1. THERE IS, ON CAREFULLY drawn maps of Mesopotamia, a pale undulating line (considerably to the north of the city of Accad or Agade), which cuts across the valley of the two rivers, from Is or Hit on the Euphrates,—the place famous for its inexhaustible bitumen pits,—to Samarah on the Tigris. This line marks the beginning of the alluvium, i.e. of the rich, moist alluvial land formed by the rivers, and at the same time the natural boundary of Northern Babylonia. Beyond it the land, though still a plain, is not only higher, rising till it meets the transversal limestone ridge of the Sin jar Hills, but of an entirely different character and formation. It is distressingly dry and bare, scarcely differing in this respect from the contiguous Syrian Desert, and nothing but the most laborious irrigation could ever have made it productive, except in the immediate vicinity of the rivers. What the country has become through centuries of neglect and misrule, we have seen. It must have been much in the same condition before a highly developed civilization reclaimed it from its natural barrenness and covered it with towns and farms. It is probable that for many centuries a vast tract of land south of the alluvium line, as well as all that lay north of it, was virtually unoccupied; the resort of nameless and unclassed nomadic tribes, for Agade is the most northern of important Accadian cities we hear of.
2. Yet some pioneers must have pushed northward at a pretty early time, followed at intervals by a steadier stream of emigrants, possibly driven from their populous homes in Accad by the discomfort and oppression consequent on the great Elamite invasion and conquest. At least there are, near the present hamlet of Kileh-Sherghat, on the right bank of the Tigris, the ruins of a city, whose most ancient name is Accadian—Aushar—and appears to mean, “well-watered plain,” but was afterwards changed into Asshur, and which was governed by king priests — patesis—after the manner of the ancient Chaldean cities. There are temple-ruins there, of which the bricks bear the names of Ishmi-Dagan and his son, Shamash-Raman, who are mentioned by a later king in away to show that they lived very close on 1800 B.C. The colony which settled here and quickly grew, spreading further north, appropriating and peopling the small but fertile region between the Tigris, its several tributary streams, and the first hills of the Zagros highlands, was Semitic; their first city’s name was extended to all the land they occupied and they also called themselves by it. They were the “people of Asshur;” their land was “the land of Asshur;” and not many centuries elapsed before all their neighbors, far and wide, had good reason to know and dread the name. This sheltered nook, narrowly circumscribed, but exceptionally well situated as regards both defense and natural advantages of the Assyrian Empire, where the young nation built its first cities, the stronghold in which, during many years, it gathered strength and independence gradually working out its peculiarly vigorous and aggressive character and finding its military training in petty but constant conflicts with the surrounding roving tribes of the hill and the plain.
3. Accordingly, it is this small district of a few square miles,—with its three great cities, Kalah, Nineveh, and Arbela, and a fourth, Dur-Shar-Rukin, added much later,—which has been known to the ancients as Aturia or Assyria proper, and to which the passage in the tenth chapter of Genesis (11-12) alludes. At the period of its greatest expansion, however, the name of “Assyria"—"land of Asshur"—covered a far greater territory, more than filling the space between the two rivers, from the mountains of Armenia to the alluvial line. This gives a length of 350 miles by a breadth, between the Euphrates and the Zagros, varying from above 300 to 17O miles. “The area was probably not less than 75,000 square miles, which is beyond that of the German provinces of Prussia or Austria, more than double that of Portugal, and not much below that of Great Britain. Assyria would thus, from her mere size, be calculated to play an important part in history; and the more so, as, during the period of her greatness, scarcely any nation with which she came in contact possessed nearly so extensive a territory.”
