PART II
THE RISE OF ASSYRIA
AND ITS STRUGGLES WITH KASSITE BABYLONIA
I
THE KASSITE
CONQUEST OF BABYLONIA AND THE
APPEARANCE OF
ASSYRIA. 2000-1500 B. C.
102. WITH
the last
king of the dynasty of Khammurabi (about 2098 B. C.) a period of
darkness falls
upon the history of the land between the rivers. A new dynasty of the
Babylonian kings' list begins with a certain Amnanu, and continues with
ten
other kings whose names are anything but suggestive of Babylonian
origin. The
regnal years of the eleven reach the respectable number of three
hundred and
sixty-eight. The problem of their origin is complicated with that of
deciphering the word (Uru-azagga?) descriptive of them in the kings'
list. Some
think that it points to a quarter of the city of Babylon. Others,
reading it
Uru-ku, see in it the name of the ancient city of Uruk. The length of
the
reigns of the several kings is above the average, and suggests peace
and
prosperity under their rule. It is certainly strange in that case that
no
memorials of them have as yet been discovered, — a fact that lends some
plausibility to the theory maintained by Hommel that this dynasty was
contemporaneous with that of Khammurabi and never attained
significance.
103. The
third
dynasty, as recorded on the kings' list, consists of thirty-six kings,
who
reigned five hundred seventy-six years and nine months (about 1717-1140
B. C.).
About these kings information, while quite extensive, is yet so
fragmentary as
to render exact and organized presentation of their history exceedingly
difficult. The kings' list is badly broken in the middle of the
dynasty, so
that only the first six and the last eleven or twelve of the names are
intact,
leaving thirteen or fourteen to be otherwise supplied and the order of
succession to be determined from imperfect and inconclusive data. Only
one
royal inscription of some length exists, that of a certain Agum-kakrime
who
does not appear on the dynastic list. The tablets found at Nippur by
the
University of Pennsylvania's expedition have added several names to the
list
and thrown new light upon the history of the dynasty. The fragments of
the
so-called "Synchronistic History" (sect. 30) cover, in part, the
relations of the Babylonian and Assyrian kings of this age, and the
recently
discovered royal Egyptian archives known as the Tel-el-Amarna tablets
contain
letters from and to several of them. From these materials it is
possible to
obtain the names of all but three or four of the missing thirteen or
fourteen
kings, and to reach something like a general knowledge of the whole
period and
some details of single reigns and epochs. Yet it is evident that the
absence of
some royal names not only makes the order of succession in the dark
period
uncertain, but throws its chronology into disorder. Nor is the material
sufficient to remove the whole age from the region of indefiniteness as
to the
aims and achievements of the dynasty, or to make possible a grouping
into
epochs of development which may be above criticism. With these
considerations
in mind it is possible roughly to divide the period into four epochs:
first,
the beginnings of Kassite rule; second, the appearance of Assyria as a
possible
rival of Kassite Babylonia; third, the culmination of the dynasty and
the
struggle with Assyria; fourth, the decline and disappearance of the
Kassites.
104.
Merely a
glance at the names in the dynastic list is evidence that a majority of
them
are of a non-Babylonian character. The royal inscriptions prove beyond
doubt
that the dynasty as a whole was foreign, and its domination the result
of
invasion by a people called Kashhus,
or, to use a more conventional name, the Kassites. They belonged to the
eastern
mountains, occupying the high valleys from the borders of Elam
northward,
living partly from the scanty products of the soil and partly by
plundering
travellers and making descents upon the western plain. The few
fragments of
their language which survive are not sufficient to indicate its
affinity either
to the Elamite or the Median, and at present all that can be said is
that they
formed a greater or lesser division of that congeries of mountain
peoples
which, without unity or common name and language, surged back and forth
over
the mountain wall stretching from the Caspian Sea to the Persian gulf.
Their
home seems to have been in the vicinity of those few mountain passes
which lead
from the valley up to the table-land. Hence they were brought into
closer
relations with the trade and commerce which from time immemorial had
used these
passes, and thereby they were early made aware of the civilization and
wealth
of Babylonia.
105.
Whether driven
by the impulse to conquest, begotten of a growing knowledge of
Babylonian
weakness, or by the pressure of peoples behind and about them, the
Kassites
appear at an early day to have figured in the annals of the Babylonian
kingdom.
In the ninth year of Samsuiluna, of the first dynasty, they were
invading the
land. This doubtless isolated invasion was repeated in the following
years
until by the beginning of the seventeenth century B. C., they seem to
have
gained the upper hand in Babylonia. Their earlier field of operations
seems to
have been in the south, near the mouth of the rivers. Here was
Karduniash, the
home of the Kassites in Babylonia, a name subsequently extended over
all the
land. It is not improbable that a Kassite tribe settled here in the
last days
of the second dynasty, and, assimilated to the civilization of the
land, was
later reinforced by larger bands of the same people displaced from the
original
home of the Kassites by pressure from behind, and that the combined
forces
found it easy to overspread and gain possession of the whole country.
Such a
supposition is in harmony with the evident predilection of the Kassites
for
southern Babylonia, as well as with their maintenance of authority over
the
regions in which they originally had their home. It also explains how,
very
soon after they came to power, they were hardly to be distinguished
from the
Semitic Babylonians over whom they ruled. They employed the royal
titles,
worshipped at the ancient shrines, served the native gods, and wrote
their
inscriptions in the Babylonian language.
106. Of
the six
kings whose names appear first on the dynastic list nothing of
historical
importance is known. The gap that ensues in that list, covering
thirteen or
fourteen names, is filled up from sources to which reference has
already beer
made. Agumkakrime (sect. 103), whose inscription of three hundred and
thirty-eight lines is the most important Kassite document as yet
discovered,
probably stands near the early kings, is perhaps the seventh in order
(about
1600 B. C.). This inscription, preserved in an Assyrian copy, was
originally
deposited in the temple at Babylon, and describes the royal
achievements on
behalf of the god Marduk and his divine spouse Zarpanit. The king first
proclaims his own glory by reciting his genealogy, his relation to the
gods and
his royal titles:
I am
Agumkakrime,
the son of Tashshigurumash; the illustrious descendant of god
Shuqamuna; called
by Anu and Bel, Ea and Marduk, Sin and Shamash; the powerful hero of
Ishtar,
the warrior among the goddesses.
I am a
king of
wisdom and prudence; a king who grants hearing and pardon; the son of
Tashshigurumash; the descendant of Abirumash, the crafty warrior; the
first son
among the numerous family of the great Agum; an illustrious, royal
scion who
holds the reins of the nation (and is) a mighty shepherd. . . .
I am king
of the
country of Kashshu and of the Akkadians; king of the wide country of
Babylon,
who settles the numerous people in Ashnunak; the King of Padan and
Alman; the
King of Gutium, a foolish nation; (a king) who makes obedient to him
the four
regions, and has always been a favorite of the great gods (I. 1-42).
107.
Agumkakrime
found, on taking the throne, that the images of Marduk and Zarpanit,
chief
deities of the city, had been removed from the temple to the land of
Khani, a
region not yet definitely located, but presumably in northern
Mesopotamia, and
possibly on the head-waters of the Euphrates. This removal took place
probably
in connection with an invasion of peoples from that distant region, who
were
subsequently driven out; and it sheds light on the weakened and
disordered
condition of the land at the time of the appearance of the Kassites.
These
images were recovered by the king, either through an embassy or by
force of
arms. The inscription is indefinite on the point, but the wealth of the
king as
intimated in the latter part of the inscription would suggest that he
was at
least able to compel the surrender of them. On being recovered they
were
replaced in their temple, which was renovated and splendidly furnished
for
their reception. Gold and precious stones and woods were employed in
lavish
profusion for the adornment of the persons of the divine pair and the
decoration of their abode. Their priesthoods were revived, the service
re-established, and endowments provided for the temple.
108. In
the
countries enumerated by Agumkakrime as under his sway no mention is
made of a
people who were soon to exercise a commanding influence upon the
history of the
Kassite dynasty. The people of Assyria, however, although, even before
that
time, having a local habitation and rulers, the names of some of whom
have come
down in tradition, could hardly have been independent of a king who
claimed
authority over the land of the Kassites and the Guti, Padan, and Alman,
—
districts which lie in the region of the middle and upper Tigris, or on
the
slopes of the eastern mountains (Delitzsch, Paradies, p. 205).
According to the
report of the Synchronistic History, about a century and a half later
Assyria
was capable of treating with Babylonia on equal terms, but, even if the
opening
passages of that document (some eleven lines) had been preserved, they
would
hardly have indicated such relations at a much earlier date. The sudden
rise of
Assyria, therefore, is reasonably explained as connected with the
greater
movement which made the Kassites supreme in Babylonia.
