* The Adonis of classical authors is now Nahr-Ibrahim. We
     have as yet no direct evidence as to the Phoenician name of
     this river; it was probably identical with that of the
     divinity worshipped on its banks. The fact of a river
     bearing the name of a god is not surprising: the Belos, in
     the neighbourhood of Acre, affords us a parallel case to the
     Adonis.

     ** The present Nahr el-Kelb is the Lykos of classical
     authors. The Due de Luynes thought he recognized a
     corruption of the Phoenician name in that of Alcobile, which
     is mentioned hereabouts in the Itinerary of the pilgrim of
     Bordeaux. The order of the Itinerary does not favour this
     identification, and Alcobile is probably Jebail: it is none
     the less probable that the original name of the Nahr el Kelb
     contained from earliest times the Phoenician equivalent of
     the Arab word kelb, “dog.”

     *** The Jordan is mentioned in the Egyptian texts under the
     name of Yorduna: the name appears to mean the descender,
     the down-flowing.

Its principal source is at Tell el-Qadi, where it rises out of a basaltic mound whose summit is crowned by the ruins of Laish.*

     * This source is mentioned by Josephus as being that of the
     Little Jordan.

014.jpg the Most Northern Source of The Jordan, The Naiir-el-hasbany
     Drawn by Boudier, from a photograph by the Duc de Luynes.

The water collects in an oval rocky basin hidden by bushes, and flows down among the brushwood to join the Nahr el-Hasbany, which brings the waters of the upper torrents to swell its stream; a little lower down it mingles with the Banias branch, and winds for some time amidst desolate marshy meadows before disappearing in the thick beds of rushes bordering Lake Huleh.*

     * Lake Huleh is called the Waters of Merom, Mê-Merom, in the
     Book of Joshua, xi. 5, 7; and Lake Sammochonitis in
     Josephus. The name of Ulatha, which was given to the
     surrounding country, shows that the modern word Huleh is
     derived from an ancient form, of which unfortunately the
     original has not come down to us.

15.jpg Lake of Genesarath

At this point the Jordan reaches the level of the Mediterranean, but instead of maintaining it, the river makes a sudden drop on leaving the lake, cutting for itself a deeply grooved channel. It has a fall of some 300 feet before reaching the Lake of Grenesareth, where it is only momentarily arrested, as if to gather fresh strength for its headlong career southwards.

017.jpg One of the Reaches Of The Jordan
     Drawn by Boudier, from several photographs brought back by
     Lortet.

Here and there it makes furious assaults on its right and left banks, as if to escape from its bed, but the rocky escarpments which hem it in present an insurmountable barrier to it; from rapid to rapid it descends with such capricious windings that it covers a course of more than 62 miles before reaching, the Dead Sea, nearly 1300 feet below the level of the Mediterranean.*

     * The exact figures are: the Lake of Hûleh 7 feet above the
     Mediterranean; the Lake of Genesareth 68245 feet, and the
     Dead Sea 1292 feet below the sea-level; to the south of
     the Dead Sea, towards the water-parting of the Akabah, the
     ground is over 720 feet higher than the level of the Red
     Sea.

018.jpg the Dead Sea and The Mountains of Moab, Seen Fkom The Heights of Engedi
     Drawn by Boudier, from a photograph by the Duc de Luynes.

Nothing could offer more striking contrasts than the country on either bank. On the east, the ground rises abruptly to a height of about 3000 feet, resembling a natural rampart flanked with towers and bastions: behind this extends an immense table-land, slightly undulating and intersected in all directions by the affluents of the Jordan and the Dead Sea—the Yarmuk,* the Jabbok,** and the Arnon.***

     * The Yarmuk does not occur in the Bible, but we meet with
     its name in the Talmud, and the Greeks adopted it under the
     form Hieromax.

     ** Gen. xxxii. 22; Numb, xxi. 24. The name has been
     Grecized under the forms lôbacchos, labacchos, Iambykes. It
     is the present Nahr Zerqa.

     *** Numb. xxi. 13-26; Beut. ii. 24; the present Wady
     Môjib. [Shephelah = “low country,” plain (Josh. xi. 16).
     With the article it means the plain along the Mediterranean
     from Joppa to Gaza.—Te.]

