Austen Henry Layard

RESULTS OF THE DISCOVERIES TO CHRONOLOGY AND HISTORY.—NAMES OF ASSYRIAN KINGS IN THE INSCRIPTIONS.—A DATE FIXED.—THE NAME OF JEHU.—THE OBELISK KING.—THE EARLIER KINGS.—SARDANAPALUS.—HIS SUCCESSORS.—PUL, OR TIGLATH PILESER.—SARGON.—SENNACHERIR.—ESSARHADDON.—THE LAST ASSYRIAN KINGS.—TABLES OF PROPER NAMES IN THE ASSYRIAN INSCRIPTIONS.—ANTIQUITY OF NINEVEH.—OF THE NAME OF ASSYRIA.—ILLUSTRATIONS OF SCRIPTURE.—STATE OF JUDÆA AND ASSYRIA COMPARED.—POLITICAL CONDITION OF THE EMPIRE.—ASSYRIAN COLONIES.—PROSPERITY OF THE COUNTRY.—RELIGION.—EXTENT OF NINEVEH.—ASSYRIAN ARCHITECTURE.—COMPARED WITH JEWISH.—PALACE OF KOUYUNJIK RESTORED.—PLATFORM AT NIMROUD RESTORED.—THE ASSYRIAN FORTIFIED INCLOSURES.—DESCRIPTION OF KOUYUNJIK.—CONCLUSION.

Although ten years have barely elapsed since the first discovery of ruins on the site of the great city of Nineveh, a mass of information, scarcely to be overrated for its importance and interest, has already been added to our previous knowledge of the early history and comparative geography of the East. When in 1849 I published the narrative of my first researches in Assyria, the numerous inscriptions recovered from the remains of the buried palaces were still almost a sealed book; for although an interpretation of some had been hazarded, it was rather upon mere conjecture than upon any well-established philological basis. I then, however, expressed my belief, that ere long their contents would be known with almost certainty, and that they would be found to furnish a history, previously almost unknown, of one of the earliest and most powerful empires of the ancient world. Since that time the labors of English scholars, and especially of Col. Rawlinson and Dr. Hincks, and of M. de Saulcy, and other eminent investigators on the Continent, have nearly led to the fulfilment of those anticipations; and my present work would be incomplete were I not to give a general sketch of the results of their investigations, as well as of my own researches.

I will not detain the reader by any account of the various processes adopted in deciphering, and of the steps gradually made in the investigation; nor will I recapitulate the curious corroborative evidence which has led in many instances to the verification of the interpretations. Such details, philologically of the highest interest, and very creditable to the sagacity and learning of those pursuing this difficult inquiry, will be found in the several treatises published by the investigators themselves. The results, however, are still very incomplete. It is, indeed, a matter of astonishment that, considering the time which has elapsed since the discovery of the monuments, so much progress has been already made. But there is every prospect of our being able, ere long, to ascertain the general contents of almost every Assyrian record. The Babylonian column of the Bisutun inscription, that invaluable key to the various branches of cuneiform writing, has at length been published by Col. Rawlinson, and will enable others to carry on the investigation upon sure grounds.

I will proceed, therefore, to give a slight sketch of the contents of the inscriptions as far as they have been examined. The earliest king of whose reign we have any detailed account was the builder of the north-west palace at Nimroud, the most ancient edifice hitherto discovered in Assyria. His records, however, with other inscriptions, furnish the names of five, if not seven, of his predecessors, some of whom, there is reason to believe, erected palaces at Nineveh, and originally founded those which were only rebuilt by subsequent monarchs. It is consequently important to ascertain the period of the accession of this early Assyrian king, and we apparently have the means of fixing it with sufficient accuracy. His son, we know, built the centre palace at Nimroud, and raised the obelisk, now in the British Museum, inscribing upon it the principal events of his reign. He was a great conqueror, and subdued many distant nations. The names of the subject kings who paid him tribute are duly recorded on the obelisk, in some instances with sculptured representations of the various objects sent. Amongst those kings was one whose name reads “Jehu, the son of Khumri (Omri),” and who has been identified by Dr. Hincks and Col. Rawlinson with Jehu, king of Israel. This monarch was certainly not the son, although one of the successors of Omri, but the term “son of” appears to have been used throughout the East in those days, as it still is, to denote connection generally, either by descent or by succession. Thus we find in Scripture the same person called “the son of Nimshi,” and “the son of Jehoshaphat, the son of Nimshi.”[248] An identification connected with this word Khumri or Omri is one of the most interesting instances of corroborative evidence that can be adduced of the accuracy of the interpretations of the cuneiform character. It was observed that the name of a city resembling Samaria was connected, and that in inscriptions containing very different texts, with one reading Beth Khumri or Omri.[249] This fact was unexplained until Col. Rawlinson perceived that the names were, in fact, applied to the same place, or one to the district, and the other to the town. Samaria having been built by Omri, nothing is more probable than that—in accordance with a common Eastern custom—it should have been called, after its founder, Beth Khumri, or the house of Omri. As a further proof of the identity of the Jehu mentioned on the obelisk with the king of Israel, Dr. Hincks, to whom we owe this important discovery, has found on the same monument the name of Hazael, whom Elijah was ordered by the Almighty to anoint king of Syria.[250]

Supposing, therefore, these names to be correctly identified,—and our Assyrian chronology for this period rests as yet, it must be admitted, almost entirely upon this supposition,—we can fix an approximate date for the reign of the obelisk king. Jehu ascended the throne about 885 B. C.; the accession of the Assyrian monarch must, consequently, be placed somewhere between that time and the commencement of the ninth century B. C., and that of his father in the latter part of the tenth.[251]

In his records the builder of the north-west palace mentions, amongst his predecessors, a king whose name is identical with the one from whom, according to the inscriptions at Bavian, were taken certain idols of Assyria 418 years before the first or second year of the reign of Sennacherib. According to Dr. Hincks, Sennacherib ascended the throne in 703 B. C. We have, therefore, 1121 B. C. for the date of the reign of this early king.

There are still two kings mentioned by name in the inscriptions from the north-west palace at Nimroud, as ancestors of its builder, who have not yet been satisfactorily placed. It is probable that the earliest reigned somewhere about the middle of the twelfth century B. C. Colonel Rawlinson calls him the founder of Nineveh; but there is no proof whatever, as far as I am aware, in support of this conjecture. It is possible, however, that he may have been the first of a dynasty which extended the bounds of the Assyrian empire, and was founded, according to Herodotus, about five centuries before the Median invasion, or in the twelfth century B. C.; but there appears to be evidence to show that a city bearing the name of Nineveh stood on the banks of the Tigris long before that period.[252]

The second king, whose name is unplaced, appears to be mentioned in the inscriptions as the original founder of the north-west palace at Nimroud. According to the views just expressed, he must have reigned about the end of the twelfth century B. C.

The father and grandfather of the builder of the north-west palace are mentioned in nearly every inscription from that edifice. Their names, according to Colonel Rawlinson, are Adrammelech and AnÁku-Merodach. They must have reigned in the middle of the tenth century B. C. We have no records of either of them.

