rings, armlets, bracelets, and fish-hooks. 

[Illustration: PLATE 17]

No long or detailed account can be given of the textile fabrics of theancient Chaldaeans; but there is reason to believe that this was a branchof industry in which they particularly excelled. We know that as earlyas the time of Joshua a Babylonian garment had been imported intoPalestine, and was of so rare a beauty as to attract the covetous regardsof Achan, in common with certain large masses of the precious metals. The very ancient cylinder figured above must belong to a time at leastfive or six centuries earlier; upon it we observe flounced and fringedgarments, delicately striped, and indicative apparently of an advancedstate of textile manufacture. Recent researches do not throw much lighton this subject. The frail materials of which human apparel is composedcan only under peculiar circumstances resist the destructive power ofthirty or forty centuries; and consequently we have but few traces of theactual fabrics in use among the primitive people. Pieces of linen aresaid to have been found attaching to some of the skeletons in the tombs;and the sun-dried brick which supports the head is sometimes covered withthe remains of a "tasselled cushion of tapestry;" but otherwise we arewithout direct evidence either as to the material in use, or as to thecharacter of the fabric. In later times Babylon was especiallycelebrated for its robes and its carpets. Such evidence as we have wouldseem to make it probable that both manufactures had attained toconsiderable excellence in Chaldaean times. 

The only sciences in which the early Chaldaeans can at present be provedto have excelled are the cognate ones of arithmetic and astronomy. Onthe broad and monotonous plains of Lower Mesopotamia, where the earth haslittle upon it to suggest thought or please by variety, the "variegatedheaven, " ever changing with the hours and with the seasons, would earlyattract attention, while the clear sky, dry atmosphere, and level horizonwould afford facilities for observations, so soon as the idea of themsuggested itself to the minds of the inhabitants. The "Chaldaeanlearning" of a later age appears to have been originated, in all itsbranches, by the primitive people; in whose language it continued to bewritten even in Semitic times. 

We are informed by Simplicius that Callisthenes, who accompaniedAlexander to Babylon, sent to Aristotle from that capital a series ofastronomical observations, which he had found preserved there, extendingback to a period of 1903 years from Alexander's conquest of the city. Epigenes related that these observations were recorded upon tablets ofbaked clay, which is quite in accordance with all that we know of theliterary habits of the people. They must have extended, according toSimplicius, as far back as B. C. 2234, and would therefore seem to havebeen commenced and carried on for many centuries by the primitiveChaldaean people. We have no means of determining their exact nature orvalue, as none of them have been preserved to us: no doubt they were atfirst extremely simple; but we have every reason to conclude that theywere of a real and substantial character. There is nothing fanciful, or(so to speak) astrological, in the early astronomy of the Babylonians. Their careful emplacement of their chief buildings, which were probablyused from the earliest times for astronomical purposes, their inventionof different kinds of dials, and their division of the day into thosehours which we still use, are all solid, though not perhaps verybrilliant, achievements. It was only in later times that the Chaldaeanswere fairly taxed with imposture and charlatanism; in early ages theyseem to have really deserved the eulogy bestowed on them by Cicero. 

It may have been the astronomical knowledge of the Chaldaeans which gavethem the confidence to adventure on important voyages. Scripture tellsus of the later people, that "their cry was in the ships;" and the earlyinscriptions not only make frequent mention of the "ships of Ur, " but byconnecting these vessels with those of Ethiopia seem to imply that theywere navigated to considerable distances. Unfortunately we possess nomaterials from which to form any idea either of the make and character ofthe Chaldaean vessels, or of the nature of the trade in which they wereemployed. We may perhaps assume that at first they were either canoeshollowed out of a palm-trunk, or reed fabrics made water-tight by acoating of bitumen. The Chaldaea trading operations lay no doubt, chiefly in the Persian Gulf; but it is quite possible that even in veryearly times they were not confined to this sheltered basin. The gold, which was so lavishly used in decoration, could only have been obtainedin the necessary quantities from Africa or India; and it is thereforeprobable that one, if not both, of these countries was visited by theChaldaean traders. 

Astronomical investigations could not be conducted without a fairproficiency in the science of numbers. It would be reasonable toconclude, from the admitted character of the Chaldaeans as astronomers, that they were familiar with most arithmetical processes, even had we noevidence upon the subject. Evidence, however, to a certain extent, doesexist. On a tablet found at Senkareh, and belonging probably to an earlyperiod, a table of squares is given, correctly calculated from one tosixty. The system of notation, which is here used, is very curious. Berosus informs us that, in their computations of time, the Chaldaeansemployed an alternate sexagesimal and decimal notation, reckoning theyears by the _soss, _ the _ner, _ and the _sar_--the _soss_ being a term of60 years, the _ner_ one of 600, and the _sar_ one of 3600 (or 60_sosses_). It appears from the Senkareh monument, that they occasionallypursued the same practice in mere numerical calculations, as will beevident from the illustration. [PLATE XVIII. , Figs. 1, 2. ]

[Illustration: PLATE 18]

In Arabic numerals this table may be expressed as follows:

[Illustration: PAGE 66]

The calculation is in every case correct; and the notation is by means oftwo signs--the simple wedge [--], and the arrowhead [--] ; the wedgerepresenting the unit, the soss (60), and the sar (3600), while thearrowhead expresses the decades of each series, or the numbers 10 and600. The notation is cumbrous, but scarcely more so than that of theRomans. It would be awkward to use, from the paucity in the number ofsigns, which could scarcely fail to give rise to confusion, --moreespecially as it does not appear that there was any way of expressing acipher. It is not probable that at any time it was the notation inordinary use. Numbers were commonly expressed in a manner not unlike theRoman, as will be seen by the subjoined table. [PLATE XVIII. , Fig. 3. ]One, ten, a hundred, and a thousand, had distinct signs. Fifty had thesame sign as the unit--a simple wedge. The other numbers were composedfrom these elements. 

CHAPTER VI. 

MANNERS AND CUSTOMS. 

Chaldaea, unlike Egypt, has preserved to our day but few records of theprivate or domestic life of its inhabitants. Beyond the funerealcustoms, to which reference was made in the last chapter, we can obtainfrom the monuments but a very scanty account of their general mode oflife, manners, and usages. Some attempt, however, must be made to throwtogether the few points of this nature on which we have obtained anylight from recent researches in Mesopotamia. 

The ordinary dress of the common people among the Chaldaeans seems tohave consisted of a single garment, a short tunic, tied round the waist, and reaching thence to the knees, a costume very similar to that worn bythe Madan Arabs at the present day. To this may sometimes have beenadded an _abba, _ or cloak, thrown over the shoulders, and falling belowthe tunic, about half-way down the calf of the leg. The material of theformer we may perhaps presume to have been linen, which best suits theclimate, and is a fabric found in the ancient tombs. The outer cloak wasmost likely of woollen, and served to protect hunters and others againstthe occasional inclemency of the air. The feet were unprotected byeither shoes or sandals; on the head was worn a skull-cap, or else a bandof camel's hairs--the germ of the turban which has now become universalthroughout the East. 

The costume of the richer class was more elaborate. A high mitre, of avery peculiar appearance, or else a low cap ornamented with two curvedhorns, covered the head. [PLATE XIX. Fig. 1. ] The neck and arms werebare. The chief garment was a long gown or robe, extending from the neckto the feet, commonly either striped or flounced, or both; and sometimesalso adorned with fringe. This robe, which was scanty according tomodern notions, appears not to have been fastened by any girdle orcincture round the waist, but to have been kept in place by passing overone shoulder, a slit or hole being made for the arm on one side of thedress only. In some cases the upper part of the dress seems to have beendetached from the lower, and to have formed a sort of jacket, whichreached about to the hips. 

[Illustration: PLATE 19]

The beard was commonly worn straight and long, not in crisp curls, as bythe Assyrians. [PLATE XIX. , Fig. 2. ] The hair was also worn long, either gathered together into a club behind the head, or depending inlong spiral curls on either side the face and down the back. Ornamentswere much affected, especially by the women. Bronze and iron bangles andarmlets, and bracelets of rings or beads, ear-rings, and rings for thetoes, are common in the tombs, and few female skeletons are without them. The material of the ornaments is generally of small value. Many of therings are formed by grinding down a small kind of shell; the others areof bronze or iron. Agate beads, however, are not uncommon, and goldbeads have been found in a few tombs, as well as some other smallornaments in the same material. The men seem to have carried generallyan engraved cylinder in agate or other hard stone, which was used as aseal or signet, and was probably worn round the wrist. Sometimes rings, and even bracelets, formed also a part of their adornment. The latterwere occasionally in gold--they consisted of bands or fillets of the purebeaten metal, and were as much as an inch in breadth. 

The food of the early Chaldaeans consisted probably of the variousesculents which have already been mentioned as products of the territory. The chief support, however, of the mass of the population was, beyond adoubt, the dates, which still form the main sustenance of those whoinhabit the country. It is clear that in Babylonia, as in Scythia, thepractice existed of burying with a man a quantity of the food to which hehad been accustomed during life. In the Chaldaean sepulchres a number ofdishes are always ranged round the skeleton, containing the viaticum ofthe deceased person, and in these dishes are almost invariably found anumber of date-stones. They are most commonly unaccompanied by anytraces of other kinds of food; occasionally, however, besidesdate-stones, the bones of fish and of chickens have been discovered, fromwhich we may conclude that those animals were eaten, at any rate by theupper classes. Herodotus tells us that in his day three tribes ofBabylonians subsisted on fish alone; and the present inhabitants of LowerMesopotamia make it a principal article of their diet. The rivers andthe marshes produce it in great abundance, while the sea is also at hand, if the fresh-water supply should fail. Carp and barbel are the principalfresh-water sorts, and of these the former grows to a very great size inthe Euphrates. An early tablet, now in the British Museum, represents aman carrying a large fish by the head, which may be a carp, though thespecies can scarcely be identified. There is evidence that the wild-boarwas also eaten by the primitive people; for Mr. Loftus found a jaw ofthis animal, with the tusk still remaining, lying in a shallow clay dishin one of the tombs. Perhaps we may be justified in concluding, from thecomparative rarity of any remains of animal food in the early sepulchres, that the primitive Chaldaeans subsisted chiefly on vegetable productions. The variety and excellence of such esculents are prominently put forwardby Berosus in his account of the original condition of the country; andthey still form the principal support of those who now inhabit it. 

We are told that Nimrod was "a mighty hunter before the Lord;" and it isevident, from the account already given of the animals indigenous inLower Mesopotainia, that there was abundant room for the display of asportsman's skill and daring when men first settled in that region. TheSenkareh tablets show the boldness and voracity of the Chaldaean lion, which not only levied contributions on the settlers' cattle, butoccasionally ventured to attack man himself. We have not as yet anyhunting scenes belonging to these early times; but there can be littledoubt that the bow was the chief weapon used against the king of beasts, whose assailants commonly prefer remaining at a respectful distance fromhim. The wild-boar may have been hunted in the same way, or he may havebeen attacked with a spear--a weapon equally well known with the bow tothe early settlers. Fish were certainly taken with the hook; forfish-hooks have been found in the tombs; but probably they were alsocaptured in nets, which are among the earliest of human inventions. 

A considerable portion of the primitive population must have been engagedin maritime pursuits. In the earliest inscriptions we find constantmention of the "ships of Ur, " which appear to have traded with Ethiopia--a country whence may have been derived the gold, which--as has beenalready shown--was so largely used by the Chaldaeans in ornamentation. It would be interesting could we regard it as proved that they tradedalso with the Indian peninsula; but the "rough logs of wood, apparentlyteak, " which Mr. Taylor discovered in the great temple at Mugheir, belongmore probably to the time of its repair by Nabonidus than to that of itsoriginal construction by a Chaldaean monarch. The Sea-God was one of thechief objects of veneration at Ur and elsewhere; and Berosus appears tohave preserved an authentic tradition, where he makes the primitivepeople of the country derive their arts and civilization from "the RedSea. " Even if their commercial dealings did not bring them into contactwith any more advanced people, they must have increased the intelligence, as well as the material resources, of those employed in them, and so haveadvanced their civilization. 

Such are the few conclusions concerning the manners of the Chaldaeanswhich alone we seem to have any right to form with our present means ofinformation. 

CHAPTER VII. 

RELIGION. 

The religion of the Chaldaeans, from the very earliest times to which themonuments carry us back, was, in its outward aspect, a polytheism of avery elaborate character. It is quite possible that there may have beenesoteric explanations, known to the priests and the more learned, which, resolving the personages of the Pantheon into the powers of nature, reconciled the apparent multiplicity of gods with monotheism, or evenwith atheism. So far, however, as outward appearances were concerned, the worship was grossly polytheistic. Various deities, whom it was notconsidered at all necessary to trace to a single stock, divided theallegiance of the people, and even of the kings, who regarded with equalrespect, and glorified with equally exalted epithets, some fifteen orsixteen personages. Next to these principal gods were a far morenumerous assemblage of inferior or secondary divinities, less oftenmentioned, and regarded as less worthy of honor, but still recognizedgenerally through the country. Finally, the Pantheon contained a host ofmere local gods or genii, every town and almost every village inBabylonia being under the protection of its own particular divinity. 

It will be impossible to give a complete account of this vast andcomplicated system. The subject is still but partially worked out bycuneiform scholars; the difficulties in the way of understanding it aregreat; and in many portions to which special attention has been paid itis strangely perplexing and bewildering. All that will be attempted inthe present place is to convey an idea of the general character of theChaldaean religion, and to give some information with regard to theprincipal deities. 

In the first place, it must be noticed that the religion was to a certainextent astral. The heaven itself, the sun, the moon, and the fiveplanets, have each their representative in the Chaldaean Pantheon amongthe chief objects of worship. At the same time it is to be observed thatthe astral element is not universal, but partial; and that, even where ithas place, it is but one aspect of the mythology, not by any means itsfull and complete exposition. The Chaldaean religion even here is farfrom being mere Sabaeanism--the simple worship of the "host of heaven. "The aether, the sun, the moon, and still more the five planetary gods, are something above and beyond those parts of nature. Like the classicalApollo and Diana, Mars and Venus, they are real persons, with a life anda history, a power and an influence, which no ingenuity can translateinto a metaphorical representation of phenomena attaching to the air andto the heavenly bodies. It is doubtful, indeed, whether the gods of thisclass are really of astronomical origin, and not rather primitivedeities, whose character and attributes were, to a great extent, fixedand settled before the notion arose of connecting them with certain partsof nature. Occasionally they seem to represent heroes rather thancelestial bodies; and they have all attributes quite distinct from theirphysical or astronomical character. 

Secondly, the striking resemblance of the Chaldaean system to that of theClassical Mythology seems worthy of particular attention. Thisresemblance is too general, and too close in some respects, to allow ofthe supposition that mere accident has produced the coincidence. In thePantheons of Greece and Rome, and in that of Chaldaea, the same generalgrouping is to be recognized; the same genealogical succession is notunfrequently to be traced; and in some cases even the familiar names andtitles of classical divinities admit of the most curious illustration andexplanation from Chaldaean sources. We can scarcely doubt but that, insome way or other, there was a communication of beliefs--a passage invery early times, from the shores of the Persian Gulf to the lands washedby the Mediterranean, of mythological notions and ideas. It is aprobable conjecture that among the primitive tribes who dwelt on theTigris and Euphrates, when the cuneiform alphabet was invented and whensuch writing was first applied to the purposes of religion, a Scythic orScytho-Arian race existed, who subsequently migrated to Europe, andbrought with them those mythical traditions which, as objects of popularbelief, had been mixed up in the nascent literature of their nativecountry, and that these traditions were passed on to the classicalnations, who were in part descended from this Scythic or Scytho-Arianpeople. 