The whole of this district forms a little world in itself, whose inhabitants, half shepherds, half bandits, live a life of isolation, with no ambition to take part in general history. West of the Jordan, a confused mass of hills rises into sight, their sparsely covered slopes affording an impoverished soil for the cultivation of corn, vines, and olives. One ridge—Mount Carmel—detached from the principal chain near the southern end of the Lake of Genesareth, runs obliquely to the north-west, and finally projects into the sea. North of this range extends Galilee, abounding in refreshing streams and fertile fields; while to the south, the country falls naturally into three parallel zones—the littoral, composed alternately of dunes and marshes—an expanse of plain, a “Shephelah,” dotted about with woods and watered by intermittent rivers,—and finally the mountains. The region of dunes is not necessarily barren, and the towns situated in it—Gaza, Jaffa, Ashdod, and Ascalon—are surrounded by flourishing orchards and gardens. The plain yields plentiful harvests every year, the ground needing no manure and very little labour. The higher ground and the hill-tops are sometimes covered with verdure, but as they advance southwards, they become denuded and burnt by the sun. The valleys, too, are watered only by springs, which are dried up for the most part during the summer, and the soil, parched by the continuous heat, can scarcely be distinguished from the desert. In fact, till the Sinaitic Peninsula and the frontiers of Egypt are reached, the eye merely encounters desolate and almost uninhabited solitudes, devastated by winter torrents, and overshadowed by the volcanic summits of Mount Seir. The spring rains, however, cause an early crop of vegetation to spring up, which for a few weeks furnishes the flocks of the nomad tribes with food.

We may summarise the physical characteristics of Syria by saying that Nature has divided the country into five or six regions of unequal area, isolated by rivers and mountains, each one of which, however, is admirably suited to become the seat of a separate independent state. In the north, we have the country of the two rivers—the Naharaim—extending from the Orontes to the Euphrates and the Balikh, or even as far as the Khabur:* in the centre, between the two ranges of the Lebanon, lie Coele-Syria and its two unequal neighbours, Aram of Damascus and Phoenicia; while to the south is the varied collection of provinces bordering the valley of the Jordan.

     * The Naharaim of the Egyptians was first identified with
     Mesopotamia; it was located between the Orontes and the
     Balikh or the Euphrates by Maspero. This opinion is now
     adopted by the majority of Egyptologists, with slight
     differences in detail. Ed. Meyer has accurately compared the
     Egyptian Naharaim with the Parapotamia of the administration
     of the Seleucidæ.

It is impossible at the present day to assert, with any approach to accuracy, what peoples inhabited these different regions towards the fourth millennium before our era. Wherever excavations are made, relics are brought to light of a very ancient semi-civilization, in which we find stone weapons and implements, besides pottery, often elegant in contour, but for the most part coarse in texture and execution. These remains, however, are not accompanied by any monument of definite characteristics, and they yield no information with regard to the origin or affinities of the tribes who fashioned them.* The study of the geographical nomenclature in use about the XVIth century B.C. reveals the existence, at all events at that period, of several peoples and several languages. The mountains, rivers, towns, and fortresses in Palestine and Coele-Syria are designated by words of Semitic origin: it is easy to detect, even in the hieroglyphic disguise which they bear on the Egyptian geographical lists, names familiar to us in Hebrew or Assyrian.

     * Researches with regard to the primitive inhabitants of
     Syria and their remains have not as yet been prosecuted to
     any extent. The caves noticed by Hedenborg at Ant-Elias,
     near Tripoli, and by Botta at Nahr el-Kelb, and at Adlun by
     the Duc de Luynes, have been successively explored by
     Lartet, Tristram, Lortet, and Dawson. The grottoes of
     Palestine proper, at Bethzur, at Gilgal near Jericho, and at
     Tibneh, have been the subject of keen controversy ever since
     their discovery. The Abbé Richard desired to identify the
     flints of Gilgal and Tibneh with the stone knives used by
     Joshua for the circumcision of the Israelites after the
     passage of the Jordan (Josh. v- 2-9), some of which might
     have been buried in that hero’s tomb.

But once across the Orontes, other forms present themselves which reveal no affinities to these languages, but are apparently connected with one or other of the dialects of Asia Minor.* The tenacity with which the place-names, once given, cling to the soil, leads us to believe that a certain number at least of those we know in Syria were in use there long before they were noted down by the Egyptians, and that they must have been heirlooms from very early peoples. As they take a Semitic or non-Semitic form according to their geographical position, we may conclude that the centre and south were colonized by Semites, and the north by the immigrant tribes from beyond the Taurus. Facts are not wanting to support this conclusion, and they prove that it is not so entirely arbitrary as we might be inclined to believe. The Asiatic visitors who, under a king of the XIIth dynasty, came to offer gifts to Khnûmhotpû, the Lord of Beni-Hasan, are completely Semitic in type, and closely resemble the Bedouins of the present day. Their chief—Abisha—bears a Semitic name,** as too does the Sheikh Ammianshi, with whom Sinûhit took refuge.***

     * The non-Semitic origin of the names of a number of towns
     in Northern Syria preserved in the Egyptian lists, is
     admitted by the majority of scholars who have studied the
     question.