The first king of whom we have any connected historical chronicle was the builder of the well-known edifice at Nimroud from which were obtained the most perfect and interesting bas-reliefs brought to this country. In my former work I stated that Colonel Rawlinson believed his name to be Ninus, and had identified him with that ancient king, according to Greek history, the founder of the Assyrian empire. He has since given up this reading, and has suggested that of Assardanbal, agreeing with the historic Sardanapalus. Dr. Hincks, however, assigning a different value to the middle character (the name being usually written with three), reads Ashurakhbal. It is certain that the first monogram stands both for the name of the country of Assyria and for that of its protecting deity. We might consequently assume, even were other proof wanting, that it should be read Assur or Ashur.

I have elsewhere given a description of the various great monumental records of this king, with extracts from their contents. He appears to have carried his arms to the west of Nineveh across Syria to the Mediterranean Sea, to the south into ChaldÆa, probably beyond Babylon (the name of this city does not, however, as far as I am aware, occur in the inscriptions), and to the north into Asia Minor and Armenia.

Of his son, whose name Colonel Rawlinson reads Temenbar and Divanubara, and Dr. Hincks Divanubar, we have full and important historical annals, including the principal events of thirty-one years of his reign. They are engraved upon the black obelisk, and upon the backs of the bulls in the centre of the mound of Nimroud. This king, like his father, was a great conqueror. He waged war, either in person or by his generals, in Syria, Armenia, Babylonia, ChaldÆa, Media, and Persia.

The two royal names next in order occur on the pavement slabs of the upper chambers, on the west face of the mound of Nimroud.[253] They may belong to the son and grandson, and immediate successors, of the obelisk king. The two names, however, have not been satisfactorily deciphered. Colonel Rawlinson reads them Shamas-Adar and Adrammelech II.; Dr. Hincks only ventures to suggest Shamsiyav for the first.

On the Assyrian tablet from the tunnel of Negoub[254], are apparently two royal names, which may be placed next in order. They are merely mentioned as those of ancestors or predecessors of the king who caused the record to be engraved. Dr. Hincks reads them Baldasi and Ashurkish. As the inscription is much mutilated, some doubt may exist as to the correctness of its interpretation.

The next king of whom we have any actual records appears to have rebuilt or added to the palace in the centre of the mound of Nimroud. The edifice was destroyed by a subsequent monarch, who carried away its sculptures to decorate a palace of his own. All the remains found amongst its ruins, with the exception of the great bulls and the obelisk, belong to a king whose name occurs on a pavement-slab discovered in the south-west palace. The walls and chambers of this building were, it will be remembered, decorated with bas-reliefs brought from elsewhere. By comparing the inscriptions upon them, and upon a pavement-slab of the same period, with the sculptures in the ruins of the centre palace, we find that they all belong to the same king, and we are able to identify him through a most important discovery, for which we are also indebted to Dr. Hincks. In an inscription on a bas-relief representing part of a line of war-chariots, he has detected the name of Menahem, the king of Israel, amongst those of other monarchs paying tribute to the king of Assyria, in the eighth year of his reign.[255] This Assyrian king, must, consequently, have been either the immediate predecessor of Pul, Pul himself, or Tiglath Pileser, the name on the pavement-slab not having yet been deciphered.[256]

The bas-reliefs adorning his palace, like those at Khorsabad, appear to have been accompanied by a complete series of his annals. Unfortunately only fragments of them remain. His first campaign seems to have been in ChaldÆa, and during his reign he carried his arms into the remotest parts of Armenia, and across the Euphrates into Syria as far as Tyre and Sidon. There is a passage in one of his inscriptions still unpublished, which reads, “as far as the river Oukarish,” that might lead us to believe that his conquests were even extended to the central provinces of Asia and to the Oxus. His annals contain very ample lists of conquered towns and tribes. Amongst the former are Harran and Ur. He rebuilt many cities, and placed his subjects to dwell in them.

The next monarch, whose name is found on Assyrian monuments, was the builder of the palace of Khorsabad, now so well known from M. Botta’s excavations and the engravings of its sculptures published by the French government. His name, though read with slight variations by different interpreters, is admitted by all to be that of Sargon, the Assyrian king mentioned by Isaiah. The names of his father and grandfather are said to have been found on a clay tablet discovered at Kouyunjik, but they do not appear to have been monarchs of Assyria. The ruins of Khorsabad furnish us with the most detailed and ample annals of his reign. Unfortunately an inscription, containing an account of a campaign against Samaria in his first or second year, has been almost entirely destroyed. But, in one still preserved, 27,280 Israelites are described as having been carried into captivity by him from Samaria and the several districts or provincial towns dependent upon that city. Sargon, like his predecessors, was a great warrior. He even extended his conquests beyond Syria to the islands of the Mediterranean Sea, and a tablet set up by him has been found in Cyprus. He warred also in Babylonia, Susiana, Armenia, and Media, and apparently received tribute from the kings of Egypt.

Colonel Rawlinson believed that the names “Tiglath Pileser” and “Shalmaneser,” were found on the monuments of Khorsabad as epithets of Sargon, and that they were applied in the Old Testament to the same king. He has now changed his opinion with regard to the first, and Dr. Hincks contends that the second is not a name of this king, but of his predecessor,—of whom, however, it must be observed, we have hitherto been unable to trace any mention on the monuments, unless, as that scholar suggests, he is alluded to in an inscription of Sargon from Khorsabad.

From the reign of Sargon we have a complete list of kings to the fall of the empire, or to a period not far distant from that event. He was succeeded by Sennacherib, whose annals have been given in a former part of this volume. His name was identified, as I have before stated, by Dr. Hincks, and this great discovery furnished the first satisfactory starting-point, from which the various events recorded in the inscriptions have been linked with Scripture history. Colonel Rawlinson places the accession of Sennacherib to the throne in 716, Dr. Hincks in 703, which appears to be more in accordance with the canon of Ptolemy. The events of his reign, as recorded in the inscriptions on the walls of his palace, are mostly related or alluded to in sacred and profane history. I have already described his wars in JudÆa, and have compared his own account with that contained in Holy Writ. His second campaign in Babylonia is mentioned in a fragment of Polyhistor, preserved by Eusebius, in which the name given to Sennacherib’s son, and the general history of the war appear to be nearly the same as those on the monuments. The fragment is highly interesting as corroborating the accuracy of the interpretation of the inscriptions. I was not aware of its existence when the translation given in the sixth chapter of this volume was printed. “After the reign of the brother of Sennacherib, Acises reigned over the Babylonians, and when he had governed for the space of thirty days he was slain by Merodach Baladan, who held the empire by force during six months; and he was slain and succeeded by a person named Elibus (Belib). But in the third year of his (Elibus) reign Sennacherib, king of the Assyrians, levied an army against the Babylonians; and in a battle, in which they were engaged, routed and took him prisoner with his adherents, and commanded them to be carried into the land of the Assyrians. Having taken upon himself the government of the Babylonians, he appointed his son, Asordanius, their king, and he himself retired again into Assyria.” This son, however, was not Essarhaddon, his successor on the throne of Assyria. The two names are distinguished by a distinct orthography in the cuneiform inscriptions. Sennacherib raised monuments and caused tablets recording his victories to be carved in many countries which he visited and subdued. His image and inscriptions at the mouth of the Nahr-el-Kelb in Syria are well known. During my journey to Europe I found one of his tablets near the village of Hasana (or Hasan Agha), chiefly remarkable from being at the foot of Gebel Judi, the mountain upon which, according to a widespread Eastern tradition, the ark of Noah rested after the deluge.[257]

Essarhaddon, his son, was his successor, as we know from the Bible. He built the south-west palace at Nimroud, and an edifice whose ruins are now covered by the mound of the tomb of Jonah opposite Mosul. Like his father he was a great warrior, and he styles himself in his inscriptions “King of Egypt, conqueror of Æthiopia.” It was probably this king who carried Manasseh, king of Jerusalem, captive to Babylon.[258]

The name of the son and successor of Essarhaddon was the same as that of the builder of the north-west palace at Nimroud. His father had erected a dwelling for him in the suburbs or on the outskirts of Nineveh. His principal campaign appears to have been in Susiana or Elam. As the great number of the inscribed tablets found in the ruins of the palace of Sennacherib, at Kouyunjik, are of his time, many of them bearing his name, we may hope to obtain some record of the principal events of his reign.