4. That the nation of Asshur, which the biblical table of nations places second among Shem’s own children, was of purely Semitic race, has never been doubted. The striking likeness of the Assyrian to the Hebrew type of face would almost alone have sufficed to establish the relationship, even were not the two languages so very nearly akin. But the kinship goes deeper than that, and asserts itself in certain spiritual tendencies, which find their expression in the national religion, or, more correctly, in the one essential modification introduced by the Assyrians into the Babylonian religion, which they otherwise adopted wholesale, just as they brought it from their Southern home. Like their Hebrew brethren, they arrived at the perception of the Divine Unity; but while the wise men of the Hebrews took their stand uncompromisingly on monotheism and imposed it on their reluctant followers with a fervor and energy that no resistance or backsliding could abate, the Assyrian priests thought to reconcile the truth, which they but imperfectly grasped, with the old traditions and the established religious system. They retained the entire Babylonian pantheon, with all its theory of successive emanations, its two great triads, its five planetary deities, and the host of inferior divinities, but, at the head of them all, and above them all, they placed the one God and Master whom they recognized as supreme. They did not leave him wrapped in uncertainty and lost in misty remoteness, but gave him a very distinct individuality and a personal name: they called him Asshur; and whether the city were named after the god or the god after the city, and then the land and people after both — a matter of dispute among scholars—one fact remains, and that the all-important one: that the Assyrians identified themselves with their own national god, called themselves “his people,” believed themselves to be under his especial protection and leadership in peace and war. His name almost always heads the lists of “great gods “who are usually invoked, sometimes alone, sometimes with their “great” or “exalted consorts” at the beginning of long inscriptions. Here is such an invocation, the opening of a very famous inscription, in which Tiglath-Pileser I, a mighty king and Assyria’s first great conqueror, narrates some of his campaigns: “Asshur, the great lord, who rules the host of the gods, who endows with sceptre and crown, establishes royalty”—Bel, the lord, the king of all the Anunnaki, “father of gods, lord of countries,—Sin, the wise, lord of the crown, the exalted in luminous brilliancy,—Shamash, the judge of heaven and earth, who sees the evil deeds of the enemies Raman, the mighty, who floods the countries of the enemies, their lands and their houses,—Nineb, the strong, who destroys evil-doers and enemies and lets men find what their heart desires,— Ishtar, the first-born of the gods, who makes battles fierce;—-Ye great gods, the governors of heaven and earth, whose onslaught is battle and destruction, who have exalted the royalty of Tiglath-Pileser, the great one, the beloved of your hearts,” etc., etc. We shall have to return to this inscription, for many reasons one of the most important. But this extract is sufficient to show the precedence and supremacy to which Asshur is considered as unquestionably entitled.
5. Quite as often he is mentioned alone. Indeed, when a king tells of an expedition, undertaking, or public act of his of any importance he generally refers it in some way to Asshur as the distinctive and representative national and supreme God,—to his service, or law, or direct command or inspiration. And herein again, as Mr. G. Rawlinson justly remarks, the Assyrian spirit shows itself nearly akin to that of the Hebrews, who, in the same manner, refer all their public acts, from a raid on a neighboring tribe to a wholesale slaughter of prisoners, to the service and command of Yahveh (Jehovah). The Assyrian kings never fail to attribute their victories and conquests to Asshur, whose emblem precedes them in battle, borne aloft on their standards. Indeed, there are two or three standing expressions used to record such events; they arc these: “The majesty of Asshur, my lord, overwhelmed them; they came and kissed my feet;” or, “The fear of Asshur overwhelmed the inhabitants: my feet they took;” or, “Exceeding fear of Asshur my lord overwhelmed them: they came and took my feet.” These extracts arc taken from inscriptions of different kings and centuries widely removed from each other, and might be multiplied without end. They answer exactly to the biblical phrase, “Yahveh delivered them into their hands;” or this: “The fame of David went out into all the lands, and Yahveh brought the fear of him on all nations.” An expedition to conquer a neighboring territory or to punish rebels is undertaken at the express command of Asshur, or of “Asshur and the great gods”; and in order to propagate their laws or to chastise those who “did not keep their oaths to the great gods,” or “hardened their hearts and disregarded the will of Asshur, the god, my creator.” Thus Tiglath-Pileser I. says, in the inscription already mentioned: “Asshur, and the great gods who have exalted my royalty, who have endowed me with strength and power, commanded me to enlarge the boundaries of their land, and gave into my hand their mighty weapons, the whirlwind of battle; countries, mountains, cities, and kings, foes to Asshur, I overthrew, and conquered their territories.” Another king, who reigns five hundred years later represents Asshur and the gods as speaking to him by a direct message: “Then to Asshur to Sin, Shamash, Bel, Nebo, Nergal, Ishtar of Nineveh, and Ishtar of Arbela I lifted my hands. They accepted my prayer. In their gracious favor an encouraging message they sent to me: ‘Go! Fear not! We march at thy side! We aid thy expedition.’” All this forcibly recalls to the mind such biblical passages as the following: “And the Lord said unto Joshua, Stretch the spear that is in thine hand toward it, for I will give it into thine hand”; or still more this one, to which, moreover, many parallel ones might be found with little searching: “And David inquired of God, Shall I go up against the Philistines? And wilt thou deliver them into mine hand? And the Lord said to him. Go up, for I will deliver them into thine hand. David, therefore, did as God commanded him, and they smote the host of the Philistines.”