     ** His name has been shown to be cognate with the Hebrew
     Abishai (1 Sam. xxvi. 6-9; 2 Sam. ii. 18, 24; xxi. 17) and
     with the Chaldæo-Assyrian Abeshukh.

     *** The name Ammianshi at once recalls those of Ammisatana,
     Ammiza-dugga, and perhaps Ammurabi, or Khammurabi, of one of
     the Babylonian dynasties; it contains, with the element
     Ammi, a final anshi. Chabas connects it with two Hebrew
     words Am-nesh, which he does not translate.

Ammianshi himself reigned over the province of Kadimâ, a word which in Semitic denotes the East. Finally, the only one of their gods known to us, Hadad, was a Semite deity, who presided over the atmosphere, and whom we find later on ruling over the destinies of Damascus. Peoples of Semitic speech and religion must, indeed, have already occupied the greater part of that region on the shores of the Mediterranean which we find still in their possession many centuries later, at the time of the Egyptian conquest.

023.jpg Asiatic Women from the Tomb of KhnÛmhotpÛ
     Drawn by Faucher-Gudin, from a photograph by Insinger.

For a time Egypt preferred not to meddle in their affairs. When, however, the “lords of the sands” grew too insolent, the Pharaoh sent a column of light troops against them, and inflicted on them such a severe punishment, that the remembrance of it kept them within bounds for years. Offenders banished from Egypt sought refuge with the turbulent kinglets, who were in a perpetual state of unrest between Sinai and the Dead Sea. Egyptian sailors used to set out to traffic along the seaboard, taking to piracy when hard pressed; Egyptian merchants were accustomed to penetrate by easy stages into the interior. The accounts they gave of their journeys were not reassuring. The traveller had first to face the solitudes which confronted him before reaching the Isthmus, and then to avoid as best he might the attacks of the pillaging tribes who inhabited it.

024.jpg Two Asiatics Fkom the Tomb of KhnÛmhoptÛ.
     Drawn by Faucher-Gudin, from a photograph by Insinger

Should he escape these initial perils, the Amu—an agricultural and settled people inhabiting the fertile region—would give the stranger but a sorry reception: he would have to submit to their demands, and the most exorbitant levies of toll did not always preserve caravans from their attacks.* The country seems to have been but thinly populated; tracts now denuded were then covered by large forests in which herds of elephants still roamed,** and wild beasts, including lions and leopards, rendered the route through them dangerous.

     * The merchant who sets out for foreign lands “leaves his
     possessions to his children—for fear of lions and
     Asiatics.”

     ** Thûtmosis III. went elephant-hunting near the Syrian town
     of Niî.

The notion that Syria was a sort of preserve for both big and small game was so strongly implanted in the minds of the Egyptians, that their popular literature was full of it: the hero of their romances betook himself there for the chase, as a prelude to meeting with the princess whom he was destined to marry,* or, as in the case of Kazarâti, chief of Assur, that he might encounter there a monstrous hyena with which to engage in combat.

     * As, for instance, the hero in the Story of the
     Predestined Prince
, exiled from Egypt with his dog, pursues
     his way hunting till he reaches the confines of Naharaim,
     where he is to marry the prince’s daughter.

These merchants’ adventures and explorations, as they were not followed by any military expedition, left absolutely no mark on the industries or manners of the primitive natives: those of them only who were close to the frontiers of Egypt came under her subtle charm and felt the power of her attraction, but this slight influence never penetrated beyond the provinces lying nearest to the Dead Sea. The remaining populations looked rather to Chaldæa, and received, though at a distance, the continuous impress of the kingdoms of the Euphrates. The tradition which attributes to Sargon of Agadê, and to his son Istaramsin, the subjection of the people of the Amanos and the Orontes, probably contains but a slight element of truth; but if, while awaiting further information, we hesitate to believe that the armies of these princes ever crossed the Lebanon or landed in Cyprus, we must yet admit the very early advent of their civilization in those western countries which are regarded as having been under their rule. More than three thousand years before our era, the Asiatics who figure on the tomb of Khnûmhotpû clothed themselves according to the fashions of Uru and Lagash, and affected long robes of striped and spotted stuffs. We may well ask if they had also borrowed the cuneiform syllabary for the purposes of their official correspondence,* and if the professional scribe with his stylus and clay tablet was to be found in their cities. The Babylonian courtiers were, no doubt, more familiar visitors among them than the Memphite nobles, while the Babylonian kings sent regularly to Syria for statuary stone, precious metals, and the timber required in the building of their monuments: Urbau and Gudea, as well as their successors and contemporaries, received large convoys of materials from the Amanos, and if the forests of Lebanon were more rarely utilised, it was not because their existence was unknown, but because distance rendered their approach more difficult and transport more costly. The Mediterranean marches were, in their language, classed as a whole under one denomination—Martu, Amurru,** the West—but there were distinctive names for each of the provinces into which they were divided.

