* Wiedemann has collected several examples, to which it
     would be easy to add others. The names of the king are in
     this case constantly accompanied by unusual epithets, which
     are enclosed in one or other of his cartouches: Mons.
     Kevillout, deceived by these unfamiliar forms, has made out
     of one of these variants, on a painted cloth in the Louvre,
     a new Amenôthes, whom he styles Amenôthes V.

147.jpg the Coffin and Mummy of Amenothes
     Drawn by Faucher-Gudin, from a photograph by Emil Brugsch-
     Bey.

One of his statues, now in the Turin Museum, represents him sitting on his throne in the posture of a king giving audience to his subjects, or in that of a god receiving the homage of his worshippers. The modelling of the bust betrays a flexibility of handling which is astonishing in a work of art so little removed from barbaric times; the head is a marvel of delicacy and natural grace. We feel that the sculptor has taken a delight in chiselling the features of his sovereign, and in reproducing the benevolent and almost dreamy expression which characterised them.* The cult of Amenôthes lasted for seven or eight centuries, until the time when his coffin was removed and placed with those of the other members of his family in the place where it remained concealed until our own times.**

     * Another statue of very fine workmanship, but mutilated, is
     preserved in the Gizeh Museum; this statue is of the time of
     Seti I., and, as is customary, represents Amenôthes in the
     likeness of the king then reigning.

     ** We know, from the Abbott Papyrus, that the pyramid of
     Amenôthes I. was situated at Dr-ah Abou’l-Neggah, among
     those of the Pharaohs of the XIth, XIIth, and XVIIth
     dynasties. The remains of it have not yet been discovered.

It is shaped to correspond with the form of the human body and painted white; the face resembles that of his statue, and the eyes of enamel, touched with kohl, give it a wonderful appearance of animation. The body is swathed in orange-coloured linen, kept in place by bands of brownish linen, and is further covered by a mask of wood and cartonnage, painted to match the exterior of the coffin. Long garlands of faded flowers deck the mummy from head to foot. A wasp, attracted by their scent, must have settled upon them at the moment of burial, and become imprisoned by the lid; the insect has been completely preserved from corruption by the balsams of the embalmer, and its gauzy wings have passed un-crumpled through the long centuries.

Amenôthes had married Ahhotpû II, his sister by the same father and mother;* Ahmasi, the daughter born of this union, was given in marriage to Thûtmosis, one of her brothers, the son of a mere concubine, by name Sonisonbû.** Ahmasi, like her ancestor Nofrîtari, had therefore the right to exercise all the royal functions, and she might have claimed precedence of her husband. Whether from conjugal affection or from weakness of character, she yielded, however, the priority to Thûtmosis, and allowed him to assume the sole government.

     * Ahhotpû II. may be seen beside her husband on several
     monuments. The proof that she was full sister of Amenôthes
     I. is furnished by the title of “hereditary princess” which
     is given to her daughter Àhmasi; this princess would not
     have taken precedence of her brother and husband Thûtmosis,
     who was the son of an inferior wife, had she not been the
     daughter of the only legitimate spouse of Amenôthes I. The
     marriage had already taken place before the accession of
     Thûtmosis I., as Ahmasi figures in a document dated the
     first year of his reign.

     ** The absence of any cartouche shows that Sonisonbû did not
     belong to the royal family, and the very form of the name
     points her out to have been of the middle classes, and
     merely a concubine. The accession of her son, however,
     ennobled her, and he represents her as a queen on the walls
     of the temple at Deîr el-Baharî; even then he merely styles
     her “Royal Mother,” the only title she could really claim,
     as her inferior position in the harem prevented her from
     using that of “Royal Spouse.”

150.jpg ThÛtmosis I., from a Statue in the GÎzeh Museum
     Drawn by Faucher-Gudin, from the photograph taken by Émil
     Brugsch-Bey.

He was crowned at Thebes on the 21st of the third month of Pirît; and a circular, addressed to the representatives of the ancient seignorial families and to the officers of the crown, announced the names assumed by the new sovereign. “This is the royal rescript to announce to you that my Majesty has arisen king of the two Egypts, on the seat of the Horus of the living, without equal, for ever, and that my titles are as follows: The vigorous bull Horus, beloved of Mâît, the Lord of the Vulture and of the Uraeus who raises itself as a flame, most valiant,—the golden Horns, whose years are good and who puts life into all hearts, king of the two Egypts, Akhopirkerî, son of the Sun, Thûtmosis, living for ever.* Cause, therefore, sacrifices to be offered to the gods of the south and of Elephantine,** and hymns to be chanted for the well-being of the King Akhopirkerî, living for ever, and then cause the oath to be taken in the name of my Majesty, born of the royal mother Sonisonbû, who is in good health.—This is sent to thee that thou mayest know that the royal house is prosperous, and in good health and condition, the 1st year, the 21st of the third month of Pirît, the day of coronation.”

