Nineveh

VIEW:27 DATA:01-04-2020

handsome; agreeable
Hitchcock's Bible Names Dictionary

NINEVEH (Assyr. [Note: Assyrian.] Ninâ, Ninûa) is said in Gen_10:11 to have been founded by Nimrod in Assyria. Nineveh was included in the dominions of Hammurabi, who restored the temple of Ishtar there. It was early an important city, and is frequently referred to in the royal inscriptions, but Sennacherib first raised it to the position of capital of Assyria. It lay on the E. of the Tigris, opposite the modern Mosul. Its chief remains are buried beneath the mounds of Kouyunjik and Nebi Yunus, but the outline of the old walls can be traced. They enclosed some 1,800 acres, with a circumference of about 8 miles. The mound of Kouyunjik is separated from the mound of Nebi Yunus by the Khoser, and overlies the palaces of Sennacherib to the S., and Ashurbanipal to the N. The southern mound, Nebi Yunus, covers palaces of Sennacherib and Esarhaddon. The Nineveh of Sennacheribs day lay largely outside this area, and included the Rebit Ninûa, or Rehoboth-ir, which extended as far as Khorsa bad, where Sargon built a great city, Dûr-Sargon. The traditions of its great size may be due to a reminiscence of this outer girdle of inhabited country. The fall of Nineveh (b.c. 606) is referred to by Nahum and Zephaniah (Nah_2:13-13). 2Ki_19:36 and Isa_37:37 know it as the city of Sennacherib. For Jonahs mission, see Jonah. Later, Tobit (Tob_1:10; Tob_1:17 etc.) and Judith (Jdt_1:1) refer to it, and the Ninevites are named in Mat_12:41, Luk_11:30; Luk_11:32.
C. H. W. Johns.
Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible
Edited by James Hastings, D.D. Published in 1909

(See ASSYRIA.) Nimrod builded Nineveh (Gen_10:11); Herodotus (i. 7) makes Ninus founder of Nineveh. and grandson of Belus founder of Babylon; which implies that it was from Babylon, as Scripture says, that Nineveh's founder came. Nin is the Assyrian Hercules. Their mythology also makes Ninus son of Nimrod. Jonah is the next Scripture after Genesis 10 that mentions Nineveh. (See JONAH.) Sennacherib after his host's destruction "went and dwelt at Nineveh" (2Ki_19:36). Jonah (Jon_3:3) describes it as an "exceeding great city of three days' journey" round (i.e. 60 miles, at 20 miles per day) with 120,000 children "who knew not their right hand from their left" (Jon_4:11), which would make a population in all of 600,000 or even one million. Diodorus Siculus (ii. 3), agreeing with Jonah's "three days' journey," makes the circumference 55 miles, pastures and pleasure grounds being included within, from whence Jonah appositely (Jon_4:11) mentions "much cattle." G. Smith thinks that the ridges enclosing Nebi Yunus and Koyunjik (the mounds called "tels" opposite Mosul) were only the walls of inner Nineveh, the city itself extending beyond to the mound Yarenijah.
The parallelogram in Assyria covered with remains has Khorsabad N.E.; Koyunjik and Nebi Yunus (Nineveh in the narrow sense) near the Tigris N.W.; Nimrud and Athur between the Tigris and Zab, N.W.; and Karamles at a distance inward from the Zab S.E. From Koyunjik to Nimrud is 18 miles; from Khorsabad to Karamles 18; from Koyunjik to Khorsabad 13 or 14; from Nimrud to Karamles 14. The length was greater than the breadth; so Jon_3:4 "entered into the city a day's journey." The longer sides were 150 furlongs each, the shorter 90 furlongs, the whole circuit 480 or 460 miles. Babylon had a circuit of only 385 miles (Clitarchus in Diod. ii. 7, Strabo xvi. 737). The walls were 100 ft. high, with 1,500 towers, and broad enough for three chariots abreast. Shereef Khan is the northern extremity of the collection of mounds on the eastern bank of the Tigris, and is five and a half miles N. of Koyunjik. There is also an enclosure, 5,000 yards in circuit, once enclosed by a moat at Selamivah three miles N. of Nimrud. Nimrud in inscriptions is called Kalkhu or Calah in Gen_10:11; Khorsabad is called Sargina from Sargon. At Kileh Sherghat is the presumed original capital," Asshur," 60 miles S. of Mosul, on the right or western bank of the Tigris.
Sennacherib first made Nineveh the capital. Nineveh was at first only a fort to keep the Babylonian conquests around. It subsequently, with Rehoboth, Ir, Calah, and Resen, formed one great city, "Nineveh" in the larger sense. Thothmes III of Egypt is mentioned in inscriptions as capturing Nineveh. Phraortes the Mede perished in attempting to do so (Herodotus i. 102). Cyaxares his successor, after at first raising the siege owing to a Scythic invasion (Herodotus i. 103, 106) 625 B.C., finally succeeded in concert with the Babylonian Nabopolassar, 606 B.C., Saracus the last king, Esarhaddon's grandson, set fire to the palace and perished in the flames, as Ctesias states, and as the marks of fire on the walls still confirm. So Nah_3:13; Nah_3:15, "fire shall devour thy bars." Charred wood, calcined alabaster, and heat splintered figures abound. Nahum (Nahum 2) and Zephaniah (Zep_2:13-15) foretold its doom; and Ezekiel (Ezekiel 31) shortly after attests the completeness of its overthrow, as a warning of the fatal issue of pride, Isa_10:7-14; Diodorus (ii. 27) says there was a prophecy that Nineveh should not fall until the river became its enemy.
The immediate cause of capture was the city walls destruction by a sudden rise in the river. So Nahum (Nah_1:8; Nah_2:6; Nah_2:8) foretold "with an over running flood He will make an utter end of the place;" "the gates of the rivers shall be opened and the palace shall be dissolved," namely, by the inundation; "Nineveh is of old like a pool of water (though of old defended by water around), yet (its inhabitants) shall flee." There was a floodgate at the N.W. angle of the city, which was swept away; and the water pouring into the city "dissolved" the palace foundation platform, of sundried bricks. Nineveh then totally disappears from history; it never rose again. Nahum (Nah_1:10; Nah_3:11) accords with Diodorus Siculus that the final assault was made during a drinking bout of king and courtiers: "while they are drunken as drunkards, they shall be devoured as stubble fully dry ... Thou shalt be drunken," etc. The treasures accumulated by many kings were rifled, as Nahum foretells; "take ye the spoil of silver ... gold, for there is none end of the store;" the people were "scattered upon the mountains" (Nah_3:18).
He calls it "the city of bloods," truly (Nah_3:1); the wall carvings represent the king in the act of putting out his captives' eyes, and dragging others by a hook through the lips and a cord. Other cities have revived, but Nahum foretells "there is no healing of thy bruise" (Nah_3:19). Lucian of Samosara near the Euphrates asserts none in his day even knew where Nineveh stood. Its former luxury is embodied in the statue of Sardanapalus as a dancer, which he directed (Plutarch says) to be erected after his death, with the motto "eat, drink, enjoy lust ... the rest is nothing!" The language of its inscriptions is Semitic, for the main population was a colony of Asshur, son of Shem; and besides the prevalent Semitic a Turanian dialect has been found on tablets at Koyunjik, derived from its original Cushite founder Nimrod of Babylon and his band. At Nimrud the oldest palaces are in the N.W. grainer, the most recent at the S.E. The table of Karnak in Egypt (1490 B.C.) connects Niniu (Nineveh) with Naharaima or Naharaim or Mesopotamia. Sir H. Rawlinson published 1862 an Assyrian canon from the monuments.
The first kings reigned when the early Chaldee empire had its seat in lower Mesopotamia. Asshur-bil-nisis, Buzur Ashur, and Asshur Vatila from 1653 to 1550 B.C., when Purnapuriyas and Durri-galazu were the last of the early Chaldaean monarchy. Then Bel Sumill Kapi founds a dynasty after a chasm of two centuries. "Bellush, Pudil, and Ivalush" are inscribed on bricks at Kileh Sherghat, 1350-1270 B.C. Shalmaneser I, son of Ivalush I, is mentioned on a genealogical slab as founder of Nimrud. Tiglath-i-nin his son inscribes himself" conqueror of Babylon"; Sargon finally conquered it. Tiglath-inin's successor Ivalush II (1250 B.C.) enlarged the empire and closes the dynasty. By a revolution Nin pala Zira ascends the throne, "the king of the commencement" as the Tiglath Pileser cylinder calls him. Then Asshurdahil, Mutaggil Nebo, Asshur-ris-ilim (conqueror of a Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon), Tiglath Pileser I (subdued Meshech), Asshur-belkala; a blank of two centuries follows when David's and Solomon's extensive dominion has place. Asshur-iddin-akhi begins the next dynasty (950-930 B.C.).
Asshur-danin-il and Iralush III follow; then Tiglath-i-nin; Asshur-idanni-pal next after ten victorious campaigns built a palace at Calah, 360 ft. long by 300 broad, with man lions at the gateways, and by a canal brought the Zab waters to Calah; he was "lord from the upper Tigris to Lebanon and the great sea." His son Shalmaneser II took tribute from Tyre and Sidon and fought Benhadad and Hazael. A picture represents him receiving from Jewish captives tribute of Jehu king of Israel, gold, pearl, and oil. He built the central palace of Nimrud, opened by Layard. The black marble obelisk (in the British Museum) records his exploits and Jehu's name. Then Shamas-Iva, Iralush IV and his wife Semiramis, a Babylonian princess, Shalmaneser III, Asshur-danin-il II, Asshur-lush. Then Tiglath Pileser II, probably Pul, usurps the throne by revolution, for he does not mention his father as others do, 744 B.C. Under him "Menahem" appears in inscriptions, and "tribute from the house of Omri" i.e. Samaria (2Ki_15:19; 2Ki_15:29).
Ahaz enlisted him as ally against Samaria and Damascus; Tiglath Pileser conquered them and received tribute from Jahu-khazi or Ahaz. An inscription in the British Museum records Rezin's death (Rawlinson's Monarchies, 2:398,399). Tiglath Pileser built a new palace at Nimrud. Then Shalmaneser IV (not in the canon) (2Ki_17:3-4) assailed Samaria, upon Hoshea's leaguing with So of Egypt, and withholding tribute. In a chamber at Koyunjik was found among other seals now in British Museum the seal of So or Sabacho and that of Sennacherib affixed to a treaty between them, of which the parchment has perished. Sargon ("king de facto") usurped the throne and took Samaria (he says in inscriptions) in his first year; he built the palace at Khorsabad. Sennacherib his son succeeded 704 B.C. and reigned 24 years. He built the palace at the S.W. corner of Koyunjik, covering 100 acres almost, excavated by Layard. (See SENNACHERIB.) Of it 60 courts, halls (some 150 ft. square), and passages (one 200 ft. long) have been discovered. The human headed lions and bulls at its many portals are some 20 ft. high. Esarhaddon succeeded, as he styles himself "king of Assyria, Babylon, Egypt, Meroe, and Ethiopia;" or Asnapper; he imprisoned Manasseh. (See ASNAPPER; MANASSEH.)
He built a temple at the S.W. corner of Nimrud, and a palace at Nebi Yunus. Asshurbani-pal succeeded, a hunter and warrior; his library of clay tablets, religious, legal, historical, and scientific, is in British Museum. He built a palace at Koyunjik, near Sennacherib's. His son, the last king, Asshuremid-ilin or Asshur-izzir-pal (Saracus or Sardanapalus), built the S.E. edifice at Nimrud. The palace walls were from five to fifteen feet thick, erected on an artificial platform 30 to 50 ft. above the surrounding level, and paneled with slabs of coarse alabaster sculptured and inscribed. The plaster above the alabaster wainscoting was ornamented with figures; the pavement was of alabaster or flat kiln-burnt bricks resting on bitumen and fine sand. The Nimrud grand hall is only 35 ft. broad (though 160 ft. long), to admit of roofing with the short beams to be had. The ceilings were gaily colored.
The portals were guarded by colossal human headed bulls; thence was an ascent to a higher platform, and on the top a gateway, sometimes 90 ft. wide, guarded also by winged bulls; inside was the great door, opening into a sculpture adorned passage; then the inner court, then the state apartments. There may have been an upper story of sun-dried bricks and wood, for there are no stone or marble columns or burnt brick remains. The large halls may have been roofless, a ledge projecting round the four sides and supporting an awning as shelter against rain and sun. However Zep_2:14 mentions "the cedar work," cedars from Lebanon may have reached from wall to wall with openings for light.
The chambers were built round the central hall. In Nah_2:3 translated "the chariots (shall be furnished) with fire flashing scythes," literally, "with the fire of scythes" or "iron weapons." No traces of such scythe-armed chariots are found in Assyria; either then it applies to the besiegers, or "the chariots shall come with the glitter of steel weapons." The "red shield" (Nah_2:3) accords with the red painting of the shields and dresses in the sculptures. The king, with beardless eunuch behind holding an umbrella and the winged symbol of Deity above, appears in various carvings; he was despotic. Kitchen operations, husbandry and irrigation implements are represented also.
Religion. The man bull and man lion answer to Nin and Nergal, the gods of war and the chase. Nisroch the eagle-headed god and Dagon the fishheaded god often appear in the sculptures. The sacred tree answers to Asheerah, "the grove" (2Ki_21:7). The chief gods were Asshur, Bel, Beltis or Myletta, Sin the moon, Shamash (Hebrew shemesh) the sun, Vul or Iva the thunder wielder, Nin, etc. "Witchcrafts" and "whoredoms" in connection with Nineveh's worship are denounced by Nah_3:4. The immense palaces, the depositories of the national records, were at once the gods' temple and the king's abode, for he was the religious head of the nation and the favorite of the gods.
Language and writing. Clay cylinders pierced through so as to turn round and present their sides to the reader, bricks, and slabs are the materials inscribed on. The wedge (cuneus from whence "cuneiform") in various forms and directions, upright, horizontal, and diagonal, is the main element of the 250 distinct alphabetical characters. This mode of writing prevailed for 2000 years B.C. in Assyria, Babylonia, and eastern Persia. The alphabet is syllabic. Determinatives are prefixed to some words, as
↓ - prefixed marks the word as a man's name;
↓↓ - marks the plural;
↓← - marks the dual.
It is related to Hebrew, thus, u "and" is the Hebrew ve; ki is in both "if"; anaku or Hebrew 'anoki "I"; 'atta' in both is "thou"; 'abu or'ab (Hebrew), "father"; nahar in both is a "river." Feminine nouns end in -it or -at; Hebrew end with -ith. Sh is the shortened relative pronoun "who, which," as in later Hebrew; mah in both asks a question. The verb as in Hebrew is conjugated by pronominal suffixes. The roots are biliteral, the Hebrew both biliteral and triliteral. Mit, "to die"; Hebrew muth. Sib, "to dwell"; Hebrew yashab. Tiglath means "adoration." Pal, "son," the Aramaic bar; sat "king"; ris, Hebrew rosh, "head."
The northwestern palace of Nineveh has the longest inscription; it records concerning Sardanapalus II. Sennacherib's inscription concerning Hezekiah, on two man-headed bulls from Koyunjik, is the most interesting. Bas-reliefs of the siege of Lachish accompany it. (See LACHISH.) By a tentative process recurring proper names were first deciphered by Grotefend, Rawlinson, Hincks, Fox Talbot, Oppert, etc., as in Darius' inscription at Behistun. Parallel parts of the same inscription in snorter language (as the hieroglyphics and Greek on the Rosetta stone enabled Champollion to discover the former) verified the results, and duplicate phrases brought, out the meaning of words.
Tombs. Chaldaea is as full of tombs as Assyria is void of them. Probably Chaldaea was the burial place of the Assyrian kings; Arrian (Exped. Alex. 7:22) states that their tombs were in the marshes S. of Babylon.
Art, Commerce. Egyptian art is characterized by calm repose, Assyrian art by energy and action. Egyptian architecture is derived from a stone prototype, Assyrian from a wooden one, in agreement with the physical features of the respective countries. Solomon's temple and palace, with grand hall and chambers, paneled with slabs sculptured with trees, the upper part of the walls painted in various colors, the winged cherubim carved all round, the flowers and pomegranates, correspond to the Nineveh palaces in a great measure. Silk, blue clothes, and embroidered work were traded in by Nineveh's merchants (Eze_27:23-24; Nah_3:16). The Chaldaean Nestorians in the Kurdistan mountains and the villages near Mosul are the sole representatives of the ancient Assyrians and Babylonians.
Fausset's Bible Dictionary
By Andrew Robert Fausset, co-Author of Jamieson, Fausset and Brown's 1888.