109. The
people who
established the kingdom of Assyria exhibit, in language and customs and
even in
physical characteristics, a close likeness to the Babylonians. They
were,
therefore, not only a Semitic people, but, apparently, also of
Semitic-Babylonian stock. The most natural explanation of this fact is
that
they were originally a Babylonian colony. They seem, however, to be of
even
purer Semitic blood than their Babylonian ancestors, and some scholars
have
preferred to see in them an independent offshoot from the original
Semitic migration
into the Mesopotamian valley (sect. 51). If that be so, they must have
come
very early under Babylonian influence which dominated the essential
elements of
their civilization and its growth down to their latest days. The
earliest
centre of their organization was the city of Assur on the west bank of
the
middle Tigris (lat. n. 35° 30'), where a line of low hills begins to
run
southward along the river. Perched on the outlying northern spur of
these
hills, and by them sheltered from the nomads of the steppe and
protected by the
broad river in front from the raids of mountaineers of the east, the
city was
an outpost of Babylonian civilization and a station on the natural road
of
trade with the lands of the upper Tigris. A fertile stretch of alluvial
soil in
the vicinity supplied the necessary agricultural basis of life, while,
a few
miles to the north, bitumen springs furnished, as on the Euphrates, an
article
of commerce and an indispensable element of building (Layard, Nineveh
and its
Remains, II. chap. xii.). The god of the city was Ashur, "the good
one," and from him the city received its name (Jastrow, Rel. of Bab.
and
Assyria, p. 196).
110. The
early
rulers of the city of Assur were patesis (sect. 75), viceroys of
Babylonian
rulers. Some of their names have come down in tradition, as, for
example, those
of Ishme Dagan and his son, Shamshi Adad, who lived according to
Tiglathpileser
I. about seven hundred years before himself (that is, about 1840-1800
B. C.).
Later kings of Assyria also refer to other rulers of the early age to
whom they
give the royal title, but of whom nothing further is known. The first
mention
of Assur is in a letter of king Khammurabi of the first dynasty of
Babylon, who
seems to intimate that the city was a part of the Babylonian Empire
(King, Let.
and Inscr. of H., III. p. 3). In the darkness that covers these
beginnings, the
viceroys became independent of Babylonia and extended their authority
up the
Tigris to Kalkhi, Arbela, and Nineveh, cities to be in the future
centres of the
Assyrian Empire. The kingdom of Assyria took form and gathered power.
111. The
physical
characteristics of this region could not but shape the activities of
those who
lived within its borders. It is the northeastern corner of Mesopotamia.
The
mountains rise in the rear; the Tigris and Mesopotamia are in front.
The chief
cities of Assyria, with the sole exception of Assur, lie to the east of
the
great river and on the narrow shelf between it and the northeastern
mountain
ranges. They who live there must needs find nature less friendly to
them than
to their brethren of the south. Agriculture does not richly reward
their
labors. They learn, by struggling with the wild beasts of the hills and
the
fierce men of the mountains, the thirst for battle and the joy of
victory. And
as they grow too numerous for their borders, the prospect, barred to
the east
and north, opens invitingly towards the west and southwest. Thus the
Assyrian
found in his surroundings the encouragement to devote himself to war
and to the
chase rather than to the peaceful pursuits of agriculture; the
preparation for
military achievement on a scale hitherto unrealized.
112. It is not difficult
to conceive how the Kassite
conquest of Babylonia profoundly influenced the development of Assyria.
The
city of Assur, protected from the inroads of the eastern invaders by
its
position on the west bank of the Tigris, became, at the same time, the
refuge
of those Babylonians who fled before the conquerors as they overspread
the
land. The Assyrian community was thus enabled to throw off the yoke of
allegiance to the mother country, now in possession of foreigners, and
to
establish itself as an independent kingdom. Its patesis became kings,
and began
to cherish ambitions of recovering the home-land from the grasp of the
enemy,
and of extending their sway over the upper Tigris and beyond. It is not
unlikely that this latter endeavor was at least partially successful
during the
early period of the Kassite rule. It is certainly significant that
Agumkakrime
does not mention Assyria among the districts under his sway and if, as
has been
remarked (sect. 108), his sphere of influence seems to include it, his
successors were soon to learn that a new power must be reckoned with,
in
settling the question of supremacy on the middle Tigris.
II
THE EARLY CONFLICTS
OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA. 1500-1150 B. C.
113. THE
half
millennium (2000-1500 B. C.), that saw the decline of Old Babylonia,
its
conquest by the Kassites and the beginnings of the kingdom of Assyria,
had been
also a period of transition in the rest of the ancient oriental world.
In Egypt
the quiet, isolated development of native life and forces which had
gone on
unhindered for two thousand years and had produced so remarkable a
civilization, was broken into by the invasion of the Hyksos, Semitic
nomads
from Arabia, who held the primacy of power for three hundred years and
introduced new elements and influences into the historical process. In
the
region lying between the Euphrates and the Nile, which in the absence
of a
common name may be called Syria, where Babylonian civilization,
sustained from
time to time by Babylonian armies, had taken deep root, similar
changes, though
less clearly attested by definite historical memorials, seem to have
taken
place. The Hyksos movement into Egypt could not but have been attended
with
disturbances in southern Syria, reflected perhaps in the patriarchal
traditions
of the Hebrews. In the north, peoples from the mountains that rim the
upper
plateau began to descend and occupy the regions to the east and west of
the
head-waters of the Euphrates, thus threatening the security of the
highways of
trade, and, consequently, Babylonian authority on the Mediterranean.
114. Had
the
Babylonian kingdom been unhampered, it might have met and overcome
these
adverse influences in its western provinces and continued its hegemony
over the
peoples of Syria. But to the inner confusion caused by the presence of
foreign
rulers was added the antagonism of a young and vigorous rival, the
Assyrian
kingdom on the upper Tigris. Through the absorption of both powers in
the
complications that ensued, any vigorous movement toward the west was
impossible. It was from another and quite unexpected quarter that the
political
situation was to be transformed. In Egypt by the beginning of the
sixteenth
century a desperate struggle of the native element against the ruling
Hyksos
began, resulting, as the century drew to a close, in the expulsion of
the
foreigners. Under the fresh impulses aroused by this victorious
struggle the
nation entered an entirely new path of conquest. The Pharaohs of the
New Empire
went forth to win Syria.
115. The
fifteenth
century B. C., therefore, marks a turning-point in the history of
Western Asia.
The nations that had hitherto wrought out largely by themselves their
contributions tai civilization and progress came into direct political
relation
one with another in that middle zone between the Euphrates and the
Nile, which
was henceforth to be the battleground of their armies and the reward of
their
victories. From that time forth the politics of the kings was to be a
world-politics; the balance of power was to be a burning question;
international diplomacy came into being. The three great powers were
Egypt,
Assyria, and Babylonia. Lesser kingdoms appeared as Egypt advanced into
the
East, — Mitanni in northwestern Mesopotamia, whose people used the
cuneiform
script to express a language which cannot yet be understood, Alasia in
northwestern Syria, and the Hittites just rounding into form in the
highlands
of northeastern Syria and destined to play so brilliant a part, if at
present a
puzzling one, in the history of the coming centuries. At first, Egypt
carried
all before her. Under the successive Pharaohs of the eighteenth
dynasty, her
armies passed victoriously up and down along the eastern Mediterranean
and even
crossed the Euphrates. All Syria became an Egyptian province, paying
tribute to
the empire of the Nile. Egyptian civilization was dominant throughout
the whole
region.
116. The
effect of
this Egyptian predominance in Syria upon the kingdoms of the
Tigro-Euphrates
valley was significant. The Egyptians obtained the monopoly of the
trade of its
new provinces, and the eastern kingdoms were cut off. They were crowded
back as
Egypt pressed forward. It is not improbable that Assyria's northern
movement
(sect. 112) was by this pressure forced to the east, and therefore the
centre
of Assyrian power shifted to the other side of the Tigris over against
the
eastern mountains. The image of Ishtar, goddess of Nineveh, had fallen
during
this time into the hands of the king of Mitanni, who sent it to Egypt
(Winckler, Tel-el-Amarna Letters, 20). The pent up forces of the two
peoples
declined and exhausted themselves in reviving and pursuing with greater
intensity
and persistence the struggle for local supremacy. Assyria was numbered
by
Thutmose III. of Egypt (1480-1427 B. C.) among his tributaries for two
years,
although this may have been little more than a vainglorious boast,
arising out
of the endeavor of the Assyrian king to obtain the Egyptian alliance by
means
of gifts. That Egypt was courted by both Babylonian and Assyrian rulers
is
testified to by the archives of Amenhotep IV., as preserved in the
Tel-el-Amarna letters, which contain communications from kings of both
nations
to the Pharaohs, intimating that these negotiations had been going on
for half
a century. The Pharaohs, having won their provinces in Syria by force
of arms,
were willing to maintain possession by alliances with bordering peoples
whom
they regarded as inferior, even while treating with them on the
conventional
terms imposed by the diplomacy of the time. Thus they exchanged
princesses with
Mitanni, Babylon, and Assyria, and made presents of gold, the receipt
of which
the kings of these lands acknowledged by asking for more. Their
deferential
attitude toward Egypt, however, goes somewhat beyond what must have
been the
diplomatic courtesy of the time, and shows how Egypt stood as arbiter
and head
among them. A perfect illustration of the situation is given in the
following
paragraph from a letter of the king of Babylon to Amenhotep IV. of
Egypt:
In the
time of
Kurigalzu, my father, the Canaanites as a body sent to him as follows:
"Against the frontier of the land, let us march, and invade it. Let us
make an alliance with thee." Then my father sent them this (reply), as
follows: "Cease (trying) to form an alliance with me. If you cherish
hostility against the king of Egypt, my brother, and bind yourselves
together
(with an oath), as for me, shall I not come and plunder you? — for he
is in
alliance with me." My father, for the sake of thy father, did not heed
them. Now, (as to) the Assyrians, my own subjects, did I not send thee
(word)
concerning their matters? Why has (an embassy) entered thy country? If
thou
lovest me, let them have no good fortune. Let them secure no
(advantage)
whatever (ABL, p. 221).