The grouping of the principal Chalda an deities is as follows. At thehead of the Pantheon stands a god, Il or Ra, of whom but little is known. Next to him is a Triad, _Ana, Bil_ or _Belus, _ and _Hea_ or _Hoa, _ whocorrespond closely to the classical Pluto, Jupiter, and Neptune. Each ofthese is accompanied by a female principle or wife, _Ana_ by _Anat, Bil_(or Bel) by _Mulita_ or _Beltis, _ and _Hea_ (or _Hoa_) by _Davkina_. Then follows a further Triad, consisting of _Sin_ or _Hurki, _ theMoon-god; _San_ or _Sansi, _ the Sun; and _Vul_ the god of theatmosphere. The members of this Triad are again accompanied by femalepowers or wives, --_Vul_ by a goddess called _Shala_ or _Tala, San_ (theSun) by _Gula_ or _Anunit, _ and _Hurki_ (the Moon) by a goddess whosename is wholly uncertain, but whose common title is "the great lady. "

Such are the gods at the head of the Pantheon. Next in order to them wefind a group of five minor deities, the representatives of the fiveplanets, --Nin or Ninip (Saturn), Merodach (Jupiter), Nergal (Mars), Ishtar (Venus), and Nebo (Mercury). These together constitute what wehave called the _principal_ gods; after them are to be placed thenumerous divinities of the second and third order. 

These principal gods do not appear to have been connected, like theEgyptian and the classical divinities, into a single genealogical scheme:yet still a certain amount of relationship was considered to exist amongthem. Ana and Bel, for instance, were brothers, the sons of Il or Ra;Vul was son of Ana; Hurki, the Moon-god, of Bel; Nebo and Merodach weresons of Hea or Hoa. Many deities, however, are without parentage, as notonly Il or Ra, but Hea, San (the Sun), Ishtar, and Nergal. Sometimes therelationship alleged is confused, and even contradictory, as in the caseof Nin or Ninip, who is at one time the son, at another the father ofBel, and who is at once the son and the husband of Beltis. It is evidentthat the genealogical aspect is not that upon which much stress isintended to be laid, or which is looked upon as having much reality. Thegreat gods are viewed habitually rather as a hierarchy of coequal powers, than as united by ties implying on the one hand pre-eminence and on theother subordination. 

We may now consider briefly the characters and attributes of the severaldeities so far as they can be made out, either from the native records, or from classical tradition. And, first, concerning the god who standsin some sense at the head of the Chaldaean Pantheon. 

IL, or RA. 

The form Ra represents probably the native Chaldaean name of this deity, while _Il_ is the Semitic equivalent. _Il, _ of course, is but a variantof _El, _ the root of the well-known Biblical _Elohim_ as well as of theArabic _Allah_. It is this name which Diodorus represents under the formof Elms ('H??oc), 7 and Sanchoniathon, or rather Philo-Byblius, underthat of _Elus_ or _Ilus_. The meaning of the word is simply "God, " orperhaps "the god" emphatically. _Ra, _ the Cushite equivalent, must beconsidered to have had the same force originally, though in Egypt itreceived a special application to the sun, and became the proper name ofthat particular deity. The word is lost in the modern Ethiopic. Itformed an element in the native name of Babylon, which was _Ka-ra, _ theCushite equivalent of the Semitic _Bab-il, _ an expression signifying "thegate of God. "

Ra is a god with few peculiar attributes. He is a sort of fount andorigin of deity, too remote from man to be much worshipped or to exciteany warm interest. There is no evidence of his having had any temple inChaldaea during the early times. A belief in his existence is impliedrather than expressed in inscriptions of the primitive kings, where theMoon-god is said to be "brother's son of Ana, and eldest son of Bil, orBelus. " We gather from this that Bel and Ana were considered to have acommon father; and later documents sufficiently indicate that that commonfather was Il or Ra. We must conclude from the name _Babil, _ thatBabylon was originally under his protection, though the god speciallyworshipped in the great temple there seems to have been in early timesBel, and in later times Merodach. The identification of the Chaldaean, Il or Ra with Saturn, which Diodorus makes, and which may seem to derivesome confirmation from Philo-Byblius, is certainly incorrect, so far asthe planet Saturn, which Diodorus especially mentions, is concerned; butit may be regarded as having a basis of truth, inasmuch as Saturn was inone sense the chief of the gods, and was the father of Jupiter and Pluto, as Ra was of Bil and Ana. 

ANA. 

_Ana, _ like Il and Ra, is thought to have been a word originallysignifying "God, " in the highest sense. The root occurs probably in theAnnedotus and Oannes of Berosus, as well as in Philo-Byblius's Anobret. In its origin it is probably Cushite: but it was adopted by theAssyrians, who inflected the word which was indeclinable in the Chaldaeantongue, making the nominative Anu, the genitive Ani, and the accusativeAna. 

Ana is the head of the first Triad, which follows immediately after theobscure god Ra. His position is well marked by Damascius, who gives thethree gods, Anus, Illinus, and Aus, as next in succession to the primevalpair, Assorus and Missara. He corresponds in many respects to theclassical Hades or Pluto, who, like him, heads the triad to which hebelongs. His epithets are chiefly such as mark priority and antiquity. He is called "the old Ana, " "the original chief, " perhaps in one place"the father of the gods, " and also "the Lord of spirits and demons. "Again, he bears a number of titles which serve to connect him with theinfernal regions. He is "the king of the lower world, " the "Lord ofdarkness" or "death, " "the ruler of the far-off city, " and the like. Thechief seat of his worship is Huruk or Erech--the modern Warka--whichbecomes the favorite Chaldaean burying city, as being under hisprotection. There are some grounds for thinking that one of his nameswas _Dis. _ If this was indeed so, it would seem to follow, almost beyonda doubt, that _Dis, _ the lord of Orcus in Roman mythology, must have beena reminiscence brought from the East--a lingering recollection of _Dis_or Ana, patron god of Erech (_Opex_ of the LXX), the great city of thedead, the necropolis of Lower Babylonia. Further, curiously enough, wehave, in connection with this god, an illustration of the classicalconfusion between Pluto and Plutus; for Ana is "the layer-up oftreasures"--the "lord of the earth" and of the "mountains, " whence theprecious metals are derived. 

The worship of Ana by the kings of the Chaldaean series is certain. Notonly did Shanias-vul, the son of Ismi-dagon, raise a temple to the honorof Ana and his son Vul at Kileh-Shergat (or Asshur) about B. C. 1830--whence that city appears in later times to have borne the name of Telane, or "the mound of Ana"--but Urukh himself mentions him as a god in aninscription quoted above; and there is reason to believe that from atleast as early a date he was recognized as the presiding deity at Erechor Warka. This is evident from the fact, that though the worship ofBeltis superseded that of Ana in the great temple at that place from avery remote epoch, yet the temple itself always retained the title ofBit-Ana (or Beth-Ana), "the house of Ana;" and Beltis herself was knowncommonly as "the lady of Bit-Ana, " from the previous dedication to thisgod of the shrine in question. Ana must also have been worshippedtolerably early at Nipur (Rifer), or that city could scarcely haveacquired, by the time of Moses, the appellation of Calneh in theSeptuagint translation, which is clearly Kal Ana, "the fort of Ana. "

Ana was supposed to have a wife, Anata, of whom a few words will be saidbelow. She bore her husband a numerous progeny. One tablet shows a listof nine of their children, among which, however, no name occurs of anycelebrity. But there are two sons of Ana mentioned elsewhere, who seementitled to notice. One is the god of the atmosphere, Vul (?), of whom afull account will be hereafter given. The other bears the name of Martu, and may be identified with the _Brathy_ of Sanchoniathon. He represents"Darkness, " or "the West, " corresponding to the Erebus of the Greeks. 

ANATA. 

Anat or Anata has no peculiar characteristics. As her name is nothingbut the feminine form of the masculine Ana, so she herself is a merereflection of her husband. All his epithets are applied to her, with asimple difference of gender. She has really no personality separate fromhis, resembling Amente in Egyptian mythology, who is a mere feminineAmmon. She is rarely, if ever, mentioned in the historical andgeographical inscriptions. 

BIL, or ENU. 

Bil or Enu is the second god of the first Triad. He is, probably, theIllinus (_Il-Enu_ or "God Enu ") of Damascius. His name, which seems tomean merely "lord, " is usually followed by a qualificative adjunct, possessing great interest. It is proposed to read this term as _Nipru, _or in the feminine _Niprut, _ a word which cannot fail to recall theScriptural Nimrod, who is in the Septuagint Nebroth. The term nipruseems to be formed from the root napar, which is in Syriac to "pursue, "to "make to flee, " and which has in Assyrian nearly the same meaning. Thus Bil-Nipru would be aptly translated as "the Hunter Lord, " or "thegod presiding over the chase, " while, at the same time, it might combinethe meaning of "the Conquering Lord" or "the Great Conqueror. "

On these grounds it is reasonable to conclude that we have, in thisinstance, an admixture of hero-worship in the Chaldaean religion. Bil-Nipru is probably the Biblical Nimrod, the original founder of themonarchy, the "mighty hunter" and conqueror. At the same time, however, that he is this hero deified, he represents also, as the second god ofthe first Triad, the classical Jupiter. He is "the supreme, " "the fatherof the gods, " "the procreator, " "the Lord, " _par excellence, _ "the kingof all the spirits, " "the lord of the world, " and again, "the lord of allthe countries. " There is some question whether he is altogether to beidentified with the Belus of the Greek writers, who in certain respectsrather corresponds to Merodach. When Belus, however, is called the firstking, the founder of the empire, or the builder of Babylon, it seemsnecessary to understand Bil-Nipru or Bel-Nimrod. Nimrod, we know, builtBabylon; and Babylon was called in Assyrian times "the city ofBil-Nipru, " while its famous defences--the outer and the inner wall--wereknown, even under Nebuchadnezzar, by the name of the same god. --Nimrod, again, was certainly the founder of the kingdom; and, therefore, ifBil-Nipru is his representative, he would be Belus under that point ofview. 

The chief seat of Bel-Nimrod's worship was undoubtedly Nipur (Niffer) orCalneh. Not only was this city designated by the very same name as thegod, and specially dedicated to him and to his wife Beltis, butBel-Nimrod is called "Lord of Nipra, " and his wife "Lady of Nipra, " inevident allusion to this city or the tract wherein it was placed. Various traditions, as will be hereafter shown, connect Nimrod withNiffer, which may fairly be regarded as his principal capital. Here thenhe would be naturally first worshipped upon his decease; and here seemsto have been situated his famous temple called Kharris-Nipra, so notedfor its wealth, splendor, and antiquity, which was an object of intenseveneration to the Assyrian kings. Besides this celebrated shrine, hedoes not appear to have possessed many others. He is sometimes said tohave had four "arks" or "tabernacles;" but the only places besidesNiffer, where we know that he had buildings dedicated to him, are Calah(Nimrud) and Dur-Kurri-galzu (Akkerkuf). At the same time he is a godalmost universally acknowledged in the invocations of the Babylonian andAssyrian kings, in which he has a most conspicuous place. In Assyria heseems to be inferior only to Asshur; in Chaldaea to Ra and Ana. 

Of Beltis, the wife of Bel-Nimrod, a full account will be givenpresently. Nin or Ninip--the Assyrian Hercules--was universally regardedas their son; and he is frequently joined with Bel-Nimrod in theinvocations. Another famous deity, the Moon-god, Sin or Hurki, is alsodeclared to be Bel-Nimrod's son in some inscriptions. Indeed, as "thefather of the gods, " Bel-Nimrod might evidently claim an almost infinitepaternity. 

The worship of Bel-Nimrod in Chaldaea extends through the whole time ofthe monarchy. It has been shown that he was probably the deified Nimrod, whose apotheosis would take place shortly after his decease. Urukh, theearliest monumental king, built him a temple at Niffer; and Kurri-galzu, one of the latest, paid him the same honor at Akkerkuf. Urukh alsofrequently mentions him in his inscriptions in connection with Hurki, theMoon-god, whom he calls his "eldest son. "

BELTIS. 

Beltis, the wife of Bel-Nimrod, presents a strong contrast to Anata, thewife of Ana. She is far more than the mere female power of Bel-Nimrod, being in fact a separate and very important deity. Her common title is"the Great Goddess. " In Chaldaea her name was Mulita or Enuta--bothwords signifying "the Lady;" in Assyria she was Bilta or Bilta-Nipruta, the feminine forms of Bil and Bilu-Nipru. Her favorite title was "theMother of the Gods, " or "the Mother of the Great Gods:" whence it istolerably clear that she was the "Dea Syria" worshipped at Hierapolisunder the Arian appellation of Mabog. Though commonly represented as thewife of Bel-Nimrod, and mother of his son Nin or Ninip, she is alsocalled "the wife of Nin, " and in one place "the wife of Asshur. " Herother titles are "the lady of Bit-Ana, " "the lady of Nipur, " "the Queenof the land" or "of the lands, " "the great lady, " "the goddess of war andbattle, " and the "queen of fecundity. " She seems thus to have united theattributes of the Juno, the Ceres or Demeter, the Bellona, and even theDiana of the classical nations: for she was at once the queen of heaven, the goddess who makes the earth fertile, the goddess of war and battle, and the goddess of hunting. In these latter capacities she appears, however, to have been gradually superseded by Ishtar, who sometimes evenappropriates her higher and more distinctive appellations. 

The worship of Beltis was wide-spread, and her temples were verynumerous. At Erech (Warka) she was worshipped on the same platform, ifnot even in the same building with Ana. At Calneh or Nipur (Niffer), sheshared fully in her husband's honors. She had a shrine at Ur (Mugheir), another at Rubesi, and another outside the walls of Babylon. Some ofthese temples were very ancient, those at Warka and Niffer being built byUrukh, while that at Mugheir was either built or repaired by Ismi-dagon. 

According to one record, Beltis was a daughter of Ana. It was especiallyas "Queen of Nipur" that she was the wife of her son Nin. Perhaps thisidea grew up out of the fact that at Nipur the two were associatedtogether in a common worship. It appears to have given rise to some ofthe Greek traditions with respect to Semiramis, who was made to contractan incestuous marriage with her own son Ninyas, although no explanationcan at present be given of the application to Beltis of that name. 

HEA, or HOA. 

The third god of the first Triad was Hea, or Hoa, probably the Aus ofDamascus. His appellation is perhaps best rendered into Greek by the[--] of Helladius--the name given to the mystic animal, half man, halffish, which came up from the Persian Gulf to teach astronomy and lettersto the first settlers on the Euphrates and Tigris. It is perhapscontained also in the word by which Berosus designates this samecreature--Oannes--which may be explained as _Hoa-ana, _ or "the god Hoa. "There are no means of strictly determining the precise meaning of theword in Babylonian; but it is perhaps allowable to connect it, provisionally, with the Arabic Hiya, which is at once life and "aserpent, " since, according to the best authority, there are very stronggrounds for connecting Hea or Hoa with the serpent of Scripture and theParadisaical traditions of the tree of knowledge and the tree of life. 

Hoa occupies, in the first Triad, the position which in the classicalmythology is filled by Poseidon or Neptune, and in some respects hecorresponds to him. He is "the lord of the earth, " just as Neptune is[Greek]; he is "the king of rivers;" and he comes from the sea to teachthe Babylonians; but he is never called "the lord of the sea. " Thattitle belongs to Nin or Ninip. Hoa is "the lord of the abyss, " or of"the great deep, " which does not seem to be the sea, but somethingdistinct from it. His most important titles are those which invest himwith the character, so prominently brought out in Oe and Oannes, of thegod of science and knowledge. He is "the intelligent guide, " or, according to another interpretation, "the intelligent fish, " "the teacherof mankind, " "the lord of understanding. " One of his emblems is the"wedge" or "arrowhead, " the essential element of cuneiform writing, whichseems to be assigned to him as the inventor, or at least the patron ofthe Chaldaean alphabet. Another is the serpent which occupies soconspicuous a place among the symbols of the gods on the black stonesrecording benefactions, and which sometimes appears upon the cylinders. [PLATE XIX. , Fig. 3. ] This symbol, here as elsewhere, is emblematic ofsuperhuman knowledge--a record of the primeval belief that the serpentwas more subtle than any beast of the field. The stellar name of Hoa wasKimmut; and it is suspected that in this aspect he was identified withthe constellation Draco, which is perhaps the Kimah of Scripture. Besides his chief character of "god of knowledge, " Hoa is also "god oflife, " a capacity in which the serpent would again fitly symbolize him. He was likewise "god of glory, " and "god of giving, " being, as Berosussaid, the great giver of good gifts to man. 