     * This is really the protocol of the king, as we find it on
     the monuments, with his two Horus names and his solar
     titles.

     ** The copy of the letter which has come down to us is
     addressed to the commander of Elephantine: hence the mention
     of the gods of that town. The names of the divinities must
     have been altered to suit each district, to which the order
     to offer sacrifices for the prosperity of the new sovereign
     was sent.

The new king was tall in stature, broad-shouldered, well knit, and capable of enduring the fatigues of war without flagging. His statues represent him as having a full, round face, long nose, square chin, rather thick lips, and a smiling but firm expression. Thûtmosis brought with him on ascending the throne the spirit of the younger generation, who, born shortly after the deliverance from the Hyksôs, had grown up in the peaceful days of Amenôthes, and, elated by the easy victories obtained over the nations of the south, were inspired by ambitions unknown to the Egyptians of earlier times. To this younger race Africa no longer offered a sufficiently wide or attractive field; the whole country was their own as far as the confluence of the two Niles, and the Theban gods were worshipped at Napata no less devoutly than at Thebes itself. What remained to be conquered in that direction was scarcely worth the trouble of reducing to a province or of annexing as a colony; it comprised a number of tribes hopelessly divided among themselves, and consequently, in spite of their renowned bravery, without power of resistance. Light columns of troops, drafted at intervals on either side of the river, ensured order among the submissive, or despoiled the refractory of their possessions in cattle, slaves, and precious stones. Thûtmosis I. had to repress, however, very shortly after his accession, a revolt of these borderers at the second and third cataracts, but they were easily overcome in a campaign of a few days’ duration, in which the two Âhmosis of Al-Kab took an honourable part. There was, as usual, an encounter of the two fleets in the middle of the river: the young king himself attacked the enemy’s chief, pierced him with his first arrow, and made a considerable number of prisoners. Thûtmosis had the corpse of the chief suspended as a trophy in front of the royal ship, and sailed northwards towards Thebes, where, however, he was not destined to remain long.* An ample field of action presented itself to him in the north-east, affording scope for great exploits, as profitable as they were glorious.**

     * That this expedition must be placed at the beginning of
     the king’s reign, in his first year, is shown by two facts:
     (1) It precedes the Syrian campaign in the biography of the
     two Âhmosis of El-Kab; (2) the Syrian campaign must have
     ended in the second year of the reign, since Thûtmosis I.,
     on the stele of Tombos which bears that date, gives
     particulars of the course of the Euphrates, and records the
     submission of the countries watered by that river. The date
     of the invasion may be placed between 2300 and 2250 B.C.; if
     we count 661 years for the three dynasties together, as
     Erman proposes, we find that the accession of Ahmosis would
     fall between 1640 and 1590. I should place it provisionally
     in the year 1600, in order not to leave the position of the
     succeeding reigns uncertain; I estimate the possible error
     at about half a century.

     ** It is impossible at present to draw up a correct table of
     the native or foreign sovereigns who reigned over Egypt
     during the time of the Hyksôs. I have given the list of the
     kings of the XIIIth and XIVth dynasties which are known to
     us from the Turin Papyrus. I here append that of the
     Pharaohs of the following dynasties, who are mentioned
     either in the fragments of Manetho or on the monuments:

153.jpg Table

Syria offered to Egyptian cupidity a virgin prey in its large commercial towns inhabited by an industrious population, who by maritime trade and caravan traffic had amassed enormous wealth. The country had been previously subdued by the Chaldæans, who still exercised an undisputed influence over it, and it was but natural that the conquerors of the Hyksôs should act in their turn as invaders. The incursion of Asiatics into Egypt thus provoked a reaction which issued in an Egyptian invasion of Asiatic soil. Thûtmosis and his contemporaries had inherited none of the instinctive fear of penetrating into Syria which influenced Ahmosis and his successor: the Theban legions were, perhaps, slow to advance, but once they had trodden the roads of Palestine, they were not likely to forego the delights of conquest. From that time forward there was perpetual warfare and pillaging expeditions from the plains of the Blue Nile to those of the Euphrates, so that scarcely a year passed without bringing to the city of Amon its tribute of victories and riches gained at the point of the sword. One day the news would be brought that the Amorites or the Khâti had taken the field, to be immediately followed by the announcement that their forces had been shattered against the valour of the Egyptian battalions. Another day, Pharaoh would re-enter the city with the flower of his generals and veterans; the chiefs whom he had taken prisoners, sometimes with his own hand, would be conducted through the streets, and then led to die at the foot of the altars, while fantastic processions of richly clothed captives, beasts led by halters, and slaves bending under the weight of the spoil would stretch in an endless line behind him.