     * The most ancient cuneiform tablets of Syrian origin are
     not older than the XVIth century before our era; they
     contain the official, correspondence of the native princes
     with the Pharaohs Amenôthes III. and IV. of the XVIIIth
     dynasty, as will be seen later on in this volume; they were
     discovered in the ruins of one of the palaces at Tel el-
     Amarna in Egypt.

     ** Formerly read Akharru. Martu would be the Sumerian and
     Akharru the Semitic form, Akharru meaning that which is
     behind
. The discovery of the Tel el-Amarna tablets threw
     doubt on the reading of the name Akharru: some thought that
     it ought to be kept in any case; others, with more or less
     certainty, think that it should be replaced by Amuru,
     Amurru, the country of the Amorites. But the question has
     now been settled by Babylonian contract and law tablets of
     the period of Khaminurabi, in which the name is written A-
     mu-ur-ri (ki)
. Hommel originated the idea that Martu might
     be an abbreviation of Amartu, that is, Amar with the
     feminine termination of nouns in the Canaanitish dialect:
     Martu would thus actually signify the country of the
     Amorites
.

Probably even at that date they called the north Khati,* and Cole-Syria, Amurru, the land of the Amorites. The scattered references in their writings seem to indicate frequent intercourse with these countries, and that, too, as a matter of course which excited no surprise among their contemporaries: a journey from Lagash to the mountains of Tidanum and to Gubin, or to the Lebanon and beyond it to Byblos,** meant to them no voyage of discovery. Armies undoubtedly followed the routes already frequented by caravans and flotillas of trading boats, and the time came when kings desired to rule as sovereigns over nations with whom their subjects had peaceably traded.

     * The name of the Khati, Khatti, is found in the Book of
     Omens
, which is supposed to contain an extract from the
     annals of Sargon and Naramsin; as, however, the text which
     we possess of it is merely a copy of the time of
     Assurbanipal, it is possible that the word Khati is merely
     the translation of a more ancient term, perhaps Martu.
     Winckler thinks it to be included in Lesser Armenia and the
     Melitônê of classical authors.

     ** Gubin is probably the Kûpûna, Kûpnû, of the Egyptians,
     the Byblos of Phoenicia. Amiaud had proposed a most unlikely
     identification with Koptos in Egypt. In the time of Inê-Sin,
     King of Ur, mention is found of Simurru, Zimyra.

It does not appear, however, that the ancient rulers of Lagash ever extended their dominion so far. The governors of the northern cities, on the other hand, showed themselves more energetic, and inaugurated that march westwards which sooner or later brought the peoples of the Euphrates into collision with the dwellers on the Nile: for the first Babylonian empire without doubt comprised part if not the whole of Syria.*

     * It is only since the discovery of the Tel el-Amarna
     tablets that the fact of the dominant influence of Chaldæa
     over Syria and of its conquest has been definitely realized.
     It is now clear that the state of things of which the
     tablets discovered in Egypt give us a picture, could only be
     explained by the hypothesis of a Babylonish supremacy of
     long duration over the peoples situated between the
     Euphrates and the Mediterranean.

Among the most celebrated names in ancient history, that of Babylon is perhaps the only one which still suggests to our minds a sense of vague magnificence and undefined dominion. Cities in other parts of the world, it is true, have rivalled Babylon in magnificence and power: Egypt could boast of more than one such city, and their ruins to this day present to our gaze more monuments worthy of admiration than Babylon ever contained in the days of her greatest prosperity. The pyramids of Memphis and the colossal statues of Thebes still stand erect, while the ziggurâts and the palaces of Chaldæa are but mounds of clay crumbling into the plain; but the Egyptian monuments are visible and tangible objects; we can calculate to within a few inches the area they cover and the elevation of their summits, and the very precision with which we can gauge their enormous size tends to limit and lessen their effect upon us. How is it possible to give free rein to the imagination when the subject of it is strictly limited by exact and determined measurements? At Babylon, on the contrary, there is nothing remaining to check the flight of fancy: a single hillock, scoured by the rains of centuries, marks the spot where the temple of Bel stood erect in its splendour; another represents the hanging gardens, while the ridges running to the right and left were once the ramparts.