His son built the south-east palace on the mound of Nimroud, probably over the remains of an earlier edifice. Bricks from its ruins give his name, which has not yet been deciphered, and those of his father and grandfather. We know nothing of his history from cotemporaneous records. He was one of the last, if not the last, king of the second dynasty; and may, indeed, as I have already suggested, have been that monarch, Sardanapalus, or Saracus, who was conquered by the combined armies of the Medes and Babylonians under Cyaxares in B. C. 606, and who made of his palace, his wealth, and his wives one great funeral pile.[259]

For convenience of reference I give a table of the royal names, according to the versions of Dr. Hincks and Col. Rawlinson, the principal monuments on which they are found, and the approximate date of the reigns of the several kings. In a second table will be found the most important proper and geographical names in the Assyrian inscriptions which have been identified with those in the Bible. A third table contains the names of the thirteen great gods of Assyria, according to the version of Dr. Hincks.

TABLE I.—Names of Assyrian Kings in the Inscriptions from Nineveh.

TABLE II.—Names of Kings, Countries, Cities, &c., mentioned in the Old Testament, which occur in the A Inscriptions.

TABLE III.—Names of Thirteen Great Gods of Assyria, as they occur on the upright tablet of the King, discovered at Nimroud.

Although no mention appears to be made in the Assyrian inscriptions of kings who reigned before the twelfth century B. C., this is by no means a proof that the empire, and its capital Nineveh, did not exist long before that time. I cannot agree with those who would limit the foundation of both to that period. The supposition seems to me quite at variance with the testimony of sacred and profane history. The existence of the name of Nineveh on monuments of the eighteenth Egyptian dynasty is still considered almost certain by Egyptian scholars. I have in my former work quoted an instance of it on a tablet of the time of Thothmes III., or of the beginning of the fourteenth century B. C.[261] Mr. Birch has since pointed out to me three interesting cartouches copied by Dr. Lepsius in Egypt, which completely remove any doubt as to the name of Assyria having been also known as early as the eighteenth dynasty. They occur at the foot of one of the columns of Soleb, and are of the age of Amenophis III., or about the middle of the fourteenth century before Christ. The three figures, with their arms bound behind, represent Asiatic captives, as is proved by their peculiar features and head-dress, a knotted fillet round the temples, corresponding with that seen in the Nineveh sculptures. Each cartouche contains the name of the country from which the prisoner was brought. The first is Patana, or Padan-Aram; the second is written A-su-ru, or Assyria; and the third, Ka-ru-ka-mishi, Carchemish. On another column are Saenkar (? Shinar or Sinjar); Naharaina, or Mesopotamia; and the Khita, or Hittites. The mention in succession of these Asiatic nations, contiguous one to the other, proves the correctness of the reading of the word Assyria, which might have been doubted had the name of that country stood alone.

Mr. Birch has detected a still earlier notice of Assyria in the statistical tablet of Karnak. The king of that country is there stated to have sent to Thothmes III., in his fortieth year, a tribute of fifty pounds nine ounces of some article called chesbit, supposed to be a stone for coloring blue. It would appear, therefore, that in the fifteenth century a kingdom, known by the name of Assyria, with Nineveh for its capital, had been established on the borders of the Tigris. Supposing the date now assigned by Col. Rawlinson to the monuments at Nimroud to be correct, no sculptures or relics have yet been found which we can safely attribute to that period; future researches and a more complete examination of the ancient sites may, however, hereafter lead to the discovery of earlier remains.

As I have thus given a general sketch of the contents of the inscriptions, it may not be out of place to make a few observations upon the nature of the Assyrian records, and their importance to the study of Scripture and profane history. In the first place, the care with which the events of each king’s reign were chronicled is worthy of remark. They were usually written in the form of regular annals, and in some cases, as on the great monoliths at Nimroud, the royal progress during a campaign appears to have been described almost day by day. We are thus furnished with an interesting illustration of the historical books of the Jews. There is, however, this marked difference between them, that whilst the Assyrian records are nothing but a dry narrative, or rather register, of military campaigns, spoliations, and cruelties, events of little importance but to those immediately concerned in them, the historical books of the Old Testament, apart from the deeds of war and blood which they chronicle, contain the most interesting of private episodes, and the most sublime of moral lessons. It need scarcely be added, that this distinction is precisely what we might have expected to find between them, and that the Christian will not fail to give to it a due weight.

The monuments of Nineveh, as well as the testimony of history, tend to prove that the Assyrian monarch was a thorough Eastern despot, unchecked by popular opinion, and having complete power over the lives and property of his subjects—rather adored as a god than feared as a man, and yet himself claiming that authority and general obedience in virtue of his reverence for the national deities and the national religion. It was only when the gods themselves seemed to interpose that any check was placed upon the royal pride and lust; and it is probable that when Jonah entered Nineveh crying to the people to repent, the king, believing him to be a special minister from the supreme deity of the nation, “arose from his throne, and laid his robe from him, and covered him with sackcloth, and sat in ashes.”[262] The Hebrew state, on the contrary, was, to a certain extent, a limited monarchy. The Jewish kings were amenable to, and even guided by, the opinion of their subjects. The prophets boldly upbraided and threatened them; their warnings and menaces were usually received with respect and fear. “Good is the word of the Lord which thou hast spoken,” exclaimed Hezekiah to Isaiah, when the prophet reproved him for his pride, and foretold the captivity of his sons and the destruction of his kingdom;[263] a prophecy which none would have dared utter in the presence of the Assyrian king, except, as it would appear by the story of Jonah, he were a stranger. It can scarcely, therefore, be expected that any history other than bare chronicles of the victories and triumphs of the kings, omitting all allusion to their reverses and defeats, could be found in Assyria, even were portable rolls or books still to exist, as in Egypt, beneath the ruins.