155.jpg Signs, Arms and Instruments

Meanwhile the Timihû, roused by some unknown cause, would attack the outposts stationed on the frontier, or news would come that the Peoples of the Sea had landed on the western side of the Delta; the Pharaoh had again to take the field, invariably with the same speedy and successful issue. The Libyans seemed to fare no better than the Syrians, and before long those who had survived the defeat would be paraded before the Theban citizens, previous to being sent to join the Asiatic prisoners in the mines or quarries; their blue eyes and fair hair showing from beneath strangely shaped helmets, while their white skins, tall stature, and tattooed bodies excited for a few hours the interest and mirth of the idle crowd. At another time, one of the customary raids into the land of Kûsh would take place, consisting of a rapid march across the sands of the Ethiopian desert and a cruise along the coasts of Pûanîfc. This would be followed by another triumphal procession, in which fresh elements of interest would appear, heralded by flourish of trumpets and roll of drums: Pharaoh would re-enter the city borne on the shoulders of his officers, followed by negroes heavily chained, or coupled in such a way that it was impossible for them to move without grotesque contortions, while the acclamations of the multitude and the chanting of the priests would resound from all sides as the cortege passed through the city gates on its way to the temple of Amon. Egypt, roused as it were to warlike frenzy, hurled her armies across all her frontiers simultaneously, and her sudden appearance in the heart of Syria gave a new turn to human history. The isolation of the kingdoms of the ancient world was at an end; the conflict of the nations was about to begin.



156 (20K)




SYRIA AT THE BEGINNING OF THE EGYPTIAN CONQUEST

NINEVEH AND THE FIRST COSSÆAN KINGS-THE PEOPLES OF SYRIA, THEIR TOWNS, THEIR CIVILIZATION, THEIR RELIGION-PHOENICIA.

The dynasty of Uruazagga-The Cossseans: their country, their gods, their conquest of Chaldæa-The first sovereigns of Assyria, and the first Cossæan Icings: Agumhakrimê.

The Egyptian names for Syria: Kharâ, Zahi, Lotanû, Kefâtiu-The military highway from the Nile to the Euphrates: first section from Zalu to Gaza-The Canaanites: their fortresses, their agricultural character: the forest between Jaffa and Mount Carmel, Megiddo-The three routes beyond Megiddo: Qodshu-Alasia, Naharaim, Garchemish; Mitanni and the countries beyond the Euphrates.

Disintegration of the Syrian, Canaanite, Amorite, and Khdti populations; obliteration of types-Influence of Babylon on costumes, customs, and religion—Baalim and Astarte, plant-gods and stone-gods-Religion, human sacrifices, festivals; sacred stones—Tombs and the fate of man after death-Phoenician cosmogony.

Phoenicia—Arad, Marathus, Simyra, Botrys—Byblos, its temple, its goddess, the myth of Adonis: Aphaka and the valley of the Nahr-Ibrahim, the festivals of the death and resurrection of Adonis—Berytus and its god El; Sidon and its suburbs—Tyre: its foundation, its gods, its necropolis, its domain in the Lebanon.

Isolation of the Phoenicians with regard to the other nations of Syria; their love of the sea and the causes which developed it—Legendary accounts of the beginning of their colonization—Their commercial proceedings, their banks and factories; their ships—Cyprus, its wealth, its occupations—The Phoenician colonies in Asia Minor and the Ægean Sea: purple dye—The nations of the Ægean.



157 (134K)

158.jpg Page Image








159 (211K)



CHAPTER II—SYRIA AT THE BEGINNING OF THE EGYPTIAN CONQUEST

Nineveh and the first Cossæan kings—The peoples of Syria, their towns, their civilization, their religion—Phoenicia.

The world beyond the Arabian desert presented to the eyes of the enterprising Pharaohs an active and bustling scene. Babylonian civilization still maintained its hold there without a rival, but Babylonian rule had ceased to exercise any longer a direct control, having probably disappeared with the sovereigns who had introduced it. When Ammisatana died, about the year 2099, the line of Khammurabi became extinct, and a family from the Sea-lands came into power.*

     * The origin of this second dynasty and the reading of its
     name still afford matter for discussion. Amid the many
     conflicting opinions, it behoves us to remember that
     Gulkishar, the only prince of this dynasty whose title we
     possess, calls himself King of the Country of the Sea,
     that is to say, of the marshy country at the mouth of the
     Euphrates: this simple fact directs us to seek the cradle of
     the family in those districts of Southern Chaldæa. Sayce
     rejects this identification on philological and
     chronological grounds, and sees in Gulkishar, “King of the
     Sea-lands,” a vassal Kaldâ prince.