The monuments do not contain much evidence of the early worship of Hoa. His name appears on a very ancient stone tablet brought from Mugheir(Ur); but otherwise his claim to be accounted one of the primeval godsmust rest on the testimony of Berosus and Helladius, who represent him asknown to the first settlers. He seems to have been the tutelary godof Is or Hit, which Isidore of Charax calls Aeipolis, or "Hea's city;"but there is no evidence that this was a very ancient place. TheAssyrian kings built him temples at Asshur and Calah. 

Hoa had a wife Dav-Kina, of whom a few words will be said presently. Their most celebrated son was Merodach or Bel-Merodach, the Belus ofBabylonian times. As Kimmut, Hoa was also the father of Nebo, whosefunctions bear a general resemblance to his own. 

DAV-KINA. 

Dav-Kina, the wife of Hoa, is clearly the Dauke or Davke of Damascius whowas the wife of Ails and mother of Belus (Bel-Merodach). Her name isthought to signify "the chief lady. " She has no distinctive titles orimportant position in the Pantheon, but, like Anata, takes her husband'sepithets with a mere distinction of gender. 

SIN, or HURKI. 

The first god of the second Triad is Sin, or Hurki, the moon-deity. Itis in condescension to Greek notions that Berosus inverts the trueChaldaean order, and places the sun before the moon in his enumeration ofthe heavenly bodies. Chaldaean mythology gives a very decided preferenceto the lesser luminary, perhaps because the nights are more pleasant thanthe days in hot countries. With respect to the names of the god, we mayobserve that Sin, the Assyrian or Semitic term, is a word of quiteuncertain etymology, which, however, is found applied to the moon in manySemitic languages; while Hurki, which is the Chaldaean or Hamitic name, is probably from a root cognate to the Hebrew _Ur_, "vigilare, " whence isderived the term sometimes used to signify "an angel" _Ir, _ "a watcher. "

The titles of Hurki are usually somewhat vague. He is "the chief, " "thepowerful, " "the lord of the spirits, " "he who dwells in the greatheavens;" or, hyperbolically, "the chief of the gods of heaven andearth, " "the king of the gods, " and even "the god of the gods. "Sometimes, however, his titles are more definite and particular: as, firstly, when they belong to him in respect of his being the celestialluminary--e. G. , "the bright, " "the shining, " "the lord of the month;"and, secondly, when they represent him as presiding over buildings andarchitecture, which the Chaldaeans appear to have placed under hisspecial superintendence. In this connection he is called "the supportingarchitect, " "the strengthener of fortifications, " and, more generally, "the lord of building" (Bel-zuna). Bricks, the Chaldaean buildingmaterial, were of course under his protection; and the sign whichdesignates them is also the sign of the month over which he wasconsidered to exert particular care. His ordinary symbol is the crescentor new moon, which is commonly represented as large, but of extremethinness: though not without a certain variety in the forms. 

[Illustration: PAGE 81]

The most curious and the most purely conventional representations are alinear semicircle, and an imitation of this semicircle formed by threestraight lines. The illuminated part of the moon's disk is always turneddirectly towards the horizon, a position but rarely seen in nature. 

The chief Chaldaean temple to the moon-god was at Ur or Hur (Mugheir), acity which probably derived its name from him, and which was under hisspecial protection. He had also shrines at Babylon and Borsippa, andlikewise at Calah and Dur-Sargina (Khorsabad). Few deities appear tohave been worshipped with such constancy by the Chaldaean kings. Hisgreat temple at Ur was begun by Urukh, and finished by his son Ilgi--thetwo most ancient of all the monarchs. Later in the series we find him insuch honor that every king's name during some centuries comprise the nameof the moon-god in it. On the restoration of the Chaldaean power he isagain in high repute. Nebuchadnezzar mentions him with respect; andNabonidus, the last native monarch, restores his shrine at Ur, andaccumulates upon him the most high-sounding titles. 

The moon-god is called, in more than one inscription, the eldest son ofBel-Ninnod. He had a wife (the moon-goddess) whose title was "the greatlady, " and who is frequently associated with him in the lists. She andher husband were conjointly the tutelary deities of Ur or Hur; and aparticular portion of the great temple there was dedicated to her honorespecially. --Her "ark" or "tabernacle, " which was separate from that ofher husband was probably, as well as his, deposited in this sanctuary. It bore the title of "the lesser light, " while his was called, emphatically, "the light. "

SAN, or SANSI. 

San, or Sansi, the sun-god, was the second member of the second Triad. The main element of this name is probably connected with the root _shani_which is in Arabic, and perhaps in Hebrew, "bright. " Hence we mayperhaps compare our own word "sun" with the Chaldaean "San;" for "sun" ismost likely connected etymologically with "sheen" and "shine. " Shamas orShemesh, the Semitic title of the god, is altogether separate anddistinct, signifying as it does, the Ministering office of the sun, andnot the brilliancy of his light. A trace of the Hamitic name appears inthe well-known city Bethsain, whose appellation is declared by Eugesippusto signify "domus Solis, " "the house of the sun. "

The titles applied to the sun-god have not often much direct reference tohis physical powers or attributes. He is called indeed, in some places, "the lord of fire, " "the light of the gods, " "the ruler of the day, " and"he who illumines the expanse of heaven and earth. " But commonly he iseither spoken of in a more general way, as "the regent of all things, ""the establisher of heaven and earth;" or, if special functions areassigned to him, they are connected with his supposed "motive" power, asinspiring warlike thoughts in the minds of the kings, directing andfavorably influencing their expeditions; or again, as helping them todischarge any of the other active duties of royalty. San is "the supremeruler who casts a favorable eye on expeditions, " "the vanquisher of theking's enemies, " "the breaker-up of opposition. " He "casts his motiveinfluence" over the monarchs, and causes them to "assemble theirchariots and warriors"--he goes forth with their armies, and enables themto extend their dominions--he chases their enemies before them, causesopposition to cease, and brings them back with victory to their owncountries. Besides this, he helps them to sway the sceptre of power, and to rule over their subjects with authority. It seems that, fromobserving the manifest agency of the material sun in stimulating all thefunctions of nature, the Chaldaeans came to the conclusion that thesun-god exerted a similar influence on the minds of men, and was thegreat motive agent in human history. 

The chief seats of the sun-god's worship in Chaldaea appear to have beenthe two famous cities of Larsa (Ellasar?) and Sippara. The great templeof the Sun, called Bit-Parra, at the former place, was erected by Urukh, repaired by more than one of the later Chaldaean monarchs, and completelyrestored by Nebuchadnezzar. At Sippara, the worship of the sun-god wasso predominant, that Abydenus, probably following Berosus, calls the townHeliopolis. There can be little doubt that the Adrammelech, or"Fire-king, " whose worship the Sepharvites (or people of Sippara)introduced into Samaria, was this deity. Sippara is called Tsipar shaShamas, "Sippara of the Sun, " in various inscriptions, and possessed atemple of the god which was repaired and adorned by many of the ancientChaldaean kings, as well as by Nebuchadnezzar and Nabonidus. 

The general prevalence of San's worship is indicated most clearly by thecylinders. Few comparatively of those which have any divine symbol uponthem are without his. The symbol is either a simple circle, a quartereddisk a four-rayed orb of a more elaborate character. 

[Illustration: PAGE 83]

San or Sansi had a wife, Ai, Gula, or Anunit, of whom it now follows tospeak. 

Al, GULA, or ANUNIT. 

Ai, Gula, or Anunit, was the female power of the sun, and was commonlyassociated with San in temples and invocations. Her names are ofuncertain signification, except the second, Gula, which undoubtedly means"great, " being so translated in the vocabularies. It is suspected thatthe three terms may have been attached respectively to the "rising, " the"culminating, " and the "setting sun, " since they do not appear tointerchange; while the name Gula is distinctly stated in one inscriptionto belong to the "great" goddess, "the wife of the meridian Sun. " It isperhaps an objection to this view, that the male Sun, who is decidedlythe superior deity, does not appear to be manifested in Chaldaea underany such threefold representation. 

As a substantive deity, distinct from her husband, Gula's characteristicsare that she presides over life and over fecundity. It is not quiteclear whether these offices belong to her alone, or whether she isassociated in each of them with a sister goddess. There is a "Mistressof Life, " who must be regarded as the special dispenser of that blessing;and there is a "Mistress of the Gods, " who is expressly said to "presideover births. " Concerning these two personages we cannot at presentdetermine whether they are really distinct deities, or whether they arenot rather aspects of Gula, sufficiently marked to be represented in thetemples by distinct idols. 

Gula was worshipped in close combination with her husband, both at Larsaand Sippara. Her name appears in the inscriptions connected with bothplaces; and she is probably the "Anammelech, " whom the Sepharviteshonored in conjunction with Adrammelech, the "Fire-King. " In later timesshe had also temples independent of her husband, at Babylon and Borsippa, as well as at Calah Asshur. 

The emblem now commonly regarded as symbolizing Gula is the eight-rayeddisk or orb, which frequently accompanies the orb with four rays in theBabylonian representations. In lieu of a disk, we have sometimes aneight-rayed star and even occasionally a star with six rays only. It iscurious that the eight-rayed star became at an early period the universalemblem of divinity: but perhaps we can only conclude from this thestellar origin of the worship generally, and not any special pre-eminenceor priority of Anunit over other deities. 

[Illustration: PAGE 84]

VUL, OR IVA

The third member of the second Triad is the god of the atmosphere, whosename it has been proposed to render phonetically in a great variety ofways. Until a general agreement shall be established, it is thought bestto retain a name with which readers are familiar; and the form Vul willtherefore be used in these volumes. Were Iva the correct articulation, we might regard the term as simply the old Hamitic name for "the air, "and illustrate it by the Arabic _heva, _ which has still that meaning. 

The importance of Vul in the Chaldaean mythology, and his strong positivecharacter, contrast remarkably with the weak and shadowy features ofUranus, or AEther, in the classical system. Vul indeed corresponds ingreat measure with the classical Zeus or Jupiter, being, like him, thereal "Prince of the power of the air, " the lord of the whirlwind and thetempest, and the wielder of the thunderbolt. His standard titles are"the minister of heaven and earth, " "the Lord of the air, " "he who makesthe tempest to rage. " He is regarded as the destroyer of crops, therooter-up of trees, the scatterer of the harvest. Famine, scarcity, andeven their consequence, pestilence, are assigned to him. He is said tohave in his hand a "flaming sword, " with which he effects his works ofdestruction; and this "flaming sword, " which probably representslightning, becomes his emblem upon the tablets and cylinders, where it isfigured as a double or triple bolt. [PLATE XIX. , Fig. 4. ] Vul again, asthe god of the atmosphere, gives the rain; and hence he is "the carefuland beneficent chief, " "the giver of abundance, " "the lord of fecundity. "In this capacity he is naturally chosen to preside over canals, the greatfertilizers of Babylonia; and we find among his titles "the lord ofcanals, " and "the establisher of works of irrigation. "

There is not much evidence of the worship of Vul in Chaldaea during theearly times. That he must have been known appears from the fact of hisname forming an element in the name of Shamas-Vul, son of Ismi-dagon, whoruled over Chaldaea about B. C. 1850. It is also certain that thisShamas-Vul set up his worship at Asshur (Kileh-Sherghat) in Assyria, associating him there with his father Ana, and building to themconjointly a great temple. Further than this we have no proof that hewas an object of worship in the time of the first monarchy; though in thetime of Assyrian preponderance, as well as in that of the laterBabylonian Empire, there were few gods more venerated. 

Vul is sometimes associated with a goddess, Shala or Tala, who isprobably the Salambo or Salambas of the lexicographers. The meaning ofher name is uncertain; and her epithets are for the most part obscure. Her ordinary title is sacrat or sharrat, "queen, " the feminine of thecommon word sar, which means "Chief, " "King, " or "Sovereign. "

BAR, NIN, or NINIP. 

If we are right in regarding the five gods who stand next to the Triadformed of the Moon, the Sun, and the Atmosphere, as representatives ofthe five planets visible to the naked eye, the god Nin, or Ninip, shouldbe Saturn. His names, Bar and Nin, are respectively a Semitic and aHamitic term signifying "lord" or "master. " Nin-ip, his full Hamiticappellation, signifies "Nin, by name, " or "he whose name is Nin;" andsimilarly, his full Semitic appellation seems to have been Barshem, "Bar, by name, " or "he whose name is Bar"--a term which is not indeed found inthe inscriptions, but which appears to have been well known to the earlySyrians and Armenians, and which was probably the origin of the titleBarsemii, borne by the kings of Hatra (Hadhr near Kileh-Sherghat) inRoman times. 

In character and attributes the classical god whom Nin most closelyresembles is, however, not Saturn, but Hercules. An indication of thisconnection is perhaps contained in the Herodotean genealogy, which makesHercules an ancestor of Ninus. Many classical traditions, we mustremember, identified Hercules with Saturn; and it seems certain that inthe East at any rate this identification was common. So Nin, in theinscriptions, is the god of strength and courage. He is "the lord of thebrave, " "the champion, " "the warrior who subdues foes, " "he whostrengthens the heart of his followers;" and again, "the destroyer ofenemies, " "the reducer of the disobedient, " "the exterminator of rebels, ""he whose sword is good. " In many respects he bears a close resemblanceto Nergal or Mars. Like him, he is a god of battle and of the chase, presiding over the king's expeditions, whether for war or hunting, andgiving success in both alike. At the same time he has qualities whichseem wholly unconnected with any that have been hitherto mentioned. Heis the true "Fish-God" of Berosus, and is fig ured as such in thesculptures. [PLATE XIX. , Fig. 5. ] In this point of view he is called"the god of the sea, " "he who dwells in the sea, " and again, somewhatcuriously, "the opener of aqueducts. " Besides these epithets, he hasmany of a more general character, as "the powerful chief, " "the supreme, ""the first of the gods, " "the favorite of the gods, " "the chief of thespirits, " and the like. Again, he has a set of epithets which seem topoint to his stellar character, very difficult to reconcile with thenotion that, as a celestial luminary, he was Saturn. We find him called"the light of heaven and earth, " "he who, like the sun, the light of thegods, irradiates the nations. " These phrases appear to point to theMoon, or to some very brilliant star, and are scarcely reconcilable withthe notion that he was the dark and distant Saturn. 

Nin's emblem in Assyria is the Man-bull, the impersonation of strengthand power. [PLATE XIX. , Fig. 6. ] He guards the palaces of the Assyriankings, who reckon him their tutelary god, and give his name to theircapital city. We may conjecture that in Babylonia his emblem was thesacred fish, which is often seen under different forms upon thecylinders. [PLATE XIX. , Fig. 7. ]

The monuments furnish no evidence of the early worship of Nin inChaldaea. We may perhaps gather the fact from Berosus' account of theFish-God as an early object of veneration in that region, as well as fromthe Hamitic etymology of the name by which he was ordinarily known evenin Assyria. There he was always one of the most important deities. Histemple at Nineveh was very famous, and is noticed by Tacitus in his"Annals;" and he had likewise two temples at Calah (Nimrud), both of thembuildings of some pretension. 

It has been already mentioned that Nin was the son of Bel-Nimrod, andthat Beltis was both his wife and his mother. These relationships arewell established, since they are repeatedly asserted. One tablet, however, inverts the genealogy, and makes Bel-Nimrod the son of Nin, instead of his father. The contradiction perhaps springs from the doublecharacter of this divinity, who, as Saturn, is the father, but, asHercules, the son of Jupiter. 

BEL-MERODACH. 