It is remarkable that the Assyrian records should, on the whole, be so free from the exaggerated forms of expression, and the magniloquent royal titles, which are found in Egyptian documents of the same nature, and even in those of modern Eastern sovereigns. I have already pointed out the internal evidence of their truthfulness so far as they go. We are further led to place confidence in the statements contained in the inscriptions by the very minuteness with which they even give the amount of the spoil; the two registrars, “the scribes of the host,” as they are called in the Bible,[264] being seen in almost every bas-relief, writing down the various objects brought to them by the victorious warriors,—the heads of the slain, the prisoners, the cattle, the sheep,[265] the furniture, and the vessels of metal.The next reflection arising from an examination of the Assyrian records relates to the political condition and constitution of the empire, which appear to have been of a very peculiar nature. The king, we may infer, exercised but little direct authority beyond the immediate districts around Nineveh. The Assyrian dominions, as far as we can yet learn from the inscriptions, did not extend much further than the central provinces of Asia Minor and Armenia to the north, not reaching to the Black Sea, though probably to the Caspian. To the east they included the western provinces of Persia; to the south, Susiana, Babylonia, and the northern part of Arabia. To the west the Assyrians may have penetrated into Lycia, and perhaps Lydia; and Syria was considered within the territories of the great king; Egypt and Meroe (Æthiopia) were the farthest limits reached by the Assyrian armies. According to Greek history, however, a much greater extent must be assigned to Assyrian influence, if not to the actual Assyrian empire, and we may hereafter find that such was in fact the case. I am here merely referring to the evidence afforded by actual records as far as they have been deciphered.

The empire appears to have been at all times a kind of confederation formed by many tributary states, whose kings were so far independent, that they were only bound to furnish troops to the supreme lord in time of war, and to pay him yearly a certain tribute. Hence we find successive Assyrian kings fighting with exactly the same nations and tribes, some of which were scarcely more than four or five days’ march from the gates of Nineveh.

The Jewish tribes, as it had long been suspected by biblical scholars, can now be proved to have held their dependent position upon the Assyrian king, from a very early period, indeed, long before the time inferred by any passage in Scripture. Whenever an expedition against the kings of Judah or Israel is mentioned in the Assyrian records, it is stated to have been undertaken on the ground that they had not paid their customary tribute.[266]

The political state of the Jewish kingdom under Solomon appears to have been very nearly the same as that of the Assyrian empire. The inscriptions in this instance again furnish us with an interesting illustration of the Bible. The scriptural account of the power of the Hebrew king resembles, almost word for word, some of the paragraphs in the great inscriptions at Nimroud. “Solomon reigned over the kingdoms from the river unto the land of the Philistines, and unto the border of Egypt: they brought presents, and served Solomon all the days of his life.... He had dominion over all the region on this side the river, from Tipsah even unto the Azzah, over all the kings on this side the river.”[267]

In the custom, frequently alluded to in the inscriptions, of removing the inhabitants of conquered cities and districts to distant parts of the empire, and of replacing them by colonists from Nineveh or from other subdued countries, we have another interesting illustration of Scripture history. It has generally been inferred that there was but one carrying away, or at the most two, of the people of Samaria, although three, at least, appear to be distinctly alluded to in the Bible; the first, by Pul;[268] the second, by Tiglath-Pileser[269]; the third, by Shalmaneser.[270] It was not until the time of the last king that Samaria was destroyed as an independent kingdom. On former occasions only the inhabitants of the surrounding towns and villages seem to have been taken as captives. Such we find to have been the case with many other nations who were subdued or punished for rebellion by the Assyrians. The conquerors, too, as we also learn from the inscriptions, established the worship of their own gods in the conquered cities, raising altars and temples, and appointing priests for their service. So after the fall of Samaria, the strangers who were placed in its cities, “made gods of their own and put them in the houses of the high places which the Samaritans had made.”[271]

The vast number of families thus sent to dwell in distant countries, must have wrought great changes in the physical condition, language, and religion of the people with which they were intermixed. When the Assyrian records are with more certainty interpreted, we may, perhaps, be able to explain many of the anomalies of ancient Eastern philology and comparative geography.

We further gather from the records of the campaigns of the Assyrian kings, that the country, both in Mesopotamia and to the west of the Euphrates, now included in the general term of “the Desert,” was at that remote period, teeming with a dense population both sedentary and nomade; that cities, towns, and villages arose on all sides; and that, consequently, the soil brought forth produce for the support of this great congregation of human beings. All those settlements depended almost exclusively upon artificial irrigation. Hence the dry beds of enormous canals and countless watercourses, which are spread like a network over the face of the country. Even the traveller, accustomed to the triumphs of modern science and civilization, gazes with wonder and awe upon these gigantic works, and reflects with admiration upon the industry, the skill, and the power of those who made them. And may not the waters be again turned into the empty channels, and may not life be again spread over those parched and arid wastes? Upon them no other curse has alighted than that of a false religion and a listless race.

Of the information as to the religious system of the Assyrians which may be derived from the inscriptions, I am still unwilling to treat in the present state of our knowledge of their contents. A far more intimate acquaintance with the character than we yet possess is required before the translation of such documents can be fully relied on. All we can now venture to infer is, that the Assyrians worshipped one supreme God, as the great national deity under whose immediate and special protection they lived, and their empire existed. The name of this god appears to have been Asshur, as nearly as can be determined, at present, from the inscriptions. It was identified with that of the empire itself, always called “the country of Asshur;” it entered into those of both kings and private persons, and was also applied to particular cities. With Asshur, but apparently far inferior to him in the celestial hierarchy, although called the great gods, were associated twelve other deities, whose names I have given in table No. 3. Some of them may possibly be identified with the divinities of the Greek Pantheon, although it is scarcely wise to hazard conjectures which must ere long be again abandoned. These twelve gods may also have presided over the twelve months of the year, and the vast number of still inferior gods, in one inscription, I believe, stated to be no less than 4000, over the days of the year, various phenomena and productions of nature, and the celestial bodies. It is difficult to understand such a system of polytheism, unless we suppose that whilst there was but one supreme god, represented sometimes under a triune form, all the so-called inferior gods were originally mere names for events and outward things, or symbols and myths. Although at one time generally accepted as such even by the common people, their true meaning was only known in a corrupted age to the priests, by whom they were turned into a mystery and a trade. It may, indeed, be inferred from many passages in the Scriptures, that a system of theology not far differing from the Assyrian prevailed at times amongst the Jews themselves. Asshur is generally, if not always, typified by the winged figure in the circle.[272]

The question as to the space occupied by the city of Nineveh at the time of its greatest prosperity is still far from being set at rest. Col. Rawlinson, founding his opinion upon the names on bricks from the several sites, believes the inclosures of Nimroud, Kouyunjik, and Khorsabad, and the small mounds of Shereef-Khan, scarcely three miles from Kouyunjik, as well as others in the immediate neighbourhood, to be the remains of distinct cities. He would even separate the mound of Nebbi Yunus from Kouyunjik, identifying the former with Nineveh, and making the latter a mere suburb. A glance at the plan of the ruins will show this conjecture to be quite untenable. Discoveries in both mounds prove that they belong to nearly the same period, and that Nebbi Yunus is the more recent of the two. The supposition that any of these groups of mounds represent alone the city of Nineveh can in no way be reconciled with the accounts in Scripture and in the Greek authors, which so remarkably coincide as to its extent; a difficulty which leads Col. Rawlinson to say, that all these ruins “formed one of that group of cities which, in the time of the prophet Jonah, were known by the common name of Nineveh.” It is indeed true, that, on bricks from different mounds, distinct names appear to be given to each locality, and that those from Kouyunjik are inscribed with the name of Nineveh, whilst those from Nimroud and Khorsabad bear others which have not yet been satisfactorily deciphered. These names are preceded by a determinative monogram assumed to signify a city, but which undoubtedly also applies to a fort or fortified palace. Nahum describes Nineveh as a city of many strongholds and gates,[273] and such I believe it to have been, each fort or stronghold having a different name. The most important, as it was the best defended, may at one time have been the palace at Kouyunjik, which being especially called Nineveh, gave its name to the whole city. By no other supposition can we reconcile the united testimony of ancient writers as to the great size of Nineveh with the present remains.