Nin'eveh. (abode of Ninus). The capital of the ancient kingdom and empire of Assyria. The name appears to be compounded, from that of an Assyrian deity, "Nin," corresponding, it is conjectured, with the Greek Hercules, and occurring in the names of several Assyrian kings, as in "Ninus," the mythic founder, according to Greek tradition of the city.
Nineveh is situated on the eastern bank of the river Tigris, 50 miles from its mouth and 250 miles north of Babylon. It is first mentioned in the Old Testament, in connection with the primitive dispersement and migrations of the human race. Asshur, or according to the marginal reading, which is generally preferred, Nimrod is there described, Gen_10:11, as extending his kingdom from the land of Shinar or Babylonia, in the south, to Assyria in the north and founding four cities, of which the most famous was Nineveh. Hence, Assyria was subsequently known to the Jews as, "the land of Nimrod," compare Mic_5:6, and was believed to have been first peopled by a colony from Babylon.
The kingdom of Assyria and of the Assyrians is referred to in the Old Testament as connected with the Jews at a very early period, as in Num_24:22 : Num_24:24, and Psa_83:8. But after the notice of the foundation of Nineveh in Genesis, no further mention is made of the city, until the time of the book of Jonah, or the eighth century B.C. In this book, no mention is made of Assyria or the Assyrians, the king to whom the prophet was sent being termed the, "king of Nineveh," and his subjects "the people of Nineveh."
Assyria is first called a kingdom in the time of Menahem, about B.C. 770. Nahum, (? B.C. 645), directs his prophecies against Nineveh, only once against the king of Assyria. Nah_3:18. In 2Ki_19:36 and Isa_37:37, the city is first distinctly mentioned as the residence of the monarch. Sennacherib was slain there, when worshipping in the temple of Nisroch, his god. Zephaniah, about B.C. 630, couples the capital and the kingdom together, Zep_2:13, and this is the last mention of Nineveh as an existing city.
The destruction of Nineveh occurred B.C. 606. The city was then laid waste, its monuments destroyed, and its inhabitants scattered or carried away into captivity. It never rose again from its ruins. This total disappearance of Nineveh is fully confirmed by the records of profane history. The political history of Nineveh is that of Assyria, of which a sketch has already been given. See Assyria.
Previous to recent excavations and researches, the ruins which occupied the presumed site of Nineveh seemed to consist of mere shapeless heaps or mounds of earth and rubbish. Unlike the vast masses of brick masonry which mark the site of Babylon, they showed externally no signs of artificial construction, except, perhaps, here and there, the traces of a rude wall of sun-dried bricks. Some of these mounds were of enormous dimensions, looking, in the distance, rather like natural elevations, than the work of men's hands. They differ greatly in form, size and height. Some are mere conical heaps, varying from 50 to 150 feet high; others have a broad flat summit, and very precipitous cliff-like sites furrowed by deep ravines worn by the winter rains.
The principal ruins are ? (1) The group immediately opposite Mosul, including the great mounds of Kouyunjik and Nebbi Yunus;
(2) that near the junction of the Tigris and Zab comprising the mounds of Nimroud and Athur;
(3) Khorsabad, about ten miles to the east of the former river;
(4) Shereef Khan, about 5 1/2 miles to the north of Kouyunjik; and
(5) Selamiyah, three miles to the north of Nimroud.
Discoveries. ? The first traveller who carefully examined the supposed site of Nineveh was Mr. Rich, formerly political agent for the East India Company at Bagdad, but his investigations were almost entirely confined to Kouyunjik and the surrounding mounds, of which he made a survey in 1820. In 1843 M. Botta, the French consul at Mosul, fully explored the ruins. M. Botta's discoveries at Khorsabad were followed by those of Mr. Layard at Nimroud and Kouyunjik, made between the years 1846 and 1850.
(Since then very many and important discoveries have been made at Nineveh, more especially those by George Smith, of the British Museum. He has discovered not only the buildings, but the remains of a fine ancient library written on stone tablets. These leaves or tablets were from an inch to 1 foot square, made of terra-cotta clay, on which, when soft, the inscriptions were written; the tablets were then hardened and placed upon the walls of the library rooms, so as to cover the walls.
This royal library contained over 10,000 tablets. It was begun by Shalmaneser, B.C. 860, his successors added to it, and Sardanapalus, (B.C. 673), almost doubled it. Stories or subjects were begun on tablets, and continued on tablets of the same size, sometimes to the number of one hundred. Some of the most interesting of these give accounts of the creation and of the deluge, and all agree with or confirm the Bible. ? Editor).
Description of remains. ? The Assyrian edifices were so nearly alike in general plan, construction and decoration that one description will suffice for all. They were built upon artificial mounds or platforms, varying in height, but generally from 30 to 50 feet above the level of the surrounding country, and solidly constructed of regular layers of sun-dried bricks, as at Nimroud, or consisting merely of earth and rubbish heaped up, as at Kouyunjik. This platform was probably faced with stone masonry, remains probable which were discovered at Nimroud, and broad flights of steps or inclined ways led up to its summit.
Although only the general plan of the ground-floor can now be traced, it is evident that the palaces had several stories built of wood and sun-dried bricks, which, when the building was deserted and allowed to fall to decay, gradually buried the lower chambers with their ruins, and protected the sculptured slabs from the effects of the weather. The depth of soil and rubbish above the alabaster slabs varied from a few inches to about 20 feet. It is to this accumulation of rubbish above them that the bas-reliefs owe their extraordinary preservation.
The portions of the edifices still remaining, consist of halls, chambers and galleries, opening, for the most part, into large, uncovered courts. The wall above the wainscoting of alabaster was plastered, and painted with figures and ornaments. The sculptured, with the exception of the human-headed lions and bulls, were for the most part in low relief, The colossal figures usually represent the king, his attendants and the gods; the smaller sculptures, which either cover the whole face of the slab, or are divided into two compartments by bands of inscriptions, represent battles sieges, the chase, single combats with wild beasts, religious ceremonies, etc., etc. All refer to public or national events; the hunting-scenes evidently recording the prowess and personal valor of the king as the head of the people ? "the mighty hunter before the Lord."
The sculptures appear to have been painted, remains of color having been found on most of them. Thus decorated without and within, the Assyrian palaces must have displayed a barbaric magnificence, not, however, devoid of a certain grandeur and beauty, which probably no ancient or modern edifice has exceeded. These great edifices, the depositories of the national records, appear to have been at the same time, the abode of the king, and the temple of the gods.
Prophecies relating to Nineveh, and illustrations of the Old Testament. These are exclusively contained in the books of Nahum and Zephaniah. Nahum threatens the entire destruction of the city, so that it shall not rise again from its ruins. The city was to be partly destroyed by fire. Nah_3:13; Nah_3:16. The gateway in the northern wall of the Kouyunjik enclosure had been destroyed by fire as well as the palaces. The population was to be surprised when unprepared: "while they are drunk as drunkards, they shall be devoured as stubble fully dry." Nah_1:10. Diodorus states that the last and fatal assault was made when they were overcome with wine. The captivity of the inhabitants and their removal to distant provinces are predicted. Nah_3:18. The fullest and the most vivid and poetical picture of Nineveh's ruined and deserted condition is that given by Zephaniah, who probably lived to see its fall. Zep_2:13-15.
Site of the city. ? Much diversity of opinion exists as to the identification of the ruins, which may be properly included within the site of ancient Nineveh. According to Sir H. Rawlinson and those who concur in his interpretation of the cuneiform characters, each group of mounds already mentioned represents a separate and distinct city.
On the other hand, it has been conjectured, with much probability, that these groups of mounds are not ruins of separate cities, but of fortified royal residences, each combining palaces, temples, propylaea, gardens and parks, and having its peculiar name, and that they all formed as part of one great city, built and added to at different periods, and consisting of distinct quarters scattered over a very large, and frequently very distant, one from the other. Thus the city would be, as Layard says, in the form of a parallelogram 18 to 20 miles long by 12 to 14 wide, or, as Diodorus Siculus says, 55 miles in circumference.
Writing and language. ? The ruins of Nineveh have furnished a vast collection of inscriptions, partly carved on marble or stone slabs, and partly impressed upon bricks and upon clay cylinders, or sixsided and eight-sided prisms, barrels and tablets, which, used for the purpose when still moist, were afterward, baked in a furnace or kiln. Compare Eze_4:4. The character employed was the arrow-headed or cuneiform ? so called from each letter being formed by marks or elements resembling an arrow-head or a wedge.
These inscribed bricks are of the greatest value in restoring the royal dynasties. The most important inscription, hitherto, discovered in connection with biblical history, is that upon a pair of colossal human-headed bulls from
Kouyunjik, now in the British Museum, containing the records of Sennacherib, and describing, among other events, his wars with Hezekiah. It is accompanied by a series of bas-reliefs believed to represent the siege and capture of Lachish.
A list of nineteen or twenty kings can already be compiled, and the annals of the greater number of them will probably be restored to the lost history, of one of the most powerful empires of the ancient world, and of one which appears to have exercised, perhaps, greater influence than any other, upon the subsequent condition and development of civilized man. The people of Nineveh spoke a Shemitic dialect, connected with the Hebrew, and with the so called Chaldee of the books of Daniel and Ezra. This agrees with the testimony of the Old Testament.
Smith's Bible Dictionary
By Dr. William Smith.Published in 1863