6. Further, the Assyrian kings, when they inflict more than usually cruel treatment on their captives, be they individuals or nations are wont to justify it by their religious zeal, nay, to glory in the thoroughness with which they fulfill what they represent as the direct commands of Asshur and the gods of Assyria. “They revolted against me,” says the often quoted Asshurbanipal of the people of Accad, Aram, and others, “and by command of Asshur and Belit, and the great gods, my protectors, on the whole of them I trampled.” Immediately after this he mentions that he had, in a former expedition, cut off the head of his captive enemy, the king of Elam, “by command of Asshur.” As to the rebels in Accad, he boasts that “those men who uttered curses against Asshur, my god, and devised evil against me, the prince, his worshipper, their tongues I pulled out “ (a common form of torture repeatedly represented on the sculptures; of the rest of the rebels, he threw a large number alive into a deep pit or ditch, duty in the midst of the city, among the stone lions and bulls of the palace gates, after cutting off their limbs and causing these “to be eaten by dogs, bears, eagles, vultures, birds of heaven, and fishes of the deep.” “By these things which were done,” he concludes with religious complacency. “I satisfied the hearts of the great gods, my lords.” And when he further relates how he bound another captive chief in chains with dogs and thus kept him “in the great gate in the midst of Nineveh,” he calls this treatment a “judgment on him to satisfy the law of Asshur and the great gods, my lords.” We see the exact parallel to this in the annals of the Jews’ wars and conquests. They are continually enjoined, in the name of the Lord, by their leaders and priests, to put to the sword the vanquished populations, as a preservative against the contagion of their idolatrous religions. “Then , you shall rise up from the ambush,” says Joshua to the Israelite warriors, “and seize upon the city, for the Lord your God will deliver it into your hand. And it shall be, when ye have taken the city, that ye shall set the city on fire: according to the commandment of the Lord shall ye do’’. Perhaps the most memorable occasion is that on which King Saul is declared to have forfeited the crown and the favor of God for having saved one life and reserved some cattle. These are the instructions which the prophet Samuel delivers to Saul as he sends him on an expedition against the Amalekites, prefacing his words with the usual solemn “Thus saith Yahveh Shebaoth (the Lord of hosts),” which stamps them as divine orders: “Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant, and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.” Saul did smite the Amalekites, and “utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword,” but spared Agag their king, who had been taken alive, and the best of the herds. For this disobedience Samuel declared to Saul: “Thou hast rejected the word of the Lord, and the Lord hath rejected thee from being king over Israel,” then calling for Agag to be brought to him, ‘’Samuel hewed Agag in pieces before Yahveh.”
7. But if both the Hebrews and Assyrians referred their military acts to direct divine command and guidance, the immense power thus created was very differently distributed in both. With the Hebrews it was all in the hands of the priesthood and prophets, and scarcely any of it rested with the kings when royalty was established. The kings were but instruments, one might almost say servants, of the priests and prophets, elected, anointed by them and by them deposed if not found sufficiently submissive. Even to offer a sacrifice before the people was not lawful for the king; it was the priest’s privilege, and Samuel sternly reproves Saul for his presumption in taking the office on himself on one occasion. Things were very different in Assyria. The king was also the priest—still the patesi of old times. He sometimes expressly calls himself “High-priest of Asshur.” But only of Asshur, the one supreme god royalty on earth is the representative of the ruler in heaven. The national god and the national leader together are the greatness and safeguard of the state; they are in direct communion with each other, and nothing can come between them. The monuments give the amplest and most conclusive proof of this relationship.
8. In the sculptured scenes representing incidents from the career of a monarch – whose person is always known by his rich robes, high head tire, and his beardless attendants – we often see hovering above his head, or just in front of him, a peculiar object: mostly a human figure, ending in a feathered appendage like a bird’s tail – a dove’s, it is thought—from the waist downwards, and framed in, or passed through, a circle or wheel furnished with wings. It is the emblem of Asshur, and it is seen, if not above that of the sacred tree or an altar on which sacrifice is being offered, accompanying only the king, never any one else. Its attitude also answers to the character of the scene in the midst of which the god appears to protect and consecrate the royal presence. If a battle, he is represented as drawing a bow before the king; the arrow which lies is sending into the midst of the enemies plainly symbolizes the destruction and fear which the inscriptions describe him as bringing on all his foes. If a peaceful solemnity—for instance, a triumphal procession, a religious ceremony—the bow is lowered and one hand uplifted unarmed, an attitude in which the king himself is frequently