029.jpg the Ruins of Babylon
     Drawn by Boudier, from a drawing reproduced in Hofer. It
     shows the state of the ruins in the first half of our
     century, before the excavations carried out at European
     instigation.

The vestiges of a few buildings remain above the mounds of rubble, and as soon as the pickaxe is applied to any spot, irregular layers of bricks, enamelled tiles, and inscribed tablets are brought to light—in fine, all those numberless objects which bear witness to the presence of man and to his long sojourn on the spot. But these vestiges are so mutilated and disfigured that the principal outlines of the buildings cannot be determined with any certainty, and afford us no data for guessing their dimensions. He who would attempt to restore the ancient appearance of the place would find at his disposal nothing but vague indications, from which he might draw almost any conclusion he pleased.

030.jpg Plan of the Ruins Of Babylon
     Prepared by Thuillier, from a plan reproduced in G.
     Rawlinson, Herodotus

Palaces and temples would take a shape in his imagination on a plan which never entered the architect’s mind; the sacred towers as they rose would be disposed in more numerous stages than they actually possessed; the enclosing walls would reach such an elevation that they must have quickly fallen under their own weight if they had ever been carried so high: the whole restoration, accomplished without any certain data, embodies the concept of something vast and superhuman, well befitting the city of blood and tears, cursed by the Hebrew prophets. Babylon was, however, at the outset, but a poor town, situated on both banks of the Euphrates, in a low-lying, flat district, intersected by canals and liable at times to become marshy. The river at this point runs almost directly north and south, between two banks of black mud, the base of which it is perpetually undermining. As long as the city existed, the vertical thrust of the public buildings and houses kept the river within bounds, and even since it was finally abandoned, the masses of debris have almost everywhere had the effect of resisting its encroachment; towards the north, however, the line of its ancient quays has given way and sunk beneath the waters, while the stream, turning its course westwards, has transferred to the eastern bank the gardens and mounds originally on the opposite side. E-sagilla, the temple of the lofty summit, the sanctuary of Merodach, probably occupied the vacant space in the depression between the Babil and the hill of the Kasr.*

     * The temple of Merodach, called by the Greeks the temple of
     Belos, has been placed on the site called Babîl by the two
     Rawlinsons; and by Oppert; Hormuzd Rassam and Fr. Delitzsch
     locate it between the hill of Junjuma and the Kasr, and
     considers Babîl to be a palace of Nebuchadrezzar.

In early times it must have presented much the same appearance as the sanctuaries of Central Chaldæa: a mound of crude brick formed the substructure of the dwellings of the priests and the household of the god, of the shops for the offerings and for provisions, of the treasury, and of the apartments for purification or for sacrifice, while the whole was surmounted by a ziggurât. On other neighbouring platforms rose the royal palace and the temples of lesser divinities,* elevated above the crowd of private habitations.

     * As, for instance, the temple E-temenanki on the actual
     hill of Amrân-ibn-Ali, the temple of Shamash, and others,
     which there will be occasion to mention later on in dealing
     with the second Chaldæan empire.

032.jpg the Kask Seen from The South
     Drawn by Boudier, from the engraving by Thomas in Perrot-
     Chipiez.

The houses of the people were closely built around these stately piles, on either side of narrow lanes. A massive wall surrounded the whole, shutting out the view on all sides; it even ran along the bank of the Euphrates, for fear of a surprise from that quarter, and excluded the inhabitants from the sight of their own river. On the right bank rose a suburb, which was promptly fortified and enlarged, so as to become a second Babylon, almost equalling the first in extent and population.

033.jpg the Tell of Borsippa, The Present Birs-nimrud
     Drawn by Faucher-Gudin, after the plate published in
     Ohesney.

Beyond this, on the outskirts, extended gardens and fields, finding at length their limit at the territorial boundaries of two other towns, Kutha and Borsippa, whose black outlines are visible to the east and south-west respectively, standing isolated above the plain. Sippara on the north, Nippur on the south, and the mysterious Agadê, completed the circle of sovereign states which so closely hemmed in the city of Bel. We may surmise with all probability that the history of Babylon in early times resembled in the main that of the Egyptian Thebes. It was a small seigneury in the hands of petty princes ceaselessly at war with petty neighbours: bloody struggles, with alternating successes and reverses, were carried on for centuries with no decisive results, until the day came when some more energetic or fortunate dynasty at length crushed its rivals, and united under one rule first all the kingdoms of Northern and finally those of Southern Chaldæa.