This capital of the Assyrian empire could boast of the remotest antiquity. Tacitus styles it, Vetustissima sedes Assyriae; [the most ancient seat of Assyria;] and Scripture informs us that Nimrod, after he had built Babel, in the land of Shinar, invaded Assyria, where he built Nineveh, and several other cities, Gen_10:11. Its name denotes the habitation of Nin, which seems to have been the proper name of that rebel, as Nimrod signifies. And it is uniformly styled by Herodotus, Xenophon, Diodorus, Lucian, &c, Η Νινος, the city of Ninus. And the village of Nunia, opposite Mosul, in its name, and the tradition of the natives, ascertains the site of the ancient city, which was near the castle of Arbela, according to Tacitus, so celebrated for the decisive victory of Alexander the Great over the Persians there; the site of which is ascertained by the village of Arbil, about ten German miles to the east of Nunia, according to Niebuhr's map. Nineveh at first seems only to have been a small city, and less than Resen, in its neighbourhood; which is conjectured by Bochart, and not without reason, to have been the same as Larissa, which Xenophon describes as the ruins of a great city, formerly inhabited by the Medes, and which the natives might have described as belonging la Resen, to Resen. Nineveh did not rise to greatness for many ages after, until its second founder, Ninus II, about B.C. 1230, enlarged and made it the greatest city in the world. According to Diodorus, it was of an oblong form, a hundred and fifty stadia long, and ninety broad, and, consequently, four hundred and eighty in circuit, or forty-eight miles, reckoning ten stadia to an English mile, with Major Rennel. And its walls were a hundred feet high, and so broad that three chariots could drive on them abreast; and on the walls were fifteen hundred towers, each two hundred feet high. We are not, however, to imagine that all this vast enclosure was built upon: it contained great parks and extensive fields, and detached houses and buildings, like Babylon, and other great cities of the east even at the present day, as Bussorah, &c. And this entirely corresponds with the representations of Scripture. In the days of the Prophet Jonah, about B.C. 800, it seems to have been a great city, an exceeding great city, of three days' journey, Jon_1:2; Jon_3:3; perhaps in circuit. The population of Nineveh, also, at that time was very great. It contained more than sixscore thousand persons that could not discern between their right hand and their left, beside much cattle, Jon_4:11. Reckoning the persons to have been infants of two years old and under, and that these were a fifth part of the whole, according to Bochart, the whole population would amount to six hundred thousand souls. The same number Pliny assigns for the population of Seleucia, on the decline of Babylon. This population shows that a great part of the city must have been left open and unbuilt.
The threatened overthrow of Nineveh within three days, was, by the general repentance and humiliation of the inhabitants, from the highest to the lowest, suspended for near two hundred years, until their iniquity came to the full; and then the prophecy was literally accomplished, in the third year of the siege of the city, by the combined Medes and Babylonians; the king, Sardanapalus, being encouraged to hold out in consequence of an ancient prophecy, that Nineveh should never be taken by assault, till the river became its enemy; when a mighty inundation of the river, swollen by continual rains, came up against a part of the city, and threw down twenty stadia of the wall in length; upon which, the king, conceiving that the oracle was accomplished, burned himself, his concubines, eunuchs, and treasures; and the enemy, entering by the breach, sacked and rased the city, about B.C. 606. Diodorus, also, relates that Belesis, the governor of Babylon. obtained from Arbaces, the king of Media, the ashes of the palace, to erect a mount with them near the temple of Belus at Babylon; and that he forthwith prepared shipping, and, together with the ashes, carried away most of the gold and silver, of which he had private information given him by one of the eunuchs who escaped the fire. Dr. Gillies thinks it incredible that these could be transported from Nineveh to Babylon, three hundred miles distant; but likely enough, if Nineveh was only fifty miles from Babylon, with a large canal of communication between them, the Nahar Malka, or Royal River. But we learn from Niebuhr, that the conveyance of goods from Mosul to Bagdat by the Tigris is very commodious, in the very large boats called helleks; in which, in spring, when the river is rapid, the voyage may be made in three or four days, which would take fifteen by land. The complete demolition of such immense piles as the walls and towers of Nineveh may seem a matter of surprise to those who do not consider the nature of the materials of which they were constructed, that is, of bricks, dried or baked in the sun, and cemented with bitumen, which were apt to be dissolved by water, or to moulder away by the injuries of the weather. Beside, in the east, the materials of ancient cities have been often employed in the building of new ones in the neighbourhood. Thus Mosul was built with the spoils of Nineveh. Tauk Kesra, or the Palace of Chosroes, appears to have been built of bricks brought from the ruins of Babylon; and so was Hellah, as the dimensions are nearly the same, and the proportions so singular. And when such materials could conveniently be transported by inland navigations, they are to be found at very great distances from their ancient place, much farther, indeed, than are Bagdat and Seleucia, or Ctesiphon, from Babylon.
The book of Nahum was avowedly prophetic of the destruction of Nineveh; and it is there foretold that the gates of the river shall be opened, and the palace shall be dissolved. Nineveh of old, like a pool of water, with an overflowing flood he will make an utter end of the place thereof,
Nah_2:6; Nah_1:8-9. The historian describes the facts by which the other predictions of the prophet were as literally fulfilled. He relates that the king of Assyria, elated with his former victories, and ignorant of the revolt of the Bactrians, had abandoned himself to scandalous inaction; had appointed a time of festivity, and supplied his soldiers with abundance of wine; and that the general of the enemy, apprised by deserters, of their negligence and drunkenness, attacked the Assyrian army while the whole of them were fearlessly giving way to indulgence, destroyed great part of them, and drove the rest into the city. The words of the prophet were hereby verified: While they be folden together as thorns, and while they are drunken as drunkards, they shall be devoured as stubble fully dry, Nah_1:10. The prophet promised much spoil to the enemy: Take the spoil of silver, take the spoil of gold; for there is no end of the store and glory out of all the pleasant furniture, Nah_2:9. And the historian affirms that many talents of gold and silver, preserved from the fire, were carried to Ecbatana. According to Nah_3:15, the city was not only to be destroyed by an overflowing flood, but the fire, also, was to devour it; and, as Diodorus relates, partly by water, partly by fire, it was destroyed.
The utter and perpetual destruction and desolation of Nineveh were foretold: The Lord will make an utter end of the place thereof. Affliction shall not rise up the second time, She is empty, void, and waste,
Nah_1:8-9; Nah_2:10; Nah_3:17-19. The Lord will stretch out his hand against the north, and destroy Assyria, and will make Nineveh a desolation, and dry like a wilderness. How is she become a desolation, a place for beasts to lie down in, Zep_2:13-15. In the second century, Lucian, a native of a city on the banks of the Euphrates, testified that Nineveh was utterly perished, that there was no vestige of it remaining, and that none could tell where once it was situated. This testimony of Lucian, and the lapse of many ages during which the place was not known where it stood, render it at least somewhat doubtful whether the remains of an ancient city, opposite to Mosul, which have been described as such by travellers, be indeed those of ancient Nineveh. It is, perhaps, probable that they are the remains of the city which succeeded Nineveh, or of a Persian city of the same name, which was built on the banks of the Tigris by the Persians subsequently to A.D. 230, and demolished by the Saracens, A.D. 632. In contrasting the then existing great and increasing population, and the accumulating wealth of the proud inhabitants of the mighty Nineveh, with the utter ruin that awaited it, the word of God by the Prophet Nahum, was, Make thyself many as the canker worm, make thyself many as the locusts. Thou hast multiplied thy merchants above the stars of heaven: the canker worm spoileth and flieth away. Thy crowned are as the locusts, and thy captains as the great grasshoppers which camp in the hedges in the cold day: but when the sun riseth, they flee away; and their place is not known where they are, or were. Whether these words imply that even the site of Nineveh would in future ages be uncertain or unknown; or, as they rather seem to intimate, that every vestige of the palaces of its monarchs, of the greatness of its nobles, and of the wealth of its numerous merchants, would wholly disappear; the truth of the prediction cannot be invalidated under either interpretation. The avowed ignorance respecting Nineveh, and the oblivion which passed over it, for many an age, conjoined with the meagreness of evidence to identify it, still prove that the place where it stood was long unknown, and that, even now, it can scarcely with certainty be determined. And if the only spot that bears its name, or that can be said to be the place where it was, be indeed the site of one of the most extensive of cities on which the sun ever shone, and which continued for many centuries to be the capital of Assyria,the principal mounds, few in number, which show neither bricks, stones, nor other materials of building,but are in many places overgrown with grass, and resemble the mounds left by intrenchments and fortifications of ancient Roman camps, and the appearances of other mounds and ruins less marked than even these, extending for ten miles, and widely spread, and seeming to be the wreck of former buildings,show that Nineveh is left without one monument of royalty, without any token whatever of its splendour or wealth: that their place is not known where they were; and that it is indeed a desolation, empty, void, and waste, its very ruins perished, and less than the wreck of what it was. Such an utter ruin, in every view, has been made of it; and such is the truth of the divine predictions!
Biblical and Theological Dictionary by Richard Watson
PRINTER 1849.

Situated on the Tigris River in northern Mesopotamia, Nineveh was one of the great cities of the ancient world, and became capital of the powerful Assyrian Empire (Gen_10:11-12; 2Ki_19:36). (For map of Assyria and details of Ninevehs history see ASSYRIA.) On one occasion the city was saved from a threatened invasion when the people responded to the preaching of Gods prophet Jonah (Jon_1:1; Jonah 3; Jon_4:11; Mat_12:41; see JONAH).
Though the Assyrians were used by God to punish his people Israel, they were among the most brutal oppressors in recorded history. The prophets of God assured them of a fitting divine punishment (Isa_10:5; Isa_10:12-16; Nah_1:1; Nah_3:1-7; Zep_2:13; see NAHUM). This judgment fell in 612 BC, when the besieging Babylonians overcame Ninevehs defences by bursting open the water gates, breaking through the wall and flooding the city (Nah_2:6-8). The Babylonians then plundered and smashed the city, leaving it a heap of ruins. It was never rebuilt (Nah_2:9-10; Nah_3:1; Nah_3:7; Zep_2:13-15).
Bridgeway Bible Dictionary by Don Fleming
PRINTER 1990.

nin?ḗ-ve (נינוה, nı̄newēh; Νινευή, Nineuḗ, Νινευΐ́, Nineuı́; Greek and Roman writers, Νῖνος, Nı́nos):
I. BEGINNINGS, NAME, POSITION
1. First Biblical Mention
2. Etymology of the Name
3. Position on the Tigris
II. NINEVEH AND ITS SURROUNDINGS
1. Its Walls
2. Principal Mounds and Gateways
3. Extent and Population within the Walls
4. Extent outside the Walls
5. Calah, Resen and Rehoboth-Ir
6. Khorsabad
7. Sherif Khan and Selamieh
8. Nimroud
III. PALACES AT NINEVEH PROPER
1. The Palace of Sennacherib
2. The Palace of Assur-bani-apli
IV. SENNACHERIB'S DESCRIPTION OF NINEVEH
1. The Walls
2. The Gates - Northwest
3. The Gates - South and East
4. The Gates - West
5. The Outer Wall: the Plantations
6. The Water-Supply, etc.
7. How the Bas-Reliefs Illustrate the King's Description
8. Nineveh the Later Capital
V. LAST DAYS AND FALL OF NINEVEH
LITERATURE

I. Beginnings, Name, Position.
1. First Biblical Mention:
The first Biblical mention of Nineveh is in Gen_10:11, where it is stated that NIMROD (which see) or Asshur went out into Assyria, and builded Nineveh and Rehoboth-Ir, and Calah, and Resen between Nineveh and Calah, with the addition, ?the same is the great city.? Everything indicates that these statements are correct, for Nineveh was certainly at one time under Babylonian rule, and was at first not governed by Assyrian kings, but by iššakē or viceroys of Aṣ̌šur, the old capital. To all appearance Nineveh took its name from the Babylonian Nina near Lagas in South Babylonia, on the Euphrates, from which early foundation it was probably colonized. The native name appears as Ninua or Ninâ (Ninaa), written with the character for ?water enclosure? with that for ?fish? inside, implying a connection between Ninâ and the Semitic nūn, ?fish.?

2. Etymology of the Name:
The Babylonian Nina was a place where fish were very abundant, and Ištar or Nina, the goddess of the city, was associated with Nin-mah̬, Merodach's spouse, as goddess of reproduction. Fish are also plentiful in the Tigris at Mosul, the modern town on the other side of the river, and this may have influenced the choice of the site by the Babylonian settlers, and the foundation there of the great temple of Ishtar or Nina. The date of this foundation is unknown, but it may have taken place about 3OOO BC.

3. Position on the Tigris:
Nineveh lay on the eastern bank of the Tigris, at the point where the Khosr falls into that stream. The outline of the wall is rectangular on the West, but of an irregular shape on the East. The western fortifications run from Northwest to Southeast, following, roughly, the course of the river, which now flows about 1,500 yards from the walls, instead of close to them, as in ancient times.

II. Nineveh and Its Surroundings.
According to the late G. Smith, the southwestern wall has a length of about 2 1/2 miles, and is joined at its western corner by the northwestern wall, which runs in a northeasterly direction for about 1 1/3 miles.

1. Its Walls:
The northeastern wall, starting here, runs at first in a southeasterly direction, but turns southward, gradually approaching the southwestern wall, to which, at the end of about 3 1/4 miles, it is joined by a short wall, facing nearly South, rather more than half a mile long.

2. Principal Mounds and Gateways:
The principal mounds are Kouyunjik, a little Northeast of the village of ‛Amusiyeh, and Nebi-Yunas, about 1,500 yards to the Southeast. Both of these lie just within the Southwest wall. Extensive remains of buildings occupy the fortified area. Numerous openings occur in the walls, many of them ancient, though some seem to have been made after the abandonment of the site. The principal gate on the Northwest was guarded by winged bulls (see Layard, Monuments of Nineveh, 2nd series, plural 3; Nineveh and Babylon, 120). Other gates gave access to the various commercial roads of the country, those on the East passing through the curved outworks and the double line of fortifications which protected the northeastern wall from attack on that side, where the Ninevites evidently considered that they had most to fear.

3. Extent and Population Within the Walls:
According to G. Smith, the circuit of the inner wall is about 8 miles, and Captain Jones, who made a trigonometrical survey in 1854, estimated that, allotting to each inhabitant 50 square yards, the city may have contained 174,000 inhabitants. If the statement in Jon_4:11, that the city contained 120,000 persons who could not discern between their right hand and their left, be intended to give the number of the city's children only, then the population must have numbered about 600,000, and more than three cities of the same extent would have been needed to contain them.

4. Extent Outside the Walls:
It has therefore been supposed - and that with great probability - that there was a large extension of the city outside its walls. This is not only indicated by Jon_3:3, where it is described as ?an exceeding great city of three days' journey? to traverse, but also by the extant ruins, which stretch Southeast along the banks of the Tigris as far as Nimroud (Calah) while its northern extension may have been regarded as including Khorsabad.

5. Calah, Resen and Rehoboth-Ir:
Concerning the positions of two of the cities mentioned with Nineveh, namely, Calah and Resen, there can be no doubt, notwithstanding that Resen has not yet been identified - Calah is the modern Nimroud, and Resen lay between that site and Nineveh.
The name Rehoboth-Ir has not yet been found in the inscriptions, but Fried. Delitzsch has suggested that it may be the rêbit Ninua of the inscriptions, Northeast of Nineveh. If this be the case, the Nineveh of Jonah contained within it all the places in Gen_10:11, Gen_10:12, and Khorsabad besides.