represented on similar occasions or there is no bow at all, and one hand holds out a wreath, probably an emblem of peace and prosperity. Sometimes the human figure is absent, and the simplified emblem consists only of a winged circle or disk, with the bird’s tail, which is never omitted. In this form it strikingly resembles the Egyptian symbol of the supreme deity, which is also a winged disk, but without the tail, while the wings are those of the sparrow hawk, which was the sacred bird of the Egyptians, just as the dove was that of the Assyrians and of several other Semitic and Canaanitic nations. The two peoples were known to each other, and came in contact at an earlier date than the earliest to which any sculptures can be referred, and it is not impossible that the Assyrian priests, wishing to embody with the rest of their religious system a conception which they did not inherit from the old Chaldean home, borrowed the emblem from the Egyptians, whose fame for wisdom in such things was of long standing. It may perhaps not be too bold to conjecture that the Asshur-emblem may in reality have been a compound one, intended to convey the idea of the universe embodied in its ruling powers—its gods, to speak the language of antiquity—being contained in the one supreme Godhead. The disk, we must remember, symbolizes the sun in all mythologies; the dove is the bird of Ishtar, the goddess of earthly productive nature—Heaven and Earth, the eternal couple! And when we see the sacred emblem hovering over the mystic tree of life, the intention seems more obvious still and the presentation of it complete. Within the disk we sometimes see five smaller balls:—the suggestion of the five planets, strikingly emphasizing the conception of heaven, is almost irresistible; and the unique form —a small head on each wing—in which the emblem appears on the cylinder seal of King Sennacherib could scarcely be explained at all on any other grounds; while, if we see in it a personation embracing the Supreme Triad and the feminine form of Nature—of the entire universe in its twofold essence, masculine and feminine—it explains itself, and almost seems to correspond in deep significance to the Hebrew plural “ Elohim,” as a name for the one indivisible God, A no less remarkable instance of the compound nature of the Asshur emblem is a cylinder of, it is thought, the ninth century B.C. The king, (represented, for symmetry’s sake, in double), attended by one of those eagle-headed winged-protecting genii so familiar to students of the sculptures, worships before the sacred tree, above which hovers the emblem of Asshur in its completest form; from the circle depends a sort of string in a wavy line, and as it ends in a well drawn fork – the undoubted emblem of Raman, the god of atmosphere – it may be reasonably supposed to represent the lightning. That the king holds it in his hand unharmed only expresses the sacredness of his person and his intimate connection with the national god. This supposition would by no means contradict the explanation commonly given of the strings as symbolizing the bond between the god and king created by prayer. Both explanations are perfectly compatible. It is the fork which so strongly suggests Raman. The sacredness of the symbol is impressed on us even by the robes he wears on the sculptures, and which have as much a priestly as a royal character, since not only the embroidery on his breast reproduces the winged disk and sacred tree, but even accessory details of his costume are ornamented with symbolical designs of the same religious nature, which supply much of the decorations also of his dwelling, at least of the public apartments therein. It would almost seem that the king was himself ranked with the gods, as subject to Asshur alone or at least held worthy to associate with them, if we judge from a cylinder on which a royal worshipper is faced on the other side of the sacred tree by no less a personage than Ea-Oannes, that ancient and much revered divine being who, like him, does homage to the holy emblem. Officiating and sacrificing priests are frequently encountered on sculptures and cylinders, but never in the presence of the sovereign, or then only as following and attending on him: nothing and no one could ever come between the king and “Asshur, his lord.” Vet the other “great gods” were also called upon to protect and consecrate the royal persons; we see kings wearing, as a necklace, the five secondary divine emblems, probably in gold. These were: a sun, a moon crescent, a star, Raman’s lightning-fork, and Bel’s horned cap—the headdress adorned with bull’s horns, which is not only associated with Bel, but generally symbolizes divine lordliness and power, and as such is worn by Asshur himself, by the winged bulls and lions, the mighty guardians of the palace gates, and by the winged good genie. The same emblems we see encircling the head of kings on their sculptured images. One such royal slab or “stele” as such representations are technically called, is of additional interest from the altar which was found in front of and just below it, and which seems to suggest that the monarch, either in his lifetime or after his death, received divine honors, or at least was considered as presiding over religious ceremonies in effigy when not present in person. There would be nothing improbable in either supposition after all the indications we have of the royal sacredness; and, truly, Shakespeare might have had the Assyrian monarchs in his mind when he spoke of the divinity that doth hedge a king.