While
Egypt must
needs be on friendly terms with the Mesopotamian states in order to
keep them
from interfering in Syria, it was with each one of them a vital matter
to gain
her exclusive alliance, or prevent any other of them from securing it.
117. In
these
conditions of world-politics, the complications between the rival
states in
Mesopotamia, as already remarked, were increased and intensified. The
problem
of a boundary line, a frequent source of trouble between nations,
occasioned
recurring difficulties. Kara-indash for Babylon and Ashur-bel-nisheshu
for
Assyria settled it (about 1450) by a treaty (Synchr. Hist., col. I.
1-4). The
same procedure was followed about half a century later by the
Babylonian
Burnaburyas I. (?) and the Assyrian Puzur-ashur (Ibid., col. I. 5-7).
Of
Kadashman Bel (Kalliina Sin), who reigned at Babylon in the interval,
four
letters to Amenhotep III. of Egypt are preserved in the Tel-el-Amarna
tablets,
together with one from the Pharaoh to him, but beyond the mention of
exchanging
daughters as wives they contain no historical facts of importance.
Kurigalzu I.
(about 1380 B. C.), the son and successor of Burnaburyas (I.?), is
mentioned in
the same collection of documents as on good terms with Egypt, but no
record
remains of his relations with Assyria, where Ashur-nadin-akhi ruled.
The same
is true of the latter's son, Ashur-uballit and the Babylonian
Burnaburyas II. (about
1350 B. C.), son of Kurigalzu I., who refers to his rival in the
boastful terms
already quoted (sect. 116), which, however, must be interpreted as the
language
of diplomacy. His six letters to the Pharaoh Amenhotep IV. are,
otherwise,
historically barren. Ashuruballit, "the vassal," succeeded in
marrying his daughter Muballitat-sirua to the Babylonian king's son,
Karakhardash, who followed his father upon the throne (about 1325 B.
C.). The
two kings also renewed the boundary treaty of their fathers (RP, 2 ser.
V. p.
107, and Winckler, Alt. Or. Forsch. I., ii. pp. 115 f.). Here the first
stage
of the rivalry may be said to close. From a position of insignificance
the
Assyrian kingdom had been raised, by a series of able rulers, to an
equality
with Babylonia, and the achievement was consummated by the union of the
royal
houses.
118. The
son of
this union, Kadashman-kharbe, succeeded his father on the Babylonian
throne
while his grandfather, Ashuruballit, still ruled in Assyria. To him,
apparently, a Babylonian chronicle fragment ascribes the clearing of
the
Euphrates road from the raids of the Bedouin Suti, and the building of
fortresses and planting of colonies in Syria (RP, 2 ser. V., and
Winckler, AOF,
1. c.). But it is not improbable that, if done by him, it was in
connection
with his grandfather, who, in his letter to the Pharaoh Amenhotep IV.,
expressly mentions the Suti as infesting the roads to the west,
evidently the
trade routes of the upper Mesopotamian valley (Winckler, Tel-el-Amarna
Letters,
pp. 30 f.). This close relation to Assyria was not pleasing to the
Kassite
nobles, who rebelled against their king, killed him, and set a certain
Suzigas,
or Nazibugas, upon the throne. But the aged Ashuruballit hastened to
avenge his
grandson, marched into Babylonia, and put the usurper to death. In his
stead he
placed on the throne the son of Kadashman-kharbe as Kurigalzu II., who,
called
the "young" one, was evidently still a child. With this agrees the
probable reading of the years of his reign as fifty-five upon the
kings' list.
He must at first have reigned under the tutelage of Ashuruballit, who,
however,
could not have lived long after his great-grandson's accession. The
Assyrian
throne was taken by his son Bel-nirari, who was followed by his son
Pudi-ilu.
Kurigalzu outlived both these kings, and saw Pudi-ilu's son,
Adad-nirari I.,
succeed his father. The Babylonian king seems not to have altered his
friendly
attitude toward Assyria during the reigns of the first two kings. He
waged a
brilliantly successful war with the Elamites, captured their king
Khurba-tila
with his own hands, sacked Susa, his capital, and brought back great
spoil. At
Nippur he offered to the goddess of the shrine an agate tablet which,
after
having been given to Ishtar of Uruk in honor of Dungi of Ur more than a
thousand years before, had been carried away to Elam in the Elamite
invasion of
the third millennium and was now returned to its Babylonian home. In
his last
years the king came into conflict with Adadnirari I. of Assyria. Was it
owing
to the ambition of a young and vigorous ruler who hoped to get the
better of
his aged rival? Or was it the Babylonian's growing distrust of the
power of
Assyria, which, under one of the kings of his time, Belnirari, had
attacked and
overthrown the Kassites in their ancestral home to the east of the
Tigris?
Whatever was the occasion, the two armies met, and the Assyrian was
completely
defeated (RP, 2 ser. V. pp. 109 ff., cf. IV. p. 28; Winckler, AOF, p.
122). A
readjustment of boundaries followed. Kurigalzu II. was an industrious
builder.
Whether the citadel of Dur Kurigalzu, which lay as a bulwark on the
northern
border of the Babylonian plain, was built by him or his predecessor,
the first
of the name, is uncertain. The same confusion attaches to most of the
Kurigalzu
inscriptions, though the probabilities are in favor of ascribing the
majority
of them to Kurigalzu II. The temples at Ur and Nippur were rebuilt by
him as
well as that of Agade. A statement of the Babylonian chronicle suggests
that he
was the first Kassite king who favored Babylon and its god Marduk. He
gives
himself in his inscriptions, among other titles, that of "Viceroy of
the
god Bel" and may well be that Kurigalzu whom a later ruler, in claiming
descent from him, proudly calls the "incomparable king" (sharru la sanaan).
119. The
period of
peace with the Kassite rulers of Babylonia had been improved by the
Assyrian
kings in extending their boundaries toward the north and east. An
inscription
of Adadnirari I. (KB, I. 4ff.) ascribes the beginning of this forward
movement
to his great-grandfather, Ashuruballit, who conquered the Subari on the
upper
Tigris, Belnirari and Pudi-ilu campaigned in the east and southeast in
the
well-watered region between the river and the mountains, where dwelt
the Kuti,
the Suti, the Kassi, and other peoples of the mountain and the steppe,
down to
the borders of Elam. Adadnirari I. continued the advance by subduing
the Lulumi
in the east, but his defeat by Kurigalzu II. cost him the southern
conquests of
his predecessors, as the boundary-line established after the battle
(Syn.
Hist., col. I. 21-23) and the silence of his own inscription indicate.
However,
he strengthened Assyria's hold on the other peoples by planting cities
among
them. When Kurigalzu II. was succeeded in Babylonia by his son
Nazi-maruttash,
the Assyrian king tried the fortune of battle with him, and this time
apparently with greater success, although the new boundaries agreed
upon seem
very little different from those in the time of Kurigalzu II. (Syn.
Hist., col.
I. 24-31).
120. Under
Adadnirari's son, Shalmaneser I. (about 1300?), Assyria began to push
westward.
The decades that had passed since the correspondence between the
Amenhoteps of
Egypt and the kings of Assyria and Babylonia had witnessed a great
change in
the political relations of Egypt and Syria. A people which in the
fifteenth
century was just appearing in northern Syria, the Khatti (Hittites),
had pushed
down and overspread the land to the borders of Palestine. The
eighteenth
Egyptian dynasty had disappeared, and the nineteenth, which had
succeeded,
found the Khatti invincible. Ramses II., the fourth Pharaoh of that
dynasty,
made a treaty of peace with them, wherein he renounced all Egyptian
provinces
north of Palestine. With the pressure thus removed from northern
Mesopotamia,
Assyria was free to move in this the natural direction of her
expansion. It was
a turning-point in the world's history when this nation set its face
toward the
west. Shalmaneser followed up the Tigris, crossed its upper waters,
planted
Assyrian outposts among the tribes, and marched along the southern
spurs of the
mountains to the head-waters of the Euphrates. The chief peoples
conquered by
him were the Arami, by whom are to be understood the Arameans of
western
Mesopotamia, and the Muçri, concerning whose position little is known
unless
they are the people of that name living in northern Syria. In this case
Shalmaneser was the first Assyrian king to carry the Assyrian arms
across the
Euphrates. The large additions to Assyria's territory on all sides thus
made
probably lay at the bottom of Shalmaneser's transfer of the seat of his
administration from the ancient city of Assur to Kalkhi (Calah), forty
miles to
the north, and on the eastern side of the Tigris just above the point
where the
upper Zab empties into the great river. The strategic advantages of the
site
are obvious, — the protection offered by the Zab and the Tigris, the
more
central location and the greater accessibility from all parts of the
now much
enlarged state. Here the king built his city, which testified to the
sagacity
of its founder by remaining one of the great centres of Assyrian life
down to
the end of the empire. The title of Shar
Kishshate, "king of the world," which he and his father
Adadnirari were the first Assyrian kings to claim, is a testimony both
of their
greatness and of the consciousness of national enlargement which their
work
produced.
