Among the states which existed in Akkad before the whole country was united under one king may be mentioned Isin or Karrak, Ur (the supposed Ur of the Chaldees), Kêš, Nippur (or Niffur), the modern Niffer, Lagaš, Êridu, Êrech, and Larsa (identified with Ellasar), with some others. Akkad and Babylon were always important centres, the former being supreme before the date of the dynasty of Babylon (about 2200 b.c.), and the latter afterwards.
Until about the time of the dynasty of Babylon, the language principally used was to all appearance the non-Semitic Babylonian or Akkadian—in any case, the numerous texts (mainly temple-accounts) of the period of Dungi, Bûr-Sin, Gimil-Sin, and Ibi-Sin are written in that tongue. Nevertheless, Akkadian seems to have been the official language of the country for a considerable time after, if we may judge from the contracts, and especially the historical dates of these documents, which are always written in Akkadian. [pg 125] The names, too, which were before this period wholly Akkadian, gradually become more and more Semitic (Assyro-Babylonian), and finally the Akkadian element only exists as a remnant of the non-Semitic tongue which prevailed before the Semitic Dynasty of Babylon—that to which Ḫammurabi or Amraphel belonged—made the Semitic tongue, spoken by Sargon of Agadé more than 1500 years before, the official language of the country.
Such, then, is the history of the ancient Akkadians, from whose intermingled stock the later Semitic Babylonians sprang, and who inherited, at the same time, their method of writing, their literature, their arts and sciences, and also, to a great extent, their manners, customs, and religion. It was to all appearance with the Semitic dynasty of Ḫammurabi that the change from non-Semitic to Semitic predominance took place. This change must have been slow enough, and in all probability it occurred without any national upheaval, and without any interruption of the national life. Semitic names gradually replaced the Akkadian ones, most of the religious works, incantations, national histories, bilingual lists, and syllabaries were supplied with Semitic translations, and legal precedents in Semitic Babylonian for the information of the judges of later times were drawn up, whilst the old Akkadian laws, though retained, were translated for the use of students who no longer learned Akkadian as their mother-tongue, and who committed them to memory at the same time as they learned the set phrases they would have to use when, their education completed, they should attain to the dignity of full-fledged ministers to the legal needs of the community. By this time, or somewhat later, the racial type must have become fixed, for the sculptures from the thirteenth century b.c. downwards no longer show the slim, elegant form of the Akkadians, but the thick-set, well-developed figure of the Semites, such as at [pg 126] least some of the native Christians of Baghdad and the neighbourhood show at the present day.
As has been already noticed, the Assyrians spoke the same language, and had practically the same religion and literature (including the ancient Akkadian classics) as the Babylonians, whom they resembled in manners, customs, and outward appearance. The old translation of the verse referring to Assyria, “Out of that land (Babylonia) went forth Assur,” is, in all probability, perfectly correct, whatever may be the arguments in favour of the rendering, “He (Nimrod) went out into Assyria,” for it is exceedingly likely that the Babylonian civilization of Assyria is wholly due to emigration of settlers from Babylonia. Moreover, as will be seen later on, the enigmatical Nimrod is none other than the well-known head of the Babylonian Pantheon, Merodach, who is actually stated to have built Babel (= the city Babylon), Erech, and Niffer (identified in Rabbinical tradition, which in this case is probably correct, with Calneh). The Babylonian tradition as to the foundation of the city of Akkad is still wanting, but that its origin was attributed to Merodach is more than probable. If, however, there had been any grounds for honouring Calah, Nineveh, and Resen with the same divine origin, the Assyrians would certainly not have allowed the tradition to go unrecorded. Properly speaking the “land of Nimrod” (Micah v. 6) is Babylon, notwithstanding all arguments to the contrary, for that was the land which he loved, the land whose great cities he was regarded as having founded and as still favouring, and the land where, if we may trust the language of his name (in Akkadian it means “the brightness of day”), he ruled when he was king upon earth—the land, in fact, which gave him birth.