It is very doubtful whether these fortified inclosures contained many buildings beside the royal palaces, and such temples and public edifices as were attached to them. At Nimroud, excavations were made in various parts of the inclosed space, and it was carefully examined with a view to ascertain whether any foundations or remains of houses still existed. None were discovered except at the south-eastern corner, where the height of the earth above the usual level at once showed the existence of ruins. In most parts of the inclosure, the natural soil seems never to have been disturbed, and in some places the conglomerate rock is almost denuded of earth.

Such is also the case opposite Mosul. The remains of one or two buildings appear to exist within the inclosure; but in the greater part there are no indications whatever of ancient edifices, and the conglomerate rock is, as at Nimroud, on a level with the surrounding soil.

At Khorsabad, the greater part of the inclosed space is so much below the surrounding country, that it is covered with a marsh formed by the small river Khauser, which flows near the ruins. Within the walls, which are scarcely more than a mile square, can only be traced the remains of one or two buildings, and of a propylÆum, standing below the platform, and above two hundred yards from the ascent to the palace[274], but they are at once perceived by well-defined inequalities in the soil.

If the walls forming the inclosures of Khorsabad and other Assyrian ruins were the outer defences of a city, abruptly facing the open country, it is difficult to account for the fact of the palace having been built in the same line, and actually forming part of them. All access to it must have been strongly fortified, and even the view over the surrounding country, the chief object of such a position, must have been shut out.

After several careful excavations of the ruins and of the spaces inclosed by the ramparts of earth, I am still inclined to the opinion that they were royal dwellings with their dependent buildings, and parks or paradises, fortified like the palace-temples of Egypt, capable of standing a prolonged siege, and a place of refuge for the inhabitants in case of invasion. They may have been called by different names, but they were all included within the area of that great city known to the Jews and to the Greeks as Nineveh. I will not pretend to say that the whole of this vast space was thickly inhabited or built upon. As I have elsewhere observed, we must not judge of Eastern cities by those of Europe.[275] In Asia, gardens and orchards, containing suburbs and even distinct villages, collected round a walled city are all included by the natives under one general name. Such is the case with Isfahan and Damascus, and such I believe it to have been with ancient Nineveh.

A few remarks are necessary on the additional information afforded by recent discoveries as to the architecture and architectural decorations, external and internal, of the Assyrian palaces. The inscriptions on their walls, especially on those of Kouyunjik and Khorsabad, appear to contain important and even minute details, not only as to their general plan and mode of construction, but even as to the materials employed for their different parts, and for the objects of sculpture and ornaments placed in them. This fact furnishes another remarkable analogy between the records of the Jewish and the Assyrian kings. To the history of their monarchs and of their nation, the Hebrew chroniclers have added a full account of the building and adornments of the temple and palaces of Solomon. In both cases, from the use of technical words, we can scarcely hope to understand, with any degree of certainty, all the details. It is impossible to comprehend, by the help of the descriptions alone, the plan or appearance of the temple of Solomon. This arises not only from our being unacquainted with the exact meaning of various Hebrew architectural terms, but also from the difficulty experienced even in ordinary cases, of restoring from mere description an edifice of any kind. In the Assyrian inscriptions we labor, of course, under still greater disadvantages. The language in which they are written is as yet but very imperfectly known, and although we may be able to explain with some confidence the general meaning of the historical paragraphs, yet when we come to technical words relating to architecture, even with a very intimate acquaintance with the Assyrian tongue, we could scarcely hope to ascertain their precise signification. On the other hand, the materials, and the general plan of the Assyrian palaces are still preserved, whilst of the great edifices of the Jews, not a fragment of masonry, nor the smallest remains are left to guide us. The architecture of the one people, however, may be illustrated by that of the other. With the help of the sacred books, and of the ruins of the palaces of Nineveh, together with that of cotemporary and later remains, as well as from customs still existing in the East, we may, to a certain extent, restore the principal buildings of both nations.

Before suggesting a general restoration of the royal edifices of Nineveh, I shall endeavor to point out the analogies which appear to exist between their actual remains and what is recorded of the temple and palaces of Solomon. In the first place, as Sennacherib in his inscriptions declares himself to have done, the Jewish king sent the bearers of burdens and the hewers into the mountains to bring great stones, costly stones, and hewed stones[276], to lay the foundations, which were probably artificial platforms, resembling the Assyrian mounds, though constructed of more solid materials. We have the remains of such a terrace or stage of stone masonry, perhaps built by king Solomon himself, at Baalbec. The enormous size of some of the hewn stones existing in that structure, and of those still seen in the quarries, some being more than sixty feet long, has excited the wonder of modern travellers. The dimensions of the temple of Jerusalem, threescore cubits long[277], twenty broad, and thirty high, were much smaller than those of the great edifices explored in Assyria. Solomon’s own palace, however, appears to have been considerably larger, and to have more nearly approached in its proportions those of the kings of Nineveh, for it was one hundred cubits long, fifty broad, and thirty high. “The porch before the temple,” twenty cubits by ten,[278] may have been a propylÆum, such as was discovered at Khorsabad in front of the palace. The chambers, with the exception of the oracle, were exceedingly small, the largest being only seven cubits broad, “for without, in the wall of the house, he made numerous rests round about, that the beams should not be fastened in the walls of the house.” The words in italics are inserted in our version to make good the sense, and may consequently not convey the exact meaning, which may be, that these chambers were thus narrow that the beams might be supported without the use of pillars, a reason already suggested for the narrowness of the greater number of chambers in the Assyrian palaces. These smaller rooms appear to have been built round a large central chamber, called the oracle, the whole arrangement thus corresponding with the halls and surrounding rooms at Nimroud, Khorsabad, and Kouyunjik. The oracle itself was twenty cubits square, smaller far in dimensions than the Nineveh halls; but it was twenty cubits high—an important fact, illustrative of Assyrian architecture, for as the building was thirty cubits in height, the oracle must not only have been much loftier than the adjoining chambers, but must have had an upper structure of ten cubits.[279] Within it were the two cherubim of olive wood ten cubits high, with wings each five cubits long, “and he carved all the house around with carved figures of cherubim and palm trees, and open flowers, within and without.” The cherubim have been described by Biblical commentators as mythic figures, uniting the human head with the body of a lion, or an ox, and the wings of an eagle.[280] If for the palm trees we substitute the sacred tree of the Nineveh sculptures, and for the open flowers the Assyrian tulip-shaped ornament—objects most probably very nearly resembling each other—we find that the oracle of the temple was almost identical, in general form and in its ornaments, with some of the chambers of Nimroud and Khorsabad. In the Assyrian halls, too, the winged human-headed bulls were on the side of the wall, and their wings, like those of the cherubim, “touched one another in the midst of the house.”[281] The dimensions of these figures were in some cases nearly the same, namely, fifteen feet square. The doors were also carved with cherubim and palm trees, and open flowers, and thus, with the other parts of the building, corresponded with those of the Assyrian palaces. On the walls at Nineveh the only addition appears to have been the introduction of the human form and the image of the king, which were an abomination to the Jews. The pomegranates and lilies of Solomon’s temple must have been nearly identical with the usual Assyrian ornament, in which, and particularly at Khorsabad, the pomegranate frequently takes the place of the tulip and the cone.