121. Of
the Kassite
kings who held Babylonia during these years little is known beyond
their names
and regnal years (sect. 103). An uncertain passage on the broken
Ashur-naçir-pal (7) obelisk seems to refer to a hostile meeting between
Kadashman-burias and Shalmaneser I. of Assyria (Hommel, GBA, p. 437). A
much
more important contest was that between Shalmaneser's son, Tukulti
Ninib (about
1250) and the Kassite rulers. From fragments of a Babylonian chronicle
(RP, 2
ser. V. p. 111), it is clear that the Assyrian king entered Babylonia,
and for
seven years held the throne against all comers, defeating and
overthrowing, it
is probable, four Babylonian kings who successively sought to maintain
their
rights against him. At last, owing perhaps to the dissatisfaction felt
in
Assyria at the king's evident preference for governing his kingdom from
Babylonia,
Tukulti Ninib was himself murdered by a conspiracy headed by his own
son
Ashurnaçirpal. Here the second stage of the struggle may be said to
terminate.
It had been accompanied by a remarkable development of Assyria which
brought
the state, though hardly yet of age, to a position of power that
culminated in
the humiliation and temporary subjection of her rival under Assyrian
rule.
During the reign of Tukulti Ninib Assyria was the mistress of the
entire
Tigro-Euphrates valley from the mountains to the Persian gulf.
122.
During these
evil years Babylonia had suffered from Elamite inroads (RP, 2 ser. V.
pp. 111
f.) as well as borne the yoke of the Assyrian. But the murder of
Tukulti Ninib
gave the opportunity for a new and successful rebellion which placed
Adad-shumuçur (Adad-nadin-akhi) upon the throne. He ruled, according to
the
kings' list, for thirty years. Under him and his successors,
Mili-shikhu and
Marduk-baliddin I. (about 1150 B. C.), a sudden and splendid uplift was
given
to Babylonia's fortunes. If the hints contained in the fragmentary
sources are
correctly understood, it appears that, toward the close of the reign of
Adadshumuçur, he was attacked by the Assyrian king Bel-kudur-uçur. The
battle
resulted in a victory for the Babylonians, but both kings were killed.
The
Assyrian general, Ninib-apal-ekur, possibly a son of the king, withdrew
his
forces, and, pressed hard by Milishikhu, the son and successor of the
Babylonian king, shut himself up in the city of Assur, apparently his
capital rather
than Kalkhi, where he was able to beat off the enemy. He succeeded to
the
Assyrian throne, but with the loss of Assyrian prestige and authority
in the
Mesopotamian valley. For twenty-eight years, during the reigns of
Milishikhu
and his son Mardukbaliddin, Babylonia was supreme. The latter king
assumed the
title borne by Shalmaneser I. of Assyria, " King of the World," which
implied, if Winckler's understanding of the title is to be accepted
(sect. 54),
authority over northern Mesopotamia between the Tigris and Euphrates.
Be that
as it may, this brilliant outburst of Kassite Babylonia was transient.
Zamama-shum-iddin, the successor of Mardukbaliddin, was attacked and
worsted by
Ashurdan of Assyria, son of Ninib-apal-ekur. Within three years his
successor,
Bel-shum-iddin, was dethroned, and the Kassite dynasty of Babylonia
came to an
end after nearly six centuries of power (about 1140 B. C.).
III
CIVILIZATION AND
CULTURE IN THE KASSITE PERIOD
123. THE
earliest
and by no means the least impressive instance of the power of
civilization to
dominate a rude people and mould them to its will is furnished in the
relations
of Babylonia to the Kassites. Tribes, vigorous and wild, hitherto
possessing
but slight traces of organization and culture, descended from the hills
upon a
region in which dwelt a nation of high social and political
development,
possessing a long history of achievements in culture, distinguished for
the
peaceful acquisitions of wealth and the enjoyment of the refinements of
civilization. The outcome, it might seem, was likely to be the
overthrow of the
political structure, and the disappearance of the high attainment in
science
and the arts of life, reached by slow stages through two thousand
years, to be
followed by a painful rebuilding of the political and social edifice on
new
foundations. In reality the very opposite of this took place. The
splendid work
of Babylonian civilization stood intact; the conquerors entered into
the
inheritance of its traditions and achievements, and within a century
were found
laboring for its advancement and perfection. The Kassites were absorbed
into
the Babylonian life without a struggle. They even lost all attachment
to the
mountain homes whence they came and to the peoples from which they
sprang, and
permitted them, at last, to pass into the possession of Assyria.
124. The
Kassite
régime was not, however, without its influence upon Babylonian history
and
life. The direct contributions of purely Kassite elements were, indeed,
few.
Some words enriched the language; the new speech became a dialect which
must be
mastered by the scholars; some cults of Kassite gods were established
and
remained. A new racial ingredient was poured into the already varied
complex
which made up the Babylonian people, — an ingredient not without value
in
infusing fresh and vigorous elements into the doubtless somewhat
enfeebled
stock. For the incoming of the invaders was sufficient evidence that
the native
population was no longer able to defend itself against assaults, and
the
service of Agumkakrime, of which he boasts in his inscription (sect.
106), is
an example of what the Kassites were to do for Babylonia. That such a
work was
not only necessary but appreciated by the nation is abundantly proved
by the
length of time during which the Kassite kings sat upon the throne, in
spite of
the difficulties which encompassed them.
125. Not
as Kassite
but as Babylonian kings, therefore, did these rulers contribute to the
development of the land between the rivers. Entering into the heritage
of preceding
dynasties, they ruled like them in accordance with Babylonian
precedent, and in
many respects were worthy of the succession. In one thing they
surpassed their
predecessors; they gave to Babylonia a common name. Up to their time,
the kings
had been rulers of cities whose authority extended over districts round
about,
a state of things true even of the age of Khammurabi, when all the land
was
united under the sway of the city-state of Babylon. Yet these foreign
conquerors were able to succeed where that great king had failed. They
called
themselves kings of Karduniash. This name was not that of a city, and
while it
was at first attached to one of the southern districts (sect. 105),
soon came
to be applied to the whole country, so that, when later kings of
Assyria would
assert their lordship over their ancestral enemy in the south, they
proudly
assumed the old Kassite designation "King of Karduniash." This
achievement was significant of the new unity attained under this
dynasty.
Reference has already been made (sect. 100) to the religious policy
which
guided the unifiers of Babylonia in the days of Khammurabi, It centred
in the
exaltation of the city-god Marduk of Babylon, and the systematic
abasement of
the other religious shrines, particularly that of Nippur. But in this
period
that very temple of Bel at Nippur seems to have returned to prominence
and its
god received high honor. The American explorers on that site note that
one of
the Kurigalzus rebuilt the ancient ziggurat, another Kassite king
"built the
great structure containing the Court of Columns," and the memorials of
this dynasty, in the shape of votive offerings and temple archives, are
the
characteristic and dominating element among the objects unearthed on
the site
(Peters, Nippur, II. p. 259 and passim). Moreover, among the few
Kassite
inscriptions found elsewhere, are records of temple-building at other
points.
Kara-indash built at Uruk, Burnaburyash at Larsam, and Kurigalzu at
Larsam and
Ur. These facts have led to the inference that the Kassites represented
a
reaction from the systematic glorification of Marduk of Babylon as god
of gods,
in favor of the older deities and the provincial shrines, and that this
attitude illustrates their general position in opposition to the policy
of
Khammurabi, whereby they favored the people of the country at large as
over
against the capital city, Babylon. It is true that Agumkakrime's
inscription is
largely occupied with his services to the temple of Marduk, and that
the other
kings seem to have continued to dwell at Babylon, but these facts do
not deter
an eminent scholar from summing up the contribution of the Kassite
dynasty to
the development of Babylonia in these words: "By restoring the former
glory of Ekur, the ancient national sanctuary in Nippur, so deeply
rooted in
the hearts of the Babylonian people, and by stepping forward as the
champions
of the sacred rights of the 'father of the gods,' they were able to
bring about
a reconciliation and a final melting together of the Kassite and
Semitic elements"
(Hilprecht, OBT, I. i. p, 31).
126, The
civilization of Karduniash — to use the name characteristic of this age
— was,
in the Kassite period, influenced as never before by international
relations.
The great nations had come into intimate communication with one
another, and
their intercourse demanded a code of customs for its proper regulation.
Hence
came the beginnings of international law. The first treaty known to
history
belongs to this period, — that of the Pharaoh Rameses II. with the king
of the
Hittites, containing the famous so-called "extradition" clause. Hints
of a kind of compact between Babylonian kings and the Pharaohs are
given in the
Tel-el-Amarna letters. We hear now for the first time of the
"brotherhood
of nations." "First establish good brotherhood between us" are
words contained in a letter of Amenhotep III. to Kadashman Bel
(Winckler, TAL,
letter 1). Ambassadors pass to and fro between the courts on the
Euphrates and
the Nile, They carry safe-conducts for passage through the Egyptian
provinces
of Syria. Their persons are sacred, and the king in whose provinces an
insult
has been offered to them must punish the offender. Between the royal
personages
who figure in these letters, it has been thought that the relations
were
something more than formal, and the message of a Mitannian king to
Amenhotep
IV. on hearing of the death of his father, has a pathetic ring: "Never
did
Nimmuriya, your father, break his promises — I have mourned for him
deeply, and
when he died, I wished to die myself! May he, whom I loved, live with
God"
(Tiele-Western Asia, p. 12).