At first governed by patesis, or viceroys (many Assyriologists call them priest-kings or pontiffs), this title was abandoned for that of šarru, “king,” between [pg 127] 1600 and 1800 b.c. The use of the title patesi (in Assyrian iššaku, “chief”) implies that the earlier rulers of Assur acknowledged some overlord, and in all probability this overlord was the paramount king of Babylonia at the time. If we regard Nimrod (Merodach) as the first king of Babylonia (or the first really great ruler of the country), then it is certain that it was not he who founded the great cities of Assyria, for they can have no pretensions to the same antiquity as the great cities of Babylonia, any more than Assyrian civilization can be of the same period. Of course it is probable that the cities of Assyria were founded at an exceedingly early date, perhaps many of them are as old as any Babylonian foundation, but their importance was nothing like so great as those of Babylonia until the latter had already been renowned many hundreds—perhaps many thousands—of years, and to attribute the origin of these unimportant places to Nimrod would bring him no honour, even if it were probable that he had founded them.
The founder of Nineveh, Calah, Rehoboth Ir, and Resen was either a Babylonian emigrant named Asshur, the first viceroy of the district, or else Asshur, in the tenth chapter of Genesis, stands for the Assyrian nation. It is noteworthy that, in the verse in question, there is no mention of the foundation of the old capital, the city of Aššur. This is probably to be explained by the fact that the book of Genesis was compiled at a time when the primæval capital had already fallen into the background, and Nineveh, the city first mentioned in the enumeration, had assumed the first place—indeed, the fact that it is mentioned first seems to prove this contention.
Being far away from the centre of civilization, and apparently mingling with barbarous races to the north—the people of Urarṭu (Ararat), Van, Ukka, Muṣaṣir, etc.—in all probability the ancient Assyrians lost what polish they had brought with them from Babylonia, [pg 128] and, like all pioneers, developed into hardy, fearless, and cruel warriors, constantly striving for the mastery over all the other tribes and nationalities around. Thus it came to pass that, having ascertained her strength, Assyria refused to acknowledge the overlordship of the kings of Babylonia, and the rulers of the country abandoned the title of patesi or iššaku for that of šarru or “king.” The country from which the Assyrians had sprung did not long remain secure from the attacks of her offspring, and the conquest of Babylonia by the Assyrians took place more than once. Brave, warlike, and cruel, the Assyrians at last possessed for a time not only Babylonia, with the overlordship of Elam, but also the whole of Western Asia as far as the Mediterranean and Cyprus, and a large part of Egypt. Notwithstanding the polish that they had attained during the last years of the empire, the nations around remembered against them all the cruelties that they had committed during the foregoing centuries, and when the time of weakness came, when the ruling mind that should have held the empire together, and turned the tide of disaster into the channel of success, was wanting, then came the chance of the nations that had known the Assyrian empire in former ages, and the end of the seventh century before Christ saw the last of the power that had dominated Western Asia so long and so successfully.
Yet Assyria was a most remarkable power, and produced a number of really great rulers and generals. The Assyrian kings retained for a long time their dominion over fairly distant tracts, and made themselves greatly feared by all the nations around. As is well known, they had made great advances in the art of sculpture, so much so that visitors to the British Museum, on seeing the wonderful hunting-scenes in the Assyrian side-gallery, have been heard to express the opinion that Greek artists must either have originated them, or influenced their production. Their [pg 129] literature was naturally influenced by that of Babylonia, but one has only to read the historical records of Tiglath-pileser I., who declaims his successes in forceful and elegant paragraphs; Sennacherib, with his wealth of words; or Assur-banî-âpli, who in moderate and elegant phrases tells of the successes of his soldiers and generals, to see that, when occasion arose, they could produce literary works as good as the best of ancient times.
It will probably be a matter of regret to many people, but the name of Nimrod, which we have been accustomed to associate with the pleasures and perils of the chase for so many hundred years, must now be relegated to the domain of words misunderstood or purposely changed for reasons that can without much difficulty be divined.
It is not Nimrod alone that comes under this category—Nibhaz (2 Kings xvii. 31), judging from the Greek, is in the same case, Nisroch (2 Kings xix. 37) is certainly so, and Abed-nego for Abed-nebo is a well-known instance.