The lords of Babylon had, ordinarily, a twofold function, religious and military, the priest at first taking precedence of the soldier, but gradually yielding to the latter as the town increased in power. They were merely the priestly representatives or administrators of Babel—shakannaku Babili—and their authority was not considered legitimate until officially confirmed by the god. Each ruler was obliged to go in state to the temple of Bel Merodach within a year of his accession: there he had to take the hands of the divine statue, just as a vassal would do homage to his liege, and those only of the native sovereigns or the foreign conquerors could legally call themselves Kings of Babylon—sharru Babili—who had not only performed this rite, but renewed it annually.*

     * The meaning of the ceremony in which the kings of Babylon
     “took the hands of Bel” has been given by Winckler; Tiele
     compares it very aptly with the rite performed by the
     Egyptian kings—at Heliopolis, for example, when they
     entered alone the sanctuary of Râ, and there contemplated
     the god face to face. The rite was probably repeated
     annually, at the time of the Zakmuku, that is, the New Year
     festival.

Sargon the Elder had lived in Babylon, and had built himself a palace there: hence the tradition of later times attributed to this city the glory of having been the capital of the great empire founded by the Akkadian dynasties. The actual sway of Babylon, though arrested to the south by the petty states of Lower Chaldæa, had not encountered to the north or north-west any enemy to menace seriously its progress in that semi-fabulous period of its history. The vast plain extending between the Euphrates and the Tigris is as it were a continuation of the Arabian desert, and is composed of a grey, or in parts a whitish, soil impregnated with selenite and common salt, and irregularly superimposed upon a bed of gypsum, from which asphalt oozes up here and there, forming slimy pits. Frost is of rare occurrence in winter, and rain is infrequent at any season; the sun soon burns up the scanty herbage which the spring showers have encouraged, but fleshy plants successfully resist its heat, such as the common salsola, the salsola soda, the pallasia, a small mimosa, and a species of very fragrant wormwood, forming together a vari-coloured vegetation which gives shelter to the ostrich and the wild ass, and affords the flocks of the nomads a grateful pasturage when the autumn has set in. The Euphrates bounds these solitudes, but without watering them. The river flows, as far as the eye can see, between two ranges of rock or bare hills, at the foot of which a narrow strip of alluvial soil supports rows of date-palms intermingled here and there with poplars, sumachs, and willows. Wherever there is a break in the two cliffs, or where they recede from the river, a series of shadufs takes possession of the bank, and every inch of the soil is brought under cultivation. The aspect of the country remains unchanged as far as the embouchure of the Khabur; but there a black alluvial soil replaces the saliferous clay, and if only the water were to remain on the land in sufficient quantity, the country would be unrivalled in the world for the abundance and variety of its crops.

036.jpg the Banks of The Euphrates at Zuleibeh
     Drawn by Boudier, from the plate in Chesney.

The fields, which are regularly sown in the neighbourhood of the small towns, yield magnificent harvests of wheat and barley: while in the prairie-land beyond the cultivated ground the grass grows so high that it comes up to the horses’ girths. In some places the meadows are so covered with varieties of flowers, growing in dense masses, that the effect produced is that of a variegated carpet; dogs sent in among them in search of game, emerge covered with red, blue, and yellow pollen. This fragrant prairie-land is the delight of bees, which produce excellent and abundant honey, while the vine and olive find there a congenial soil. The population was unequally distributed in this region. Some half-savage tribes were accustomed to wander over the plain, dwelling in tents, and supporting life by the chase and by the rearing of cattle; but the bulk of the inhabitants were concentrated around the affluents of the Euphrates and Tigris, or at the foot of the northern mountains wherever springs could be found, as in Assur, Singar, Nisibis, Tilli,* Kharranu, and in all the small fortified towns and nameless townlets whose ruins are scattered over the tract of country between the Khabur and the Balikh. Kharranu, or Harran, stood, like an advance guard of Chaldæan civilization, near the frontiers of Syria and Asia Minor.** To the north it commanded the passes which opened on to the basins of the Upper Euphrates and Tigris; it protected the roads leading to the east and south-east in the direction of the table-land of Iran and the Persian Gulf, and it was the key to the route by which the commerce of Babylon reached the countries lying around the Mediterranean. We have no means of knowing what affinities as regards origin or race connected it with Uru, but the same moon-god presided over the destinies of both towns, and the Sin of Harran enjoyed in very early times a renown nearly equal to that of his namesake.