6. Khorsabad:
Taking the outlying ruins from North to South, we begin with Khorsabad (Dûr-Šarru-kı̂n or Dûr-Šargina), 12 miles Northeast of Kouyunjik, the great palace mound of Nineveh proper. Khorsabad is a great enclosure about 2,000 yards square, with the remains of towers and gateways. The palace mound lies on its northwest face, and consists of an extensive platform with the remains of Sargon's palace and its temple, with a ziqqurat or temple-tower similar to those at Babylon, Borsippa, Calah and elsewhere. This last still shows traces of the tints symbolical of the 7 planets of which its stages were, seemingly, emblematic. The palace ruins show numerous halls, rooms and passages, many of which were faced with slabs of coarse alabaster, sculptured in relief with military operations, hunting-scenes, mythological figures, etc., while the principal entrances were flanked with the finest winged human-headed bulls which Assyrian art has so far revealed. The palace was built about 712 BC, and was probably destroyed by fire when Nineveh fell in 606 BC, sharing the same fate. Some of the slabs and winged bulls are in the Louvre and the British Museum, but most of the antiquarian spoils were lost in the Tigris by the sinking of the rafts upon which they were loaded after being discovered.

7. Sherif Khan and Selamieh:
Another outlying suburb was probably Tarbicu, now represented by the ruins at Sherif Khan, about 3 miles North of Kouyunjik. In this lay a temple - ?palace? Sennacherib calls it - dedicated to Nergal. In ancient times it must have been a place of some importance, as Esarhaddon seems to have built a palace there, as well as a ?seat? for his eldest son, Assur-bani-apli. The site of Resen, ?between Nineveh and Calah,? is thought to be the modern Selamı̂eh, 12 miles South of Nineveh, and 3 miles North of Nimroud (Calah). It is in the form of an irregular enclosure on a high mound overlooking the Tigris, with a surface of about 400 acres. No remains of buildings, sculptures or inscriptions have, however, been found there.

8. Nimroud:
After Nineveh. itself (Kouyunjik), the ruins known as Nimroud, 14 or 15 miles Southeast, are the most important. They mark the site of the ancient Calah, and have already been described under that heading (see p. 539). As there stated, the stone-faced temple-tower seems to be referred to by Ovid, and is apparently also mentioned by Xenophon (see RESEN). The general tendency of the accumulated references to these sites supports theory that they were regarded as belonging to Nineveh, if not by the Assyrians themselves (who knew well the various municipal districts), at least by the foreigners who had either visited the city or had heard or read descriptions of it.

III. Palaces at Nineveh Proper.
The palaces at Nineveh were built upon extensive artificial platforms between 30 and 50 ft. high, either of sundried brick, as at Nimroud, or of earth and rubbish, as at Kouyunjik. It is thought that they were faced with masonry, and that access was gained to them by means of flights of deep steps, or sloping pathways. Naturally it is the plan of the basement floor alone that can at present be traced, any upper stories that may have existed having long since disappeared. The halls and rooms discovered were faced with slabs of alabaster or other stone, often sculptured with bas-reliefs depicting warlike expeditions, the chase, religious ceremonies and divine figures. The depth of the accumulations over these varies from a few inches to about 30 ft., and if the amount in some cases would seem to be excessive, it is thought that this may have been due either to the existence of upper chambers, or to the extra height of the room. The chambers, which are grouped around courtyards, are long and narrow, with small square rooms at the ends. The partition walls vary from 6 to 15 ft. in thickness, and are of sun-dried brick, against which the stone paneling was fixed. As in the case of the Babylonian temples and palaces, the rooms and halls open into each other, so that, to gain access to those farthest from the courtyard entrance, one or more halls or chambers had to be traversed. No traces of windows have been discovered, and little can therefore be said as to the method of lighting, but the windows were either high up, or light was admitted through openings in the roof.

1. The Palace of Sennacherib:
The palace of Sennacherib lay in the southeast corner of the platform, and consisted of a courtyard surrounded on all four sides by numerous long halls, and rooms, of which the innermost were capable of being rendered private. It was in this palace that were found the reliefs depicting the siege of Lachish, with the representation of Sennacherib seated on his ?standing? throne, while the captives and the spoil of the city passed before him. The grand entrance was flanked by winged bulls facing toward the spectator as he entered. They were in couples, back to back, on each side of the doorway, and between each pair the ancient Babylonian hero-giant, carrying in one hand the ?boomerang,? and holding tightly with his left arm a struggling lion (Layard, Nineveh and Babylon, 137) was represented, just as at his father Sargon's palace at Khorsabad. The upper part of these imposing figures had been destroyed, but they were so massive, that the distinguished explorer attributed their overthrow not to the act of man, but to some convulsion of Nature.

2. The Palace of Assur-Bani-Apli:
In the north of the mound are the ruins of the palace of Aššur-banı̂-âpli or Assur-bani-pal, discovered by Hormuzd Rassam. His latest plan (Asshur and the Land of Nimrod, Cincinnati and New York, 1897, plate facing p. 36) does not give the whole of the structure, much of the building having been destroyed; but the general arrangement of the rooms was upon the traditional lines. The slabs with which they were paneled showed bas-reliefs illustrating the Assyrian campaigns against Babylonia, certain Arab tribes, and Elam. As far as they are preserved, the sculptures are wonderfully good, and the whole decorative scheme of the paneled walls, of which, probably, the greater part is forever lost, may be characterized, notwithstanding their defects of perspective and their mannerisms, as nothing less than magnificent. The lion-hunts of the great king, despite the curious treatment of the animals' manes (due to the sculptors' ignorance of the right way to represent hair) are admirable. It would be difficult to improve upon the expressions of fear, rage and suffering on the part of the animals there delineated. The small sculptures showing Aššur-banı̂-âpli hunting the goat and the wild ass are not less noteworthy, and are executed with great delicacy.

IV. Sennacherib's Description of Nineveh.
1. The Walls:
In all probability the best description of the city is that given by Sennacherib on the cylinder recording his expedition to Tarsus in Cilicia. From ancient times, he says, the circuit of the city had measured 9,300 cubits, and he makes the rather surprising statement that his predecessors had not built either the inner or the outer wall, which, if true, shows how confident they were of their security from attack. He claims to have enlarged the city by 12, 515 (cubits). The great defensive wall which he built was called by the Sumerian name of Bad-imgallabi-lu-šušu, which he translates as ?the wall whose glory overthrows the enemy.? He made the brickwork 40 (cubits) thick, which would probably not greatly exceed the estimate of G. Smith, who reckoned it to have measured about 50 ft. The height of the wall he raised to 180 tipki, which, admitting the estimate of Diodorus, should amount to about 100 ft.

2. The Gates - Northwest:
In this enclosing wall were 15 gates, which he enumerates in full. Three of these were situated in the short northwest wall - the gate of Hadad; the gate of Uru or Hadad of Tarbisu (Sherif Khan), and the gate of the moon-god Nannar, Sennacherib's own deity. The plans show five openings in the wall on this side, any of which may have been the gate used when going to Tarbicu, but that adorned with winged bulls probably furnished the shortest route.

3. The Gates - South and East:
The gates looking toward the South and the East were the Aššur-gate (leading to the old capital); Sennacherib's H̬alzi-gate; the gate of Samaš of Gagal, the gate of the god Enlil of Kar-Ninlil, and the ?covered gate,? which seems to have had the reputation of letting forth the fever-demon. After this are mentioned the Sibaniba-gate, and the gate of Halah in Mesopotamia. This last must have been the extreme northeastern opening, now communicating with the road to Khorsabad, implying that Halah lay in that direction.

4. The Gates - West:
The gates on the west or river-side of the city were ?the gate of Ea, director of my watersprings?; the quay-gate, ?bringer of the tribute of my peoples?; the gate of the land of Bari, within which the presents of the Sumilites entered (brought down by the Tigris from Babylonia, in all probability); the gate of the tribute-palace or armory; and the gate of the god Sar-ur - ?altogether 5 gates in the direction of the West.? There are about 9 wide openings in the wall on this side, 2 being on each side of the Kouyunjik mound, and 2 on each side of that called Nebi-Yunus. As openings at these points would have endangered the city's safety, these 4 have probably to be eliminated, leaving 2 only North of Nebi-Yunus, 2 between that and Kouyunjik, and one North of Kouyunjik. Minor means of exit probably existed at all points where they were regarded as needful.

5. The Outer Wall: The Plantations:
To the outer wall of the city Sennacherib gave a Sumerian name meaning, ?the wall which terrifies the enemy.? At a depth of 54 gar, the underground water-level, its foundations were laid upon blocks of stone, the object of this great depth being to frustrate undermining. The wall was made ?high like a mountain.? Above and below the city he laid out plantations, wherein all the sweet-smelling herbs of Heth (Palestine and Phoenicia) grew, fruitful beyond those of their homeland. Among them were to be found every kind of mountain-vine, and the plants of all the nations around.

6. The Water-Supply, Etc.:
In connection with this, in all probability, he arranged the water-supply, conducting a distant water-course to Nineveh by means of conduits. Being a successful venture, he seems to have watered therewith all the people's orchards, and in winter 1,000 corn fields above and below the city. The force of the increased current in the river Khosr was retarded by the creation of a swamp, and among the reeds which grew there were placed wild fowl, wild swine, and deer(?). Here he repeated his exotic plantations, including trees for wood, cotton (apparently) and seemingly the olive.

7. How the Bas-Reliefs Illustrate the King's Description:
Sennacherib's bas-reliefs show some of the phases of the work which his cylinder inscriptions describe. We see the winged bulls, which are of colossal dimensions, sometimes lying on their sledges (shaped like boats or Assyrian ships), and sometimes standing and supported by scaffolding. The sledges rest upon rollers, and are dragged by armies of captives urged to action by taskmasters with whips. Others force the sledges forward from behind by means of enormous levers whose upper ends are held in position by guy-ropes. Each side has to pull with equal force, for if the higher end of the great lever fell, the side which had pulled too hard suffered in killed and crushed, or at least in bruised, workmen of their number. In the background are the soldiers of the guard, and behind them extensive wooded hills. In other bas-reliefs it is apparently the pleasure grounds of the palace which are seen. In these the background is an avenue of trees, alternately tall and short, on the banks of a river, whereon are boats, and men riding astride inflated skins, which were much used in those days, as now. On another slab, the great king himself, in his hand-chariot drawn by eunuchs, superintends the work.

8. Nineveh the Later Capital:
How long Nineveh had been the capital of Assyria is unknown. The original capital was Aššur, about 50 miles to the South, and probably this continued to be regarded as the religious and official capital of the country. Aššur -naṣir-âpli seems to have had a greater liking for Calah (Nimroud), and Sargon for Khorsabad, where he had founded a splendid palace. These latter, however, probably never had the importance of Nineveh, and attained their position merely on account of the reigning king building a palace and residing there. The period of Nineveh's supremacy seems to have been from the beginning of the reign of Sennacherib to the end of that of Aššur -banı̂-âpli, including, probably, the reigns of his successors likewise - a period of about 98 years (704-606 BC).

V. Last Days and Fall of Nineveh.
Nineveh, during the centuries of her existence, must have seen many stirring historical events; but the most noteworthy were probably Sennacherib's triumphal entries, including that following the capture of Lachish, the murder of that great conqueror by his sons (the recent theory that he was killed at Babylon needs confirmation); and the ceremonial triumphs of Aššur -banı̂-âpli - the great and noble Osnappar (Ezr_4:10). After the reign of Aššur -banı̂-âpli came his son Aššur-êtil-ı̂lāni, who was succeeded by Sin-šarra-iškun (Saracos), but the history of the country, and also of the city, is practically non-existent during these last two reigns. The Assyrian and Babylonian records are silent with regard to the fall of the city, but Alexander Polyhistor, Abydenus and Syncellus all speak of it. The best account, however, is that of Diodorus Siculus, who refers to a legend that the city could not be taken until the river became its enemy. Arbaces, the Scythian, besieged it, but could not make any impression on it for 2 years. In the 3rd year, however, the river (according to Commander Jones, not the Tigris, but the Khosr), being swollen by rains, and very rapid in its current, carried away a portion of the wall, and by this opening the besiegers gained an entrance. The king, recognizing in this the fulfillment of the oracle, gathered together his concubines and eunuchs, and, mounting a funeral pyre which he had caused to be constructed, perished in the flames. This catastrophe is supposed to be referred to in Nah_1:8 : ?With an over-running flood he (the Lord) will make a full end of her place (i.e. of Nineveh),? and Nah_2:6 : ?The gates of the rivers are opened, and the palace is dissolved.? The destruction of the city by fire is probably referred to in Nah_3:13, Nah_3:15. The picture of the scenes in her streets - the noise of the whip, the rattling wheels, the prancing horses, the bounding chariots (Nah_3:2 ff), followed by a vivid description of the carnage of the battlefield - is exceedingly striking, and true to their records and their sculptures.

Literature.
The standard books on the discovery and exploration of Nineveh are Layard, Nineveh and Its Remains (two volumes, 1849); Nineveh and Babylon (1853); Monuments of Nineveh, 1st and 2nd series (plates) (1849 and 1853); and Hormuzd Hassam, Asshur and the Land of Nimrod (Cincinnati and New York, 1897).

International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
PRINTER 1915.