But the description given by Josephus of the interior of one of Solomon’s houses, already quoted by Mr. Fergusson in support of his ingenious arguments, even more completely corresponds with, and illustrates the chambers in the palaces of Nineveh. “Solomon built some of these (houses) with stones of ten cubits, and wainscoted the walls with other stones that were sawed, and were of great value, such as were dug out of the bowels of the earth, for ornaments of temples, &c. The arrangement of the curious workmanship of these stones was in three rows; but the fourth was pre-eminent for the beauty of its sculpture, for on it were represented trees, and all sorts of plants, with the shadows caused by their branches and the leaves that hung down from them. These trees and plants covered the stone that was beneath them, and their leaves were wrought so wonderfully thin and subtile, that they appeared almost in motion; but the rest of the wall, up to the roof, was plastered over, and, as it were, wrought over with various colors and pictures.”[282]

To complete the analogy between the two edifices, it would appear that Solomon was seven years building the temple, and Sennacherib about the same time building his great palace at Kouyunjik.[283]

The ceiling, roof, and beams of the temple were of cedar wood. The discoveries in the ruins at Nimroud show that the same precious wood was used in the Assyrian edifices; and the king of Nineveh, as we learn from the inscriptions, employed men, precisely as Solomon had done, to cut it in Mount Lebanon. Fir was also employed in the Jewish buildings, and probably in those of Assyria.[284]

In the proposed restoration of the palace at Kouyunjik from the existing remains, the building does not face the cardinal points of the compass. I will, however, assume, for convenience sake, that it stands due north and south. To the west, therefore, it immediately overlooked the Tigris; and on that side was one of its principal faÇades. The edifice must have risen on the very edge of the platform, the foot of which was at that time washed by the river. If, therefore, there were any access to the palace on the river front, it must necessarily have been by a flight of steps, or an inclined way leading down to the water’s edge, and there might have been great stairs parallel to the basement wall as at Persepolis. Although from the fact of there having been a grand entrance to the palace on this side, it is highly probable that some such approach once existed, no remains whatever of it have been discovered. The western faÇade, like the eastern, was formed by five pairs of human-headed bulls, and numerous colossal figures[285], forming three distinct gateways.

The principal approach to the palace appears, however, to have been on the eastern side, where the great bulls bearing the annals of Sennacherib still stand. In the frontispiece I have been able, by the assistance of Mr. Fergusson, to give a restoration of this magnificent faÇade and entrance. Inclined ways, or broad flights of steps, appear to have led up to it from the foot of the platform, and the remains of them, consisting of huge squared stones, are still seen in the ravines, which are but the ancient ascents, deepened by the winter rains of centuries. From this grand entrance direct access could be had to all the principal halls and chambers in the palace; that on the western face, as appears from the ruins, only opened into a set of eight rooms.

The chambers hitherto explored appear to have been grouped round three great halls. It must be borne in mind, however, that the palace extended considerably to the north-east of the grand entrance, and that there may have been another hall, and similar dependent chambers in that part of the edifice. Only a part of the palace has been hitherto excavated, and we are not in possession of a perfect ground-plan of it.

The general arrangement of the chambers at Kouyunjik is similar to that of Khorsabad, though the extent of the building is very much greater. It is also to be remarked that the Khorsabad mound falls gradually to the level of the plain, apparently showing the remains of a succession of broad terraces, and that parts of the palace, such as the propylÆa, were actually beneath the platform, and removed some distance from it in the midst of the walled inclosure. At Kouyunjik, however, the whole of the royal edifice, with its dependent buildings, appears to have stood on the summit of the artificial basement[286], whose lofty perpendicular sides could only have been accessible by steps, or inclined ways. No propylÆa, or other edifices connected with the palace, have as yet been discovered below the platform.

The inscriptions appear to refer to four distinct parts of the palace, three of which, inhabited by the women, seem subsequently to have been reduced to one. It is not clear whether they were all on the ground-floor, or whether they formed different stories. Mr. Fergusson, in his ingenious work on the restoration of the palaces of Nineveh, in which he has, with great learning and research, fully examined the subject of the architecture of the Assyrians and ancient Persians, availing himself of the facts then furnished by the discoveries, endeavors to divide the Khorsabad palace, after the manner of modern Mussulman houses, into the Salamlik or apartments of the men, and the Harem or those of the women. The division he suggests, must, of course, depend upon conjecture; but it may, I think, be considered as highly probable, until fuller and more accurate translations of the inscriptions than can yet be made may furnish us with some positive data on the subject. In the ruins of Kouyunjik there is nothing, as far as I am aware, to mark the distinction between the male and female apartments. Of a temple no remains have as yet been found at Kouyunjik, nor is there any high conical mound as at Nimroud and Khorsabad.

In all the Assyrian edifices hitherto explored, we have the same general interior plan. On the four sides of the great halls are two or three narrow parallel chambers opening one into the other. Most of them have doorways at each and leading into smaller rooms, which have no other outlet. It seems highly probable that this uniform plan was adopted with reference to the peculiar architectural arrangements required by the building, and I agree with Mr. Fergusson in attributing it to the mode resorted to for lighting the apartments.

In my former work I expressed a belief that the chambers received light through an opening in the roof. Although this may have been the case in some instances, yet recent discoveries now prove that the Assyrian palaces had more than one story. Such being the fact, it is evident that other means must have been adopted to admit daylight to the inner rooms on the ground-floor. Mr. Fergusson’s suggestion, that the upper part of the halls and principal chambers was formed by a row of pillars supporting the ceiling and admitting a free circulation of light and air, appears to me to meet, to a certain extent, the difficulty. It has, moreover, been borne out by subsequent discoveries, and by the representation of a large building, apparently a palace, on one of the bas-reliefs discovered at Kouyunjik. In the restoration of the exterior of the Kouyunjik palace forming the frontispiece to this volume, a somewhat similar capital has been adopted in preference to that taken by Mr. Fergusson from Persepolis, which, although undoubtedly like the other architectural details of those celebrated ruins, Assyrian in character, are not authorised by any known Assyrian remains.