This unexpected revolution of affairs did not by any means restore to the cities of Lower Chaldæa the supreme authority which they once possessed. Babylon had made such good use of its centuries of rule that it had gained upon its rivals, and was not likely now to fall back into a secondary place. Henceforward, no matter what dynasty came into power, as soon as the fortune of war had placed it upon the throne, Babylon succeeded in adopting it, and at once made it its own. The new lord of the country, Ilumaîlu, having abandoned his patrimonial inheritance, came to reside near to Merodach.*

     * The name has been read An-ma-an or Anman by Pinches,
     subsequently Ilumaîlu, Mailu, finally Anumaîlu and perhaps
     Humaîlu. The true reading of it is still unknown. Hommel
     believed he had discovered in Hilprecht’s book an
     inscription belonging to the reign of this prince; but
     Hilprecht has shown that it belonged to a king of Erech,
     An-a-an, anterior to the time of An-ma-an.

He was followed during the four next centuries by a dynasty of ten princes, in uninterrupted succession. Their rule was introduced and maintained without serious opposition. The small principalities of the south were theirs by right, and the only town which might have caused them any trouble—Assur—was dependent on them, being satisfied with the title of vicegerents for its princes,—Khallu, Irishum, Ismidagan and his son Sarnsiramman I., Igurkapkapu and his son Sarnsiramman II.* As to the course of events beyond the Khabur, and any efforts Ilumaîlu’s descendants may have made to establish their authority in the direction of the Mediterranean, we have no inscriptions to inform us, and must be content to remain in ignorance. The last two of these princes, Melamkurkurra and Eâgamîl, were not connected with each other, and had no direct relationship with their predecessors.** The shortness of their reigns presents a striking contrast with the length of those preceding them, and probably indicates a period of war or revolution. When these princes disappeared, we know not how or why, about the year 1714 B.C., they were succeeded by a king of foreign extraction; and one of the semi-barbarous race of Kashshu ascended the throne which had been occupied since the days of Khammurabi by Chaldæans of ancient stock.***

     * Inscription of Irishum, son of Khallu, on a brick found at
     Kalah-Shergat, and an inscription of Sarnsiramman II., son
     of Igurkapkapu, on another brick from the same place.
     Sarnsiramman I. and his father Ismidagan are mentioned in
     the great inscription of Tiglath-pileser II., as having
     lived 641 years before King Assurdân, who himself had
     preceded Tiglath-pileser by sixty years: they thus reigned
     between 1900 and 1800 years before our era, according to
     tradition, whose authenticity we have no other means of
     verifying.

     ** The name of the last is read Eâgamîl, for want of
     anything better: Oppert makes it Eâgâ, simply transcribing
     the signs; and Hilprecht, who took up the question again
     after him, has no reading to propose.

     *** I give here the list of the kings of the second dynasty,
     from the documents discovered by Pinches: No monument
     remains of any of these princes, and even the reading of
     their names is merely provisional: those placed between
     brackets represent Delitzsch’s readings. A Gulkishar is
     mentioned in an inscription of Belnadiuabal; but Jensen is
     doubtful if the Gulkishar mentioned in this place is
     identical with the one in the lists.

Table

These Kashshu, who spring up suddenly out of obscurity, had from the earliest times inhabited the mountainous districts of Zagros, on the confines of Elymai’s and Media, where the Cossæans of the classical historians flourished in the time of Alexander.*

* The Kashshu are identified with the Cossæans by Sayce, by Schrader, by Fr. Delitzsch, by Halévy, by Tiele, by Hommel, and by Jensen. Oppert maintains that they answer to the Kissians of Herodotus, that is to say, to the inhabitants of the district of which Susa is the capital. Lehmann supports this opinion. Winckler gives none, and several Assyriologists incline to that of Kiepert, according to which the Kissians are identical with the Cossæans.

