Drawn by Faucher-Gudin,
from the heliogravure
in Pr. Lenormant. The
original is in the
British Museum. It is
one of the boundary
stones which were set
up in a corner of a
field to mark its
legal limit.
Merodach-nadin-akhi, who was at this time reigning in Chaldæa, was like his ancestor Nebuchadrezzar I., a brave and warlike sovereign: he appears at first to have given way under the blow thus dealt him, and to have acknowledged the suzerainty of his rival, who thereupon assumed the title of Lord of the four Houses of the World, and united under a single empire the valleys of the Tigris and Euphrates. But this state of things lasted for a few years only; Merodach-nadin-akhi once more took courage, and, supported by the Chaldæan nobility, succeeded in expelling the intruders from Sumir and Akkad. The Assyrians, however, did not allow themselves to be driven out without a struggle, but fortune turned against them; they were beaten, and the conqueror inflicted on the Assyrian gods the humiliation to which they had so often subjected those of other nations. He took the statues of Eammân and Shala from Ekallati, carried them to Babylon, and triumphantly set them up within the temple of Bel. There they remained in captivity for 418 years.* Tiglath-pileser did not long survive this disaster, for he died about the year 1100 B.C.,** and two of his sons succeeded him on the throne. The elder, Assur-belkala,*** had neither sufficient energy nor resources to resume the offensive, and remained a passive spectator of the revolutions which distracted Babylon.
* We know this fact from the inscription of Bavian, in which
Sennacherib boasts of having brought back these statues to
Assyria after they had been 418 years in the possession of
the enemy. I have followed the commonly received opinion,
which places the defeat of Tiglath-pileser after the taking
of Babylon; others think that it preceded the decisive
victory of the Assyrians. It is improbable that, if the loss
of the statues preceded the decisive victory, the Assyrian
conquerors should have left their gods prisoners in a
Babylonian temple, and should not have brought them back
immediately to Ekallati.
** The death of Tiglath-pileser must have followed quickly
on the victory of Babylon; the contents of the inscription
of Bavian permit us to fix the taking of Ekallati by the
Chaldæans about the year 1108-1106 B.C. We shall not be far
wrong in supposing Tiglath-pileser to have reigned six or
eight years after his defeat.
*** I followed the usually received classification. It is,
however, possible that we must reverse the order of the
sovereigns.
Merodach-nadin-akhi had been followed by his son Merodach-shapîk-zîrîm,* but this prince was soon dethroned by the people, and Bammân-abaliddîn, a man of base extraction, seized the crown.
* The name of the Babylonian king has been variously read
Merodach-shapîk-zirat, Merodach-shapîk-kullat, Merodach-
shapîk-zirmâti and Merodach-shapîk-zîrîm.
Assur-belkala not only extended to this usurper the friendly relations he had kept up with the legitimate sovereign, but he asked for the hand of his daughter in marriage, and the rich dowry which she brought her husband no doubt contributed to the continuation of his pacific policy. He appears also to have kept possession of all the parts of Mesopotamia and Kammukh conquered by his father, and it is possible that he may have penetrated beyond the Euphrates. His brother, Samsi-rammân III., does not appear to have left any more definite mark upon history than Assur-belkala; he decorated the temples built by his predecessors, but beyond this we have no certain record of his achievements. We know nothing of the kings who followed him, their names even having been lost, but about a century and a half after Tiglath-pileser, a certain Assurirba seems to have crossed Northern Syria, and following in the footsteps of his great ancestor, to have penetrated as far as the Mediterranean: on the rocks of Mount Amanus, facing the sea, he left a triumphal inscription in which he set forth the mighty deeds he had accomplished. This is merely a gleam out of the murky night which envelops his history, and the testimony of one of his descendants informs us that his good fortune soon forsook him: the Aramaeans wrested from him the fortresses of Pitru and Mutkînu, which commanded both banks of the Euphrates near Carchemish. Nor did the retrograde movement slaken after his time: Assyria slowly wasted away down to the end of the Xth century, and but for the simultaneous decadence of the Chaldaeans, its downfall would have been complete. But neither Rammân-abaliddîn nor his successor was able to take advantage of its weakness; discord and want of energy soon brought about their own ruin. The dynasty of Pashê disappeared towards the middle of the Xth century, and a family belonging to the “Countries of the Sea” took its place: it had continued for about one hundred and thirty-two years, and had produced eleven kings.*
* It is no easy matter to draw up an exact list of this
dynasty, and Hilprecht’s attempt to do so contains more than
one doubtful name. The following list is very imperfect and
doubtful, but the best that our present knowledge enables us
to put forward.