127. The
influence
of Egypt upon the life of the Babylonians, resulting from this enlarged
intercourse, cannot be followed into detail with any materials at
present
available. Medical science may have been improved. One might expect
that
religion would have been affected. The dogma of the divinity of the
Pharaoh
might be regarded as likely to emphasize and encourage claims of the
Babylonian
kings for like honors not unknown in the past (sect. 75); yet not only
is no
evidence presented for this, but it is even maintained that the Kassite
kings
definitely set aside the remnants of the Babylonian usage in the case,
and
regarded themselves as delegates and representatives of the gods of
whom they were
the adopted sons (Sayce, BA, p. 171). In the sphere of trade and
commerce the
influence of Egypt was unmistakable and far reaching. No doubt, at the
beginning of the advance of Egypt into Asia and throughout her
domination of
Syria, Babylonian commerce with the west suffered, and was at times
entirely
cut off. But the traders on the Euphrates directed their energies only
the more
toward opening and developing new markets in the north and east.
According to
testimony drawn from the "finds" at Nippur, they brought gypsum from
Mesopotamia, marble and limestone from the Persian mountains, cedar and
cypress
from the Zagros, lapis lazuli from Bactria, and cobalt for coloring
material,
"presumably" from China (Peters, Nippur, II. p. 134). It is not
impossible that the eastern affinities of the Kassite kings assisted
the
development of trade in this direction. On the other hand, when with
some
possible restrictions commerce was revived with the Egyptian provinces
of Syria
under royal agreements, the unification of these regions under one
authority
gave at that time, as often later, a substantial stimulus to trade both
in its
security and its extent. This fact is proved by the striking discovery
at
Nippur of votive offerings of magnesite, which must have been brought
for the
Kassite kings from the island of Eubcea (Nippur, ibid.). Egypt itself
had, in
its Nubian mines, the pre-eminent source of gold for the oriental
world, and
the letters of the eastern kings to their brethren the Pharaohs are
full of
requests for gifts of more of the precious metal and of better quality,
for
which they send in return lapis lazuli, enamel, horses and chariots,
slaves,
costly furniture, and works of art.
128. From
the facts
already stated it is clear that Karduniash flourished under its Kassite
rulers.
Industry was active. Manufacturing was represented not only by the
objects
already enumerated as gifts to the Pharaohs, but by a multitude of
materials
found at Nippur and mentioned in the royal inscriptions. Among the
former were
the ornamental axe-heads. These analysis has disclosed to be made of
glass
colored with cobalt and copper and resembling in character "the famous
Venetian glass of the fourteenth century A. D.," moulded probably by
Phoenician artists employed at the temple (Nippur, II. p. 134)
Agumkakrime's
description of his rehabilitation of the deities Marduk and Zarpanit of
Babylon
gives a picture of the superabounding wealth of the king, who clothes
the
images of the deities with gold-embroidered robes, heavy with jewels,
and
houses them in a cella
of cedar
and cypress woods made by cunning workmen, its doors banded with
bronze, and
its walls lined with strange carved animal figures. Unfortunately, no
large
sculptures of these kings have yet been discovered, nor do the remains
of the
Nippur temple ascribed to them afford any judgment as to the
architecture of
the time. The so-called boundary stones of Milishikhu and
Mardukbaliddin I.,
carved with rude representations of animals and of the heavenly bodies,
symbols
of uncertain significance, were probably the work of provincial artists
(Smith,
AD, pp. 236 ff.). It is strange that these stones are the chief
evidence for
the legal element in the life of the time. The inscription on that Of
Mardukbaliddin I. conveys a tract of land to one of his officials as a
reward.
The boundaries of the tract are carefully stated, the ancestry of the
beneficiary is traced to the fifth generation, witnesses are named, and
curses
are invoked upon all who in the future may interfere with this award.
Excavations yet to be made on temple sites like that of Nippur will
probably
reveal in sufficient abundance the deeds, contracts, and other
documents which
were indispensable in so active and enterprising a commercial and
industrial
community as was Babylonia in those days. A similar silence broods over
the
literature. Beyond the few royal inscriptions and letters already
sufficiently
described, no evidence exists to show either that the masterpieces of
old were
studied or that new works were being produced. This gap in our
knowledge will
also sometime be filled.
129. If
the
successful seizure of the Babylonian throne by the Kassites had given a
mighty
impetus to the development of Assyria as an independent kingdom (sect.
112),
their continued possession of Babylonia affected deeply the history of
the
northern people, The Assyrians were not thereby alienated from the
civilization
of the south, for this had already been wrought too deeply into the
structure
of their body politic. It is maintained, indeed, that the Assyrian
cuneiform
script of the time tends to resemble the north Mesopotamian forms
rather than
the Babylonian (Winckler, GBA, p. 165); but in all that may be regarded
as
fundamental in a people's culture Assyria remained in Babylonian
leading-strings.
The surprising thing is that, as time wore on, the hostility between
the
Kassite and Assyrian rulers did not relax, nor did it yield even when
all
interests were in favor of peace. The facts seem to show that the
primary part
in this aggressive activity was taken by Assyria. In other words, it
became the
settled policy of the northern state to strive for the possession of
Babylonia,
even when the actual Kassite element had long been absorbed into the
Semitic
Babylonian. The mere lust of conquest will not explain this
persistence. It
must have its ground in the political or economic conditions of the
state. The
original Assyria (sect. 111) had neither a natural frontier nor
sufficient
arable land to protect and sustain a nation. Hence the people, if they
were not
constantly to stand on guard, must expand until a natural barrier was
met; they
must also reach out to control the only other source of wealth in the
ancient
world, commerce. In the way of the attainment of both these objects
stood,
primarily, Babylonia. The Babylonian war was, therefore, a vital
condition of
Assyria's progress. Other motives may have entered in, — the feeling
that the
south was the home-land, the seat of religion and culture, and
therefore must
be recovered. Nor is it unlikely that there was in Babylonia itself a
longing
for union with Assyria, and consequently a pro-Assyrian party, always
ready to
encourage interference from the north. Yet the deeper motive is that
first
mentioned.
130. The
fateful
influence of this course into which Assyria was drawn was to intensify
a
military bent already sufficiently encouraged by physical surroundings.
The
king became the warrior, the defender of his people from wild beasts
and from
human enemies, the leader of au army. "He breaks in pieces the mass of
his
foes, he tramples down their countries," "he scatters their
armies" — are phrases of Adadnirari I. in his own inscription. The gods
were those representing the fierce, wild elements of nature, as Adad
(Ramman),
the god of the storm, the wind, and the rain, or Ishtar, the goddess of
Arbela,
the fierce companion in arms of the warriors, or the other Ishtar, of
Nineveh,
the mistress of the soldier returned from the wars, the goddess of love
and
lust. Above them stood Ashur, the divine king of the military state, of
whom
the human king was the representative and servant, — the god, who went
out with
the army to battle and received the spoils. The nation, thus affected
and
inspired, gathered close about its divine head, and followed the king
his vicegerent
with unquestioning obedience. The city where he had his seat, whether
Assur or
Kalkhi or Nineveh, became the headquarters of all activity. All other
cities,
Arbela excepted, were overshadowed and left to drag out a petty and
insignificant existence, their names hardly known. Here the court with
its
aristocracy of warriors, chiefs with their clansmen, formed the centre
of
national life. The king usually gave his name to the first full year of
his
kingship; it was the limu
of the
king by which all events were recorded; then followed, given as
official
designation to year after year, the names of the warriors of the court
in due
succession. As king succeeded king, the limu
lists were preserved, formed a chronological framework for history
(sect. 38), and
fostered the self-consciousness of the state as a living organism,
having a
past wrought out by men of might, and moving on toward the future. This
system
had already been adopted by the time of Adadnirari I., whose stele was
set up
in the year when Shalmanuasharid (Shalmaneser) was limu. It was Assyria's original
contribution to historical
progress, and passed over from the east to reappear in Athens, where a
similar
official was called the archon eponymos.
131. In
this
military state all spheres of life felt the impulse to realize
practical
results. Religion was at the service of the kings. They were devoted to
the
gods, indeed, since they were proud constantly to build temples.
Ashuruballit
and his descendant Shalmaneser I. repaired and enlarged a temple to
Ishtar of
Nineveh, and Adadnirari I., another to Ashur at the capital. They were
equally
proud of erecting palaces. The Adadnirari stele deals more fully with
the
warlike achievements of the king and his ancestors than with his
religious
foundation. The remains of literature and art and the evidences of
industry and
manufacturing in this age are too scanty to warrant any judgment, the
few royal
inscriptions, some alabaster jars, and a bronze sword of Adadnirari I.
(Maspero, SN, p, 607), chariots and horses, lapis lazuli, slaves, and
precious
vases mentioned as gifts sent to the Egyptian kings (Winckler, TAL, 15)
being
about all the available material, — enough perhaps to indicate that
Assyrian
scribes and merchants were following in the footsteps of their brethren
on the
Euphrates. Phoenician artists may have wrought in this period the ivory
carvings which were found on the site of Kalkhi, the capital of
Shalmaneser I.