It was a rugged and unattractive country, protected by nature and easy to defend, made up as it was of narrow tortuous valleys, of plains of moderate extent but of rare fertility, of mountain chains whose grim sides were covered with forests, and whose peaks were snow-crowned during half the year, and of rivers, or, more correctly speaking, torrents, for the rains and the melting of the snow rendered them impassable in spring and autumn. The entrance to this region was by two or three well-fortified passes: if an enemy were unwilling to incur the loss of time and men needed to carry these by main force, he had to make a detour by narrow goat-tracks, along which the assailants were obliged to advance in single file, as best they could, exposed to the assaults of a foe concealed among the rocks and trees. The tribes who were entrenched behind this natural rampart made frequent and unexpected raids upon the marshy meadows and fat pastures of Chaldæa: they dashed through the country, pillaging and burning all that came in their way, and then, quickly regaining their hiding-places, were able to place their booty in safety before the frontier garrisons had recovered from the first alarm.* These tribes were governed by numerous chiefs acknowledging a single king—ianzi—whose will was supreme over nearly the whole country:** some of them had a slight veneer of Chaldæan civilization, while among the rest almost every stage of barbarism might be found. The remains of their language show that it was remotely allied to the dialect of Susa, and contained many Semitic words.*** What is recorded of their religion reaches us merely at second hand, and the groundwork of it has doubtless been modified by the Babylonian scribes who have transmitted it to us.****

     * It was thus in the time of Alexander and his successors,
     and the information given by the classical historians about
     this period is equally applicable to earlier times, as we
     may conclude from the numerous passages from Assyrian
     inscriptions which have been collected by Fr. Delitzsch.

     ** Delitzsch conjectures that Ianzi, or Ianzu, had
     become a kind of proper name, analogous to the term
     Pharaoh employed by the Egyptians.

     *** A certain number of Cossæan words has been preserved and
     translated, some in one of the royal Babylonian lists, and
     some on a tablet in the British Museum, discovered and
     interpreted by Fr. Delitzsch. Several Assyriologists think
     that they showed a marked affinity with the idiom of the
     Susa inscriptions, and with that of the Achæmenian
     inscriptions of the second type; others deny the proposed
     connection, or suggest that the Cossæan language was a
     Semitic dialect, related to the Chaldæo-Assyrian. Oppert,
     who was the first to point out the existence of this
     dialect, thirty years ago, believed it to be the Elamite; he
     still persists in his opinion, and has published several
     notes in defence of it.

     **** It has been studied by Pr. Delitzsch, who insists on
     the influence which daily intercourse with the Chaldæans had
     on it after the conquest; Halévy, in most of the names of
     the gods given as Cossæan, sees merely the names of Chaldæan
     divinities slightly disguised in the writing.

They worshipped twelve great gods, of whom the chief—Kashshu, the lord of heaven-gave his name to the principal tribe, and possibly to the whole race:* Shûmalia, queen of the snowy heights, was enthroned beside him,** and the divinities next in order were, as in the cities of the Euphrates, the Moon, the Sun (Sakh or Shuriash), the air or the tempest (Ubriash), and Khudkha.*** Then followed the stellar deities or secondary incarnations of the sun,—Mirizir, who represented both Istar and Beltis; and Khala, answering to Gula.****

     * The existence of Kashshu is proved by the name of
     Kashshunadinakhé: Ashshur also bore a name identical with
     that of his worshippers.

     ** She is mentioned in a rescript of Nebuchadrezzar I., at
     the head of the gods of Namar, that is to say, the Cossæan
     deities, as “the lady of the shining mountains, the
     inhabitants of the summits, the frequenter of peaks.” She is
     called Shimalia in Rawlinson, but Delitzsch has restored her
     name which was slightly mutilated; one of her statues was
     taken by Samsirammân III., King of Assyria, in one of that
     sovereign’s campaigns against Chaldæa.

     *** All these identifications are furnished by the glossary
     of Delitzsch. Ubriash, under the form of Buriash, is met
     with in a large number of proper names, Burnaburiash,
     Shagashaltiburiash, Ulamburiash, Kadashmanburiash, where the
     Assyrian scribe translates it Bel-matâti, lord of the
     world: Buriash is, therefore, an epithet of the god who was
     called Rammân in Chaldæa. The name of the moon-god is
     mutilated, and only the initial syllable Shi... remains,
     followed by an indistinct sign: it has not yet been
     restored.

     **** Halévy considers Khala, or Khali, as a harsh form of
     Gula: if this is the case, the Cossæans must have borrowed
     the name, and perhaps the goddess herself, from their
     Chaldæan neighbours.

The Chaldæan Ninip corresponded both to Gidar and Maruttash, Bel to Kharbe and Turgu, Merodach to Shipak, Nergal to Shugab.* The Cossæan kings, already enriched by the spoils of their neighbours, and supported by a warlike youth, eager to enlist under their banner at the first call,** must have been often tempted to quit their barren domains and to swoop down on the rich country which lay at their feet. We are ignorant of the course of events which, towards the close of the XVIIIth century B.C., led to their gaining possession of it. The Cossæan king who seized on Babylon was named Gandish, and the few inscriptions we possess of his reign are cut with a clumsiness that betrays the barbarism of the conqueror. They cover the pivot stones on which Sargon of Agadê or one of the Bursins had hung the doors of the temple of Nippur, but which Gandish dedicated afresh in order to win for himself, in the eyes of posterity, the credit of the work of these sovereigns.***

     * Hilprecht has established the identity of Turgu with Bel
     of Nippur.