9. After dwelling so long and amply on the most important and distinctive feature of the Assyrian religion—the conception and worship of Asshur, the rest of the pantheon can be considered in very few words, since it is mainly unchanged from the Babylonian, and only a few deviations have to be pointed out. In the first place, Gibil, the Fire-god, is heard of no more. Then Bel-Marduk, transformed from the benevolently busy Meridug, so dear to old Shumir—Bel-Marduk, the chief and tutelary deity of the later Chaldean empire and of the great Babylon, where his temple was reckoned and long remembered as one of the wonders of the world,—had to be content in the sister kingdom with a very secondary position, that of ruler of the planet Jupiter. Very early Assyrian kings include him in their opening invocations, and sometimes even make separate mention of him in their inscriptions; but it is only from old associations, and the habit dies out as the national Asshur increases in importance. Marduk does not receive the compliment of a single temple in Assyria, and though the latest kings once more make his name prominent in their documents, they pay him this respect on account of their renewed close connection with Babylon and partly to conciliate the Babylonians. His father, Ea, fares even worse. Though he retains his place in the great triad—Anu, Ea, Bel—he practically is consigned to oblivion, and the very rare and cold, if respectful, mention which is made of him only makes the fact more apparent. He also cannot boast a single temple in Assyria, while Anu, who in a great measure shares this neglect, had one at least. True, that one was not in either Nineveh or Kalah, the modern capitals, but in Asshur, the old-empire city, and pointed to a time when the connection with the mother country and its traditions had scarcely as yet been loosened. “There is, however, reason to believe,” according to some writers, “that Anu was occasionally honored with a shrine in a temple dedicated to another deity.” Ishtar, on the other hand, was as great a favorite with the Assyrians as with the empire of the South. Her two principal temples were in Nineveh and Arbela (Arba-Ilu, “the city of four gods"). In the latter she was worshipped pre-eminently in her martial character as the goddess of war and battle, the inspirer of heroic deeds, and the giver of victory; while in Nineveh, it was her feminine, voluptuous aspect which predominated, and she was essentially the goddess of love, of nature and all delights. So marked became this division, that she, so to speak, split herself into two distinct deities, and the mention of her in the invocations is generally twofold,—as “Ishtar of Nineveh “ and “Ishtar of Arbela,"—and the two fortnights of the month are alternately consecrated to her. This distinction must have been assisted by the difference of the goddess’s garb and attributes in the two characters, and thus have slipped into pure idolatry. As she was, in the astronomical-religious system, the ruler of the planet we call Venus, the star among the five divine emblems must have been specially intended for her. It is the more probable, that her name originally means “the goddess” par excellence, and that in the Assyro-Babylonian writing (the same for both countries, like the language) the sign of a star stands for the idea and the word “deity,” whether “god” or “goddess.” When the real, visible stars are meant, the sign is repeated three times in a peculiar group, a very conclusive proof of the originally astral (or astronomical) nature of the religion. Another interesting detail in the same direction is that, the planet Venus appearing in the evening, soon after sunset, and then again in the early morning, just before dawn, it was called Ishtar at night and Belit at dawn, as a small tablet expressly informs us; a distinction which, apparently confusing, rather tends to confirm the fundamental identity between the two,—Ishtar, “the goddess,” and Belit, “the lady.” “The other gods changed little in their migration from the Persian Gulf to the foot of the Zagros and the Armenian Mountains; and besides, we shall occasionally meet them as our narrative advances, when it will be time enough to note any peculiarity they may display, or influence they may exert.
10. Whether Assyria in its infancy was a mere dependency of the mother country, ruled, may be, by governors sent from Babylon, or whether it was from the first an independent colony (as the young bee-swarm when it has flown from the old hive), has never yet been ascertained. There have been no means of doing so, as there is no narrative monumental inscription earlier than 1lOO B.C. Still, all things considered, the latter supposition appears the more probable one. The Semitic emigrants, who retired to the distant northern settlement of Aushar, possibly before the Elamitic conquerors, took their departure at a time when the mother country was too distracted by wars and the patriotic struggle against the hated foreigners to exercise much control or supervision over its borders; and they will have experienced as little of both as did their brethren of Ur, when they wandered forth into the steppes of Canaan. The bond must have been merely a moral one, that of community in culture, language, and religion—a bond that could not prevent rivalry as soon as the young country’s increasing strength allowed it, and, as a consequence, a frequently hostile attitude. At all events, border feuds must have begun early and proved troublesome, from the indefiniteness of the natural boundary, if the slight elevation of the alluvial line may be so termed, and the first positive record we have of Assyria as a political power is one which shows us a king of Assyria and a king of Kar-Dunyash (Babylon) making a treaty in order to determine the boundaries of the two countries, and giving each other pledges for the observance thereof; this happened about 1450 B.C. and the successors of the two kings renewed the treaty about 1400 B.C. The friendship was so close at the time, that Burna-Buryash, the Babylonian king f (of the Cossaean dynasty), married the Assyrian’s daughter; an event which was the indirect cause of Assyria’s first armed interference in the affairs of the South. For after Burnaburiash’s death there was a revolt among the Kasshi. They rose against his son (perhaps on account of his half-foreign parentage) and slew him, after that they raised to the kingdom a usurper—"a man of low parentage,” the tablet calls him. Asshur-Uballit, the then reigning king of Assyria, made a descent on Babylon to avenge his kinsman’s fate, defeated the rebels and placed another son of Burnaburiash on the throne. Having inflicted this neighborly correction he returned to his own realm, and things remained as they had been. He may possibly not have been displeased at this opportunity of asserting the northern kingdom’s power and importance and of establishing a precedent flattering to its new-born dignity.