(BMG, p. 23). While it is certain from documents of later periods that
the same
legal forms were employed in business transactions as were in use in
Babylonia,
no tablets of that character belonging to this time, with possibly one
exception, have been found.
132. If the power of an
ancient civilization to dominate a
rude people was impressively exhibited in the victory of Babylonian
culture
over the Kassites (sect. 123), not less significant was the spectacle
of the
renaissance of that culture as the Kassite domination began to wane.
Contemporaneous with the splitting off of Assyria and its incessant
inroads
upon Karduniash was the advance of Egypt into Syria and its appearance
upon the
Euphrates. The reign of the Semite in Western Asia and the long era of
Babylonian leadership in civilization seemed about to come to an end.
But so
deeply rooted and so vigorous was this culture, even in Syria, that the
Egyptian conquerors were compelled to use the Babylonian speech in
their
diplomatic correspondence with the princes and governors of the
provinces and
to teach it to their officials in the Egyptian capital. And when the
authority
of the Pharaohs decayed and their armies disappeared from Syria, the
new
kingdom on the Tigris came forward and girded itself for the task of
unifying
under its own leadership the Semitic peoples of Western Asia, and of
making
that same Babylonian culture prevail from the Persian gulf to the
Mediterranean.
IV
THE TIMES OF
TIGLATHPILESER L1100 B. C.
133. THE
splendid
extension of Assyrian authority to the northwest, achieved by
Shalmaneser I.
and his successors (sect. 120), had not been lasting. The incursion and
settlement of the Khatti in Syria proved to be merely the beginning of
a series
of similar migrations from the north and northwest into the regions of
Western
Asia. Half a century before his own time, according to the testimony of
Tiglathpileser I. of Assyria, the Mushki had advanced over the
boundaries of
Assyria's conquests along the headwaters of the Euphrates, had
conquered the
Alzi and the Purukuzzi, her tributary peoples, and were sifting into
the nearer
region of Qummukh. The bulk of the invading peoples, indeed, poured
down into
Syria, and broke in pieces the loose confederation of the Khatti, but
the
latter in turn were thereby pushed eastward to hamper Assyrian
progress. The
effect of this reverse may be observed in the revival of Babylonia
under the
later Kassite kings (sect. 122). It was, probably, late in his long
reign that
Ashurdan I. of Assyria was able to make headway against his southern
rivals,
and inflict on the next to the last Kassite ruler a defeat which three
years
after seems to have cost this foreign dynasty its supremacy over
Babylonia.
Ashurdan died soon after, and was followed by his son Mutakkil-nusku,
of whom
little is known; presumably he reigned but a few years (about 1135 B.
C.).
134. The
dynasty
which wrested the Babylonian throne from the Kassites was, as the names
of its
kings indicate, of native origin, and is called in the kings' list "the
dynasty of Pashe." Unfortunately, that important document is
imperfectly
preserved at this point, and seven names out of the whole number of
eleven are
quite illegible. By a strange chance the names of those kings who from
other
documents are known to belong to this dynasty, are among those missing
from the
kings' list, and it is therefore impossible to determine accurately
their
chronological order and the length of their reigns. Of these the
greatest was
Nebuchadrezzar I. A highly probable argument has been made by Hilprecht
(OBT,
I. i, pp. 41 ff.) to prove that he was the founder of the dynasty and
its first
king (about 1140-1123 B. C.), but paleographic grounds render it
inconclusive,
though not impossible. He was followed in turn by Belnadin-aplu (about
1122-1117 B. C.), and Marduknadin-akhi (about 1116-1105). The dynasty
held the
throne over one hundred and thirty-two years to about 1010 B.C.
135. The
name
Nebuchadrezzar, meaning "May the god Nabu protect the boundary," is
significaut of the work of this energetic Babylonian ruler. Babylonia
had been
the tramping-ground of the nations. For centuries foreigners had ruled
in the
land and had warred with the Assyrians for its possession. In the last
Kassite
years the Elamites had renewed their inroads from the east, penetrating
to the
very heart of the land. The province of Namar, famous for its horses,
was
already occupied by them. This deep humiliation, coupled with the
Assyrian
success, drove the Kassite from his ascendency and opened the way for
more
successful defenders of the ancient state. Nebuchadrezzar undertook the
task.
He found the Elamites already at Der. In spite of the scorching heat of
midsummer he pushed on, driving them before him. Across the Tigris, on
the
banks of the Ula, the final stand was made by the Elamite army, but, in
the
fierce battle that ensued, the king, in the words of his own
inscription (ABL,
p. 8), "remained the victor" and "overthrew the country of the
king of Elam... carrying away its possessions." Other expeditions to
the
northeast into the old Kassite land and beyond it to the highlands of
the
Lullumi, were intended to give warning to future marauders from that
region. A
governor of the district was stationed at the fortress of Holwan.
136. Among
the
first tasks confronting such a ruler was the rewarding of his
followers, — a
work which at the same time meant the restoration of the
Semitic-Babylonian
element to its former social and political supremacy. An interesting
example of
his procedure in this respect is found in a document of the king, the
most
considerable inscription which has been preserved from his reign,
containing a
deed of gift. Ritti Marduk, of the house of Karziyabkhu, in the
province of
Namar, which had fallen into the hands of the Elamites, had valiantly
supported
his lord in the trying Elamite campaign. Indeed, he seems to have
performed a
signal personal service to Nebuchadrezzar when hail pressed by the
enemy. On
the return of the army the king issued a proclamation, giving back to
the
prince and sealing for all time former privileges by which Karziyabkhu
was made
a free domain, over which the royal officials were not to exercise
authority,
upon which they were not to levy taxes, from which no requisitions for
state
purposes of any sort were to be made. Of the wisdom of establishing
such feudal
domains in the kingdom there may be some question. It was a return to
the older
system of land tenure which, by weakening the force of royal authority,
had
made defence against invaders difficult. But, for the present at least,
restoration was the order of the day, and Nebuchadrezzar proudly styles
himself
"the sun of his country, who makes his people to prosper, who preserves
boundaries and establishes landmarks(?), the just king, who pronounces
righteous judgment." According to another similar document, he rescued
in
his campaign a statue of the god Bel, which the Elamites may have taken
from
Babylon. He seized the opportunity on this occasion to re-establish, by
"taking the hands of Bel," his own right to the Babylonian throne,
and proceeded to renew in a yet more striking and magnificent way the
ancient
glories of his kingdom.
137.
Centuries had
passed since any Babylonian ruler either had set up the ancestral claim
to
possession of the "West-land," or had done anything to make that
claim good. The Kassite kings had found Egypt in possession of the
field, and
Assyria was, from time to time, pushing forward to cut off the road by
occupying the upper waters of the Euphrates. But Nebuchadrezzar, in the
spirit
of a glorious past which he felt that he represented, not only called
himself
"conqueror of the West-land," but seems actually to have reached the
Mediterranean and left his name upon the cliffs of the Nahr-el-Kelb.
138. Such
an
expedition was certain to bring him into contact with Assyria, and,
indeed, was
possible only by reason of Assyrian weakness. His activities in the
northeast
were equally offensive to the rival state. It is no wonder, therefore,
that the
Synchronistic History records a clash between the two kingdoms. Neither
the
time nor the details of the campaigns can be satisfactorily determined.
It may
be presumed that they took place toward the close of the king's reign
(about
1125 B. C.). A new ruler, Ashur-rish-ishi, was king in Assyria and
eager to try
conclusions with the Babylonian veteran. He invaded the south, but was
driven back
and followed by Nebuchadrezzar, who laid siege to a border fortress.
The
Assyrian king succeeded in beating him off and destroying his
siege-train. In a
later expedition which the Babylonian sent against Assyria, another and
more
serious repulse was suffered; the Babylonian general Karastu was taken
prisoner
and forty chariots captured. Nebuchadrezzar, near the end of his
career, made
no further attempt to avenge this disgrace, but left the renewal of the
contest
to his successors (Syn. Hist., col. II.), Belnadinaplu (sect. 134),
indeed,
seems to have taken no steps in this direction, nor did the Assyrian
king
pursue his advantage, unless his campaigns in the east and southeast
against
the highland tribes, Ahlami, Guti, and Lullumi, are to be regarded as
an
intrusion into territory already claimed as the conquest ef
Nebuchadrezzar
(sect. 135). Evidently neither party was anxious to come to blows.
Babylonia
needed yet a longer period of recuperation from the exhausting
struggles for
deliverance from Kassite and Elamite, while the Assyrian had his task
awaiting
him in the restoration of Assyrian power in the north and northwest.
139. The
king who
was to achieve this task for Assyria and to add a brilliant page to her
annals
of victory was already in the field. For at least three generations the
Assyrian crown had passed from father to son, when Tiglathpileser I.,
the
fourth of the line, in the flower of his youth, mounted the throne
(about 1110
B.C.).
140. To
understand
the significance of the career of this great king, so fully detailed in
his own
inscription, a glance must be given at what had come to be the
traditional
political policy of Assyria. Linked to Babylonia by ties of blood and
culture,
the state was constantly drawn into complications with the mother-land.
The
vicissitudes of these relations have been traced in preceding chapters.