Fig. 280?Nineveh
Nin?eveh, meaning the dwelling of Ninus; a famous city of the ancient world, capital of the great Assyrian Empire, which stood on the eastern bank of the river Tigris, opposite to the present Mosul; its actual site being most probably the same with that of Nunia and the tomb of Jonah, about three-fourths of a mile from the river, in the midst of ruins, N. lat. 36? 20′ 17″; E. long. 43? 10′ 17″. The Bible makes the city a sort of colony from Babylon or Babel, Shinar [see BABEL], stating (Gen_10:11), 'out of that land (Babel, etc. in the land of Shinar) went forth Asshur and builded Nineveh.' After this simple statement the sacred record is for a long time entirely silent respecting Nineveh, which, we may therefore presume, remained inconsiderable for many generations. At length, some fifteen hundred years after the first mention of the place, in the days of Jeroboam II., king of Israel (B.C. 825), Nineveh again enters by name on the Biblical record, having meanwhile grown into a mighty power. This reappearance of Nineveh is accidental, and shows that the Bible does not profess to give any orderly and systematic history of the world. Other countries come on the scene and disappear, just as the course of events in the kingdoms of Judah and Israel seems to require or may chance to occasion. Nineveh is described in the book of Jonah as 'that great city,' 'an exceeding great city of three days' journey,' probably in a straight line through the place, as the large cities of Asia stood on a great extent of country, having gardens, and even fields, in the midst of them; and Jonah is said to enter into the city a day's journey' (Jon_3:4) before he began to foretell its overthrow; that is, as is most likely, he penetrated into the heart of the place, as being that which was most suitable for delivering his burden. The magnitude of the place may also be gathered from what is said in the last verse of the book: 'That great city wherein are more than six score thousand persons that cannot discern between their right hand and their left hand, and also much cattle (grazing).' The population of a place must have been immense in which there were no fewer than 120,000 children?young children the language employed seems to denote. It also appears from the same book that the state of society was highly complex, organized in divers ranks from the king and the noble to the peasant; and, if we may argue from the exactness with which the number of children is given, we should be justified in asserting that the people were in an advanced stage of civilization, seeing that their social statistics were well attended to and carefully preserved. Civilization, however, had brought luxury, and luxury corruption of morals, for 'their wickedness had gone up before God' (Jon_1:2). Yet was not their iniquity of the lowest kind, for the Ninevites repented at the preaching of Jonah.
A few years later we find the prophet Nahum entrusted with 'the burden of Nineveh.' From this book it would appear that the repentance of the city, if sincere, was not durable. Therefore was the anger of Jehovah about to fall upon it and make it a perpetual waste. The impending destruction of this 'great city' was also foretold by Zephaniah (Zep_2:13), and by Isaiah (Isa_14:24) in language which gives a striking view of its commercial greatness (it was the entrep?t for the trade of Eastern and Western Asia), its surpassing-opulence, its high culture, its immense population, and deep criminality (see Nahum 3, and Ezekiel 31). From Strabo we learn that the place was much greater than even Babylon; and from Diodorus Siculus, that it measured 480 stadia in circumference, having very high and broad walls, which, aided by the river, rendered it impregnable. This safety was, however merely imaginary. Sardanapalus, who had a full share of the vices of his subjects, endured in the eighth century before Christ a siege of three years' duration at the hands of the Medes, under Arbaces, which led to the overthrow of the city (Diod. Sic. ii. 26). But so large and so powerful a capital was not easily destroyed. Nineveh was the seat of an Assyrian kingdom till the year B.C. 625, when it was taken by Nabopolassar of Babylon, and Cyaxares, king of the Medes, which led to the destruction of the Assyrian kingdom. Nineveh flourished no more. Strabo represents it as lying waste; though in the times of the Roman emperors some remains of it seem to have survived, as a Nineveh on the Tigris is mentioned in Tacitus, and is characterized as a fort, probably some small fortification raised out of the ruins of the city for predatory purposes.
The present remains comprise a rampart and fosse, four miles in circuit, with a moss-covered wall about twenty feet in height. The ruins at first sight present a range of hills. From these hills large stones are constantly dug out, from which probably a bridge over the Tigris has been built.
Jonah's connection with the city is still preserved in a tomb which bears his name; but how far back in antiquity this building runs, it is now impossible to say. The tomb stands on a hill, and is covered by a mosque which is held in great veneration. Bricks, partly whole, partly in fragments, and pieces of gypsum with inscriptions in the arrow-head character, are found from time to time. Landseer, in his Sab?an Researches, gives an engraving of cylinders dug up at Nineveh, which he states to be numerous in the East, and supposes to have been employed as signets: they are of jasper, chalcedony, and jade, and bear astronomical emblems, the graving of which, especially considering the hardness of the materials, shows a high state of art.
Mosul, with which Nineveh is commonly identified, stands on the opposite, or western, bank of the Tigris, and lies so near the river that its streets are often flooded. This place, like its great prototype, carries on a trade (though to a small extent) between the East and the West. The climate is stated to be very healthy: the average temperature of summer not exceeding 66˚ F.; but in spring, during the floods, epidemics are common, though not fatal.

The Popular Cyclopedia of Biblical Literature
by John Kitto.