11. Not quite two hundred years before these events, we are confronted by the name of Asshur in a rather unexpected quarter. It occurs on an Egyptian list of Asiatic nations who sent tribute or presents to the great Egyptian conqueror Dhutmes III, who repeatedly overran the immense region between the Nile and the Euphrates—not twice or three times, but fourteen times in seventeen years. Egypt was just appearing on the world’s stage in the character of an invader and conqueror, and, though a very old nation, the part she played so brilliantly was new to her. The Egyptians, from their remotest antiquity and that, as we saw, takes us back quite or nearly as far as the antiquity of Chaldea, had always dwelt secluded in their wonderful Nile-valley. This valley, making up in length what it wanted in width, gave them sufficient room in which to live and increase, to be industrious and prosperous, and to develop, in the course of some three thousand years, that magnificent civilization, that profound national wisdom, which have been the marvel of the world, and are becoming more and more so with every conquest of the pickaxe and shovel—those humble instruments which are as magicians’ wands in the hands of the modern explorer, to call the dead to life and reconstruct cities and kingdoms. Not only were the Egyptians proud of their race, they considered it as something sacred, and themselves as a nation set apart from the rest of the world for purity and holiness. With such an opinion of themselves they naturally had a horror of foreigners, mere contact or intercourse with whom was to them pollution, and that alone would have sufficed to deter them from traveling or annexing other lands.
12. But absolute seclusion is unnatural and an impossibility as well for nations as for individuals, and the Egyptians had to open—grudgingly, ungraciously, but still to open—at least one corner of their sacred land to their Canaanitic and Semitic neighbors —the north-east corner by the sea, which, moreover, it would have been difficult to close against stray wanderers from the desert coming across the sandy wilderness of the Sinai peninsula, since, on that side, Egypt has absolutely no natural barrier or protection. That district, then, rendered very fertile by the many arms of the Nile, had been for centuries inhabited in great part by foreigners. Nomadic tribes who came, in times of drought, with their thirsty, dwindled flocks, were admitted and allotted pastures, on which they settled permanently, unless they preferred, after awhile, to return to their steppes in Syria or their oases in Arabia. It was thus that Abraham visited Egypt: “And Abram journeyed, going still toward the South. And there was a famine in the land, and Abram went down into Egypt, to sojourn there; for the famine was grievous in the land.” Thus also his descendants went the same way, Jacob and his sons, when they entered the land,—a small tribe, little more than a family—whence they were to go forth, four hundred years later, a nation. They say to the Pharaoh: “The servants are shepherds, both we and also our fathers. To sojourn in the land are we come; for there is no pasture for thy servant’s flocks; for the famine is sore in the land of Canaan: now therefore, we pray thee, let thy servants dwell in the land of Goshen.” Traders, in all probability mostly Phoenicians, dwelt in the cities, their ships coming and going between the mouths of the Nile and the cities along the Mediterranean coast, their caravans carrying the treasures of Africa and Asia back and forwards along the great high-road which, skirting the sea, ran off northward into the country of the Lebanon and across Aram to the Euphrates.
13. Thus a large and powerful population was formed, looked on by the native Egyptians with suspicion and dislike, but tolerately as a necessary evil until a day came when their prophetic instinct was justified and a great disaster befell them from that obnoxious quarter. The country was invaded and conquered by a swarm of those Semitic tribes, rovers of the desert, like the Bedouins of the present day, whom the Egyptians contemptuously designated by the sweeping name of Shasus i.e, “thieves, plunderers.” They entered through the foreign district in the north-east, from the peninsula of Sinai, and surely must have been assisted by their wealthy and cultured kinsfolk, for without such assistance semi-barbarous nomadic tribes could scarcely have managed more than a clever plundering raid, certainly not organized a systematic invasion. Much less could they have established a permanent rule and supplanted the native kings by a dynasty of their own, which maintained itself several hundred years. This dynasty is familiarly known in history as the “Shepherd Kings,” a translation of the Egyptian Hyksos (“hvk’’—king, “shos’’—shepherd), a name probably given them in scornful allusion to their former pastoral habits. It is impossible to fix the date of this important revolution, for lack of inscriptions. The Egyptians, after the expulsion of the Shepherds were not fond of recalling this long period of national humiliation, and vindictively erased all traces of it from their monuments, so that hardly more than a few names of these foreign kings have been preserved, as though by mistake, and a reconstruction of their times is not to be thought of, at least until new discoveries be made. Historians have to be content with vaguely placing the Hyksos conquest anywhere between 2200 and 2000 B.C. This date, even thus dimly defined, coincides remarkably with a momentous epoch of Chaldean history—that of the Elamitic conquest and rule,—and involuntarily leads to the question whether there may not have been a more than casual connection between the two events. The ravaging expeditions of Khudur-Nankhundi and his successors down to Khudur-Lagamar, must have created a great commotion among the half-settled or wholly nomadic tribes of Aram and Canaan, and brought about more migrations than the two which we found to be probably attributable, more or less directly, to that cause. Once set in motion, such tribes would naturally be drawn rather to the South, vast and flat, than to the hilly North, because of their flocks, and thus, descending from year to year, meeting, and gathering numbers, would come on the more warlike and aggressive Shasus of Arabia and Sinai. These, knowing the way into Egypt, were very likely to propose a grand raid in common, and the two united masses must have borne down everything before them at first by sheer force of numbers. It was under one of the last Hyksos kings that Joseph was sold into Egypt, and his extraordinary career is in great part explained by this fact. Under a native Egyptian monarch it would have been impossible for a foreigner to become prime minister—"governor over the land”. The Semitic affinities between the Pharaoh and the young stranger must have been as much in the hitter’s favor as his skill in interpreting dreams—(this accomplishment, by the way, an inheritance from Chaldaea). The coming into Egypt of the small Hebrew tribe (now already called Israel)—Jacob, his sons and grandsons, seventy souls in all, besides his sons’ wives—is placed about 1730 B.C. The war of independence, carried on by native princes in the South, was already in progress: nor was the day of the national triumph very far: the Shepherds were expelled and the native monarchy restored soon after 1700 B.C.—1662 is given as a probable date.