But,
apart from this fundamental influence, was the problem, presented to
each
state, of the relation to the larger environment. For Babylonia, this
problem
had already been solved. Her central position on the Euphrates — the
connecting
link between east and west — indicated that her sphere of influence
reached out
through western Mesopotamia to Syria and the Mediterranean coast-lands.
This
predominance, realized long before Assyria was born, had been
maintained, with
frequent lapses, indeed, and long intervals of inactivity, down to the
days of
Nebuchadrezzar I. From Babylon to Haran and from Haran to the sea
stretched the
recognized highroad as well of Babylonia's merchants as of her armies,
Assyria,
newly arrived upon the scene, and once secure of her position as an
independent
power by the side of her more ancient rival, found the outlook for
progress
leading to the more rugged pathways of the highlands to the north and
northwest. To this field her position in the upper corner of the
Mesopotamian
plain invited her. The Tigris had broken through the mountains and
opened up
the road thither. And when the Assyrian merchant, moving westward in
the shadow
of the mountain wall which formed the northern boundary of the plain,
was
halted at the Euphrates by Babylonian authority, he turned northward
into the
highlands through which the upper Euphrates poured, and thus brought to
light
wider regions for the extension of Assyrian commerce. In all this
mountain-land
the soldier had followed hard upon the heels of the trader, so that for
more
than three centuries the campaigns of kings like Ashuruballit,
Adadnirari, and
Shalmaneser had built up the tradition that Assyria's sphere of
influence was
this northern highland. Though in after years, when Babylonia had
yielded her
supremacy of the west-land, the Assyrian kings devoted themselves to
conquest
in the richer lands of Syria, they never forgot the field of their
earlier
campaigns; they kept open the trade routes, and held in check the
restless
peoples of this rugged region.
141. This
region,
in classical times known as Armenia, containing in its fullest extent
sixty
thousand square miles, is an irregular rectangle, its greatest length
five
hundred miles, its width two hundred and fifty miles. A vast plateau,
lifted
some seven thousand feet above sea-level, it is girt about and
traversed by
mountain ranges. On its northern boundary lies the Caucasus; along the
southern
border, overlooking the Mesopotamian valley, runs Mt. Masius, called by
the
Assyrians Kashiari. Between these mountain boundaries two chains (the
Armenian
Taurus and the Anti-Taurus) cross this lofty region from west to east
at about
equal distances from one another, At its eastern border the mountains
turn
sharply to the southeast, and the country becomes a trackless tangle of
peaks
and ravines. Toward the northwest the plain runs out onto the plateau
of Asia
Minor, or drops to the Black Sea. To the southwest the Taurus throws
out the
ranges that pierce Armenia, and then itself turns off to the south in
the
Amanus range which forms the backbone of Syria. In this disintegration
of the
Taurus the entire surface of the land, like its eastern counterpart, is
tossed
about in a shapeless confusion of high and well-nigh impassable
summits. Within
Armenia, between the long ranges, lie fair and smiling plains. Between
Kashiari
and the Armenian Taurus the springs of the Tigris gather to form that
mighty
stream which breaks through the former range on the east and pours down
to the
sea. Behind the Armenian Taurus are the sources of the Euphrates which
flows at
first parallel to the Tigris, but in the opposite direction, until,
turning to
the southward, it tears its way through the knot of mountains in
southwestern
Armenia by innumerable windings, and debouches on the plain, at first
to fall
swiftly, then to spread out more widely on its way to the Persian gulf.
The
land, threaded by the head-waters of these rivers, is wild and
romantic, with
deep glens, lofty peaks, and barren passes. In the midst of it lies the
broad,
blue salt lake of Van, eighty miles long. The mountains are thickly
wooded, the
valleys are genial. Mineral wealth in silver, copper, and iron abounds.
Inexhaustible pasturage is found for flocks and herds. All the fruits
of the
temperate zone grow in the valleys, and harvests of grain are reaped in
the
plains. The winters are cold and invigorating. It is a country of rare
picturesqueness, capable of supporting a large population. The people,
vigorous
and hardy, till the soil of the plains, or lead flocks and herds over
the
hillsides. The tribal organization prevails. Villages nestle at the
base of
hills surmounted by rude fortresses. The larger towns, situated on the
main
roads which lead from Asia Minor to Mesopotamia, are centres of trade
in raw
materials, wool, goat's hair, and grain, or in the rude vessels of
copper and
silver, the spoil of the mines, or in the coarse cloths of the native
weaver.
The larger plains afford to the tribes opportunities for closer
organization,
under chiefs mustering no inconsiderable number of warriors. Border
forays and
the hunting of wild beasts vary the monotony of agricultural and
pastoral
existence, At times, under pressure of invasion, the tribes unite to
defend
their valleys, but fall apart again when the danger is past. A free,
healthy,
and abundant, if rude, life is lived under the open sky.
142. To
secure
control over the borders of this upland, then, Assyrian kings had
girded themselves
in preceding centuries. But the foothold attained by them on the upper
waters
of the Euphrates had been, as has been indicated (sect. 133), all but
lost
before Tiglathpileser became king. Scarcely had he taken his seat, when
a new
disaster was announced front the land of the Qummukhi. This people
occupied the
extensive valley between the Armenian Taurus and the Kashiari range at
the
sources of the Tigris, to the east of the gorge by which the Euphrates
breaks
through the former range to seek the Mesopotamian plain. Tribes from
the
northwest, known collectively as the Mushki, not content with
overpowering the
Alzi and Purukuzzi (sect. 133), suddenly hurled themselves under their
five
kings with twenty thousand warriors upon the Qummukhi. Tiglathpileser
hurried,
with an army, from Assur to the scene, more than three hundred miles
away. His
route led him up the Tigris, half-way across the upper Mesopotamian
plain, then
northward over the range of Kashiari, to a point where he could
overlook the
valley at its centre, not far from the ancient town of Amid, the modern
Diyarbekr. From here he descended with chariots and infantry upon the
invaders
below and crushed them in one tremendous onslaught. Surprised and
overwhelmed,
fourteen thousand were cut down, and the remainder captured and
transported to
Assur. The Qummukhi, restless and rebellious, were subdued with fire
and sword;
one of their clans that fled into the eastern mountains the king
followed
across the Tigris, and, though they were aided by the Kirkhi (Kurti), a
neighboring people in the eastern plateau, he defeated them and
captured their
stronghold. Returning, he marched against the capital of another of
their clans
farther to the north. They fled at his approach; their chief submitted
without
fighting and was spared. The king closed the campaign by taking a
detachment of
infantry and thirty chariots for a dash over the northern mountains
into the
"haughty and unsubmissive country of Mildish," which was likewise
reduced to subjection. Upon all the peoples he laid the obligation of
regular
tribute and, laden with booty, returned to Assyria. By one vigorous
advance he
had not only removed the danger from the invading peoples, but had
re-established Assyrian authority over one of the largest and most
important of
these mountain valleys, — that one which formed the entrance into the
Mesopotamian plain.
143. The
second
campaign, undertaken in the first full year of his reign, — the year of
his
accession counting as only "the beginning," — was directed chiefly
against the still rebellious Qummukhi, who were made again to feel the
weight
of Assyrian displeasure. On their western border were settled the
Shumashti
(Shubarti), whose cities had been invaded by a body of tribes of the
Khatti,
four thousand strong in infantry and chariots. These invaders submitted
on the
king's advance and were transported to Assyria. Two minor events of the
year
were the re-establishment of authority over the Alzi and Purukuzzi, and
the
subjugation of the Shubari, an eastern hill-tribe.
144. In
the
narrative of the first year's exploits occurs a phrase which suggests
that the
plan subsequently followed by the king was already conceived. Not only
had
Ashur, the nation's god, bidden him subdue rebellious vassals, but, to
use the
king's own words, "now he commanded me to extend
the boundaries of my country." It had become clear that, to hold the
peoples of these northern valleys to their allegiance, a systematic
extension
of Assyrian territory there must be undertaken. The task was
formidable,
leading Tiglathpileser I. into far districts hitherto unheard of by
Assyrian
kings, and requiring a display of energy and resource that his
predecessors had
not approached. Three well-conceived campaigns are recorded. In the
first —
that of his second regnal year — the tribes to the east of Qummukhi and
the
sources of the Tigris, between Kashiari and the Armenian Taurus, were
subdued.
In the second — that of his third regnal year — the king climbed the
Taurus and
descended upon the sources of the Euphrates. Here were the tribes known
to the
Assyrians as the Nairi, living to the west of Lake Van. The army pushed
steadily westward through the mountains, fighting as it advanced,
crossed the
Euphrates, marched along its right bank, and reached the city of Milid,
the
western end of the main road from Asia Minor, later called the "Royal
Road," and the chief city of a district separated from the Qummukhi
only
by the lofty Taurus mountains. There remained only the peoples to the
far west,
and against these, after the interval of a year, the king proceeded in
his
fifth regnal year. In this region, between Qummukhi and the gulf of
Issus,
lived the Muçri, whom Shalmaneser I. had already encountered (sect.