     ** Strabo relates, from some forgotten historian of
     Alexander, that the Cossæans “had formerly been able to
     place as many as thirteen thousand archers in line, in the
     wars which they waged with the help of the Elymæans against
     the inhabitants of Susa and Babylon.”

     *** The full name of this king, Gandish or Gandash, which is
     furnished by the royal lists, is written Gaddash on a
     monument in the British Museum discovered by Pinches, whose
     conclusions have been erroneously denied by Winckler. A
     process of abbreviation, of which there are examples in the
     names of other kings of the same dynasty, reduced the name
     to Gandê in the current language.

Bel found favour in the eyes of the Cossæans who saw in him Kharbê or Turgu, the recognised patron of their royal family: for this reason Gandish and his successors regarded Bel with peculiar devotion. These kings did all they could for the decoration and endowment of the ancient temple of Ekur, which had been somewhat neglected by the sovereigns of purely Babylonian extraction, and this devotion to one of the most venerated Chaldæan sanctuaries contributed largely towards their winning the hearts of the conquered people.*

     * Hilpreoht calls attention on this point to the fact that
     no one has yet discovered at Nippur a single ex-voto
     consecrated by any king of the two first Babylonian
     dynasties.

The Cossæan rule over the countries of the Euphrates was doubtless similar in its beginnings to that which the Hyksôs exercised at first over the nomes of Egypt. The Cossæan kings did not merely bring with them an army to protect their persons, or to occupy a small number of important posts; they were followed by the whole nation, and spread themselves over the entire country. The bulk of the invaders instinctively betook themselves to districts where, if they could not resume the kind of life to which they were accustomed in their own land, they could, at least give full rein to their love of a free and wild existence. As there were no mountains in the country, they turned to the marshes, and, like the Hyksôs in Egypt, made themselves at home about the mouths of the rivers, on the half-submerged low lands, and on the sandy islets of the lagoons which formed an undefined borderland between the alluvial region and the Persian Gulf. The covert afforded, by the thickets furnished scope for the chase which these hunters had been accustomed to pursue in the depths of their native forests, while fishing, on the other hand, supplied them with an additional element of food. When their depredations drew down upon them reprisals from their neighbours, the mounds occupied, by their fortresses, and surrounded by muddy swamps, offered them almost as secure retreats as their former strongholds on the lofty sides of the Zagros. They made alliances with the native Aramæans—with those Kashdi, properly called Chaldæans, whose name we have imposed upon all the nations who, from a very early date, bore rule on the banks of the Lower Euphrates. Here they formed themselves into a State—Karduniash—whose princes at times rebelled, against all external authority, and at other times acknowledged the sovereignty of the Babylonian monarchs.*

     * The state of Karduniash, whose name appears for the first
     time on the monuments of the Cossæan period, has been
     localised in a somewhat vague manner, in the south of
     Babylonia, in the country of the Kashdi, and afterwards
     formally identified with the Countries of the Sea, and
     with the principality which was called Bît-Yâkin in the
     Assyrian period. In the Tel-el-Amarna tablets the name is
     already applied to the entire country occupied by the
     Cossæan kings or their descendants, that is to say, to the
     whole of Babylonia. Sargon II. at that time distinguishes
     between an Upper and a Lower Karduniash; and in consequence
     the earliest Assyriologists considered it as an Assyrian
     designation of Babylon, or of the district surrounding it,
     an opinion which was opposed by Delitzsch, as he believed it
     to be an indigenous term which at first indicated the
     district round Babylon, and afterwards the whole of
     Babylonia. From one frequent spelling of the name, the
     meaning appears to have been Fortress of Duniash; to this
     Delitzsch preferred the translation Garden of Duniash,
     from an erroneous different reading—Ganduniash: Duniash, at
     first derived from a Chaldæan God Dun, whose name may
     exist in Dunghi, is a Cossæan name, which the Assyrians
     translated, as they did Buriash, Belmatâti, lord of the
     country. Winckler rejects the ancient etymology, and
     proposes to divide the word as Kardu-niash and to see in it
     a Cossæan translation of the expression mât-kaldi, country
     of the Caldæans: Hommel on his side, as well as Delitzsch,
     had thought of seeking in the Chaldæans proper—Kaldi for
     Kashdi, or Kash-da, “domain of the Cossæans “—the
     descendants of the Cossæans of Karduniash, at least as far
     as race is concerned. In the cuneiform texts the name is
     written Kara—D. P. Duniyas, “the Wall of the god
     Duniyas” (cf. the Median Wall or Wall of Semiramis which
     defended Babylonia on the north).