Nineveh
(Heb. Nineveh', נַינְוֵה:); Sept. Νινευή or Νινευῆ, v. r. Νινευϊv; Vulg. Ninive), the capital of the ancient kingdom and empire of Assyria; a city of great power, size, and renown, usually included among the most ancient cities of the world of which there is any historic record. In the following account we bring together the ancient and the modern notices, especially the Scripture relations.
I. Name. This, if Shemitic, signifies dwelling of Ninus; but it is probably of foreign etymology. In cuneiform (q.v.) it is written or Josephus Graecizes it Νενεύη, (Ant. 9:10, 2), Ptolemy Νῖνος ἡ καὶ Νινευϊv (8:21, § 3), Herodotus ἡ Νίνος or Νῖνος (1:193; 2:150); while the Romans wrote it Ninus (Tacit. Ann. 12:13) or Nineve (Amm. Marcianus, 18:7). The name appears to be derived from that of an Assyrian deity, Nin, corresponding, it is conjectured, with the Greek Hercules, and occurring in the names of several Assyrian kings, as in Ninus, the mythic founder, according to Greek tradition, of. the city. In the Assyrian inscriptions Nineveh is also supposed to be called the city of Bel. Fletcher, rather fancifully, taking Nin as meaning a floating substance or fish, and neveh a resting-place, supposes the city to have been built nigh to the spot where the ark of Noah rested, and in memory of the deliverance provided by that wondrous vessel (Notes from Nineveh, 2:90). The connection of the name of.the city with Ninus, its mythical founder, is not opposed to the statement in Gen_10:11; for the city might be named, not from Nimrod, its originator, but from a successor who gave it conquest and renown. In the Assyrian mythology Ninus is the son of Nimrod.
II. History.
1. From Biblical and Later Accounts. The first reference to Nineveh in Scripture is in Gen_10:11, Out of that land went forth Asshur and builded Nineveh, as it is rendered in our version. The other and better version is, Out of that land (the land of Shinar) went he (Nimrod) to Assyria, and builded Nineveh, and Rehoboth, and Calah, and Resen between Nineveh and Calah; the same is a great city. The translation which we have adopted is that of the Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan, and is defended by Hyde, Bochart, Le Clerc, Tuch, Baumgarten, Keil, Delitzsch, Knobel, Kalisch, and Murphy. The other exegesis, which makes Asshur the subject of the verb, has support from the Septuagint, the Syrian version, and the Vulgate, and has been adopted by Luther, Calvin, Grotius. Michaelis, Schumann, Von Bohlen, Pye Smith, and is apparently preferred by Rawlinson. The arguments in its favor are not strong; yet it contains or implies the reason why the country was named Assyria after its first settler. It is also a plausible theory of Jacob Bryant, that Nimrod by his conquests forced Asshur to leave the territory of Shinar, so that, thus expelled and overpowered by the mighty hunter, he went out of that land and built Nineveh (Ancient Mythology, 6:192). Hence Assyria was subsequently known to the Jews as the land of, Nimrod (comp. Mic_5:6), and was believed to have been first peopled by a colony from Babylon.
The kingdom of Assyria and of the Assyrians is referred to in the O.T. as connected with the Jews at a very early period; as in Num_24:22; Num_24:24, and Psa_83:8 : but after the notice of the foundation of Nineveh in Genesis no further mention is made of the city until the time of the book of Jonah, or the 8th century B.C., supposing we accept the earliest date for that narrative, SEE JONAH, BOOK OF, which, however, according to some critics, must be brought down 300 years later, or to the 5th century B.C. In this book neither Assyria nor the Assyrians are mentioned, the king to whom the prophet .was sent being termed the king of Nineveh. Assyria is first called a kingdom ill the time of Menahem, about B.C. 770. Nahum (? B.C. 645) directs his prophecies against Nineveh; only once against the king of Assyria (Nah_3:18). In 2 Kings (2Ki_19:36) was Isaiah (Isa_37:37) the city is first distinctly mentioned as the residence of the monarch. Sennacherib was slain there when worshipping in the temple of Nisroch his god. In 2 Chronicles, (2Ch_32:21), where the same event is described, the name of the place where it occurred is omitted. Zephaniah, about B.C. 630, couples the capital and the kingdom together (Zep_2:13); and this is the last mention of Nineveh as an existing city. He probably lived to witness its destruction, an event impending at the time of his prophecies. Although Assyria and the Assyrians are alluded to by Ezekiel and Jeremiah, by the former as a nation in whose miserable ruin prophecy had been fulfilled (ch. 31), yet they do not refer by name to the capital. Jeremiah, when enumerating all the kingdoms of the world which are upon the face of the earth (ch. 25), omits all mention of the nation and the city. Habakkuk only speaks of the Chaldaeans, which may lead to the inference that the date of his prophecies is somewhat later than that usually assigned to them. SEE HABAKKUK, BOOK OF.
The fall of Nineveh, like its rise and history, is very much enveloped in obscurity. But the account of Ctesias, preserved in Diodorus Siculus (2:27, 28), has been thought to be substantially correct. It may, however, be observed that Mr. Rawlinson, in his latest work (The Ancient Monarchies, 1:52i), says that it seems undeserving of a place in history. According to that account, Cyaxares, the Median monarch, aided by the Babylonians, under Nabopolassar, laid siege to the city. His first efforts were in vain. He was more than once repulsed and obliged to take refuge in the mountains of the Zagros range; but, receiving reinforcements, he succeeded in routing the Assyrian army, and driving them to shut themselves up within the walls. He then attempted to reduce the city by blockade, but was unsuccessful for two years, till his efforts were unexpectedly assisted by an extraordinary rise of the Tigris, which swept away a part of the walls, and rendered it possible for the Medes to enter. The Assyrian monarch, Saracus, in despair, burned himself in his palace. With the ruthless barbarity of the times, the conquerors gave the whole city over to the flames, and razed its former magnificence to the ground. The cities dependent on Nineveh, and in its neighborhood, appear to have incurred a like fate, and the excavations show that the principal agent in their destruction was fire. Calcined sculptured alabaster, charcoal and charred wood buried in masses of brick and earth, slabs and statues split with heat, were objects continually encountered by Mr. Layard and his fellow-laborers at Khorsabad, Nimrud, and Kuyunjik.
From a comparison of these data, it has generally been assumed that the destruction of Nineveh and the extinction of the empire took place between the time of Zephaniah and that of Ezekiel and Jeremiah. The exact period of these events has consequently been fixed, with a certain amount of concurrent evidence derived from classical history, at B.C. 606 (Clinton, Fasti Hellen. 1:269). It has been shown that it may have occurred twenty years earlier. SEE ASSYRIA.
The city was then laid waste, its monuments destroyed, and its inhabitants scattered or carried away into captivity. It never rose again from its ruins. This total disappearance of Nineveh is fully confirmed by the records of profane history. There is no mention of it in the Persian cuneiform inscriptions of the Achaemenid dynasty. Herodotus (1:193) speaks of the Tigris as the river upon which the town of Nineveh formerly stood. He must have passed, in his journey to Babylon, very near the site of the city perhaps actually over it. So accurate a recorder of what he saw would scarcely have omitted to mention, if not to describe, any ruins of importance that might have existed there. Not two centuries had then elapsed since the fall of the city. Equally conclusive proof of its condition is afforded by Xenophon, who with the ten thousand Greeks encamped during his retreat on, or very near, its site (B.C. 401). The very name had then been forgotten, or at least he does not appear to have been acquainted with it, for he calls one group of ruins Larissa, and merely states that a second group was near the deserted town of Mespila (Anab. iii, iv, § 7). The ruins, as he describes them, correspond in many respects with those which exist at the present day, except that he assigns to the walls near Mespila a circuit of six parasangs, or nearly three times their actual dimensions. Ctesias placed the city on the Euphrates (Frag. 1:2), a proof either of his ignorance or of the entire disappearance of the place. He appears to have led Diodorus Siculus into the same error (2:27, 28). The historians of Alexander, with the exception of Arrian (Ind. 42, 3), do not even allude to the city, over the ruins of which the conqueror must have actually marched. His great victory of Arbela was won almost in sight of them. It is evident that the later Greek and Roman writers, such as Strabo, Ptolemy, and Pliny, could only have derived any independent knowledge they possessed of Nineveh from traditions of no authority. They concur, however, in placing it on the eastern bank of the Tigris.
During the Roman period, a small castle or fortified town appears to have stood on some part of the site of the ancient city. It was probably built by the Persians (Amm. Marceli. 23:22); and subsequently occupied by the Romans, and erected by the emperor Claudius into a colony. It appears to have borne the ancient traditional name of Nineve, as well as its corrupted form of Ninos and Ninus, and also at one time that of Hierapolis. Tacitus (Anan. 12:13), mentioning its capture by Meherdates, calls it Ninos; on coins of Trajan it is Ninus, on those of Maximinus Niniva, in both instances the epithet Claudiopolis being added. Many Roman remains, such as sepulchral vases, bronze and other ornaments, sculptured figures in marble, terra-cottas, and coins, have been discovered in the rubbish covering the Assyrian ruins; besides wells and tombs, constructed long after the destruction of the Assyrian edifices. The Roman settlement appears to have been in its turn abandoned, for there is no mention of it when Heraclius gained the great victory over the Persians in the battle of Nineveh, fought on the very site of the ancient city, A.D. 627. After the Arab conquest, a fort on the east bank of the Tigris bore the name of Ninawi (Rawlinson, Assoc. Journal, 12:418). Benjamin of Tudela, in the. 12th century, mentions the site of Nineveh as occupied by numerous inhabited villages and small townships (ed. Asher, 1:91). The name remained attached to the ruins during the Middle Ages; and from them a bishop of the Chaldaean Church derived his title (Assemani, 4:459); but it is doubtful whether any town or fort was so called. Early English travelers merely allude to the site (Purchas, 2:1387). Niebuhr is the first modern traveler who speaks of Nuniyah as a village standing on one of the ruins which he describes as a considerable hill (2:353). This may be a corruption of Nebbi Yunus, the Prophet Jonah, a name still given to a village containing his apocryphal tomb. Mr. Rich, who surveyed the site in 1820, does not mention Nuniyah, and no such place now exists. Tribes of Turcomans and sedentary Arabs, and Chaldaean and Syrian Christians, dwell in small mudbuilt villages, and cultivate the soil in the country around the ruins; and occasionally a tribe of wandering Kurds, or of Bedouins driven by hunger from the desert, will pitch their tents among them. After the Arab conquest of the west of Asia, Mosul, at one time the flourishing capital of an independent kingdom, rose on the opposite or western bank of the Tigris. Some similarity in the names has suggested its identification with the Mespila of Xenophon; but its first actual mention only occurs after the Arab conquest (A.H. 16, or A.D. 637). It was sometimes known as Athur, and was united with Nineveh as an episcopal see of the Chaldaean Church (Assemani, 3:269). It has lost all its ancient prosperity, and the greater part of the town is now in ruins.
Traditions of the unrivaled size and magnificence of Nineveh were equally familiar to the Greek and Roman writers, and to the Arab geographers. But the city had fallen so completely into decay before the period of authentic history that new description of it, or even of any of its monuments, is to be found in any ancient author of trust. Diodorus Siculus asserts (2:3) that the city formed a quadrangle of 150 stadia by 90, or altogether of 480 stadia (no less than 60 miles), and was surrounded by walls 100 feet high, broad enough for three chariots to drive abreast upon them, and defended by 1500 towers, each 200 feet in height. According. to Strabo (16:737) it was larger than Babylon, which was 385 stadia in circuit. In the O.T. we find only vague allusions to the splendor and wealth of the city, and the very indefinite statement in the book of Jonah that it was an exceeding great city, or a great city to God, or for God (i.e. in the sight of God), of three days' journey; and that it contained six score thousand persons who could not discern between their right hand and their left hand, and also much cattle (4:11). It is obvious that the accounts of Diodorus are for the most part absurd exaggerations, founded upon fabulous traditions, for which existing remains afford no warrant. It may, however, be remarked that the dimensions he assigns to the area of the city would correspond to the three days' journey of Jonah the Jewish day's journey being 20 miles if that expression be applied to the circuit of the walls. Persons not discerning between their right hand and their left may either allude to children or to the ignorance of the whole population. If the first be intended, the number of inhabitants, according to the usual calculation, would have amounted to about 600,000. But such expressions are probably mere Eastern figures of speech to denote vastness, and far too vague to admit of exact interpretation.
The political history of Nineveh is that of Assyria (q.v.). It has been observed that the territory included within the boundaries of the kingdom of Assyria proper was comparatively limited in extent, and that almost within the immediate neighborhood of the capital petty kings appear to have ruled over semi-independent states, owning allegiance and paying tribute to the great lord of the empire, the King of Kings, according to his Oriental title, who dwelt at Nineveh. (Comp. Isa_10:8 : Are not my princes altogether kings?) These petty kings were in a. constant state of rebellion, which usually showed itself by their refusal to pay the apportioned tribute -the principal link between the sovereign and the dependent states-and repeated expeditions were undertaken against them to enforce this act of obedience. (Comp. 2Ki_16:7; 2Ki_17:4, where it is stated that the war made by the Assyrians upon the Jews was for the purpose of enforcing the payment of tribute.) There was, consequently, no bond of sympathy arising out of common interests between the various populations which made up the empire. Its political condition was essentially weak. When an independent monarch was sufficiently powerful to carry on a successful war against the great king, or a dependent prince sufficiently strong to throw off his allegiance, the empire soon came to an end. The fall of the capital was the signal for universal disruption. Each petty state asserted its independence, until reconquered by some warlike chief who could found a new dynasty and a new empire to replace those which had fallen. Thus on the borders of the great rivers of Mesopotamia arose in turn the first Babylonian, the Assyrian, the Median, the second Babylonian, the Persian, and the Seleucid empires. The capital was, however, invariably changed, and generally transferred to the principal seat of the conquering race. In the East men have rarely rebuilt great cities which have once fallen into decay never perhaps on exactly the same site. If the position of the old capital was deemed, from political or commercial reasons, more advantageous than any other, the population was settled in its neighborhood, as at Delhi, and not amid its ruins. But Nineveh, having fallen with the empire, never rose again. It was abandoned at once, and suffered to perish utterly. It is probable that, in conformity with an Eastern custom, of which we find such remarkable illustrations in the history of the Jews, the entire population was removed by the conquerors, and settled as colonists in some distant province.
2. Monumental Records. From the annals of Tiglath-Pileser I we learn that a temple had been founded at Asshur, or Kalah Sherghat, as early as the nineteenth century B.C., by Shamasiva, a son of Ismi-dagon, who was one of the early kings in the series answering to the great Chaldaean dynasty of Berosus, and from this circumstance may be inferred to have ruled over Assyria. In fact, as long as this dynasty lasted, Assyria probably occupied the position of an unimportant dependency of Babylonia, not being mentioned in one single, legend, and not furnishing the Chaldaean monarchs with one of their royal titles. At what period Assyria was enabled to achieve her independence, or under what circumstances she achieved it, we have no means of knowing, but the date at which, for several reasons, we may suppose it to have been accomplished is approximately B.C. 1273. Probably an Arabian conquest of Babylonia, which caused the overthrow of this Chaldaean dynasty in the sixteenth century, furnished the Assyrians with an opportunity of shaking off the Babylonian yoke, but it was not till three centuries later that they appear to have gained a position of importance.
During the period of Assyrian subjection to Chaldaea, and long after she became an independent empire, the vice-regal, or the royal city, was probably Asshur, on the west bank of the Tigris, sixty miles south of Nineveh, the name of which is still preserved in the designation given by the Arabs to the neighboring district. It may perhaps be as well to observe that the four kings in Genesis 14, according to Josephus, were only commanders in the army of the Assyrian king, who had then, he says, dominion over Asia. But this is very improbable, and is really contradicted by recent discoveries, which show, at least negatively, that Assyria was not then an independent power. Sir H. Rawlinson thinks that he has found the name of a king (Kudur-Mapula or Kudur-Mabuk) stamped upon bricks in Babylonia which corresponds to that of Chedorlaomer, and supposes that this king was the Elamitic founder of the great Chaldaean empire of Berosus. Mr. Stuart Poole thinks it not improbable that the expedition of Chedorlaomer was directed against the power of the Egyptian kings of the fifteenth dynasty and their Phoenician allies or subjects. Josephus also calls Chushan Rishathaim who in Judges 3 is said to have been king of Mesopotamia king of the Assyrians; but this again demands an earlier rise of the Assyrian power than the monuments warrant us in assuming. The first known king of Assyria is Bel-lush or Belukh, who, with three others in succession, viz. Pudil, Iva-lush, Shalmabar or Shalmarish, is reputed to have reigned shortly after its dependence on Babylon had been shaken off. The period from 1273 to 1200 may be assigned to the reign of these kings. They have left no other record but their names upon bricks, etc., which are found only at Kalah Sherghat; and the character in which these are inscribed is so ancient and so mixed with babylonian forms that they are assigned to this period, though the same effects might possibly have been produced at a later period of Babylonian ascendency. After these names, we are enabled to trace a continuous line of six hereditary monarchs, who, with the exception of the last, are enumerated on the oldest historic relic yet discovered in Assyria. This is the octagonal prism of Kalah Sherghalt, on which Tiglath-Pileser I records the events of the first five years of his reign, and traces back his pedigree to the fourth generation.