Bel-Merodach is, beyond all doubt, the planet Jupiter, which is stillcalled Bel by the Mendaeans. The name Merodach is of uncertain etymologyand meaning. It has been compared with the Persian _Mardak, _ thediminutive of _mard, _ "a man, " and with the Arabic _Mirrich, _ which isthe name of the planet Mars. But, as there is every reason to believethat the term belongs to the Hamitic Babylonian, it is in vain to haverecourse to Arian or Semitic tongues for its derivation. Most likely theword is a descriptive epithet, originally attached to the name Bel, inthe same way as _Nipru, _ but ultimately usurping its place and coming tobe regarded as the proper name of the deity. It is doubtful whether anyphonetic representative of Merodach has been found on the monuments; ifso, the pronunciation should, apparently, be _Amardak, _ whence we mightderive the Amordacia of Ptolemy. 

The titles and attributes of Merodach are of more than usual vagueness. In the most ancient monuments which mention him, he seems to be called"the old man of the gods, " and "the judge;" he also certainly has thegates, which in early times were the seats of justice, under his specialprotection. Thus he would seem to be the god of justice and judgment--anidea which may have given rise to the Hebrew name of the planet Jupiter, viz. _sedek, _ "justitia. " Bel-Merodach was worshipped in the earlyChaldaean kingdom, as appears from the Tel-Sifr tablets. He was probablyfrom a very remote time the tutelary god of the city of Babylon; andhence, as that city grew into importance, the worship of Merodach becamemore prominent. The Assyrian monarchs always especially associateBabylon with this god; and in the later Babylonian empire he becomes byfar the chief object of worship. It is his temple which Herodotusdescribes so elaborately, and his image, which, according to theApocryphal Daniel, the Babylonians worshipped with so much devotion. Nebuchadnezzar calls him "the king of the heavens and the earth, " "thegreat lord, " "the senior of the gods, " "the most ancient, " "the supporterof sovereignty, " "the layer-up of treasures, " etc. , and ascribes to himall his glory and success. 

We have no means of determining which among the emblems of the gods is tobe assigned to Bel-Merodach; nor is there any sculptured form which canbe certainly attached to him. According to Diodorus, the great statue ofBel-Merodach at Babylon was a figure "standing and walking. " Such a formappears more often than any other upon the cylinders of the Babylonians;and it is perhaps allowable to conjecture that it may represent thisfavorite deity. [PLATE XIX. , Fig. 8. ]

ZIR-BANIT. 

Bel-Merodach has a wife, with whom he is commonly associated, calledZir-banit. She had a temple at Babylon, probably attached to herhusband's, and is perhaps the Babylonian Juno (Hera) of Diodorus. Theessential element of her name seems to be Zir, which is an old Hamiticroot of uncertain meaning, while the accompanying _banit_ is adescriptive epithet, which may be rendered by "genetrix. " Zir-banit wasprobably the goddess whose worship the Babylonian settlers carried toSamaria, and who is called Succoth-benoth in Scripture. 

NERGAL. 

Nergal, the planet Mars, whose name was continued to a late date, underthe form of Nerig in the astronomical system of the Mendaeans, is a godwhose character and attributes are tolerably clear and definite. Hisname is evidently compounded of the two Hamitic roots _nir, _ "a man, " and_gala, _ "great;" so that he is "the great man, " or "the great hero. " Heis the special god of war and of hunting, more particularly of thelatter. His titles are "the king of battle, " "the champion of the gods, ""the storm ruler, " "the strong begetter, " "the tutelar god of Babylonia, "and "the god of the chase. " He is usually coupled with Nin, who likewisepresides over battles and over hunting; but while Nin is at least hisequal in the former sphere, Nergal has a decided pre-eminence in thelatter. 

We have no distinct evidence that Nergal was worshipped in the primitivetimes. He is first mentioned by some of the early Assyrian kings, whoregard him as their ancestor. It has, however, been conjectured that, like Bil-Nipru, he represented the deified hero, Nimrod, who may havebeen worshipped in different parts of Chaldaea under different titles. 

The city peculiarly dedicated to Nergal was Cutha or Tiggaba, which isconstantly called his city in the inscriptions. He was worshipped alsoat Tarbisa, near Nineveh, but in Tiggaba he was said to "live, " and hisshrine there was one of great celebrity. Hence "the men of Cuth, " whentransported to Samaria by the Assyrians, naturally enough "made Nergaltheir god, " carrying his worship with them into their new country. 

[Illustration: PLATE 20]

It is probable that Nergal's symbol was the Man Lion. [PLATE XX. ] Niris sometimes used in the inscriptions in the meaning of "lion;" and theSemitic name for the god himself is "Aria"--the ordinary term for theking of beasts both in Hebrew and in Syriac. Perhaps we have here thetrue derivation of the Greek name for the god of war, _Ares, _ which haslong puzzled classical scholars. The lion would symbolize both thefighting and the hunting propensities of the god, for he not only engagesin combats upon occasions, but often chases his prey and runs it downlike a hunter. Again, if Nergal is the Man-Lion, his association in thebuildings with the Man-Bull would be exactly parallel with theconjunction, which we so constantly find, between him and Nin in theinscriptions. 

Nergal had a wife, called Laz, of whom, however, nothing is known beyondher name. It is uncertain which among the emblems of the gods appertainsto him. 

ISHTAR, or NANA. 

Ishtar, or Nana, is the planetary Venus, and in general featurescorresponds with the classical goddess. Her name Ishtar is that by whichshe was known in Assyria; and the same term prevailed with slightmodifications among the Semitic races generally. The Phoenician form wasAstarte, the Hebrew Ashtoreth; the later Mendaean form was Ashtar. InBabylonia the goddess was known as Nana, which seems to be the Naneea ofthe second book of Maccabees, and the Nani of the modern Syrians. Nosatisfactory account can at present be given of the etymology of eithername; for the proposal to connect Ishtar with the Greek (Zend _starann, _Sanscrit _tara, _ English _star, _ Latin _stella_), though it has greatnames in its favor, is not worthy of much attention. 

Ishtar's aphrodisiac character, though it can scarcely be doubted, doesnot appear very clearly in the inscriptions. She is "the goddess whorejoices mankind, " and her most common epithet is "Asurah, " "thefortunate, " or "the happy. " But otherwise her epithets are vague andgeneral, insomuch that she is often scarcely distinguishable from Beltis. She is called "the mistress of heaven and earth, " "the great goddess, ""the queen of all the gods, " and again "the goddess of war and battle, ""the queen of victory, " "she who arranges battles, " and "she who defendsfrom attacks. " She is also represented in the inscriptions of one kingas the goddess of the chase. 

The worship of Ishtar was wide-spread, and her shrines were numerous. She is often called "the queen of Babylon, " and must certainly have hada temple in that city. She had also temples at Asshur (Kileh-Sherghat), at Arbela, and at Nineveh. It may be suspected that her symbol was thenaked female form, which is not uncommon upon the cylinders. [PLATEXXI. , Figs. 1, 2. ] She may also be represented by the rude images inbaked clay so common throughout the Mesopotamian ruins, which aregenerally regarded as images of Mylitta. Ishtar is sometimes coupledwith Nebo in such a way as to suggest the notion that she was his wife. This, however, can hardly have been her real position in the mythology, since Nebo had, as will presently appear, another wife, Varamit, whomthere is no reason to believe identical with Ishtar. It is most probablethat the conjunction is casual and accidental, being due to special andtemporary causes. 

[Illustration: PLATE 21]

NEBO. 

The last of the five planetary gods is Nebo, who undoubtedly representsthe planet Mercury. [PLATE XXI. , Fig. 3. ] His name is the same, ornearly so, both in Babylonian and Assyrian; and we may perhaps assign ita Semitic derivation, from the root _nibbah, _ "to prophesy. " It is hisspecial function to preside over knowledge and learning. He is called"the god who possesses intelligence, " "he who hears from afar, " "he whoteaches, " or "he who teaches and instructs. " In this point of view, heof course approximates to Hoa, whose son he is called in someinscriptions, and to whom he bears a general resemblance. Like Hoa, heis symbolized by the simple wedge or "arrowhead, " the primary andessential element of cuneiform writing, to mark his joint presidency withthat God over writing and literature. At the same time Nebo has, like somany of the Chaldaean gods, a number of general titles, implying divinepower, which, if they had belonged to him only, would have seemed toprove him the supreme deity. He is "the Lord of lords, who has no equalin power, " "the supreme chief, " "the sustainer, " "the supporter, " "theever ready, " "the guardian over the heavens and the earth, " "the lord ofthe constellations, " "the holder of the sceptre of power, " "he who grantsto kings the sceptre of royalty for the governance of their people. " Itis chiefly by his omission from many lists, and his humble place when heis mentioned together with the really great gods, that we know he wasmythologically a deity of no very great eminence. 

There is nothing to prove the early--worship of Nebo. His name does notappear as an element in any royal appellation belonging to the Chaldaeanseries. Nor is there any reference to him in the records of the primevaltimes. Still, as he is probably of Babylonian rather than Assyrianorigin, and as an Assyrian king is named after him in the twelfth centuryB. C. , we may assume that he was not unknown to the primitive people ofChaldaea, though at present their remains have furnished us with nomention of him. In later ages the chief seat of his worship wasBorsippa, where the great and famous temple, known at present as theBirs-Nimrud, was dedicated to his honor. He had also a shrine at Calah(Nimrud), whence were procured the statues representing him which are nowin the British Museum. He was in special favor with the kings of thegreat Babylonian empire, who were mostly named after him, and viewed himas presiding over their house. His symbol has not yet been recognized. 

The wife of Nebo, as already observed, was Varamit or Urmit--a word whichperhaps means "exalted, " from the root on, "to be lifted up. " No specialattributes are ascribed to this goddess, who merely accompanies herhusband in most of the places where he is mentioned by name. 

Such, then, seem to have been the chief gods worshipped by the earlyChaldaeans. It would be an endless as well as an unprofitable task togive an account of the inferior deities. Their name is "Legion;" andthey are, for the most part, too vague and shadowy for effectivedescription. A vast number are merely local; and it may be suspectedthat where this is the case the great gods of the Pantheon come before usrepeatedly, disguised under rustic titles. We have, moreover, no clue atpresent to this labyrinth, on which, even with greater knowledge, itwould perhaps be best for us to forbear to enter; since there is noreason to expect that we should obtain any really valuable results fromits exploration. 

A few words, however, may be added upon the subject of the Chaldaeancosmogony. Although the only knowledge that we possess on this point isderived from Berosus, and therefore we cannot be sure that we have reallythe belief of the ancient people, yet, judging from internal evidence ofcharacter, we may safely pronounce Berosus' account not only archaic, butin its groundwork and essence a primeval tradition, more ancient probablythan most of the gods whom we have been considering. 

"In the beginning, " says this ancient legend, "all was darkness andwater, and therein were generated monstrous animals of strange andpeculiar forms. There were men with two wings, and some even with four, and with two faces; and others with two heads, a man's and a woman's onone body; and there were men with the heads and horns of goats, and menwith hoofs like horses, and some with the upper parts of a man joined tothe lower parts of a horse, like centaurs; and there were bulls withhuman heads, dogs with four bodies and with fishes' tails, men and horseswith dogs' heads, creatures with the heads and bodies of horses, but withthe tails of fish, and other animals mixing the forms of various beasts. Moreover there were monstrous fish and reptiles and serpents, and diversother creatures, which had borrowed something from each other's shapes;of all which the likenesses are still preserved in the temple of Belus. A woman ruleth them all, by name Omorka, which is in Chaldee Thalatth, and in Greek Thalassa (or "the sea"). Then Belus appeared, and split thewoman in twain; and of the one half of her he made the heaven, and of theother half the earth; and the beasts that were in her he caused toperish. And he split the darkness, and divided the heaven and the earthasunder, and put the world in order; and the animals that could not bearthe light perished. Belus, upon this, seeing that the earth wasdesolate, yet teeming with productive power, commanded one of the gods tocut off his head, and to mix the blood which flowed forth with earth, andform men therewith, and beasts that could bear the light. So man wasmade, and was intelligent, being a partaker of the divine wisdom. Likewise Belus made the stars, and the sun and moon, and the fiveplanets. "

It has been generally seen that this cosmogony bears a remarkableresemblance to the history of Creation contained in the opening chaptersof the book of Genesis. Some have gone so far as to argue that theMosaic account was derived from it. Others, who reject this notion, suggest that a certain "old Chaldee tradition" was "the basis of themboth. " If we drop out the word "Chaldee" from this statement, it may beregarded as fairly expressing the truth. The Babylonian legend embodiesa primeval tradition, common to all mankind, of which an inspired authorhas given us the true groundwork in the first and second chapters ofGenesis. What is especially remarkable is the fidelity, comparativelyspeaking, with which the Babylonian legend reports the facts. While thewhole tone and spirit of the two accounts, and even the point of viewfrom which they are taken, differ, the general outline of the narrativein each is nearly the same. In both we have the earth at first "withoutform and void, " and "darkness upon the face of the deep. " In both thefirst step taken towards creation is the separation of the mixed mass, and the formation of the heavens and the earth as the consequence of suchseparation. In both we have light mentioned before the creation of thesun and moon; in both we have the existence of animals before man; and inboth we have a divine element infused into man at his birth, and hisformation "from the dust of the ground. " The only points in which thenarratives can be said to be at variance are points of order. TheBabylonians apparently made the formation of man and of the animals whichat present inhabit the earth simultaneous, and placed the creation of thesun, moon, and planets after, instead of before, that of men and animals. In other respects the Babylonian narrative either adds to the Mosaicaccount, as in its description of the monsters and their destruction, orclothes in mythic language, that could never have been understoodliterally, the truth which in Scripture is put forth with severesimplicity. The cleaving of the woman Thalatth in twain, and thebeheading of Belus, are embellishments of this latter character; they areplainly and evidently mythological; nor can we suppose them to have beenat any time regarded as facts. The existence of the monsters, on theother hand, may well have been an actual belief. All men are prone tobelieve in such marvels; and it is quite possible, as Niebuhr supposes, that some discoveries of the remains of mammoths and other monstrousforms embedded in the crust of the earth, may have given definiteness andprominency to the Chaldaean notions on this subject. 