     * Tilli, the only one of these towns mentioned with any
     certainty in the inscriptions of the first Chaldæan empire,
     is the Tela of classical authors, and probably the present
     Werânshaher, near the sources of the Balikh.

     ** Kharranu was identified by the earlier Assyriologists
     with the Harran of the Hebrews (Gen. v. 12), the Carrhse
     of classical authors, and this identification is still
     generally accepted.

He was worshipped under the symbol of a conical stone, probably an aerolite, surmounted by a gilded crescent, and the ground-plan of the town roughly described a crescent-shaped curve in honour of its patron. His cult, even down to late times, was connected with cruel practices; generations after the advent to power of the Abbasside caliphs, his faithful worshippers continued to sacrifice to him human victims, whose heads, prepared according to the ancient rite, were accustomed to give oracular responses.* The government of the surrounding country was in the hands of princes who were merely vicegerents:** Chaldæan civilization before the beginnings of history had more or less laid hold of them, and made them willing subjects to the kings of Babylon.***

     * Without seeking to specify exactly which were the
     doctrines introduced into Harranian religion subsequently to
     the Christian era, we may yet affirm that the base of this
     system of faith was merely a very distorted form of the
     ancient Chaldæan worship practised in the town.

     ** Only one vicegerent of Mesopotamia is known at present,
     and he belongs to the Assyrian epoch. His seal is preserved
     in the British Museum.

     *** The importance of Harran in the development of the
     history of the first Chaldæan empire was pointed out by
     Winckler; but the theory according to which this town was
     the capital of the kingdom, called by the Chaldæan and
     Assyrian scribes “the kingdom of the world,” is justly
     combated by Tiele.

These sovereigns were probably at the outset somewhat obscure personages, without much prestige, being sometimes independent and sometimes subject to the rulers of neighbouring states, among others to those of Agadê. In later times, when Babylon had attained to universal power, and it was desired to furnish her kings with a continuous history, the names of these earlier rulers were sought out, and added to those of such foreign princes as had from time to time enjoyed the sovereignty over them—thus forming an interminable list which for materials and authenticity would well compare with that of the Thinite Pharaohs. This list has come down to us incomplete, and its remains do not permit of our determining the exact order of reigns, or the status of the individuals who composed it. We find in it, in the period immediately subsequent to the Deluge, mention of mythical heroes, followed by names which are still semi-legendary, such as Sargon the Elder; the princes of the series were, however, for the most part real beings, whose memories had been preserved by tradition, or whose monuments were still existing in certain localities. Towards the end of the XXVth century before our era, however, a dynasty rose into power of which all the members come within the range of history.*

     * This dynasty, which is known to us in its entirety by the
     two lists of G. Smith and by Pinches, was legitimately
     composed of only eleven kings, and was known as the
     Babylonian dynasty, although Sayce suspects it to be of
     Arabian origin. It is composed as follows:—

039.jpg Table

The dates of this dynasty are not fixed with entire certainty. The first of them, Sumuabîm, has left us some contracts bearing the dates of one or other of the fifteen years of his reign, and documents of public or private interest abound in proportion as we follow down the line of his successors. Sumulaîlu, who reigned after him, was only distantly related to his predecessor; but from Sumulaîlu to Sam-shusatana the kingly power was transmitted from father to son without a break for nine generations, if we may credit the testimony of the official lists.*

     * Simulaîlu, also written Samu-la-ilu, whom Mr. Pinches has
     found in a contract tablet associated with Pungunila as
     king, was not the son of Sumuabîm, since the lists do not
     mention him as such; he must, however, have been connected
     with some sort of relationship, or by marriage, with his
     predecessor, since both are placed in the same dynasty. A
     few contracts of Sumulaîlu are given by Meissner. Samsuiluna
     calls him “my forefather (d-gula-mu), the fifth king before
     me.”

     Hommel believes that the order of the dynasties has been
     reversed, and that the first upon the lists we possess was
     historically the second; he thus places the Babylonian
     dynasty between 2035 and 1731 B.C. His opinion has not been
     generally adopted, but every Assyriologist dealing with this
     period proposes a different date for the reigns in this
     dynasty; to take only one characteristic example, Khammurabi
     is placed by Oppert in the year 2394-2339, by Delitzsch-
     Murdter in 2287-2232, by Winckler in 2264-2210, and by
     Peiser in 2139-2084, and by Carl Niebuhr in 2081-2026.