He calls himself the son of Asshur-rish-ili; the grandson of Mutaggil Nebu; the great grandson of Asshur-dapal-il, whose father was Nin-pala-kura, the supposed successor of Shalmabar or Shalmarish. Of his great-grandfather he relates that, sixty years previously, he had taken down the temple of Ann and Iva before alluded to, which had stood for 641 years, but was then in a ruined condition. His father seems to have been a great conqueror, and perhaps was the first to raise the character of the Assyrian arms, and to gain a foreign reputation. But whatever fame he acquired in this way was eclipsed by that of his son, who says that he won victories in Cappadocia, Syria, and in the Median and Armenian mountains. Particularly a people called Nairi, who probably dwelt at the north-west of Assyria proper, are conspicuous among his conquests. Now it so happens that the date of this king can be fixed in a remarkable way, by a rock inscription of Sennacherib at Bavian, which states that a Tiglath-Pileser occupied the throne of Assyria 418 years before the tenth year of his own reign, and as Sennacherib was reigning towards the end of the eighth, or the beginning of the seventh century, this would throw back the time of Tiglath-Pileser's reign to the latter part of the twelfth century B.C. We also learn from this same rock inscription that Tiglath-Pileser was himself defeated by Merodach-adan-akhi, the king of Babylon, who carried away with him images of certain Assyrian gods, showing that Babylon at this period was independent of Assyria, and a formidable rival to her power. Of Asshurbani-pal I, the son and successor of Tiglath-Pileser nothing is known. Only one record of him has been hitherto discovered, and this was found at Kuyunjik. This name was softened or corrupted by the Greeks into Sardanapalus. After this king a break occurs in the line of succession which cannot be supplied. It is thought, however, not to have been long, as Asshuradan-akhi is supposed to have begun to reign about 1050, and therefore to have been contemporary with David. This monarch, and the three kings who succeeded him, are obscure and unimportant, not being known for anything else than repairing and adding to the palaces at Kalah Sherghat. Their names are Asshur-danin-il, Iva-lush II, and Tiglathi-Nin.
With the last of these, however, Asshur ceased to be the royal residence. The seat of government was transferred by his son Asshur-bani-pal to Calah, now supposed to be represented by Nimrud, forty miles to the north, near the confluence of the upper Zab and the Tigris, and on the east bank of the latter river. The reason of this change is not known; but it is thought that it was connected with the extension of the empire in the direction of Armenia, which would therefore demand greater vigilance in that quarter. This king, Sardanapalus II, pushed his conquests to the shores of the Mediterranean, levied tribute of the kings of Tyre and Sidon, and therefore perhaps of Ethbaal, the father of Jezebel. He was also the founder of the north-west palace at Nimrod, which is second only to that of Sennacherib, at Kuyunjik, in magnificence and extent. The next monarch who sat on the Assyrian throne was Shalmanu-bar, the son of Sardanapalus. He reigned thirty-one years, spread his conquests farther than any of his predecessors, and recorded them on the black obelisk now in the British Museum. In his reign the power of the first Assyrian empire seems to have culminated. He carried his victorious army over all the neighboring countries, imposing tribute upon all Babylonia, Mesopotamia, Syria, Media, Armenia, and the scriptural kingdoms of Hamath and Damascus. The latter under Benhadad and Hazael are alike conspicuous among his vanquished enemies. But what is of paramount interest in the records of this king is the identification in the second epigraph in the above-named obelisk of the name of Jehu the king of Israel, who there appears as Yahua the son of Khumri, and is said to have given the Assyrian monarch tribute of gold and silver. This name was discovered independently, but almost on the self-same day, both by Dr. Hincks and colonel Rawlinson, the latter being at Bagdad and the former in the north of Ireland. It is supposed that Jehu is called the son of Khumri or Omri, either as being king of Samaria, the city which Omri built. or as claiming descent from the founder of that city to strengthen his right to the throne, and possibly even as being descended from him on the mother's side.
Shalmanu-bar was the founder of the central palace at Nimrud, and probably reigned from about 900 to 850 or 860. He was succeeded by his second son Shamasiva, his eldest having made a revolt during the lifetime of his father, which probably lost him the succession, and was with difficulty quelled by his younger brother. The annals of Shamas-iva extend only over a period of four years. At this time the history is enveloped in much obscurity; but it is probable that the reign of Shamas-iva-lasted much longer, as it is with his son and successor, Iva-lush III, that the first Assyrian dynasty comes to a close, and the reigns of these two princes are all we have to fill up the interval from 850 to 747, which is about the time it is supposed to have ended. Iva-lush is perhaps the Pul of Scripture. Among those from whom he received tribute are mentioned the people of Khinuri. i.e. Samaria; and Menahem gave Pul 1000 talents of silver to confirm the kingdom in his hand.
There is a statue of the god Neboin the British Museum which is dedicated by the artist to his lord Iva-lush and his lady Sammuramit. This personage is in all probability the Semiramis of the Greeks, and her age remarkably agrees with that which Herodotus assigns her. viz. five generations prior to Nitocris, who seems with him to represent Nebuchadnezzar. He also speaks of her as, a Babylonian princess; and since Iva-lush asserts that Asshur had granted him the kingdom of Babylon, he may very likely have acquired it in right of his wife, or reigned conjointly with her. But we cannot here replace conjecture by certainty. As we are altogether ignorant of the causes which terminated the first Assyrian dynasty or established the second, the interval between both may have been considerable, and may account for the difficulty above mentioned with respect to the period from the death of Shalmanu-bar and the end of the first empire. Tiglath-Pileser II, who founded the second empire, appears before us without father, without mother. Unlike the kings before him, he makes no parade of his ancestry in his inscriptions, from which circumstance we may fairly assume that he was a usurper. Much uncertainty has arisen about the date of his accession, because he states that he took tribute from Menahem in his eighth year, which would make it B.C. 667 or 768 (received chronology), whereas it is more likely that it was connected in some way with the change of events in Babylon that gave rise to the sera of Nabonassar, or 747. However, as the Sept. gives the reign of Manasseh thirty-five years instead of fifty-five, this diminution of twenty years would exactly rectify the discrepancy, or else it is possible that in the said inscription Menahem may be by mistake for Pekah, since he is joined with Rezin, whom Scripture always couples with Pekah.
The annals of Tiglath-Pileser II extend over a period of seventeen years, and record his wars against Mesopotamia, Armenia, and Medaa; he also invaded Babylon, took the city of Sepharvaim or Sippara, and slew Rezin, the king of Syria. It was this king whom Ahaz met at Damascus when he saw the altar of which he sent the pattern to Urijah the priest at Jerusalem. Of Shalmaneser, his probable successor, little is known but what has come down to us in the sacred narrative. His name has not been found on the monuments. Shalmaneser twice invaded Israel; upon the first occasion it seems that Hoshea the king bought him off by tribute, but subsequently revolted upon having made an alliance with Sabaco or So, king of Egypt. Upon this Shalmaneser again invaded Israel, and besieged Samaria for the space of three years. He is supposed to have died or to have been deposed before the city surrendered, and to have left the final subjugation of it to his successor. This was Sargon or Sargina, who came to the throne in B.C. 721, was the founder of a dynasty, and is therefore suspected of being a usurper. He reigned nineteen years after the captives of Samaria had been brought to Assyria; he made war against Babylon, and perhaps placed Merodach-Baladan upon the throne. After this he marched in the direction of southern Syria and Egypt. At this time the latter country was under the dominion of the twenty-fifth or Ethiopian dynasty, and would seem to have recently gained possession of the five Philistine cities, according to the prediction of Isa_19:18. It is remarkable that Sargon speaks of Gaza as belonging to Egypt, and its king is said to have been defeated at Raphia by the Assyrian monarch. Upon this the Egyptian Pharaoh paid Sargon tribute of gold, horses, camels, etc. Afterwards he made war in Hamath, Cappadocia, and Armenia, turning his arms also against Mount Zagros and the Medes, whose cities he colonized with his Israelitish captives. Later he made a second expedition into Syria, and took Ashdod by his Tattan, or general (Isa_20:1), the king of that place flying to Egypt, which is said to be under the dominion of Mirukha or Meroe. At this time, also, Tyre fell under his power. Subsequently he made a second war upon Babylonia, and drove Merodach-Baladan, who seems to have offended him, into banishment.
Finally, the Greeks of Cyprus, who are called the Yaha Nagd tribes of Yunau or lonia. are named among those who paid him tribute. He appears to have removed the seat of government from Calah to Khorsabad, called from him Dur-Sargina. At this time the influence of Egyptian taste is manifest in Assyrian works of art. Sargon was succeeded in the year B.C. 702 by his son Sennacherib. He fixed his government at Nineveh, which, being now greatly decayed, he completely restored, and there he built the magnificent structure discovered and excavated by Layard. In the repairs of the great palace alone he is said to have employed no less than 360,000 men among his captives from Chaldaea, Armenia, and elsewhere. Sennacherib immediately after his accession proceeded to Babylon, where Merodach-Baladan had contrived to place himself again upon the throne with the aid of the Susianians. He fought a bloody battle with him, in which the Babylonian was entirely defeated, and then appointed Belibus, or Elibus, viceroy of Babylon. In his second year he marched on the north and east of Assyria,- and penetrated to certain Median tribes whom he asserts to have been quite unknown to his predecessors. The Philistines also were subdued by him, and the kings of Egypt who fought with him near Lachish were worsted. Lachish and Libnah fell before his arms, and Hezekiah, at Jerusalem, had to purchase peace by a tribute of 300 talents of silver and 30 talents of gold (2 Kings 18:13, 14).
This, however, is not recorded in his annals, which extend only to his eighth year, and therefore may have occurred subsequently to the period at which they close. In the year 699 he again marched against Babylon, defeated the party of Merodach-Baladan, deposed the viceroy Belibus, whom he had himself appointed three years before, and placed his own eldest son, Asshur-nadin, upon the throne. We know that Sennacherib reigned twenty-two years, because we have his twenty-second year stamped on a clay tablet, but it is uncertain when his second expedition to Syria was undertaken; some, however, consider his two Syrian expeditions to have been identical. The object of the second was to recover the cities of Lachish and Libnah, which had again fallen .under the power of Egypt. While he was warring against Lachish he heard of the agreement that Hezekiah had entered into with the king of Egypt, and sent a detachment of his host against Jerusalem, under Rab-Saris and Rab-Shakeh. For some reason which we are not told, these generals found it expedient to retire from Jerusalem and join their master, who had raised the siege of Lachish, at Libnah. Meanwhile Tirhakah, the Ethiopian, perhaps not yet king of Egypt, advanced from the south to meet Sennhcherib, and reinforce the Egyptian party against whom he was contending; but before the decisive battle could he fought, the Angel of the Lord had smitten in the camp of the Assyrians 185,000 men. Sennacherib, with the rest of his army, fled in dismay, and the Egyptians perhaps commemorated his disaster in the manner related by Herodotus (2:141). It is not a matter of surprise that this event is unnoticed on the Assyrian monuments. In all probability the murder of Sennacherib by his sons did not immediately follow his defeat at Libnah, but this also we have no means of knowing from the Assyrian records. He was succeeded by one of his younger sons (not his eldest, who had been regent in Babylon, and was probably dead), Esarhaddon, or Asshur-akh-iddina. He was celebrated for his victories and his magnificent buildings. He carried on his father's war with Egypt, Which county, as well as Ethiopia, he seems to have subdued.
He is also thought to have reigned in his own person at Babylon, and perhaps to have held his court indifferently either at Nineveh or Babylon, which would account for Manasseh being carried by the captains of the king of Assyria to Babylon (2Ch_33:11); but in B.C 667, thirteen years after his accession, he was succeeded on the throne of Babylon by Saosduchinus, who was either a rebel or a viceroy appointed by Esarhaddon. About the year 660 his son Asshur-bani-pal, or Sardanapalus III, succeeded to the throne of Assyria, and with him began the fall of the empire. He may have reigned till 640; but he feebly imitated the conquests; of his predecessors, and appears to have contented himself with hunting. He was succeeded by his son Asshuremit-ili, the last king of whom any records have been discovered. Under him Assyria was hastening its downfall, and- Cyaxares, with his victorious Medes, was preparing for the final attack. If he was not the last king, he was the last but one, and the Saracus of Berosus, perhaps his brother, may have succeeded him, or else we must consider Saracus to be identical with Asshur-emitiii, who corresponded in fate with the warlike Sardanapalus of the Greeks.
III. Present Ruins. Previous to recent excavations and researches, the ruins which occupied the presumed site of Nineveh seemed to consist of mere shapeless heaps or mounds of earth and rubbish. Unlike the vast masses of brick masonry which mark the site of Babylon, they showed externally no signs of artificial construction, except perhaps here and there the traces of a rude wall of sun-dried bricks. Some of these mounds were of enormous dimensions, looking in the distance rather like natural elevations than the work of men's hands. Upon and around them, however, were scattered innumerable fragments of pottery-the unerring evidence of former habitations. Some had been chosen by the scattered population of the land as sites for villages, or for small mud-built forts, the mound itself affording means of refuge and defense against the marauding parties of Bedouins and Kurds which for generations have swept over the face of. the country. The summits of others were sown with corn or barley. During the spring months they were covered with grass and flowers, bred by the winter rains. The Arabs call these mounds Tell, the Turcomans and Turks Teppeh, both words being equally applied to natural hills and elevations, and the first having been used in the same double sense by the most ancient Shemitic races (comp. Hebrew תֵּל, a hill, a mound, a heap of rubbish [Eze_3:15; Ezr_2:59; Neh_7:61; 2Ki_19:12]).
They are found in vast numbers throughout the whole region watered by the Tigris and Euphrates and their confluents, from the Taurus to the Persian Gulf. They are seen, but are less numerous, in Syria, parts of Asia Minor, and in the plains of Armenia. Wherever they have been examined they appear to have furnished remains which identify the period of their construction with that of the alternate supremacy of the Assyrian, Babylonian, and Persian empires. They differ greatly in form, size, and height. Some are mere conical heaps, varying from fifty to one hundred and fifty feet high; others have a broad, flat summit, and very precipitous. cliff-like sides, furrowed by deep ravines worn by the winter rains. Such mounds are especially numerous in the region to the east of the Tigris, in which Nineveh stood, and some of them must mark the ruins of the Assyrian capital. There is no edifice mentioned by ancient authors as forming part of the city, which we are required, as in the case of Babylon, to identify with any existing remains, except the tomb, according to some, of Ninus, according to others, of Sardanapalus, which is recorded to have stood at the entrance of Nineveh (Diod. Sic. 2:7; Amynt. Frag. [ed.Muller], p. 36). The only difficulty is to determine which ruins are to be comprised within the actual limits of the ancient city.
1. The northern extremity of the principal collection of mounds on the eastern bank of the Tigris may be fixed at Sherif Khan, and the southern at Nimfid, about six and a half miles from the junction of that river with the great Zab, the ancient Lycus. Eastward they extend to Khorsabad, about ten miles north by east of Sherif Khan, and to Karamless, about fifteen miles north-east of Nimrod. Within the area of this irregular quadrangle are to be found, in every direction, traces of ancient edifices and of former population. It comprises various separate and distinct groups of ruins, four of which, if not more, are the remains of fortified enclosures or strongholds, defended by walls and ditches, towers and ramparts. The principal are: (1) the group immediately opposite Mosul, including the great mounds of Kuyunjik (also called by the Arabs Armushiyah) and Nebbi Yunus; (2) that near the junction of the Tigris and Zab, comprising the mounds of Nimruid and Athur; (3) Khorsabad, about ten miles to the east of the former river; (4) Sherif Khan, about five and a half miles to the north of Kuyunjik; and (5) Selamlyah, three miles to the north of Nimrod. Other large mounds are Baaskeikhah, Karamless, where the remains of fortified enclosures may perhaps be traced; Baazani, Yarumieh, and Bellawat. It is scarcely necessary to observe that all these names are comparatively modern, dating from after the Mohammedan conquest. The respective position of these ruins will be seen in the accompanying map. We will describe the most important.
(1.) The ruins opposite Mosul consist of an enclosure formed by a continuous line of mounds, resembling a vast embankment of earth, but marking the remains of a wall, the western face of which is interrupted by the two great mounds of Kuyunjik and Nebbi Yunus. To the east of this enclosure are the remains of an extensive line of defenses, consisting of moats and ramparts. The inner wall forms an irregular quadrangle with very unequal sides the northern being 2333 yards, the western or the river-face, 4533, the eastern (where the wall is almost the segment of a circle) 5300 yards, and the southern but little more than 1000; altogether 13,200 yards, or seven English miles and four furlongs. The present height of this earthen wall is between forty and fifty feet. Here and there a mound more lofty than the rest covers the remains. of a tower or a gateway. The walls appear to have been originally faced, at least to a certain height, with stone masonry, some remains of which have been discovered. The mound of Kuyunjik is of irregular form, being nearly square at the southwest corner, and ending almost in a point at the northeast. It is about 1300 yards in length, by 500 in its greatest width; its greatest height is 96 feet, and its sides are precipitous, with occasional deep ravines or watercourses.