Besides their correct notions on the subject of creation, the primitiveChaldaeans seem also to have been aware of the general destruction ofmankind, on account of their wickedness, by a Flood; and of therebellious attempt which was made soon after the Flood to concentratethemselves in one place, instead of obeying the command to "replenish theearth" an attempt which was thwarted by means of the confusion of theirspeech. The Chaldaean legends embodying these primitive traditions wereas follows:--

"God appeared to Xisuthrus (Noah) in a dream, and warned him that on thefifteenth day of the month Daesius, mankind would be destroyed by adeluge. He bade him bury in Sippara, the City of the Sun, the extantwritings, first and last; and build a ship, and enter therein with hisfamily and his close friends; and furnish it with meat and drink; andplace on board winged fowl, and four-footed beasts of the earth; and whenall was ready, set sail. Xisuthrus asked 'Whither he was to sail?' andwas told, 'To the gods, with a prayer that it might fare well withmankind. ' Then Xisuthrus was not disobedient to the vision, but built aship five furlongs (3125 feet) in length, and two furlongs (1250 feet) inbreadth; and collected all that had been commanded him, and put his wifeand children and close friends on board. The flood came; and as soon asit ceased, Xisuthrus let loose some birds, which, finding neither foodnor a place where they could rest, came back to the ark. After some dayshe again sent out the birds, which again returned to the ark, but withfeet covered with mud. Sent out a third time, the birds returned nomore, and Xisuthrus knew that land had reappeared: so he removed some ofthe covering of the ark, and looked, and behold! the vessel had groundedon a mountain. Then Xisuthrus went forth with his wife and his daughter, and his pilot, and fell down and worshipped the earth, and built analtar, and offered sacrifice to the gods; after which he disappeared fromsight, together with those who had accompanied him. They who hadremained in the ark and not gone forth with Xisuthrus, now left it andsearched for him, and shouted out his name; but Xisuthrus was not seenany more. Only his voice answered them out of the air, saying, 'WorshipGod; for because I worshipped God, am I gone to dwell with the gods; andthey who were with me have shared the same honor. ' And he bade themreturn to Babylon, and recover the writings buried at Sippara, and makethem known among men; and he told them that the land in which they thenwere was Armenia. So they, when they had heard all, sacrificed to thegods and went their way on foot to Babylon, and, having reached it, recovered the buried writings from Sippara, and built many cities andtemples, and restored Babylon. Some portion of the ark still continuesin Armenia, in the Gordiaean (Kurdish) Mountains; and persons scrape offthe bitumen from it to bring away, and this they use as a remedy to avertmisfortunes. "

"The earth was still of one language, when the primitive men, who wereproud of their strength and stature, and despised the gods as theirinferiors, erected a tower of vast height, in order than they might mountto heaven. And the tower was now near to heaven, when the gods (or God)caused the winds to blow and overturned the structure upon the men, andmade them speak with divers tongues; wherefore the city was calledBabylon. "

Here again we have a harmony with Scripture of the most remarkablekind--a harmony not confined to the main facts, but reaching even to theminuter points, and one which is altogether most curious and interesting. The Babylonians have not only, in common with the great majority ofnations, handed down from age to age the general tradition of the Flood, but they are acquainted with most of the particulars of the occurrence. They know of the divine warning to a single man, the direction toconstruct a huge ship or ark, the command to take into it a chosen fewof mankind only, and to devote the chief space to "winged fowl andfour-footed beasts of the earth. " They are aware of the tentativesending out of birds from it, and of their returning twice, but whensent out a third time returning no more. They know of the egress fromthe ark by removal of some of its covering, and of the altar built andthe sacrifice offered immediately afterwards. They know that the arkrested in Armenia; that those who escaped by means of it, or theirdescendants, journeyed towards Babylon; that there a tower was begun, but not, completed, the building being stopped by divine interpositionand a miraculous confusion of tongues. As before, they are not contentwith the plain truth, but must amplify and embellish it. The size ofthe ark is exaggerated to an absurdity, and its proportions aremisrepresented in such a way as to outrage all the principles of navalarchitecture. The translation of Xisuthrus, his wife, his daughter, andhis pilot--a reminiscence possibly of the translation of Enoch--isunfitly as well as falsely introduced just after they have beenmiraculously saved from destruction. The story of the Tower is givenwith less departure from the actual truth. The building is, however, absurdly represented as an actual attempt to scale heaven; and a stormof wind is somewhat unnecessarily introduced to destroy the Tower, whichfrom the Scripture narrative seems to have been left standing. It isalso especially to be noticed that in the Chaldaean legends the wholeinterest is made narrow and local. The Flood appears as a circumstancein the history of Babylonia; and the priestly traditionists, who haveput the legend into shape, are chiefly anxious to make the event redoundto the glory of their sacred books, which they boast to have been thespecial objects of divine care, and represent as a legacy from theantediluvian ages. The general interests of mankind are nothing to theChaldaean priests, who see in the story of the Tower simply a localetymology, and in the Deluge an event which made the Babylonians thesole possessors of primeval wisdom. 

CHAPTER VIII. 

HISTORY AND CHRONOLOGY. 

"The beginning of his kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad, andCalneh, in the land of Shinar. "--GEN. X. 10. 

The establishment of a Cushite kingdom in Lower Babylonia dates probablyfrom (at least) the twenty-fourth or twenty-fifth century before our era. Greek traditions' assigned to the city of Babylon an antiquity nearly asremote; and the native historian, Berosus, spoke of a Chaldaean dynastyas bearing rule anterior to B. C. 2250. Unfortunately the works of thisgreat authority have been lost; and even the general outline of hischronological scheme, whereof some writers have left us an account, is toa certain extent imperfect; so that, in order to obtain a definitechronology for the early times, we are forced to have recourse, in somedegree, to conjecture. Berosus declared that six dynasties had reignedin Chaldaea since the great flood of Xisuthrus, or Noah. To the first, which consisted of 86 kings, he allowed the extravagant period of 34, 080years. Evechous, the founder of the dynasty, had enjoyed the royaldignity for 2400 years, and Chomasbelus, his son and successor, hadreigned 300 years longer than his father. The other 84 monarchs hadfilled up the remaining space of 28, 980 years--their reigns thusaveraging 345 years apiece. It is clear that these numbers areunhistoric; and though it would be easy to reduce them within the limitsof credibility by arbitrary suppositions--as for instance, that the yearsof the narrative represent months or days--yet it may reasonably bedoubted whether we should in this way be doing any service to the causeof historic truth. The names Evechous and Chomasbelus seem mythic ratherthan real; they represent personages in the Babylonian Pantheon, and canscarcely have been borne by men. It is likely that the entire series ofnames partook of the same character, and that, if we possessed them, their bearing would be found to be, not historic, but mythological. Wemay parallel this dynasty of Berosus, where he reckons king's reigns bythe cyclical periods of _sosses_ and _ners, _ with Manetho's dynasties ofGods and Demigods in Egypt, where the sum of the years is nearly asgreat. 

It is necessary, then, to discard as unhistorical the names and numbersassigned to his first dynasty by Berosus, and to retain from this part ofhis scheme nothing but the fact which he lays down of an ancientChaldaean dynasty having ruled in Babylonia, prior to a conquest, whichled to the establishment of a second dynasty, termed by him Median. 

The scheme of Berosus then, setting aside his numbers for the firstperiod, is--according to the best extant authorities, as follows:--

Dynasty I. Of (?) Chaldaean kings. (?) years. II. Of 8 Median " 234 (?) " III. " 11 " " 48 (?) " IV. " 49 Chaldaean " 458 " V. " 9 Arabian " 245 " VI. " 45 (?) " 526 "Reign of Pul (?)Dynasty VII. Of (?) (?) kings (?) " VIII. " 6 Chaldaean " 87 "

[Illustration: PAGE 98]

It will be observed that this table contains certain defects andweaknesses, which greatly impair its value, and prevent us fromconstructing upon it, without further aid, an exact scheme of chronology. Not only does a doubt attach to one or two of the numbers--to the years, i. E. , of the second and third dynasty--but in two cases we have nonumbers at all set down for us, and must supply them from conjecture, orfrom extraneous sources, before we can make the scheme available. Fortunately in the more important case, that of the seventh dynasty, thenumber of years can be exactly supplied without any difficulty. The Canonof Ptolemy covers, in fact, the whole interval between the reign of Puland the close of the Babylonian Empire, giving for the period of theseventh dynasty 13 reigns in 122 years, and for that of the eighth 5reigns in 87 years. The length of the reign of Pul can, however, only besupplied from conjecture. As it is not an unreasonable supposition thathe may have reigned 28 years, and as this number harmonizes well with thechronological notices of the monuments, we shall venture to assume it, and thus complete the scheme which the fragments of Berosus imperfect. 

[Illustration: PAGE 99]

This scheme, in which there is nothing conjectural except the length ofthe reign of Pul, receives very remarkable confirmation from the Assyrianmonuments. These inform us, first, that there was a conquest of Babylonby a Susianian monarch 1635 yers before the capture of Susa byAsshurbanipal, the son of Esarhaddon; and, secondly, that there was asecond conquest by an Assyrian monarch 600 years before the occupation ofBabylon by Esarhaddon's father, Sennacherib. Now Sennacherib'soccupation of Babylon was in B. C. 702; and 600 years before this bringsus to B. C. 1302, within a year of the date which the scheme assigns tothe accession of the seventh dynasty. Susa was taken by Asshur-bani-palprobably in B. C. 651; and 1635 years before this is B. C. 2286, or theexact year marked in the scheme for the accession of the second (Median)dynasty. This double coincidence can scarcely be accidental; and we mayconclude, therefore, that we have in the above table at any rate a nearapproach to the scheme of Babylonian chronology as received among boththe Babylonians and Assyrians in the seventh century before our era. 

Whether the chronology is wholly trustworthy is another question. Theevidence both of the classical writers and of the monuments is to theeffect that exact chronology was a subject to which the Babylonians andAssyrians paid great attention. The "Canon of Ptolemy, " which containedan exact Babylonian computation of time from B. C. 747 to B. C. 331, isgenerally allowed to be a most authentic document, and one on which wemay place complete reliance. The "Assyrian Canon, " which gives the yearsof the Assyrian monarchs from B. C. 911 to B. C. 660, appears to be equallytrustworthy. How much further exact notation went back, it is impossibleto say. All that we know is, first, that the later Assyrian monarchsbelieved they had means of fixing the exact date of events in their ownhistory and in that of Babylon up to a time distant from their own asmuch as sixteen or seventeen hundred years; and secondly, that thechronology which result from their statements and those of Berosus ismoderate, probably, and in harmony with all the knowledge which we obtainof the East from other sources. It is proposed therefore, in the presentvolumes, to accept the general scheme of Berosus as, in all probability, not seriously in error; and to arrange the Chaldaean, Assyrian, andBabylonian history on the framework which it furnishes. 

Chaldaean history may therefore be regarded as opening upon us at a timeanterior, at any rate by a century or two, to B. C. 2286. It was thenthat Nimrod, the son or descendant of Cush, set up a kingdom in LowerMesopotamia, which attracted the attention of surrounding nations. Thepeople, whom he led, came probably by sea; at any rate, their earliestsettlements were on the coast; and Ur or Hur, on the right bank of theEuphrates, at a very short distance from its embouchure, was theprimitive capital. The "mighty hunter" rapidly spread his dominioninland, subduing or expelling the various tribes by which the country waspreviously occupied. His kingdom extended northwards, at least as far asBabylon, --which (as well as Erech or Huruk, Accad, and Calneh) was firstfounded by this monarch. Further historical details of his reign arewanting; but the strength of his character and the greatness of hisachievements are remarkably indicated by a variety of testimonies, whichplace him among the foremost men of the Old World, and guarantee him anever-ending remembrance. At least as early as the time of Moses hisname had passed into a proverb. He was known as "the mighty hunterbefore the Lord"--an expression which had probably a double meaning, implying at once skill and bravery in the pursuit and destruction of wildbeasts, and also a genius for war and success in his aggressions uponmen. In his own nation he seems to have been deified, and to havecontinued down to the latest times one of the leading objects of worship, under the title of Bilu-Nipru or Bel-Nimrod, which may be translated "thegod of the chase, " or "the great hunter. "

One of his capitals, Calneh, which was regarded as his special city, appears afterwards to have been known by his name (probably as being thechief seat of his worship in the early times); and this name it stillretains, slightly corrupted. In the modern Niffer we may recognize theTalmudical Nopher, and the Assyrian Nipur which is Nipru, with a meremetathesis of the two final letters. The fame of Nimrod has always beenrife in the country of his domination. Arab writers record a number ofremarkable traditions, in which he plays a conspicuous part; and there islittle doubt but that it is in honor of his apotheosis that theconstellation Orion bears in Arabian astronomy the title of El Jabbar, or"the giant. " Even at the present day his name lives in the mouth of thepeople inhabiting Chaldaea and the adjacent regions, whose memory ofancient heroes is almost confined to three--Nimrod, Solomon, andAlexander. Wherever a mound of ashes is to be seen in Babylonia or theadjoining countries, the local traditions attach to it the name ofNiinrud or Nimrod; and the most striking ruins now existing in theMesopotamian valley, whether in its upper or its lower portion, are madein this way monuments of his glory. 

Of the immediate successors of Nimrod we have no account that even themost lenient criticism can view as historical. It appears that hisconquest was followed rapidly by a Semitic emigration from thecountry--an emigration which took a northerly direction. The Assyrianswithdrew from Babylonia, which they still always regarded as theirparent land, and, occupying the upper or non-alluvial portion of theMesopotamian plain, commenced the building of great cities in a tractupon the middle Tigris. The Phoenicians removed from the shores of thePersian Gulf, and, journeying towards the northwest, formed settlementsupon the coast of Canaan, where they became a rich and prosperouspeople. The family of Abraham, and probably other Aramaean families, ascended the Euphrates, withdrawing from a yoke which was oppressive, orat any rate unpleasant. Abundant room was thus made for the Cushiteimmigrants, who rapidly established their preponderance over the wholeof the southern region. As war ceased to be the necessary dailyoccupation of the newcomers, civilization and the arts of life began toappear. The reign of the "Hunter" was followed, after no long time, bythat of the "Builder. " A monumental king, whose name is read doubtfullyas Urkham or Urukh, belongs almost certainly to this early dynasty, andmay be placed next in succession, though at what interval we cannot say, to Nimrod. He is beyond question the earliest Chaldaean monarch of whomany remains have been obtained in the country. Not only are his bricksfound in a lower position than any others, at the very foundations ofbuildings, but they are of a rude and coarse make, and the inscriptionsupon them contrast most remarkably, in the simplicity of the style ofwriting used and in their general archaic type, with the elaborate andoften complicated symbols of the later monarchs. The style of Urukh'sbuildings is also primitive and simple in the extreme; his bricks are ofmany sizes, and ill fitted together; he belongs to a time when even thebaking of bricks seems to have been comparatively rare, for sometimes heemploys only the sun-dried material; and he is altogether unacquaintedwith the use of lime mortar, for which his substitute is moist mud, orelse bitumen. There can be little doubt that he stands at the head ofthe present series of monumental kings, another of whom probably reignedas early as B. C. 2286. As he was succeeded by a son, whose reign seemsto have been of the average length, we must place his accession at leastas early as B. C. 2326. Possibly it may have fallen a century earlier. 

It is as a builder of gigantic works that Urukh is chiefly known to us. The basement platforms of his temples are of an enormous size; and thoughthey cannot seriously be compared with the Egyptian pyramids, yetindicate the employment for many years of a vast amount of human labor ina very unproductive sort of industry. The Bowariyeh mound at Warka is200 feet square, and about 100 feet high. Its cubic contents, asoriginally built, can have been little, if at all, under 3, 000, 000 feet;and above 30, 000, 000 of bricks must have been used in its construction. Constructions of a similar character, and not very different in theirdimensions, are proved by the bricks composing them to have been raisedby the same monarch at Ur, Calneh or Nipur, and Larancha or Larsa, whichis perhaps Ellasar. It is evident, from the size and number of theseworks, that their erector had the command of a vast amount of "nakedhuman strength, " and did not scruple to employ that strength inconstructions from which no material benefit was derivable, but whichwere probably designed chiefly to extend his own fame and perpetuate hisglory. We may gather from this that he was either an oppressor of hispeople, like some of the Pyramid Kings in Egypt, or else a conqueror, whothus employed the numerous captives carried off in his expeditions. Perhaps the latter is the more probable supposition; for the builders ofthe great fabrics in Babylonia and Chaldaea do not seem to have leftbehind them any character of oppressiveness, such as attaches commonly tothose monarchs who have ground down their own people by servile labor. 

The great buildings of Urukh appear to have been all designed fortemples. They are carefully placed with their angles facing the cardinalpoints, and are dedicated to the Sun, the Moon, to Belus (Bel-Nimrod), orto Beltis. The temple at Mugheir was built in honor of the Moon-god, Sinor Hiuki, who was the tutelary deity of the city. The Warka temple wasdedicated to Beltis. At Calneh or Nipur, Urukh erected two temples, oneto Beltis and one to Belus. At Larsa or Ellasar the object of hisworship was the Sun-god, San or Sansi. He would thus seem to have beenno special devotee of a single god, but to have divided out his favorsvery fairly among the chief personages of the Pantheon. 

It has been observed that both the inscriptions of this king, and hisarchitecture, are of a rude and primitive type. Still in neither case dowe seem to be brought to the earliest dawn of civilization or of art. The writing of Urukh has passed out of the first or hieroglyphic stage, and entered the second or transition one, when pictures are no longerattempted, but the lines or wedges follow roughly the old outline of theobjects in his architecture, again, though there is much that is rudeand simple, there is also a good deal which indicates knowledge andexperience. The use of the buttress is understood; and the buttress isvaried according to the material. The importance of sloping the walls ofbuildings inwards to resist interior pressure is thoroughly recognized. Drains are introduced to carry off moisture, which must otherwise havebeen very destructive to buildings composed mainly, or entirely, of crudebrick. It is evident that the builders whom the king employs, thoughthey do not possess much genius, have still such a knowledge of the mostimportant principles of their art as is only obtained gradually by a gooddeal of practice. Indeed, the very fact of the continued existence oftheir works at the distance of forty centuries is sufficient evidencethat they possessed a considerable amount of architectural skill andknowledge. We are further, perhaps, justified in concluding, from thecareful emplacement of Urukh's temples, that the science of astronomy wasalready cultivated in his reign, and was regarded as having a certainconnection with religion. We have seen that the early worship of theChaldaeans was to a great extent astral--a fact which naturally made theheavenly bodies special objects of attention. If the series ofobservations which Callisthenes sent to Aristotle, dating from B. C. 2234, was in reality a record, and not a mere calculation backwards ofthe dates at which certain celestial phenomena must have taken place, astronomical studies must have been pretty well advanced at a period notlong subsequent to Urukh. 