120). In
these mountain valleys had flourished, centuries before, one of the
main
branches of the wide kingdom of the Khatti, and from thence this
warlike people
had descended upon the Syrian plain, Here Tiglathpileser found great
fortresses, with walls and towers, blocking his advance. His reduction
of the Muçri
stirred up their neighbors and allies to the northwest the Qumani, and
sent him
still farther away into the endless confusion of rugged mountain ranges
to
accomplish their overthrow. One fierce battle with an army of twenty
thousand
warriors drove the defenders back upon Khunusa, their triple-walled
fortress,
which was stormed by the king with great slaughter and demolished. The
way now
lay open to their capital, which surrendered on his approach. Thereupon
he
accepted the submission of the tribes and laid the usual tribute upon
them. The
first stage of his stupendous task was now practically completed. The
Assyrian
border in this vast mountain region stretched in a huge arc from the
upper
Tigris and Lake Van around the head-waters of the Euphrates to the
northeastern
corner of the Mediterranean. Indeed it extended even farther, for, to
use his
own proud words:
I
conquered in all,
from the beginning of my reign to my fifth regnal year, forty-two
countries and
their princes, from the left bank of the lower Zab and the border of
distant
forest-clad mountains as far as the right bank of the Euphrates, the
land of
the Khatti, and the Upper Sea Of the setting sun (Prism Inscription,
col, vi.
39-45).
145.
During the
strenuous years of these campaigns the king had found occasion to make
at least
two expeditions in other directions. The overthrow of the Shubari in
the
eastern hills took place in his first regnal year. In the fourth, he
made a
raid upon the Bedouin, who were crossing the Euphrates into western
Mesopotamia,
apparently for the purpose of settling in the upper plain. They were
the
advance guard of the Arameans. Crossing the plain due west from Assur,
Tiglathpileser drove them before him along the river from the Khabur to
the
city of Karkhemish, followed them across into the desert, burned their
villages, and carried off their goods and cattle to his capital.
Necessary as
such a campaign was for Aissyria's protection, it had entered territory
under
Babylonian influence, and could hardly have failed to stir up the
Babylonian
ruler to action against Assyria. Marduknadinakhi (sect. 134) was a
vigorous
ruler, and he seems to have responded by an invasion of Assyrian
territory in
the tenth year of his reign, in which may have occurred the capture of
the city
of Ekallati, and the removal of its gods to Babylon, an event to which
a later
Assyrian king, Sennacherib, refers. In the hostilities which inevitably
ensued
and continued for two years, possibly the seventh and eighth regnal
years of
Tiglathpileser, the Babylonian was severely beaten. In the first
campaign
Marduknadinakhi had advanced beyond the lower Zab into Assyrian
territory, when
he was driven back. In the second, the Assyrian king took the offensive
and
swept all before him. The decisive defeat was administered in northern
Babylonia. Tiglathpileser captured, one after another, the chief
northern
cities, Upi, Dur Kurigalzu, Sippar, and Babylon, and then marched up
the
Euphrates to the Khabur, thereby bringing the river from Babylon to
Karkhemish
under Assyrian control. Satisfied with this assertion of his
superiority, and
the control of the chief trade routes, he did not attempt to usurp the
Babylonian throne, but left Marduknadinakhi to resume his discredited
authority.
146. A few
more
campaigns of the great Assyrian are recorded. An expedition against
Elam may
belong to his ninth year. Other visits to the lands of the Nairi are
mentioned,
in the last of which he set up, at the mouth of a grotto whence flows
one of
the sources of the Tigris, a stone slab upon which a full-length effigy
of the
conqueror is sculptured, with a proclamation of his victories over
these
northern peoples. It would not be surprising if he reigned little more
than ten
years. The numerous and fatiguing campaigns in which he led his troops,
sometimes in his chariot, oftener on foot, over rugged mountains,
amidst
incessant fighting, must early have exhausted even his iron endurance.
In the
intervals of warfare he hunted with indefatigable zeal. Lists of lions
slain by
the king when on foot or from the chariot, of wild oxen and elephants,
the
trophies of his lance and bow, appear in his annals, and reveal another
side of
his activity. Not by himself, but by later kings, is another expedition
referred to, which if, as it seems, properly assigned to him, rounds
out his
career. On the broken obelisk of Ashurnaçirpal III. are some lines
which
describe achievements parallel to his, though the ruler's name has not
been
preserved. Of this unknown it is further said that he sailed in ships
of Arvad,
a city of Phoenicia, killed a nakhiru
(sea monster of some sort) in the great sea, captured wild cattle at
the foot
of Lebanon, and was presented by the king of Egypt with a pagutu (hippopotamus?) and a
crocodile,
Shalmaneser II. speaks of the cities of Ashurutiraçbat and Mutkinu,
lying over
against one another on either side of the Euphrates, as once captured
by
Tiglathpileser. These statements imply that, in the years after his
Babylonian
victory, he completed his western conquests by a campaign in Syria that
carried
him to the Mediterranean and to the Lebanons. The fame of this exploit
extorted
a tribute of respect from an Egyptian ruler.
147.
Enough has
been said to show that the king's military activity was no purposeless
series
of plundering raids. His campaigns are linked together in a
well-ordered
system. The first item of his policy is stated in his plain but
significant
assertion, "The feet of the enemy I kept from my country." Even more
important is his second boast, "One word united I caused them to
speak." Once conquered, the peoples were organized under Assyrian rule.
Of
the details in the realization of this plan he himself has recorded
little
beyond the establishment of a regular tax and the requirement of
hostages. The
deportation of captured tribes is not uncommon. The conquered peoples
swear
solemn oaths of allegiance by the Assyrian gods. Rebels are treated
with
ruthless cruelty, for they have sinned against gods and men. Peoples
who resist
attack are exposed to slaughter and the plundering of their goods.
Tribes that
submit are spared, their property respected, their chiefs restored to
power
under Assyrian supremacy. These principles, acted upon by
Tiglathpileser,
formed a body of precedents for future rulers,
148. At
first
thought, it seems unlikely that so eager a warrior would be solicitous
for the
economic welfare of his country. He was statesman, however, as well as
conqueror. From the conquered lands he brought back flocks and herds;
he sought
out useful and valuable trees for transplanting into Assyrian forests,
oaks,
cedars, and fruit trees of a kind unknown to Assyrian orchards. He
rebuilt the
crumbling walls of cities; repaired the storehouses and granaries and
heaped
them high with grain. Royal palaces in his various provincial cities
were
restored, forming citadels for defence. Most splendid of all were the
temples
which he built and adorned with inimitable splendor. Of the restored
temple of
Anu and Adad he says:
I built it
from
foundation to roof larger and grander than before, and erected also two
great
temple towers, fitting ornaments of their great divinities. The
splendid
temple, a brilliant and magnificent dwelling, the habitation of their
joys, the
house for their delight, shining as bright as the stars on heaven's
firmament
and richly decorated with ornaments through the skill of my artists, I
planned,
devised, and thought out, built, and completed. I made its interior
brilliant
like the dome of the heavens; decorated its walls like the splendor of
the
rising stars, and made it grand with resplendent brilliancy. I reared
its
temple towers to heaven, and completed its roof with burned brick;
located
therein the upper terrace containing the chamber of their great
divinities; and
led into the interior Anu and Adad, the great gods, and made them to
dwell in
their lofty house, thus gladdening the heart of their great divinities
(Prism
Ins., col. vii. 85-114, trans. in ABL, pp. 25 f.).
149, The
height of
Assyria's attainment in the arts of life may be inferred from a passage
like
the foregoing, which is characteristic of the inscription as a whole,
written
as it is in a vigorous, flowing, and some. what rhetorical style,
significant
of no little literary culture. The ruler who could achieve such things
and find
expression for them in so lofty a fashion was far from being a mere
ruthless
general, and his state much more than a mere military establishment.
Justly
could he declare that he had "enhanced the welfare of his nation,"
and made his people "live and dwell in peaceful homes." Well might he
pray, to use his own words, that the gods
may turn
to me
truly and faithfully, accept graciously the lifting up of my hands,
hearken
unto my devout prayers, grant unto me and my kingdom abundance of rain,
years
of prosperity and fruitfulness in plenty (Prism. Ins,, col. viii.
24-29, trans.
in ABL, p. 26).
150.
Tiglathpileser
was followed on the throne by his son Ashur-bel-kala, and he by his
brother
Shamshi Adad. The two reigns seem to have been peaceful and prosperous.
The
former king appears to have continued to rule over the wide domains of
his
father and, in addition, to have come to terms with Babylonia. There
Marduk-sapik-zerim followed Marduknadinakhi, and entered into an
alliance with
his Assyrian neighbor. When a rebellion drove the Babylonian from his
throne,
the successful usurper, "son of nobody," Adad-aplu-iddin, was
recognized by the son of Tiglathpileser, who took his daughter into the
harem
on payment of a princely dowry by her father. It has been inferred,
from the
finding of a statue in Nineveh hailing from the king's palace, that
Ashurbelkala removed the capital from Assur to Nineveh. Such a change
is quite
possible, since it would place him nearer the centre of his realm. His
brother,
who was perhaps his successor, is known to have built on the temple of
Ishtar
in the latter city. The name of the son of Shamshi Adad, Ashurnaçirpal
II., has
been preserved, but though his striking prayer to Ishtar is in our
hands (BMG,
p. 68), a record of his deeds has not come down to posterity. The
Assyrian
kingdom goes out in darkness. The first chapter of her imperial history
is
finished (about 1050 B. C.).
|