Contemporary records, however, prove that the course of affairs did not always run so smoothly. They betray the existence of at least one usurper—Immêru—who, even if he did not assume the royal titles, enjoyed the supreme power for several years between the reigns of Zabu and Abilsin. The lives of these rulers closely resembled those of their contemporaries of Southern Chaldæa. They dredged the ancient canals, or constructed new ones; they restored the walls of their fortresses, or built fresh strongholds on the frontier;* they religiously kept the festivals of the divinities belonging to their terrestrial domain, to whom they annually rendered solemn homage.

     * Sumulaîlu had built six such large strongholds of brick,
     which were repaired by Samsuiluna five generations later. A
     contract of Sinmuballit is dated the year in which he built
     the great wall of a strong place, the name of which is
     unfortunately illegible on the fragment which we possess.

They repaired the temples as a matter of course, and enriched them according to their means; we even know that Zabu, the third in order of the line of sovereigns, occupied himself in building the sanctuary Eulbar of Anunit, in Sippara. There is evidence that they possessed the small neighbouring kingdoms of Kishu, Sippara, and Kuta, and that they had consolidated them into a single state, of which Babylon was the capital. To the south their possessions touched upon those of the kings of Uru, but the frontier was constantly shifting, so that at one time an important city such as Nippur belonged to them, while at another it fell under the dominion of the southern provinces. Perpetual war was waged in the narrow borderland which separated the two rival states, resulting apparently in the balance of power being kept tolerably equal between them under the immediate successors of Sumuabîm* —the obscure Sumulaîlu, Zabum, the usurper Immeru, Abîlsin and Sinmuballit—until the reign of Khammurabi (the son of Sinmuballit), who finally made it incline to his side.** The struggle in which he was engaged, and which, after many vicissitudes, he brought to a successful issue, was the more decisive, since he had to contend against a skilful and energetic adversary who had considerable forces at his disposal. Birnsin*** was, in reality, of Elamite race, and as he held the province of Yamutbal in appanage, he was enabled to muster, in addition to his Chaldæan battalions, the army of foreigners who had conquered the maritime regions at the mouth of the Tigris and the Euphrates.

     * None of these facts are as yet historically proved: we
     may, however, conjecture with some probability what was the
     general state of things, when we remember that the first
     kings of Babylon were contemporaries of the last independent
     sovereigns of Southern Chaldæa.

     ** The name of this prince has been read in several ways—
     Hammurabi, Khammurabi, by the earlier Assyriologists,
     subsequently Hammuragash, Khammuragash, as being of Elamite
     or Cossoan extraction: the reading Khammurabi is at present
     the prevailing one. The bilingual list published by Pinches
     makes Khammurabi an equivalent of the Semitic names Kimta-
     rapashtum. Hence Halévy concluded that Khammurabi was a
     series of ideograms, and that Kimtarapashtum was the true
     reading of the name; his proposal, partially admitted by
     Hommel, furnishes us with a mixed reading of Khammurapaltu,
     Amraphel. [Hommel is now convinced of the identity of the
     Amraphel of Gen. xiv. I with Khammurabi.—Te.] Sayce,
     moreover, adopts the reading Khammurabi, and assigns to him
     an Arabian origin. The part played by this prince was
     pointed out at an early date by Menant. Recent discoveries
     have shown the important share which he had in developing
     the Chaldæan empire, and have, increased his reputation with
     Assyriologists.

     *** The name of this king has been the theme of heated
     discussions: it was at first pronounced Aradsin, Ardusin, or
     Zikarsin; it is now read in several different ways—Rimsin,
     or Eriaku, Riaku, Rimagu. Others have made a distinction
     between the two forms, and have made out of them the names
     of two different kings. They are all variants of the same
     name. I have adopted the form Rimsin, which is preferred by
     a few Assyriologists. [The tablets recently discovered by
     Mr. Pinches, referring to Kudur-lagamar and Tudkhula, which
     he has published in a Paper road before the Victoria
     Institute, Jan. 20, 1896, have shown that the true reading
     is Eri-Aku. The Elamite name Eri-Aku, “servant of the moon-
     god,” was changed by some of his subjects into the
     Babylonian Rim-Sin, “Have mercy, O Moon-god!” just as
     Abêsukh, the Hebrew Absihu’a (“the father of welfare”) was
     transformed into the Babylonian Ebisum (“the actor”).—Ed.]