The people of Sumir and Akkad, already a composite of many different races, absorbed thus another foreign element, which, while modifying its homogeneity, did not destroy its natural character. Those Cossæan tribes who had not quitted their own country retained their original barbarism, but the hope of plunder constantly drew them from their haunts, and they attacked and devastated the cities of the plain unhindered by the thought that they were now inhabited by their fellow-countrymen. The raid once over, many of them did not return home, but took service under some distant foreign ruler—the Syrian princes attracting many, who subsequently became the backbone of their armies,* while others remained at Babylon and enrolled themselves in the body-guard of the kings.

     * Halévy has at least proved that the Khabiri mentioned in.
     the Tel el-Amarna tablets were Cossæans, contrary to the
     opinion of Sayce, who makes them tribes grouped round
     Hebron, which W. Max Müller seems to accept; Winckler,
     returning to an old opinion, believes them to have been
     Hebrews.

To the last they were an undisciplined militia, dangerous, and difficult to please: one day they would hail their chiefs with acclamations, to kill them the next in one of those sudden outbreaks in which they were accustomed to make and unmake their kings.* The first invaders were not long in acquiring, by means of daily intercourse with the old inhabitants, the new civilization: sooner or later they became blended with the natives, losing all their own peculiarities, with the exception of their outlandish names, a few heroic legends,** and the worship of two or three gods—Shûmalia, Shugab, and Shukamuna.

     * This is the opinion of Hommel, supported by the testimony
     of the Synchronous Hist.: in this latter document the
     Cossæans are found revolting against King Kadashmankharbé,
     and replacing him on the throne by a certain Nazibugash, who
     was of obscure origin.

     ** Pr. Delitzsch and Schrader compare their name with that
     of Kush, who appears in the Bible as the father of Nimrod
     (Gen. x. 8-12); Hommel and Sayce think that the history of
     Nimrod is a reminiscence of the Cossæan rule. Jensen is
     alone in his attempt to attribute to the Cossæans the first
     idea of the epic of Gilgames.

As in the case of the Hyksôs in Africa, the barbarian conquerors thus became merged in the more civilized people which they had subdued. This work of assimilation seems at first to have occupied the whole attention of both races, for the immediate successors of Gandish were unable to retain under their rule all the provinces of which the empire was formerly composed. They continued to possess the territory situated on the middle course of the Euphrates as far as the mouth of the Balikh, but they lost the region extending to the east of the Khabur, at the foot of the Masios, and in the upper basin of the Tigris: the vicegerents of Assur also withdrew from them, and, declaring that they owed no obedience excepting to the god of their city, assumed the royal dignity. The first four of these kings whose names have come down to us, Sulili, Belkapkapu, Adasi, and Belbâni,* appear to have been but indifferent rulers, but they knew bow to hold their own against the attacks of their neighbours, and when, after a century of weakness and inactivity, Babylon reasserted herself, and endeavoured to recover her lost territory, they had so completely established their independence that every attack on it was unsuccessful. The Cossæan king at that time—an active and enterprising prince, whose name was held in honour up to the days of the Ninevite supremacy—was Agumkakrimê, the son of Tassigurumash.**

     * These four names do not so much represent four consecutive
     reigns as two separate traditions which were current
     respecting the beginnings of Assyrian royalty. The most
     ancient of them gives the chief place to two personages
     named Belkapkapu and Sulili; this tradition has been
     transmitted to us by Rammânnirâri III., because it connected
     the origin of his race with these kings. The second
     tradition placed a certain Belbâni, the son of Adasi, in the
     room of Belkapkapu and Sulili: Esarhaddon made use of it in
     order to ascribe to his own family an antiquity at least
     equal to that of the family to which Rammânnirâri III.
     belonged. Each king appropriated from the ancient popular
     traditions those names which seemed to him best calculated
     to enhance the prestige of his dynasty, but we cannot tell
     how far the personages selected enjoyed an authentic
     historical existence: it is best to admit them at least
     provisionally into the royal series, without trusting too
     much to what is related of them.