A row of pillars, or of alternate pillars and masonry, would answer the purpose intended, if they opened into a well-lighted hall. Yet inner chambers, such as are found in the ruins of Kouyunjik, must have remained in almost entire darkness. And it is not improbable that such was the case, to judge from modern Eastern houses, in which the absence of light is considered essential to secure a cool temperature. The sculptures and decorations in them could then only be seen by torchlight. The great halls were probably in some cases entirely open to the air, like the court-yards of the modern houses of Mosul, whose walls are still adorned with sculptured alabaster. When they were covered in the roof was borne by enormous pillars of wood or brickwork, and rose so far above the surrounding part of the building, that light was admitted by columns and buttresses immediately beneath the ceiling. It is most probable that there were two or three stories of chambers opening into them, either by columns or by windows. Such appears to have been the case in Solomon’s temple; for Josephus tells us that the great inner sanctuary was surrounded by small rooms, “over these rooms were other rooms, and others above them, equal both in their measure and numbers, and that these reached to a height equal to the lower part of the house, for the upper had no buildings about it.” We have also an illustration of this arrangement of chambers in the modern houses of some parts of Persia, in which a great central hall, called an Iwan, rises to the top of the building, and has small rooms in two or three separate stories, opening by windows into it, whilst the inner chambers, having no windows at all, have no more light than that which reaches them through the door. Sometimes these side chambers open into a centre court, as I have suggested may have been the case in the Nineveh palaces, then a projecting roof of woodwork protects the carved and painted walls from injury by the weather. Curtains and awnings were also suspended above the windows and entrances, to ward off the rays of the sun.

Although no remains or even traces of pillars have hitherto been discovered in the Assyrian ruins, I now think it highly probable, as suggested by Mr. Fergusson, that they were used to support the roof. It is curious, however, that no stone pedestals, upon which wooden columns may have rested, have been found in the ruins, nor are there marks of them on the pavement. I can scarcely account for the entire absence of all such traces. However, unless some support of this kind were resorted to, it is impossible that even the large chambers at Kouyunjik, without including the central halls, could have been covered in. The great hall, or house as it is rendered in the Bible,[287] of the forest of Lebanon was thirty cubits high, upon four rows of cedar pillars with cedar beams upon the pillars. The Assyrian kings, we have seen, cut wood in the same forests as King Solomon; and probably used it for the same purposes, namely, for pillars, beams, and ceilings. The dimensions of this hall, 100 cubits (about 150 feet) by 50 cubits (75 feet), very much resemble those of the centre halls of the palaces of Nineveh. “The porch of pillars” was fifty cubits in length; equal, therefore, to the breadth of the hall, of which I presume it to have been an inclosed space at the upper end, whilst “the porch for the throne where he might judge, even the porch of judgment ... covered with cedar wood from one side of the floor to the other,” was probably a raised place beneath it, corresponding with a similar platform where the host and guests of honor are seated in a modern Eastern house. Supposing the three parts of the building to have been arranged as I have suggested, we should have an exact counterpart of them in the hall of audience of the Persian palaces. The upper part of the room in which I have frequently seen the governor of Isfahan, was divided from the rest of a magnificent hall by columns, and his throne was a raised place of carved woodwork adorned with rich stuffs, ivory, and other precious materials. Suppliants and attendants stood outside the line of pillars, and the officers of the court within. Such also may have been the interior arrangement of the great halls in the Assyrian edifices.

That the Ninevite palaces had more than one story, at least in some parts if not in all, can now no longer be doubted. The inscriptions appear to describe distinctly the upper rooms, and at Kouyunjik, as it has been seen, an inclined way was discovered leading to them. Without there had been an upper structure, it would be impossible to account for the enormous accumulation of rubbish, consisting chiefly of remains of buildings, over the ruins of Kouyunjik and Khorsabad. These upper rooms were probably built of sundried bricks and wood, but principally of the latter material, and may have been connected with the lower by winding staircases, as in the temple of Solomon, as well as by inclined ways. The roofs were flat, as those of all Eastern houses are to this day; and, as suggested by Mr. Fergusson,[288] they may have been crowned by a wooden talar, or platform, and altars upon which sacrifices were offered,—“The houses upon whose roofs they have burned incense unto all the host of heaven, and have poured out drink-offerings to other gods.”[289]

I have already described the internal decorations of the Assyrian palaces,[290] and have little more to add upon the subject. The walls of Kouyunjik were more elaborately decorated than those of Nimroud and Khorsabad. Almost every chamber explored, and they amount to above seventy, was panelled with alabaster slabs carved with numerous figures and with the minutest details. Each room appears to have been dedicated to some particular event, and in each, apparently, was the image of the king himself. In fact, the walls recorded in sculpture what the inscriptions did in writing,—the whole history of Sennacherib’s reign, his great deeds in peace as well as in war. It will be remarked that whilst in other Assyrian edifices the king is frequently represented taking an active part in war, slaying his enemies, and fighting beneath a besieged city, he is never represented at Kouyunjik otherwise than in an attitude of triumph, in his chariot or on his throne, receiving the captives and the spoil. Nor is he ever seen torturing his prisoners, or putting them to death with his own hand.

There were chambers, however, in the palace of Sennacherib, as well as in those of Nimroud and Khorsabad, whose walls were simply coated with plaster, like the walls of Belshazzar’s palace at Babylon.[291] They may have been richly ornamented in color with figures of men and animals, as well as with elegant designs; or they may have been panelled with cedar wainscoting, as the chambers in the temple and palaces of Solomon, and in the great edifices of Babylon. Gilding, too, appears to have been extensively used in decoration, and some of the great sphinxes may have been overlaid with gold, like the cherubim in Solomon’s temple.[292]

At Kouyunjik, the pavement slabs were not inscribed as at Nimroud; but those between the winged bulls at some of the entrances, were carved with an elaborate and very elegant pattern. The doors were probably of wood, gilt and adorned with precious materials, like the gates of the temple of Jerusalem, and they appear to have turned in stone sockets, for amongst the ruins were found many black stones hollowed in the centre, and bearing an inscription in these words: “Sennacherib, the great king, king of Assyria, brought this stone from the distant mountains, and used it for the sockets of the pillars of the doors of his palace.”

To ward off the glare of an Eastern sun hangings or curtains of gay colors and of rich materials were probably suspended to the pillars supporting the ceiling, or to wooden poles raised for the purpose, as in the palaces of Babylon and Shushan. Such hangings, as we have seen, appear to be described in the tablets of king Nebuchadnezzar. The frontispiece to this volume will enable the reader to understand how they were used. This engraving from a beautiful water-color drawing, made by Mr. Baynes under the superintendence of Mr. Fergusson, represents the Eastern faÇade and the great entrance to the palace of Sennacherib, as they are supposed originally to have been. The lower part of the building actually exists, and is drawn to scale; the upper part of course is mainly founded upon conjecture; but the preceding remarks may show that we are not altogether without materials to authorise some such restoration. The edifice represented in the bas-relief discovered at Kouyunjik has furnished some of the architectural details, the battlemented finish to the walls is still seen at Kouyunjik and Nimroud, and the various decorations introduced in other places are all taken from Assyrian monuments. The two poles with streamers in the foreground, are from a bas-relief at Khorsabad. The sculptures at the sides of the steps are those from the descending passage at Kouyunjik. The stone facing of the platform is that of the basement of the tower at Nimroud. The lions, Assyrian in character, are placed on the steps conjecturally, and the steps themselves are restored. The design upon the pavement is found on slabs at the entrances at Kouyunjik.