Nor must we omit to notice, if we would estimate aright the condition ofChaldaean art under this king, the indications furnished by hissignet-cylinder. So far as we can judge from the representation, whichis all that we possess of this relic, the drawing on the cylinder was asgood and the engraving as well executed as any work of the kind, eitherof the Assyrian or of the later Babylonian period. Apart from theinscription this work of art has nothing about it that is rude orprimitive. The elaboration of the dresses and headgear of the figureshas been already noticed. It is also worthy of remark, that theprincipal figure sits on an ornamental throne or chair, of particularlytasteful construction, two legs of which appear to have been modelledafter those of the bull or ox. We may conclude, without much danger ofmistake, that in the time of the monarch who owned this seal, dresses ofdelicate fabric and elaborate pattern, and furniture of a recherche andelegant shape, were in use among the people over whom he exerciseddominion. 

The chief capital city of Urukh appears to have been Ur. He callshimself "King of Ur and Kingi Accad;" and it is at Ur that he raises hisprincipal buildings. Ur, too, has furnished the great bulk of hisinscriptions. Babylon was not yet a place of much importance, though itwas probably built by Nimrod. The second city of the Empire was Huruk orErech: other places of importance were Larsa (Ellasar?) and Nipur orCalneh. 

Urukh appears to have been succeeded in the kingdom by a son, whose nameit is proposed to read as Elgi or Ilgi. Of this prince our knowledge issomewhat scanty. Bricks bearing his name have been found at Ur (Mugheir)and at Tel Eid, near Erech, or Warka; and his signet-cylinder has beenrecovered, and is now in the British Museum. We learn from inscriptionsof Nabonidus that he completed some of the buildings at Ur, which hadbeen left unfinished by his father; while his own bricks inform us thathe built or repaired two of the principal temples at Erech. On hissignet-cylinder he takes the title of "King of Ur. "

After the death of Ilgi, Chaldaean history is for a time a blank. Itwould seem, however, that while the Cushites were establishing themselvesin the alluvial plain towards the mouths of the two great rivers, therewas growing up a rival power, Turanian, or Ario-Turanian, in theneighboring tract at the foot of the Zagros mountain-chain. One of themost ancient, perhaps the most ancient, of all the Asiatic cities wasSusa, the Elamitic capital, which formed the centre of a nationality thatendured from the twenty-third century B. C. To the time of DariusHystaspis (B. C. 520) when it sank finally under the Persians. A king ofElam, whose court was held at Susa, led, in the year B. C. 2286 (or alittle earlier), an expedition against the cities of Chaldaea, succeededin carrying all before him, ravaged the country, took the towns, plundered the temples, and bore off into his own country, as the moststriking evidence of victory, the images of the deities which theBabylonians especially reverenced. This king's name, which wasKudur-Nakhunta, is thought to be the exact equivalent of one which has aworld-wide celebrity, to wit, Zoroaster. Now, according to Polyhistor(who here certainly repeats Berosus), Zoroaster was the first of thoseeight Median kings who composed the second dynasty in Chaldaea, andoccupied the throne from about B. C. 2286 to 2052. The Medes arerepresented by him as capturing Babylon at this time, and imposingthemselves as rulers upon the country. Eight kings reigned in space of234 (or 224) years, after which we hear no more of Medes, thesovereignty being (as it would seem) recovered by the natives. Thecoincidences of the conquest the date, the foreign sovereignty and thename Zoroaster, tend to identify the Median dynasty of Berosus with aperiod of Susianian supremacy, which the monuments show to have beenestablished it Chaldaea at a date not long subsequent to the reigns ofUrukh and Ilgi, and to have lasted for a considerable period. 

There are five monarchs known to us who may be assigned to this dynasty. The first is the Kudur-Nakhunta above named, who conquered Babylonia andestablished his influence there, but continued to hold his court at Susa, governing his conquest probably by means of a viceroy or tributary king. Next to him, at no great interval, may be placed Kudur-Lagamer, theChedor-laomer of Scripture, who held a similar position toKudur-Nakhunta, reigning himself in Elam, while his vassals, Amraphel, Arioch, and Tidal (or Turgal) held the governments respectfully ofShinar (or Upper Babylonia), Ellasar (Lower Babylonia or Chaldaea), andthe Goim or the nomadic races. Possessing thus an authority over thewhole of the alluvial plain, and being able to collect together aformidable army, Kudur-Lagamer resolved on a expedition up theEuphrates, with the object of extending his dominion to theMediterranean Sea and to the borders of Egypt. At first his endeavorswere successful. Together with his confederate kings, he marched as faras Palestine, where he was opposed by the native princes, Bera, king ofSodom, Birsha, king of Gomorrah, Shinab, king of Admah, Shemeber, kingof Zeboiim, and the king of Bela or Zoar. A great battle was foughtbetween the two confederated armies in the vale of Siddim towards thelower end of the Dead Sea. The invaders were victorious; and for twelveyears Bera and his allies were content to own themselves subjects of theElamitic king, whom they "served" for that period. In the thirteenthyear they rebelled: a general rising of the western nations seems tohave taken place; and in order to maintain his conquest it was necessaryfor the conqueror to make a fresh effort. Once more the four easternkings entered Syria, and, after various successes against minor powers, engaged a second time in the valley of Siddim with their oldantagonists, whom they defeated with great slaughter; after which theyplundered the chief cities belonging to them. It was on this occasionthat Lot, the nephew of Abraham, was taken prisoner. Laden with bootyof various kinds, and encumbered with a number of captives, male andfemale, the conquering army set out upon its march home, and had reachedthe neighborhood of Damascus, when it was attacked and defeated byAbraham, who with a small band ventured under cover of night to fallupon the retreating host, which he routed and pursued to some distance. The actual slaughter can scarcely have been great; but the prisoners andthe booty taken had to be surrendered; the prestige of victory was lost;and the result appears to have been that the Mesopotamian monarchrelinquished his projects, and, contenting himself with the fameacquired by such distant expeditions, made no further attempt to carryhis empire beyond the Euphrates. 

The other three kings who may be assigned to the Elamitic dynasty are afather, son, and grandson, whose names appear upon the native monumentsof Chaldaea in a position which is thought to imply that they wereposterior to the kings Urukh and Ilgi, but of greater antiquity than anyother monarchs who have left memorials in the country. Their names areread as Sinti-shil-khak, Kudur-Mabuk, and Arid-Sin. Of Sinti-shil khaknothing is known beyond the name. Kudur-Mabuk is said in theinscriptions of his son to have "enlarged the dominions of the city ofUr;" and on his own bricks he bears the title of Apda Martu, whichprobably means "Conqueror of the West. " We may presume therefore thathe was a warlike prince, like Kudur-Nakhunta and Kudur-Lagamer; andthat, like the latter of these two kings, he made war in the directionof Syria, though he may not have carried his arms so far as his greatpredecessor. He and his son both held their court at Ur, and, though offoreign origin, maintained the Chaldaean religion unchanged, makingadditions to the ancient temples, and worshipping the Chaldaean godsunder the old titles. 

The circumstances which brought the Elamitic dynasty to a close, andrestored the Chaldaean throne to a line of native princes, andunrecorded by any historian; nor have the monuments hitherto thrown anylight upon them. If we may trust the numbers of the Armenian Eusebius, the dynasty which succeeded, ab. B. C. 2052, to the Susianian (orMedian), though it counted eleven kings, bore rule for the short spaceof forty-eight years only. This would seem to imply either a state ofgreat internal disturbance, or a time during which viceroys, removableat pleasure and often removed, governed the country under some foreignsuzerain. In either case, the third dynasty of Berosus may be said tomark a transition period between the time of foreign subjection and thatof the recovery by the native Chaldaeans of complete independence. 

To the fourth Berosian dynasty, which held the throne for 458 years, from about B. C. 2004 to B. C. 1546, the monuments enable us to assignsome eight or ten monarchs, whose inscriptions are characterized by ageneral resemblance, and by a character intermediate between the extremerudeness of the more ancient and the comparative elegance and neatnessof the later legends. Of these kings one of the earliest was a certainIsmidagon, the date of whose reign we are able to fix with a nearapproach to exactness. Sennacherib, in a rock inscription at Bavian, relates that in his tenth year (which was B. C. 692) he recovered fromBabylon certain images of the gods which had been carried thitherby Merodach-iddin-akhi, King of Babylon, after his defeat ofTiglath-Pileser, King of Assyria, 418 years previously. And the sameTiglath-Pileser relates that he rebuilt a temple in Assyria, which hadbeen taken down 60 years before, after it had lasted 641 years from itsfoundation by Shamas-Vul, sun of Ismi-dagon. It results from thesenumbers that Ismi-dagon was king as early as B. C. 1850, or, probably alittle earlier. 

The monuments furnish little information concerning Ismidagon beyond theevidence which they afford of the extension of this king's dominion intothe upper part of the Mesopotamian valley, and especially into thecountry known in later times as Assyria. The fact that Shamas-Vul, theson of Ismi-dagon, built a temple at Kileh-Sherghat, implies necessarilythat the Chaldaans at this time bore sway in the upper region. Shamas-Vul appears to have been, not the eldest, but the second son ofthe monarch, and must be viewed as ruling over Assyria in the capacityof viceroy, either for his father or his brother. Such evidence as wepossess of the condition of Assyria about this period seems to show thatit was weak and insignificant, administered ordinarily by Babyloniansatraps or governors, whose office was one of no great rank or dignity. 

In Chaldaea, Ismi-dagon was succeeded by a son, whose name is read, somewhat doubtfully, as Gunguna or Gurguna. This prince is known to usespecially as the builder of the great public cemeteries which now formthe most conspicuous objects among the ruins of Mugheir, and theconstruction of which is so remarkable. Ismi-dagon and his son musthave occupied the Chaldaean throne during most of the latter half of thenineteenth century before our era-from about B. C. 1850 to B. C. 1800. 

Hitherto there has been no great difficulty in determining the order ofthe monumental kings, from the position of their bricks in the principalChaldaean ruins and the general character of their inscriptions. Butthe relative place occupied in the series by the later monarchs isrendered very doubtful by their records being scattered and unconnected, while their styles of inscription vary but slightly. It is mostunfortunate that no writer has left us a list corresponding inBabylonian history with that which Manetho put on record for Egyptian;since we are thus compelled to arrange our names in an order which restson little more than conjecture. 

The monumental king who is thought to have approached the nearest toGurguna is Naram-Sin, of whom a record has been discovered at Babylon, and who is mentioned in a late inscription as the builder, inconjunction with his father, of a temple at the city of Agana. His dateis probably about B. C. 1750. The seat of his court may be conjecturedto have been Babylon, which had by this time risen into metropolitanconse quence. It is evident that, as time went on, the tendency was toremove the seat of government and empire to a greater distance from thesea. The early monarchs reign at Ur (Mugheir), and leave no traces ofthemselves further north than Niffer. Sin-Shada holds his court atErech (Warka), twenty-five miles above Mugheir; while Naram-Sin isconnected with the still more northern city of Babylon. We shall find asimilar tendency in Assyria, as it rose into power. In both cases wemay regard the fact as indicative of a gradual spread of empire towardsthe north, and of the advance of civilization and settled government inthat direction. 

A king, who disputes the palm of antiquity with Naram-Sin, has leftvarious records at Erech or Warka, which appears to have been hiscapital city. It is proposed to call him Sin-Shada. He constructed, orrather re-built, the upper terrace of the Bowariyeh ruin, or greattemple, which Urukh raised at Warka to Beltis; and his bricks are foundin the doorway of another large ruin (the _Wuswas_) at the same place;it is believed, however, that in this latter building they are not insitu, but have been transferred from some earlier edifice. His reignfell probably in the latter part of the 18th, century B. C. 

Several monarchs of the Sin series--i. E. Monarchs into whose names theword Sin, the name of the Moon-god, enters as an element--now presentthemselves. The most important of them has been called Zur-Sin. Thisking erected some buildings at Mugheir; but he is best known as thefounder of the very curious town whose ruins bear at the present day thename of Abu-Shahrein. A description of the principal buildings at thissite has been already given. They exhibit certain improvements on thearchitecture of the earlier times, and appear to have been very richlyornamented, at least in parts. At the same time they contain amongtheir debris remarkable proofs of the small advance which had as yetbeen made in some of the simplest arts. Flint knives and otherimplements, stone hatchets, chisels, and nails, are abundant in theruins; and though the use of metal is not unknown, it seems to have beencomparatively rare. When a metal is found, it is either gold or bronze, no trace of iron (except in ornaments of the person) appearing in any ofthe Chaldaean remains. Zur-Sin, Rim-Sin, and three or four othermonarchs of the Sin series, whose names are imperfect or uncertain, maybe assigned to the period included between B. C. 1700 and B. C. 1546. 

Another monarch, and the only other monumental name that we can assign toBerosus's fourth dynasty, is a certain Nur-Vul, who appears by theChaldaean sale-tablets to have been the immediate predecessor of Rim-Sin, the last king of the _Sin_ series. Nur-Vul has left no buildings orinscriptions; and we seem to see in the absence of all importantmonuments at this time a period of depression, such as commonly in thehistory of nations precedes and prepares the way for a new dynasty or aconquest. 

The remaining monumental kings belong almost certainly to the fifth, orArabian, dynasty of Berosus, to which he assigns the period of 245 years--from about B. C. 1546 to B. C. 1300. That the list comprises as many asfifteen names, whereas Berosus speaks of nine Arabian kings only, neednot surprise us, since it is not improbable that Berosus may have omittedkings who reigned for less than a year. To arrange the fifteen monarchsin chronological order is, unfortunately, impossible. Only three of themhave left monuments. The names of the others are found on linguistic andother tablets, in a connection which rarely enables us to determineanything with respect to their relative priority or posteriority. Wecan, however, definitely place seven names, two at the beginning and fivetoward the end of the series, thus leaving only eight whose position inthe list is undetermined. 

The series commences with a great king, named Khammurabi, who wasprobably the founder of the dynasty, the "Arab" chief who, takingadvantage of the weakness and depression of Chaldaea under the lattermonarchs of the fourth dynasty, by intrigue or conquest established hisdominion over the country, and left the crown to his descendants. Khammurabi is especially remarkable as having been the first (so far asappears) of the Babylonian monarchs to conceive the notion of carryingout a system of artificial irrigation in his dominions, by means of acanal derived from one of the great rivers. The _Nahar-Khammu-rabi_("River of Khabbu-rabi "), whereof he boasts in one of his inscriptions, was no doubt, as he states, "a blessing to the Babylonians"--it "changeddesert plains into well-watered fields; it spread around fertility anabundance"--it brought a whole district, previously barren, intocultivation, and it set an example, which the best of the later monarchsfollowed, of a mode whereby the productiveness of the country might beincreased to an almost inconceivable extent. 

Khammu-rabi was also distinguished as a builder. He repaired the greattemple of the Sun at Senkereh and constructed for himself a new palace atKalwadha, or Chilmad, not far from the modern Baghdad. His inscriptionshave been found at Babylon, at Zerghul, and at Tel-Sifr; and it isthought probable that he made Babylon his ordinary place of residence. His reign probably covered the space from about B. C. 1546 to B. C. 1520, when he left his crown to his son, Samsu-iluna. Of this monarch ournotices are exceedingly scanty. We know him only from the Tel-Sifr claytablets, several of which are dated by the years of his reign. He heldthe crown probably from about B. C. 1520 to B. C. 1500. 