14. But mere deliverance from the foreign yoke did not satisfy the Egyptians’ long pent-up feelings of mortification. They thirsted for revenge, for retaliation, and it was this passionate desire which transformed them from a peaceful, home abiding people into a race of eager, insatiable invaders. Kings and people became alike possessed with this aggressive spirit, and for several centuries lines of warrior-monarchs succeeded each other on the throne, among whom were some of the mightiest conquerors the world has seen. Year after year they marched into Asia and overran as well populous countries as the desert with its scattered nomadic tribes, which fled before them, more fortunate in being able to do so than the dwellers in cities and owners of farms. Of these, some thought them strong and fought, but were generally vanquished and heavily ransomed. Those who felt weak or timid from the possession of great wealth brought gifts and purchased safety. These triumphant won a gigantic scale, for the Egyptian monarchs annexed politically none of the countries they subjected—never attempted to turn them into Egyptian provinces, only occasionally building a fort or leaving a garrison,—but returned again and again, partly to revel in this avenging of the old national grudge —to “wash their hearts,” as the Egyptian inscriptions expressively put it—partly to gather the immense periodical spoils which they had come to regard as their due. The people at home got into the habit of looking for the return of their victorious armies and would have thought themselves defrauded, had many years elapsed without bringing round the dearly loved delights of a triumph with all its warlike pageantry, its processions of captive princes, of prisoners bound in gangs, its exhibitions of boot. And right willingly did the Pharaohs indulge them. Fourteen victorious and well-paying campaigns in seventeen years—which, as we saw above, was the figure attained by Dhutmes III, a conqueror mighty among the mightiest—surely must hasatisfied both the direst thirst of vengeance and the most inordinate covetousness.
15. In one of these campaigns he encountered a more than usually well organized and obstinate resistance from a coalition of Canaanite princes, who waylaid him in the passes of the Southern Lebanon. There was a great battle near the city of Megiddo, situated between the Jordan and the sea and the victory which the Pharaoh won on this occasion laid the land open before him to the Euphrates, perhaps even —but that is by no means certain—to the Tigris. Tribute came pouring in at every place where he halted, and among those who sent gifts the “chieftain of Assuru” (Asshur) is set down on the list for fifty pounds and nine ounces of real lapis-lazuli, for imitation lapis-luzuli of Babylon (quantity not mentioned as being less valuable), and “much gear of stone of Asshur.” In the catalogue of tribute collected two years later, the “chieftain of Assuru” again figures as having sent 50 hewn cedar trees, 190 other trees, several hundred chariots, many armlets and various other articles that have not been clearly made out. That these things are classed under the head of “tribute,” not “booty” proves that Assyria did not show fight, probably not feeling equal as yet to face so formidable a foe. The battle of Megiddo took place about the year 1584 B.C.– let us say not much later than 1600—and Assyria had not yet reached a very noticeable place among its Western neighbors. It has been remarked that, if the Egyptian inscription be read right, the fact of the king of Assyria being denied this title, and mentioned only as “chieftain,” goes as far as his submissive attitude to show that his country did not as yet rank high as an independent state. Things were to change considerably within the next three hundred years.