The excavations carried on at Nimroud during the last expedition have enabled me to restore, to a certain extent, the several buildings on the platform, and to obtain some idea of their original appearance. On the artificial platform, built of regular layers of sundried bricks in some parts, and entirely of rubbish in others, but cased on all sides with solid stone masonry, stood at one time at least nine distinct buildings. Between each was a terrace, paved with stone, or with large kiln-burnt bricks, from one and a half to two feet square. At the north-western corner rose the great tower, the tomb of the founder of the principal palace. Its basement was encased with massive masonry of stone, relieved by recesses and other architectural ornaments. The upper part built of brick, was most probably painted, like the palaces of Babylon, with figures and mythic emblems. Its summit, I conjecture, to have consisted of several receding gradines like the top of the black obelisk, and I would venture to crown it with an altar on which may have burnt the eternal fire. Adjoining this tower were, two small temples, dedicated to Assyrian gods. One actually abutted on it, although there was no communication whatever, as far as I could discover, between the interior of the two buildings; the other was about 100 feet to the east. They were both adorned with sculptures, and had evidently been more than one story high, and their beams and ceilings were of cedar wood. They contained statues of the gods, and the fullest records of the reign of the king their founder, engraved on immense monoliths. Between them was a way up to the platform from the north.

Between the small temples and the north-west palace were two great flights of steps, or inclined ways, leading up from the margin of the river. Their sites are still marked by deep ravines. They opened upon a broad paved terrace. The north-west palace having been so fully described in my former work, I need only add that I have now been able to ascertain the position of its principal faÇade and entrance. It was to the north, facing the tower, and nearly resembled the grand approaches to Kouyunjik and Khorsabad. The two gateways formed by the sphinxes with the human form to the waist, appear to have flanked a grand centre portal to which they were united on both sides, as in Sennacherib’s palace, by colossal figures of human-headed bulls and lions and winged priests. The remains of no other great entrance to the palace have yet been discovered, but I have little doubt from several indications in the ruins, that there was a similar faÇade on the river side, and that a terrace, ascended by broad flights of steps, overlooked the Tigris.

To the south of the north-west palace was a third ascent to the summit of the platform, also marked by a ravine in the side of the mound. Beyond it were the upper chambers, built by the fourth king in succession from Sardanapalus, probably over the remains of an earlier edifice. Excavations made in different parts of the small mound covering their ruins, show that they consisted of three distinct groups, built round a solid central mass of sundried bricks. The great accumulation of earth above them, proves that this building must have had more than one story.

The upper chambers were separated from the palace of Essarhaddon, the most southern on this side of the platform, by a fourth grand approach to the terraces. Remains of great blocks of stone, of winged bulls, and of colossal figures in yellow limestone, were found in the ravine.

Essarhaddon’s palace was raised some feet above the north-west and centre edifices. It has been so entirely destroyed by fire, and by the removal of the slabs from its walls, that a complete ground-plan of it cannot be restored. In the arrangement of its chambers, as far as we are able to judge from the ruins, it differed from other Assyrian buildings with which we are acquainted. The hall, above 220 feet long, and 100 broad, opening at the northern end by a gateway of winged bulls on a terrace, which overlooked the grand approach and the principal palaces, and at the opposite end having a triple portal guarded by three pairs of colossal sphinxes, which commanded the open country and the Tigris winding through the plain, must have been a truly magnificent feature in this palace. It occupied the corner of the platform, and an approach of which considerable remains still exist led up from the plain to its southern face. Around the grand hall appear to have been built a number of small chambers; and this Assyrian building probably answers in its general plan, more than any other yet discovered, to the descriptions in the Bible of the palace of Solomon, especially if we assume that the antechamber, divided into two parts, corresponds with the portico of the Jewish structures.

The palace of Essarhaddon was considerably below the level of that of his grandson, and was separated from it by what appears, from a very deep and wide ravine, to have been the principal approach to the platform. The south-east edifice was very inferior, both in the size of its apartments and in the materials employed in its construction, to the other royal buildings. It was probably built when the empire was fast falling to decay, and, as is usual in such cases, the arts seem to have declined with the power of the people.

Returning northwards, we come to the only traces of an approach on the eastern side of the platform, and consequently from the interior of the walled inclosure. It is remarkable that there should have been but one on this face; and it is even more curious, that the only sides of the mound on which there are any remains of walls or fortifications, are the eastern and northern, where the royal residences would have overlooked the city, supposing it to have been contained within the existing ramparts of earth. The edifices facing what would, in that case, have been the open country, were left apparently defenceless.

On the west side of the platform no actual ruins have been discovered, although there are undoubtedly traces of building in several places, and I think it not improbable that a temple, or some similar edifice, stood there.

It only remains for me to mention the palace in the centre of the platform, founded by the king whose name is believed to read Divanubar or Divanubra, but rebuilt almost entirely by Pul or Tiglath-Pileser. Excavations carried on during the second expedition, brought to light the walls of a few additional chambers and numerous fragments of interesting sculptures. But the edifice was so utterly destroyed by Essarhaddon, who used the materials in the construction of his own dwelling-place, that it is impossible to ascertain its general plan, or even the arrangement of any of its rooms. The great inscribed bulls and the obelisk, we know to have been of the time of the older king; and the bas-reliefs of battles and sieges, heaped up together as if ready for removal, to have belonged to the later.

In the ramparts of earth, marking the inclosure wall of Nimroud to the north, fifty-eight towers can still be distinctly traced. To the east there were about fifty, but all traces of some of them are entirely gone. To the south the wall has almost disappeared, so that it could not have been of great size or thickness on that side. The level of the inclosure is here, however, considerably above the plain, and it is not improbable that the Tigris actually flowed beneath part of it, and that the remainder was defended by a wide and deep ditch, either supplied by the small stream still running near the ruins, or by the river.

At the south-eastern corner of the inclosure, is a mound of considerable height, and the remains of a square edifice; they may have been a fort or castle. I searched in vain for traces of gates in the walls on the northern side. A high double mound, which probably marks the ruins of an entrance, was excavated; but no stone masonry or sculptured figures were discovered, as in a similar mound in the inclosure of Kouyunjik. I conclude, therefore, that the gateways of the quarter of Nineveh represented by Nimroud were not, like those of the more northern divisions of the city, adorned with sculptures, but were built of the same materials as the walls, and were either arched or square, being formed, like the gates of modern Arab cities, by simple beams of wood.

It is evident that the inclosure of Nimroud was regularly fortified, and defended by walls built for the purpose of resisting an enemy, and sustaining a prolonged siege. That of Khorsabad was precisely similar. There also the platform, on which the great palace stood, formed part of the walls,—a fact for which I can scarcely offer any satisfactory explanation. It would seem more consistent with security that the dwelling of the king, the temples of the gods, and the edifices containing the archives and treasures of the kingdom, should have been in the centre of the fortifications, equally protected on all sides. The palaces of Nimroud and Kouyunjik, built on a platform, washed by a deep and broad river, were, to a certain extent, guarded from the approach of an enemy. But at Khorsabad such was not the case. The royal residence overlooked the plain country, and was accessible from it, unless the summit of the platform were strongly fortified on the western side, of which there is no trace.

Of the fortified inclosures still existing, that surrounding Kouyunjik is the most remarkable, and was best calculated to withstand the attack of a powerful and numerous army. I give a plan of the ruins from Mr. Rich’s survey, which will enable the reader to understand the following description.[293]