About sixty or seventy years after this we come upon a group of names, belonging almost certainly to this same dynasty, which possess a peculiarinterest, inasmuch as they serve to connect the closing period of theFirst, or Chaldaean, with the opening portion of the Second, or Assyrian, Monarchy. A succession of five Babylonian monarchs is mentioned on anAssyrian tablet, the object of which is to record the synchronous historyof the two countries. These monarchs are contemporary with independentAssyrian princes, and have relations toward them which are sometimespeaceful, sometimes warlike. Kara-in-das, the first of the five, is onterms of friendship with Asshur-bel-nisi-su, king of Assyria, andconcludes with him a treaty of alliance. This treaty is renewed betweenhis successor, Purna-puriyas, and Buzur-Asshur, the successor ofAsshur-bel-nisi-su on the throne of Assyria. Not long afterwards a thirdAssyrian monarch, Asshur-upallit, obtains the crown, and Purna-puriyasnot only continues on the old terms of amity with him, but draws the tieswhich unite the two royal families closer by marrying Asshur-upallit'sdaughter. The issue of this marriage is a prince named Kara-khar-das, who on the death of Purna-puriyas ascends the throne of Babylon. Butnow a revolution occurs. A certain Nazi-bugas rises in revolt, putsKara-khar-das to death, and succeeds in making himself king. HereuponAsshur-upallit takes up arms, invades Babylonia, defeats and killsNazi-bugas, and places upon the throne a brother of the murderedKara-khar-das, a younger son of Purna-puriyas, by name Kurri-galzu, or Durri-galzu. These events may be assigned with much probabilityto the period between B. C. 1440 and B. C. 1380. 

Of the five consecutive monarchs presented to our notice in thisinteresting document, two are known to us by their own inscriptions. Memorials of Purna-puriyas and Kurri-galzu, very similar in their generalcharacter, have been found in various parts of Chaldala. Those ofPurna-puriyas come from Senkereh the ancient Larsa, and consist of bricks, showing that he repaired the great temple of the Sun at that city whichwas originally built by Urukh. Kurri-galzu's memorials comprise bricksfrom Mugheir (Ur) and Akkerkuf, together with his signet-seal, which wasfound at Baghdad in the year 1800. [PLATE XXI. , Fig. 4. ] It also appearsby an inscription of Nabonidus that he repaired a temple at the city ofAgana, and left an inscription there. 

But the chief fame of Kurri-galzu arises from his having been the founderof an important city. The remarkable remains at Akkerkuf, of which anaccount has been given in a former chapter, mark the site of a town ofhis erection. It is conjectured with some reason that this place is theDur-Kurri-galzu of the later Assyrian inscriptions--a place of so muchconsequence in the time of Sargon that he calls it "the key of thecountry. "

The remaining monarchs, who are on strong grounds of probability, etymological and other, assigned to this dynasty are Saga-raktiyas, thefounder of a Temple of the male and female Sun at Sippara, Ammidi-kaga, Simbar-sikhu, Kharbisikhu, Ulam-puriyas, Nazi-urdas, Mili-sikhu, andKara-kharbi. Nothing is known at present of the position which any ofthese monarchs held in the dynasty, or of their relationship to the kingspreviously mentioned, or to each other. Most of them are known to ussimply from their occurrence in a biliugual list of kings, together withKhammu-rabi, Kurri-galzu, and Purna-puriyas. The list in questionappears not to be chronological. 

Modern research has thus supplied us with memorials (or at any rate withthe names) of some thirty kings, who ruled in the country properly termedChaldaea at a very remote date. Their antiquity is evidenced by thecharacter of their buildings and of their inscriptions, which areunmistakably rude and archaic. It is further indicated by the fact thatthey are the builders of certainly the most ancient edifices whereof thecountry contains any trace. The probable connection of two of them withthe only king known previously from good authority to have reigned in thecountry during the primitive ages confirms the conclusion drawn from theappearance of the remains themselves; which is further strengthened bythe monumental dates assigned to two of them, which place themrespectively in the twenty-third and the nineteenth century before ourera. That the kings belong to one series, and (speaking broadly) to onetime, is evidenced by the similarity of the titles which they use, bytheir uninterrupted worship of the same gods, and by the generalresemblance of the language and mode of writing which they employ. That the time to which they belong is anterior to the rise of Assyriato greatness appears from the synchronism of the later monarchs of theChaldaean with the earliest of the Assyrian list, as well as from thefact that the names borne by the Babylonian kings after Assyria becamethe leading power in the country are not only different, but of adifferent type. If it be objected that the number of thirty kings isinsufficient for the space over which they have in our scheme beenspread, we may answer that it has never been, supposed by any one thatthe twenty-nine or thirty kings, of whom distinct mention has been madein the foregoing account, are a complete list of all the Chaldaeansovereigns. On the contrary, it is plain that they are a very incompletelist, like that which Herodotus gives of the kings of Egypt, or thatwhich the later Romans possessed of their early monarchs. The monumentsthemselves present indications of several other names of kings, belongingevidently to the same series, which are too obscure or too illegible fortransliteration. And there may, of course, have been many others of whomno traces remain, or of whom none have been as yet found. On the otherhand, it may be observed, that the number of the early Chaldaean kingsreported by Polyhistor is preposterous. If sixty-eight consecutivemonarchs held the Chaldaean throne between B. C. 2286 and B. C. 1546, theymust have reigned on an average, less than eleven years apiece. Nay, ifforty-nine ruled between B. C. 2004 and B. C. 1546, covering a space oflittle more than four centuries and a half--which is what Berosus is madeto assert--these later monarchs cannot even have reigned so long as tenyears each, an average which may be pronounced quite impossible in asettled monarchy such as the Chaldaean. The probability would seem to bethat Berosus has been misreported, his numbers having suffered corruptionduring their passage through so many hands, and being in this instancequite untrustworthy. We may conjecture that the actual number of reignswhich he intended to allow his fourth dynasty was nineteen, or at theutmost twenty-nine, the former of which numbers would give the commonaverage of twenty-four years, while the latter would produce the lessusual but still possible one of sixteen years. 

The monarchy which we have had under review is one, no doubt, rathercurious from its antiquity than illustrious from its great names, oradmirable for the extent of its dominions. Less ancient than theEgyptian, it claims the advantage of priority over every empire orkingdom which has grown up upon the soil of Asia. The Arian, Turanian, and even the Semitic tribes, appear to have been in the nomadiccondition, when the Cushite settlers in Lower Babylonia betook themselvesto agriculture, erected temples, built cities, and established a strongand settled government. The leaven which was to spread by degreesthrough the Asiatic peoples was first deposited on the shores of thePersian Gulf at the mouth of the Great River; and hence civilization, science, letters, art, extended themselves northward, and eastward, andwestward. Assyria, Media, Semitic Babylonia, Persia, as they derivedfrom Chaldaea the character of their writing, so were they indebted tothe same country for their general notions of government andadministration, for their architecture, their decorative art, and stillmore for their science and literature. Each people no doubt modified insome measure the boon received, adding more or less of its own to thecommon inheritance. But Chaldaea stands forth as the great parent andoriginal inventress of Asiatic civilization, without any rival that canreasonably dispute her claims. The great men of the Empire are Nimrod, Urukh, and Che-dor-laomer. Nimrod, the founder, has the testimony ofScripture that he was "a mighty one in the earth;" "a mighty hunter;"the establisher of a "kingdom, " when kingdoms had scarcely begun to beknown; the builder of four great and famous cities, "Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar, " or Mesopotamia. To himbelong the merit of selecting a site peculiarly fitted for thedevelopment of a great power in the early ages of the world, and ofbinding men together into a community which events proved to possesswithin it the elements of prosperity and permanence. Whether he had, indeed, the rebellious and apostate character which numerous traditions, Jewish, Arabian, and Armenian, assign to him; whether he was in realityconcerned in the building of the tower related in the eleventh chapter ofthe Book of Genesis, we have no means of positively determining. Thelanguage of Scripture with regard to Nimrod is laudatory rather than thecontrary; and it would seem to have been from a misapprehension of the_nexus_ of the Mosaic narrative that the traditions above mentionedoriginated. Nimrod, "the mighty hunter _before the Lord_, " had not inthe days of Moses that ill reputation which attached to him in laterages, when he was regarded as the great Titan or Giant, who made warupon the gods, and who was at once the builder of the tower, and thepersecutor who forced Abraham to quit his original country. It is atleast doubtful whether we ought to allow any weight at all to theadditions and embellishments with which later writers, so much wiserthan Moses, have overlaid the simplicity of his narrative. 

Urukh, whose fame may possibly have reached the Romans, was the greatChaldaean architect. To him belongs, apparently, the conception of theBabylonian temple, with its rectangular base, carefully placed so as topresent its angles to the four cardinal points, its receding stages, itsbuttresses, its drains, its sloped walls, its external staircases forascent, and its ornamental shrine crowning the whole. At any rate, if hewas not the first to conceive and erect such structures, he set theexample of building them on such a scale and with such solidity as tosecure their long continuance, and render them well-nigh imperishable. There is no appearance in all Chaldaea, so far as it has been explored, of any building which can be even probably assigned to a date anterior toUrukh. The attempted tower was no doubt earlier; and it may have been abuilding of the same type, but there is no reason to believe that anyremnant, or indeed any trace, of this primitive edifice, has continued toexist to our day. The structures of the most archaic characterthroughout Chaldaea are, one and all, the work of King Urukh, who was notcontent to adorn his metropolitan city only with one of the new edifices, but added a similar ornament to each of the great cities within hisempire. 

The great builder was followed shortly by the great conqueror. Kudur-Lagamer, the Elamitic prince, who, more than twenty centuriesbefore our era, having extended his dominion over Babylonia and theadjoining regions, marched an army a distance of 1200 miles from theshores of the Persian Gulf to the Dead Sea, and held Palestine and Syriain subjection for twelve years, thus effecting conquests which were notagain made from the same quarter till the time of Nebuchadnezzar, fifteen or sixteen hundred years afterward, has a good claim to beregarded as one of the most remarkable personages in the world'shistory-being, as he is, the forerunner and proto-type of all thosegreat Oriental conquerors who from time to time have built up vastempires in Asia out of heterogeneous materials, which have in a longeror a shorter space successively crumbled to decay. At a time when thekings of Egypt had never ventured beyond their borders, unless it werefor a foray in Ethiopia, and when in Asia no monarch had held dominionover more than a few petty tribes, and a few hundred miles of territory, he conceived the magnificent notion of binding into one the manifoldnations inhabiting the vast tract which lies between the Zagrosmountain-range and the Mediterranean. Lord by inheritance (as we maypresume) of Eliun and Chaldaea or Babylonia, he was not content withthese ample tracts, but, coveting more, proceeded boldly on a career ofconquest up the Euphrates valley, and through Syria, into Palestine. Successful here, he governed for twelve years dominions extending near athousand miles from east to west, and from north to south probably notmuch short of five hundred. It was true that he was not able to holdthis large extent of territory; but the attempt and the successtemporarily attending it are memorable circumstances, and were probablylong held in remembrance through Western Asia, where they served as astimulus and incentive to the ambition of later monarchs. 

These, then, are the great men of the Chaldaean empire. Its extent, aswe have seen, varied greatly at different periods. Under the kings ofthe first dynasty--to which Urukh and Ilgi belonged--it was probablyconfined to the alluvium, which seems then to have been not more than 300miles in length along the course of the rivers, and which is about 70 or80 miles in breadth from the Tigris to the Arabian desert. In the courseof the second dynasty it received a vast increase, being carried in onedirection to the Elamitic mountains, and in another to the Mediterranean, by the conquest of Kudur-Nakhunta and Chedor-laomer. On the defeat ofthe latter prince it again contracted, though to what extent we have nomeans of determining. It is probable that Elam or Susiana, and notunlikely that the Euphrates valley, for a considerable distance aboveHit, formed parts of the Chaldaean Empire after the loss of Syria andPalestine. Assyria occupied a similar position, at any rate from thetime of Ismi-dagon, whose son built a temple at Kileh-Sherghat or Asshur. There is reason to think that the subjection of Assyria continued to thevery end of the dynasty, and that this region, whose capital was atKileh-Sherghat, was administered by viceroys deriving their authorityfrom Chaldaean monarchs. These monarchs, as has been observed, graduallyremoved their capital more and more northwards; by which it would appearas if their empire tended to progress in that direction. 

The different dynasties which ruled in Chaldaea prior to theestablishment of Assyrian influence, whether Chaldaean, Susianian, orArabian, seem to have been of kindred race; and, whether they establishedthemselves by conquest, or in a more peaceful manner, to have madelittle, if any, change in the language, religion, or customs of theEmpire. The so-called Arab kings, if they are really (as we havesupposed), Khammurabi and his successors, show themselves by their namesand their inscriptions to be as thoroughly proto-Chaldaaan as Urukh orIlgi. But with the commencement of the Assyrian period the case isaltered. From the time of Tiglathi-Nin (about B. C. 1300), the Assyrianconqueror who effected the subjugation of Babylon, a strong Semitizinginfluence made itself felt in the lower country--the monarchs cease tohave Turanian or Cushite and bear instead thoroughly Assyrian names;inscriptions, when they occur, are in the Assyrian language andcharacter. The entire people seems by degrees to have been Assyrianized, or at any rate Semitized-assimilated, that is, to the stock of nations towhich the Jews, the northern Arabs, the Aramaeans or Syrians, thePhoenicians, and the Assyrians belong. Their language fell into disuse, and grew to be a learned tongue studied by the priests and the literati;their Cushite character was lost, and they became, as a people, scarcelydistinguishable from the Assyrians. After six centuries and a half ofsubmission and insignificance, the Chaldaeans, however, began to reviveand recover themselves--they renewed the struggle for nationalindependence, and in the year B. C. 625 succeeded in establishing a secondkingdom, which will be treated of in a later volume as the fourth orBabylonian Monarchy. Even when this monarchy met its death at the handsof Cyrus the Great, the nationality of the Chaldaeans was not swept away. We find them recognized under the Persians, and even under the Parthians, as a distinct people. When at last they cease to have a separatenational existence, their name remains; and it is in memory of thesuccessful cultivation of their favorite science by the people of Nimrodfrom his time to that of Alexander, that the professors of astronomicaland astrological learning under the Roman Emperors receive, from thepoets and historians of the time, the appellation of "Chaldaeans. "

LIST OF AUTHORS AND EDITIONS QUOTED IN THE NOTES. 

ABULPHARAGIUS, Chronicon Syriacum, ed. J. Bruno, Lipsim, 1789. Agathangelus, Historia Regni Tiridatis, in C. Muller's Fragm. Hist. Gr. Vol. V. , Parisiis, 1870. Agathias, in the Corpus Script. Hist. Byz. Of B. G. Niebuhr, Bonnm, 1828. Ammianus Marcellinus, ed. Gronovius, Lugd. Bat. , 1693. Analecta Grmca, ed. Benedict. , Lutetite Parisioruin, 1688. Annales de l'Institut Archeologique, Paris, 1828, &c. Anonymus (continuator of Dio Cassius), in the Fragm. Hist. Gr. , vol. Iv. , Parisiis, 1851. Antonini Itinerarium, ed. Parthey et Pinder, Berolini, 1848. Appianus, Historia Romana, ed. H. Stephanus, Parisiis. 1592. Aristotle, Ethica Nicomachea, ed. Tauchnitz, Lipsim, 1831. Arrianus, Exped. Alex. , ed. Tauchnitz, Lipsim, 1829. Fragments of, in the Fragm. Hist. Greec. Of C. MUller, vol. Iii. , Parisiis, 1849. Historia Indica. In C. Muller's Geographi Minores, Parisiis, 1855-1861. Asseman, Bibliotheca Orientalis, Romae, 1719-1728. Athanasius, Opera, ed. Benedict. , Parisiis, 1698. Athenaeus, Deipnosophistw, ed. Schweighmuser, Argentorat. , 1801-1807. Atkinson, Firdausi, in the Publications of the Oriental Translation Committee, London, 1832. Augnstinus, Opera, ed. Benedict. , Antwerpim, 1700. Aurelius Victor, Hist. Rom. Breviarium, ed. Pitiscus, Traject. Ad. Rhen. , 1696. 