16. On the same Egyptian lists of booty and tribute gathered in the great Pharaoh’s Asiatic campaigns we find the name of another nation, occupying a prominent position, which strikingly contrasts with the bare mention of Assyria: it is that of the Khetas, whom we know from the Bible as Hittites—a great and powerful people, spreading over an immense territory, far beyond the bounds of the lands we have thus far surveyed, and who were reaching the height of their glory just as Assyria began to emerge from insignificance. It is always the Khetas against whom the Pharaohs’ expeditions are principally directed, and from whom they encounter the most heroic and well-regulated resistance; and though they generally defeat them, the Khetas arc the only enemies with whom they occasionally treat on equal terms, and whom they mention with respect, as foes worthy of themselves. The coalition which nearly had stopped Dhutmes III progress at Megiddo was composed of Hittite princes with their allies, and the spoils of the field sufficiently testify to their wealth and magnificence. Among them figure a royal war-chariot entirely of gold and thirty-one chariots plated with gold, statues with the heads of gold, thousands of pounds of golden and silver rings, jewels of all descriptions, large tables of cedar-wood, inlaid with gold and precious stones, thrones with their footstools of cedar-wood and ivory, etc., etc. Their tribute, too, when they paid it, the Khetas mostly sent in precious metals and stones. Silver was the metal the most affected and when, after an intermittent warfare of four hundred years, a lasting peace was at last concluded between them and the Egyptian Pharaoh Ramses II of the nineteenth dynasty, the treaty was engraved on a large plate or disk of silver. This happened in the first part of the fourteenth century B.C. (soon after the interference of Assyria in Babylonian affairs) in consequence of a very famous battle fought near the Hittite capital Kadesh on the river Orontes and in which Ramses II indeed gained the victory, but at a cost and after a long doubtful struggle, which made it amount almost to a defeat. At least he accepted reconciliation as eagerly as his adversary sought it.
17. Like the Egyptians, the Hittites belonged to the great Hamitic division of mankind—“Heth, son of Canaan,” Chapter X of Genesis calls them and Heth comes immediately after Sidon, the “firstborn.” This at once locates them,—since both Canaan and Sidon were, as we have seen, geographical terms—and places them just where history finds them: in very early possession of the greater part of Canaan (Syria), in compact masses or scattered tribes. But they were only the southern branch of a vigorous Hamitic stock which had its headquarters in the Taurus range, its continuation Mount Masios and the Armenian Mountains. At what time or by what route a migrating body of Hamites reached this wide streak of mountain land is, indeed, beyond the power of even conjecture to surmise; but it is quite plain that, once they got there, they stayed for long years. For locomotion is not as easy in roadless mountain passes and narrow, shut-in mountain valleys as on the open plain, and once fractions of races get wedged into such nooks, they stay until forced, by increasing numbers or by want, to send forth new swarms in search of other quarters. That is why mountain races develop very marked individual qualities, which, having had time to become rooted habits of body and mind—a second nature, as it were—never are entirely lost, even under the influence of totally different conditions. Thus it is that the Hittites, long after their descent into the hot plains of Canaan, still preserved in their attire—the use of boots, of the close-belted tunic—certain signs betraying a Northern origin. This is very plainly shown on the Egyptian wall paintings which represent the battle of Kadesh and reproduce with great accuracy the distinctive traits of the nations that took part in it.
18. The Hittites had another and still more important capital than Kadesh—Karkhemish on the Euphrates, a city as strong, from a military point of view, as it was powerful and wealthy, being situated at the junction of the two commercial high roads—that from Egypt to the mountains of Armenia (south to north) and that between Babylon and Nineveh, on one side, and the rich trading cities along the sea on the other (east to west). This city in time became their principal capital, the great national centre. So that the King of Karkhemish is frequently styled by the Assyrians “King of the Hittites” in a general way, although the Hittites, like all ancient nations, were split into a great many larger or smaller principalities, the petty rulers of which all rejoiced in the title of “king.” It would seem, however, that in the course of time, he of Karkhemish came to exercise a certain supremacy over them all, could summon them to follow him to wars, and could rely on their services as one entitled to command them. Next to him in power and importance was undoubtedly the King of Kadesh. These two appear to have controlled, between them, the Hittite cities and tribes scattered all over the northern part of Syria, but were separated by various alien peoples, with names familiar from the Bible—Amorites, Hivites, Jebusites, etc.—from a southern branch of their nation, the Hittites of Hebron, between the Dead Sea and the Mediterranean—the same whom we found selling to Abraham, for a sum of money (in silver again), the piece of land of which he made his family burying-place.” These southern Hittites reached in an intermittent chain to the boundaries of Egypt, and as they cannot but have had connections with the Shasus of Sinai, it is very probable that they took part in the great invasion. Indeed, some eminent scholars more than suppose that one of the unknown Hyksos dynasties was Hittite. This, if proved, would account still more fully for the bitter enmity which could not vent itself sufficiently through four centuries of war.