     ** The tablet discovered by Pinches is broken after the
     fifth king of the dynasty. The inscription of Agumkakrimê,
     containing a genealogy of this prince which goes back as far
     as the fifth generation, has led to the restoration of the
     earlier part of the list as follows:

     Gandish, Gaddash, Adumitasii .... 1655-? B.C.
     Gandê ........................... 1714-1707 B.C.
     Tassigurumash.................... ?
     Agumrabi, his son................ 1707-1685
     Agumkakrimê ..................... ?
     [A]guyashi ...................... 1685-1663
     Ushshi, his son.................. 1663-1655

This “brilliant scion of Shukamuna” entitled himself lord of the Kashshu and of Akkad, of Babylon the widespread, of Padan, of Alman, and of the swarthy Guti.* Ashnunak had been devastated; he repeopled it, and the four “houses of the world” rendered him obedience; on the other hand, Elam revolted from its allegiance, Assur resisted him, and if he still exercised some semblance of authority over Northern Syria, it was owing to a traditional respect which the towns of that country voluntarily rendered to him, but which did not involve either subjection or control. The people of Khâni still retained possession of the statues of Merodach and of his consort Zarpanit, which had been stolen, we know not how, some time previously from Chaldæa.** Agumkakrimê recovered them and replaced them in their proper temple. This was an important event, and earned him the good will of the priests.

     * The translation black-headed, i.e. dark-haired and
     complexioned, Guti, is uncertain; Jensen interprets the
     epithet nishi saldati to mean “the Guti, stupid (foolish?
     culpable?) people.” The Guti held both banks of the lower
     Zab, in the mountains on the east of Assyria. Delitzsch has
     placed Padan and Alman in the mountains to the east of the
     Diyâleh; Jensen places them in the chain of the Khamrîn, and
     Winckler compares Alman or Halman with the Holwân of the
     present day.

     ** The Khâni have been placed by Delitzsch in the
     neighbourhood of Mount Khâna, mentioned in the accounts of
     the Assyrian campaigns, that is to say, in the Amanos,
     between the Euphrates and the bay of Alexandretta: he is
     inclined to regard the name as a form of that of the Khâti.

The king reorganised public worship; he caused new fittings for the temples to be made to take the place of those which had disappeared, and the inscription which records this work enumerates with satisfaction the large quantities of crystal, jasper, and lapis-lazuli which he lavished on the sanctuary, the utensils of silver and gold which he dedicated, together with the “seas” of wrought bronze decorated with monsters and religious emblems.* This restoration of the statues, so flattering to the national pride and piety, would have been exacted and insisted upon by a Khammurabi at the point of the sword, but Agumkakrimê doubtless felt that he was not strong enough to run the risk of war; he therefore sent an embassy to the Khâni, and such was the prestige which the name of Babylon still possessed, from the deserts of the Caspian to the shores of the Mediterranean, that he was able to obtain a concession from that people which he would probably have been powerless to extort by force of arms.**

     * We do not possess the original of the inscription which
     tells us of these facts, but merely an early copy.

     ** Strictly speaking, one might suppose that a war took
     place; but most Assyriologists declare unhesitatingly that
     there was merely an embassy and a diplomatic negotiation.

The Egyptians had, therefore, no need to anticipate Chaldæan interference when, forsaking their ancient traditions, they penetrated for the first time into the heart of Syria. Not only was Babylon no longer supreme there, but the coalition of those cities on which she had depended for help in subduing the West was partially dissolved, and the foreign princes who had succeeded to her patrimony were so far conscious of their weakness, that they voluntarily kept aloof from the countries in which, previous to their advent, Babylon had held undivided sway. The Egyptian conquest of Syria had already begun in the days of Agumkakrimê, and it is possible that dread of the Pharaoh was one of the chief causes which influenced the Cossæans to return a favourable answer to the Khâni. Thûtmosis I., on entering Syria, encountered therefore only the native levies, and it must be admitted that, in spite of their renowned courage, they were not likely to prove formidable adversaries in Egyptian estimation. Not one of the local Syrian dynasties was sufficiently powerful to collect all the forces of the country around its chief, so as to oppose a compact body of troops to the attack of the African armies. The whole country consisted of a collection of petty states, a complex group of peoples and territories which even the Egyptians themselves never completely succeeded in disentangling. They classed the inhabitants, however, under three or four very comprehensive names—Kharû, Zahi, Lotanû, and Kefâtiû—all of which frequently recur in the inscriptions, but without having always that exactness of meaning we look for in geographical terms. As was often the case in similar circumstances, these names were used at first to denote the districts close to the Egyptian frontier with which the inhabitants of the Delta had constant intercourse. The Kefâtiû seem to have been at the outset the people of the sea-coast, more especially of the region occupied later by the Phoenicians, but all the tribes with whom the Phoenicians came in contact on the Asiatic and European border were before long included under the same name.*