BASILIUS STUs. , Opera, ed. Benedict. , Peruses, 17, 21-17. 10. Behistun inscription, ed. H. C. Rawlinson. In the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, vols. X. . Xi. , &c. Berosus, in the Fragments Histor. Grmorum of C. Miiller, vol. Ii. , Paris, 1847. Bohlen, Das alte Indien, Konigsberg, 1830. Botta, Monument de Ninive, Paris, 1850, Bunsen, Chevalier, Philosophy (if Universal History. London, 1854. Burton, Dr. , Ecclesiastical History of the First Three Centuries, Oxford, 1831. 

CAPITOLINUS. JULIUS, in the Historiai, Augustm Scriptores of Jordan and Eyssenhardt, Berolini, 1864. Cedrenus, in the Corpus Script. Hist. Byzant. Of B, G. Niebuhr, Bonnm, 1838. Champagny, Les Caesars du Troisieme Siecle, Paris, 1865. Chardin, Voyage en Perse. Amsterdam, 1735. Chronicon Paschale, in the Corpus Script. Hist. Byzant. Of B. G. Niebuhr, Bonnae, 1832. Cicero, Opera, ed. Ernesti, Londini, 1819. Claudianus. Opera, in the Corpus Poetarum Latinorum of G. S. Walker, Loudini, 1865. Clinton, Fasti Romani, Oxford, 1845-1850. Cosnias Iudicopleustes, TopographiaChristiana, in Montfaucon's Collectio nova Patrons, q. V. Creuzer, Symbolik and Mythologie, Leipzig, 1819-1821. Curtius, Quietus. Vita Alexandri Magni, ed. Pitiscus. Hague, 1708. Cyrillus Alexandrinus, Opera, ed. Aubert, Parisiis, 1638. Cyrillus Monachus, Vita Euthymii, in the Analecta Grmca, q. V. 

D'ANVILLE, Geographie Ancienne, Paris, 1768. De Sacy, Memoire surdiverses Antiquities de la Perse, Paris, 1793. D'Herbelot, Bibliothoque Orientale, Paris, 1781. Dino, in the Fragm. Hist. Grace. Of C. Muller, vol. Ii. , Paris 1845. Dio Cassius, ed. Fabricius, Hamburgi, 1750-1752. Dio Chrysostomus, ed. Morell, Parisiis, 1604. Diodorus Siculus, ed. Dindorf, Parisiis, 1843-4. Diogenes Laertius, ed. Wetstein, Amstelodami, 1692. 

ECKHEL, Doctrina, Nummorum Veterum, Vindobonae, 1792. Elisaeus translated into French by M. L'Abbe Kabaragy Garabed, Paris, 1844. Epiphanies, Opera, ed. Valesius, Coloniae, 1682. Ethnological Journal, London, 1869, &c. Eunapius, Vitae Philosophorum, ex officin. P. Stephani, Parisius, 1616. Eusebius Pamphili, Vita Constantini Magni, Ac. , ed. Heinichen, Lugd. Bat. , 1562. Eutropius. Brevarinm Hist. Rom. , ed Verheyk. Ladg. Bat. , 1762. Eutychius, Annales, Oxonii, 1654-1656. Evagrius, Historia Ecclesiastica, ed. Reading, Cantabrigiae, 1720. 

FABRICIUS. Bibliotheca Graeca, ed. Harles, Hamburgi. 1590-1809. Fanstus of Byzantium, in the Fragm. Hist. Grace. Of C. Muller, vol. V. , Paris, 1850. Fergusson, James, History of Architecture, London, 1873. Festus (Sext. Rufus). Breviarium rerum gestarum populi Romani, ed. Verheyk. (See Eutropius. ). Firdausi, edited by Atkinson, in the series published by the Oriental Translation Fund, 1839-71. Flandin. Voyage en Peise, Paris, 1851, Fraser, Journey into Khorasan, London, 1825. 

GEOGRAPHIA ARMENICA, in Whiston's edition of Moses of Chorene, q v. Georgius Pisida, ed. Bekker. In the Corp. Hist. Byzant. Of B. G. Niebuhr, Bonnae, 1836. Gesenius, De Inscriptione Phoenico-Greeca in Cyrenaica nuper reperta, Halle, 1825. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, ed. Dr. W. Smith, London, 1854-1855. Gregorius Nazianzenus. Opera, ed. Morell, Lutetiae Parisiorum. , 1609. Grote, History of Greece, London, 1862. 

HAUG, DR. MARTIN, Essays on the Sacred Writings of the Parsees, Bombay, 1862. --Die Gathas, Leipzig, 1858-1860. --Old Pahlavi-Pazand Glossary, Bombay and London. 1870. Haxthausen. Baron, Transcaucasia, London, 1854. Herodianus. Historiarum libri octo, Oxoniae, 1699. Herodotus, ed, Bahr, Lipsiae, 1856-1831. --English Translation of. By the Author, 2nd ed. , London, 1862. Hieronymus, Opera, ed. Benedict. , Parisiis. 1093-1706. Historim Angastm Scriptores, ed. Jordan et Eyssenhardt, Berolini. 1864. Historiae. Byzantinae Scriptores, ed. B. G. Niebuhr. Bonnae, l828. &c. Horatius, Opera, ed. Doring, Oxonii, 1838. Hyde. De Religione Veterum Persarum, Oxonii, 1760 (2nd edition). 

IBN KHALLIKAN. Biographical Dictionary, in the series published by the Oriental Translation Fund, Paris, 1868. Inscriptions of Sassanian kings. (See De Sacy. )Irving, Washington. Successors of Mahomet, in the collected edition of his Works, London, 1854. Isidorus Characenus, in the Geographi Minores of C. Muller, Parisiis, 1855-1861. 

JOHANNES ANTIOCHENUS, in the Fragm. Hist. Grmc. Of C. Miiller, vol. Iv. , Parisiis, 1851. --Epiphaniensis, in the same. --Lydus. In the Hist. Byzant. Scriptores of B. G. Niebuhr, Bonnae, 1831. --Malalas, in the same, Bonnae, 1835. Johannsen, Historiae Yemanae, Bonnae, 1838. Jornandes, De Gothorum Rebus gestis, ed. Closs, Stuttgartiae, 1866. Josephus, Opera, ed. Tauchnitz, Lipsiae, 1850. Journal Asiatique, Paris, 1850, fic. Journal of the Geographical Society, London, 1840, &c. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, London, 1846, &c. Julianus, Opera. Parisiis, 1630. Justinus, ed. Gronovius, Lugd. Bat. , 1560. 

KER PORTER, Sir R. , Travels, London, 1821-1832. Kinneir, Persian Empire, London, 1813. 

LACTANTIUS, De Morte Persecutorum, ed. Bauldri, Traject. Ad Rhenum, 1692. Lajard, Culte de Mithra. Paris, 1852. Lampridius, AElius, in the Historiae Augustae Scriptores of Jordan and Eyssenhardt. Q. V. Layard, Monuments of Nineveh, Second Series, London, 1863. --Nineveh and Babylon, London. 1853. Lazare de Parbe, translated into French by M. L'Abbe Kabaragy Garabed, Paris, 1843. Libanius, Opera, ed. Morellus, Lutetiae, 1627. Loftus, Chaldaea and Susiana. London, 1857. Longperier, Modailles des Sassanides, Paris, 1840. 

MACOUDI. Prairies d'Or, Paris, 1861-1871 (Persian and French). Malcolm. Sir J. , History of Persia, London, 1815. Marcellinus, Ammianus. (See Ammianus. )Marcellinus, Conies, Chronicou. Ed. Sirmondi, Lutetiae Parisiorum, 1619. Mathim, Handbook of Creek and Roman Literature, Oxford, 1841. Menander Protector, in the Fragm. Hist. Graec. Of C. Muller, vol. Iv. , Paris, 1851. Milman, Dean, History of Christianity, London, 1863 --History of the Jews. London, 1829. Mionnet, Description des Medailles Antique, Paris, 1806-1837. Mirkhond, Histoire des Sassanides, in De Sacy's Memoire, q. V. Mold, Translation of the Modjmel-al-Tewarikh in the Journal Asiatique for 1811Moutfancon, Collectio nova Patrum, Paris 1706Moore, Thomas. Lalla Rookh, in his Works, London, 1854. Mordtmann, in the Zeitschrift der deutsehen Morgenlandischen Gesellschaft, Leipzig, 1847. &c. Moses Chorenensis, Hist. Armen. , ed. Whiston, Londini, 1736 (Armenian and Latin). Muller, C. , Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum. Parisiis, 1811-1850 --Geographi Minores, Parisiis, 1855-1801. Muller, Max, in Bunsen's Philosophy of History, London. 1854. --Languages of the Seat of War, 2nd edition, London, 1853. 

NEMESIANUS, Cynegetica, ed. Stern, Halis Saxonom. 1832. Nicephorus Callistus. Eccles. Hist. Libri xviii. , Lutetia Parisiornni, 1630. Nicephorus Constantinopolitantis, Breviarium rerun post JMauricium gestarum, ell. Bekker, in the, Corpus Hist. Byzant. Of B. G. Niebuhr, Bonnae. 1837. Nicolaus Demascenus, in the Fragm. Hist. Gr. Of C. Mu11er, vol. Iii. , Paris, 1849. Niebuhr, B. G. , Lectures on Ancient History (Eng1. Tr. ), London, 1849. --C. , Voyage en Arabie, Amsterdam, 1780. Numismatic Chronicle, First Series, London, 1839, &c. Numismatic Chronicle, Second Series, London, 1861, &c. 

OCKLEY, History of the Saracens, in Bohn's Standard Library. London, 1847. Olympiodorus, in the Bibliotheca of Photius. Q. V. Orosius, Paulus, Historiae Coloniae, 1536. Ouseley, Sir W. G. , Travels, London, 1814-1823. Ovidius, Opera, ed. Bipont. , Argentorati, 1807. 

PACATUS, Panegyricus, ed. Balduin, Parisiis, 1652. Pagius. Critica historico-chronologica in Annales Ecclesiasticos Baronii, Antverpiae, 1727. Patkanian, Essai sur l'histoire des Sassanides, in the Journal Asiatique for 1866. Patrocles, Fragments in the Fragm. Hist. Grac. Of C. Muller, vol. It. , Parisiis, 1848. Petrus Patricius, in the Fragm. Mist. Grac, of C. Muller, vol. Iv. , Parisiis. 1851. Philostorgius Historia Ecclesiastica, in the collection of Reading, Cantabrigiae, 1720. Photius, Bibliotheca, ed. Hiisehel, Rouen, 1653. Plato, Opera, ed. Stallbaum, Lipsia, 1821-1825. Plnius. Historia Naturalis, ed. Sillig, Hamburgi et Gothae, 1851-1857. Plutarchus, Vitae Parallel. , ed. Tauchnitz. Lipsiae, 1845. Polybius, Opera. Ed. Schweighauser, Oxonii, 1822 1823. Pottinger, Travels in Beloochistan, London, 1810. Price, Major, Principal Events of Mohammedan History. London, 1816. Prichard, Dr. , Natural History of Man, London, 1813. Priscus Panites, in the Fragmenta Hist. Graecorurn of C. Muller, vol. Iv. , Parisiis. 1851. Procopius, Opera, in the Hist. Byzant. Scriptores of B. G. Niebuhr, Bonnae, 1833-38. Ptolemaeus, Geographia, ed. Bertius, Amstelodami, 1618. Pusey. Dr. , Lectures on Daniel the Prophet, Oxford, 1869 (3rd edition). 

RAWLINSON, G. , Five Ancient Oriental Monarchies. 2nd ed. , London, 1871, --Sixth Oriental Monarchy, London, 1873. --Translation of Herodotus, with Notes, 2nd ed. , London. 1862. --H C. , Inscriptions of Persia, in the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, London, 1840-1849. Rich, Kurdistan. London, 1836. Routh, Reliquiae Sacrae, Oxonii, 1814-1818. Rutinus, Historia Ecclesiastica, Romae, 1741. Rufus, Sextus, Breviarium Hist. Romanae, ed Verheyk, Lugd. Bat. , 1762. (See Festus. )

ST. MARTIN, VIVIEN DE, Les Huns Blancs, ou Ephthalites, Paris, 1849. St. Martin, J. , Memoires sur l'Armenie, Paris, 1818-9. --Notes to Lebeau's Bas Empire, Paris, 1827. Scholia, in Nicandri Theriaca, Parisiis, 1557. Sepeos, Histoire d'Heraclius. Translation by Patkanian, St. Petersburg, 1863. Sidonius Apollinaris, ed. Sirntondi, Parisiis, 1652. Smith, Dr. W. , Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography, London, 1830. --Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography. London. 1854. Socrates, in the Historia Eccles. Scriptures of Reading, Cantabrigiae, 1720. Sophocles. Ed. Wunder, Gothae et Erfordiae, 1833-40. Sozomen, in the Historix Eccles. Scriptores, Colonix Allobrog. , 16512. Spiegel, Grammatik der Huzvaresch Sprache, Wien. 1856. Zendavesta, Berlin, 1851-1858. Strabo, Geographia, ed. Kramer, Berolini, 1844-1852. Suidas, Lexicon, ed. Gaisford, Oxonii, 1834. Syncellus, Chronographia, in the Hist. Byzant. Script. Of B. G. Niebuhr, Bonnw, 1829:Synesius, Opera, ed. Petavius, Lutetiee, 1612. 

TABARI, Chronique (translation of Hermann Zotenberg), Paris, 1867-1871. Annales Regum atque Legatorum Dei (translation of J. G. L. Kosegarten), Gryphiswaldix, 1831. Tacitus, Opera, ed. Walther, Halis Saxonum, 1831. Texier, Description de l'Armenie, de la Perse, et de la Mesopotamie, Paris, 1852. Themistius, Orationes, ed. Petavius, Parisiis, 1684. Theodoretus, Opera, in the Historia Eccles. Scriptores of Reading, Cantabrigis, 1720. Theophanes Byzantinus, in the Hist. Gra'c. Fragmenta of C. Muller, vol. Iv. , Parisiis, 1851. Theophanes. Chronographia. In the Hist. Byzant. Scriptores of B. G. Niebuhr, Bonnae, 1839. Theophylactus Simocatt. In the Hist. Byzant. Scriptores of B. G. Niebuhr, Bonnae, 1834. Thirlwall, Bp. , History of Greece, in Lardner's Cabinet Cyclopadia, London, 1835, &c. Thomas, Sassanian Inscriptions. In the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, vol. Iii. , New Series, London, 1861, &c. Tillemont, Histoire des Empereurs Romains, Paris, 1697. Tristram, Canon, Land of Moab, London, 1874. Tzetzes. Chiliades sive Historia varia, ed. Kiessling, Lipsi'e, 1826. 

VALERIUS MAXIMUS, ed. Redmayne, Loudini, 1673. Vaux, Persia from the Earliest Period to the Arab Conquest, London, 1875. Virgilius, Opera, ed. Forbiger, Lipsim, 1836-9. Vopiscus, in the list. August. Scriptures of Jordan and Eyssenhardt, Berolini, 1864. 

WEIL, Geschichte der Chalifen, Mannheim. 1846, &c. Westergaard, Zendavesta, Copenhagen, 1852-1854. Wilson, H. H. , Ariana Antiqua, London, 1841. Windischmann, Zoroastrische Studien, Munchen, 1862. --Ueber die Persische Anahita odes Anaitis, Munchen, 1846. 

XENOPHON, Opera, ed. Schneider et Dindorf, Oxonii, 1826. 

ZEITSCHRIFT der deutschen Morgenlandischen Gesellschaft, Leipzig. 1847, &c. Zeuss, Die Deutschen and die Nachharstamme, Miinchen, 1837. Zonaras, in the Corpus Hist. Byz. Scriptores of B. G. Niebuhr, Bonnae, 1841, 1874. Zosimus, in the same, Bonnm, 1837.