The summit is nearly flat, but falls from the west to the east. A small village formerly stood upon it, but has of late years been abandoned. The Khosr. a narrow but deep and sluggish stream, sweeps around the southern side of the mound on its way to join the Tigris. Anciently dividing itself into two branches, it completely surrounded Kuyunjik. Nebbi Yunus is considerably smaller than Kuyunjik, being about 530 yards by 430, and occupying an area of about 40 acres. In height it is about the same. It is divided into two nearly equal parts by a depression in the surface. Upon it is a Turcoman village containing the apocryphal tomb of Jonah, and a burial-ground held in great sanctity by Mohammedans from its Vicinity to this sacred edifice. Remains of entrances or gateways have been discovered' in the northern and eastern walls (b and c). The Tigris formerly ran beneath the western wall, and at the foot of the two great mounds. It is now about a mile distant from them, but during very high spring floods it sometimes reaches its ancient bed. The western face of the enclosure (a) was thus protected by the river. The northern and southern faces b and d were strengthened by deep and broad moats. The eastern (c), being most accessible to an enemy, was most strongly fortified, and presents the remains of a very elaborate system of defenses. The Khosr, before entering the enclosure, which it divides into two nearly equal parts, ran for some distance almost parallel to it (f), and supplied the place of an artificial ditch for about half the length of the eastern wall. The remainder of the wall was protected by two wide moats (h), fed by the stream, the supply of water being regulated by dams, of which traces still exist. In addition, one or more ramparts of earth were thrown up, and a moat excavated between the inner walls and the Khosr, the eastern bank of which was very considerably raised by artificial means. Below, or to the south of the stream, a third stream, excavated in the compact conglomerate rock, and about two hundred feet broad, extended almost the whole length of the eastern face, joining the moat on the south. An enormous outer rampart of earth, still in some places above eighty feet in height (i), completed the defenses on this side. - A-few mounds outside this rampart probably mark the sites of detached towers or fortified posts. This elaborate system of fortifications was singularly well devised to resist the attacks of an enemy. It is remarkable that within the enclosure, with the exception of Kuyunjik and Nebbi Yunus, no mounds or irregularities in the surface of the soil denote ruins of any size. The ground is, however, strewed in every direction with fragments of brick, pottery, and the usual signs of ancient population.
(2.) Nimrod consists of a similar enclosure of consecutive mounds-the remains of ancient walls. The system of defenses is, however, very inferior in importance and completeness to that of Kuyunjik. The indications of towers occur at regular intervals; 108 may still be traced on the northern and eastern sides. The area forms an irregular square, about 2331 yards by 2095, containing about 1000 acres. The northern and eastern sides were defended by moats, the western and southern walls by the river, which once flowed immediately beneath them. On the south-western face is a great mound, 700 yards by 400, and covering about 60 acres, with a cone or pyramid of earth about 140 feet high rising in the north-western corner of it. At the southeastern angle of the enclosure is a group of lofty mounds called by the Arabs. after Nimrod's lieutenant, Athur (comp. Gen_10:11). According to the Arab geographers this name at one time applied to all the ruins of Nimrod (Layard, Nin. and its Remains, 2:245, note). Within the enclosure a few slight irregularities in the soil mark the sites of ancient habitations, but there are no indications of ruins of buildings of any size. Fragments of brick and pottery abound. The Tigris is now one and a half miles distant from the mounds, but sometimes reaches them during extraordinary? floods.
(3) The enclosure-walls of Khorsabad form a square of about 2000 yards. They show the remains of towers and gateways. There are apparently no traces of moats or ditches. The mound which gives its name to this group of ruins rises on the north-west face. It may be divided into two parts or stages, the upper about 650 feet square and 30 feet high, and the lower, adjoining it, about 1350 by 300. Its summit was formerly occupied by an Arab village. In one corner there is a pyramid or cone, similar to that at Nimrod, but very inferior in height and size. Within the interior are a few mounds marking the sites of propylaea and similar detached monuments, but no traces of considerable buildings. These ruins were known to the early Arab geographers by the name of Sarain, probably a traditional corruption of the name of Sargon, the king who founded the palaces discovered there.
(4.) Sherif Khan, so called from a small village in the neighborhood, consists of a group of mounds of no great size when compared with other Assyrian ruins, and without traces of an outer wall. Selamlyah is an enclosure of irregular form, situated upon a high bank overlooking the Tigris, about 5000 yards in circuit, and containing an area of about 410 acres, apparently once surrounded by a ditch or moat. It contains no mound or ruin, and even the earthen rampart which marks the walls has in many places nearly disappeared. The name is derived from an Arab town once of some importance, -but now reduced to a miserable village inhabited by Turcomans.
2. The greater part of the discoveries which, of late years, have thrown so much light upon. the history and condition of the ancient inhabitants of Nineveh were made in the ruins of Nimrud, Kuvunjik, and Khorsabad. The first traveler who carefully examined the supposed site of the city was Mr. Rich, formerly political agent for the East India Company at Bagdad; but his investigations were almost entirely confined to Kuyunjik and the surrounding mounds, of which he made a survey in 1820. From them he obtained a few relics, such as inscribed pottery and bricks, cylinders, and gems. Some time before a bass-relief representing men and animals had been discovered, but had been destroyed by the Mohammedans. He subsequently visited the mound of Nimrud, of which, however, he was unable to make more than a hasty examination (Narrative of a Residence in Kurdistan, 2:131). Several travelers described the ruins after Mr. Rich, but no attempt was made to explore them systematically until M. Botta was appointed French consul at Mosul in 1843. While excavating in the mound of Khorsabad, to which he had been directed by a peasant, he discovered a row of upright alabaster slabs, forming the paneling or skirting of the lower part of the walls of a chamber. This chamber was found to communicate with others of similar construction, and it soon became evident that the remains of an edifice of considerable size were buried in the mound.: The French government having given the necessary funds, the ruins were fully explored. They consisted of the lower part of a number of halls, rooms, and passages, for the most part wainscoted with slabs of coarse gray alabaster, sculptured with figures in relief,; the principal entrances being formed by colossal human-headed winged bulls. No remains of exterior architecture of any great importance were discovered. The calcined limestone and the great accumulation;of charred wood and charcoal showed that the building had been destroyed by fire. Its upper part had entirely disappeared, and its general plan could only be restored by the remains of the lower story. The collection of Assyrian sculptures in the Louvre came from these ruins. The excavations subsequently carried on by MM. Place and Fresnel at Khorsabad led to the discovery, in the enclosure below the platform, of propylaea, flanked by colossal human-headed bulls, and of other detached buildings forming the approaches to the palace, and also of some of the gateways in the enclosure-walls, ornamented with similar mythic figures.
M. Botta's discoveries at Khorsabad were followed by those of Mr. Lavard at Nimrud and Kuyunjik, made between the years 1845 and 1850. The mound of Nimrrd was found to contain the ruins of several distinct edifices, erected at different periods materials for the construction of the latest having been taken from an earlier building. The most ancient stood at the northwest corner of the platform, the most recent at the south-east. In general plan and in construction they resembled the ruins of Khorsabad- consisting of a number of halls, chambers, and galleries, panelled with sculptured and inscribed alabaster slabs, and opening one into the other by doorways generally formed by pairs of colossal human-headed winged bulls or lions. The exterior architecture could not be traced. The lofty cone or pyramid of earth adjoining this edifice covered the ruins of a building the basement of which was a square of 165 feet, and consisted, to the height. of 20 feet, of a solid mass of sun-dried bricks, faced on the four sides by blocks of stone carefully squared, bevelled, and adjusted.
This stone facing singularly enough coincides exactly with the height assigned by Xenophon to the stone plinth of the walls (Anab. 3:4), and is surmounted, as he describes the plinth to have been, by a superstructure of bricks, nearly every kiln-burned brick bearing an inscription. Upon this solid substructure there probably rose, as in the Babylonian temples, a succession of platforms or stages, diminishing in size, the highest having a shrine or altar upon it (Layard, Nin. and Bab. ch. v). A vaulted chamber or gallery, 100 feet long, 6 broad, and 12 high, crossed the center of the mound on a level with the summit of the stone-masonry. It had evidently been broken into and rifled of its contents at some remote period, and may have been a royal sepulcher the tomb of Ninus or Sardanapalus, which stood at the entrance of Nineveh. It is the tower described by Xenophon at Larissa as being 1. plethron (100 feet) broad and 2 plethra high. It appears to have been raised by the son of the king who built the north-west palace, and whose name in the cuneiform inscriptions is supposed to be identified with that of Sardanapalus. Shalmanubar or Shalmaneser, the builder of this tomb or tower, also erected in the center of the great mound a second palace, which appears to have been destroyed to furnish materials for later buildings. The black obelisk now in the British Museum was found among its ruins. On the west face of the mound, and adjoining the center palace, are the remains of a third edifice, built by the grandson of Shalmanubar, whose name is read Iva-lush, and who is believed to be the Pul of the Hebrew Scriptures.
It contained some important inscribed slabs, but no sculptures. Esarhaddon raised (about B.C. 680) at the south-west corner of the platform another royal abode of considerable extent, but constructed principally of materials brought from his predecessor's palaces. In the opposite or south-east corner are the ruins of a still later palace built by his grandson Asshur-emit-ili, very inferior in size and in splendor to other Assyrian edifices. Its rooms were small; it appears to have had no great halls, and the chambers were paneled with slabs of common stone, without sculpture or inscriptions. Some important detached figures, believed to bear the name of the historical Semiramis, were, however, found in its ruins. At the south-west corner of the mound of Kuyunjik stood a palace built by Sennacherib (about B.C. 700), exceeding in size and in magnificence of decoration all others hitherto explored. It occupied nearly 100 acres. Although much of the building yet remains to be examined, and much has altogether perished, about 60 courts, halls (some nearly 150 feet square), rooms, and passages (one 200 feet long) have been discovered, all paneled with sculptured slabs of alabaster. The entrances to the edifice and to the principal chambers were flanked by groups of winged human-headed lions and bulls of colossal proportions some nearly 20 feet in height; 27 portals thus formed were excavated by Mr. Layard. A second palace was erected on the same platform by the son of Esarhaddon, the third king of the name of Sardanapalus. In it were discovered sculptures of great interest and beauty, among them the series representing the lion-hunt now in the British Museum. Owing to the sanctity attributed by Mohammedans to the supposed tomb of Jonah, great difficulties were experienced in examining the mound upon which it stands. A shaft sunk within the walls of a private house led to the discovery of sculptured slabs; and excavations subsequently carried on by agents of the Turkish government proved that they formed part of a palace erected by Esarhaddon. Two entrances or gateways in the great enclosure-walls have been excavated one (at b on plan) flanked by colossal human-headed bulls and human figures. They, as well as the walls, appear, according to the inscriptions, to have been constructed by Sennacherib. No propylaea or detached buildings have as yet been discovered within the enclosure. At Sherif Khan are the ruins of a temple, but no sculptured slabs have been dug up there. It was founded by Sennacherib, and added to by his grandson. At Selamiyah no remains of buildings nor any fragments of sculpture or inscriptions have been discovered.
3. The most recent explorer in this field is Mr. George Smith, of the British Museum. The commencement of Mr. Smith's studies and researches in the field of Assyrian archaeology practically took place in the year 1866, when he engaged in the examination of Sir Henry Rawlinson's casts and fragments of inscriptions in the British Museum, with a view to the elucidation of several questions in the Old-Testament history. He first lighted upon a curious inscription of Shalmaneser II, giving an account of the war against Hazael, king of Syria, and relating that it was in the eighteenth year of Shalmaneser when he received tribute from Jehu. His next labors were devoted to the cylinders containing the history of Asshur- bani-pal, the Sardanapalus of the Greeks. The annals of this monarch were then in considerable confusion, but by dint of patient comparison of the various copies, Mr. Smith at length succeeded in obtaining a fair text of the earlier part of these inscriptions. Pursuing his investigations, he discovered several important fragments of the annals of TiglathPileser, containing notices of Azariah, king of Judah, and of Pekah and Hoshea, kings of Israel. In the course of four years he had discovered new portions of the Assyrian canon, several accounts of the early conquest of Babylonia by the Elamites, and a religious calendar of the Assyriais, in which every month is divided into four weeks, and the seventh days marked out as Sabbaths, in which no work was to be performed. During 1.870 he was occupied with preparing the large work on the history of Asshur-bani-pal, giving the cuneiform texts, transcriptions, and translations, which was published in 1871. In 1872 Mr. Smith discovered the tablets containing the Chaldaean account of the Deluge, which attracted a good deal of attention both at home and abroad.
The interest taken in these discoveries prompted the proprietors of the London Telegraph newspaper to advance the sum of one thousand guineas for fresh researches at Nineveh, Mr. Smith to conduct the expedition. He accordingly started from London Jan. 20, 1873. and on March 2 arrived at the ruins of Nineveh. After an excursion to Bagdad and Babylon, he returned to Nineveh about April 1, and commenced excavations on the mound of Nimrod on the third of that month. His work at first, which was on a small scale, was directed to the temple of Nebo. Here he discovered some inscriptions, but most of them were duplicates of texts already known. Excepting the stone basement of the temple and a few chambers around it, the whole was in a ruinous condition. After the city had declined, this part of the mound appears to have been used as a granary.
A large tunnel was burrowed through the walls and chambers on the eastern face. This was found packed with grain, black and rotten from age. In the central part excavations had been made for tombs, destroying considerable portions of the temple. The more prominent parts of the building were of large square red blocks of stone at the bottom, and sun-dried bricks at the top. On each side of the entrance stood a colossal figure of Nebo, with crossed arms, in the attitude of meditation. In one of the eastern chambers Mr. Smith discovered a fragment of the reign of Tiiglath-Pileser, but there was nothing else' of great interest in the neighborhood. Many of the inscriptions have suffered very much since the excavations of Mr. Layard. The explorations at Nimrud were closed on May 8, without any important results, and Mr. Smith proceeded to prepare for his researches among the ruins of Nineveh, opposite the town of Mosul. After commencing operations on one of these mounds, with a view to recover inscribed terra- cotta tablets, Mr. Smith found several valuable inscriptions, which served in some degree as compensation for his labors. Much to his surprise, one of the fragments contained the greater portion of seventeen lines of inscription belonging to the first column of the Chaldaean account of the Deluge, fitting into the only place where there was a serious blank in the story. Among other discoveries were a small tablet of Esarhaddon, king of Assyria, some new fragments of one of the historical cylinders of Asshur- banipal, and a curious fragment of the history of Sargon, king of Assyria, relating to his expedition against Ashdod. On the same fragment was a part of the list of Median chiefs who paid tribute to Sargon. Part of an inscribed cylinder of Sennacherib, and half of an amulet in onyx, with the name and titles of this monarch, were subsequently found, with implements of bronze, iron, and glass. There was part of a crystal throne, a most magnificent article of furniture, closely resembling in shape the bronze throne discovered by Mr. Layard at Nimruid. Near the close of his excavations, while preparing to return to England, Mr. Smith disinterred a fragment of a curious syllabary, divided into four perpendicular columns. In the first, column was given the phonetic value of the cuneiform characters; the characters themselves were written in the second column; the third column contained the names and meanings of the signs; while the fourth column gave the words and ideas which it represented. The work was brought to a close on June 9, and on the same day Mr. Smith Started on his return journey to Europe, with the antiquities which he had collected.
The arrival of the antiquities in England called forth great interest in the results of the expedition, and the trustees of the British Museum directed Mr. Smith to return to Mosul, setting aside a sum of £1000 for the enterprise. On this occasion he left London Nov. 25, 1873, and, traversing his former route, arrived at Alexandretta on Dec. 9. He arrived at Mosul Jan. 1:1874, and at once engaged a number of men to dig over the earth on the spot of the last year's excavations. Soon afterwards they commenced work on the mound, bringing a fine fragment of a tablet and a bronze figure as the first-fruits of the excavation. In spite of the embarrassments caused by the Turkish officials, Mr. Smith continued the work of excavation with great diligence and with considerable success. Remains of culptures were discovered with inscriptions from the temples of Nebo and Merodach. There were also inscriptions from Shalnaneser I, king of Assyria, recording that he founded the palace of Nineveh; and mixed ap with these were remains of inscriptions belonging to the same monarch, stating that he restored the temple of Ishtar. From the same spot came inscriptions of his son, Tugulti-ninip, the conqueror of Babylonia, relating that he also restored the temple of Ishtar, and inscriptions of a similar purport of the monarchs Asshurnazir-pal and Shalmaneser II. Some curiousnspecimens of pottery, ornamented with figures laid on the clay, were found near the same spot. Between the chambers in the center of the mound and the eastern edge there were fragments of a palace and temple. The remains of the temple were most of them found in a square chamber, seemingly of later date, built up of stones from the Assyrian buildings near it. All along the walls were placed small square. slabs with inscriptions of Asshur-bani-pal, dedicated to the goddess of Nineveh, none of them in their original position. Near this chamber were fragments of an obelisk in black stone-built into a later wall, and many fragments of a palace which stood in the neighborhood. Among these was an inscription of a king of Assyria, B.C. 1:170, and several fragments from sculptured walls representing processions of warriors. Near one corner of the palace was found the head of a female divinity, the hair arranged in bunches of curls on each side, the face exhibiting the usual corpulent style of Assyrian female beauty. Among other fragments was the opening portion of a copy from an early Babylonian inscription, giving the names of six new Babylonian kings, and some curious details of early Babylonian history. At a subsequent date was found a new portion of the sixth tablet of the Deluge series.
The principal excavation was carried on over what Layard calls the library- chamber of the south-west palace. Upon removing the top earth from a section of the palace around the region of the library-chamber, Mr. Smith was rewarded with a variety of discoveries of a valuable character. At first nothing turned up but modern objects, coins, pottery, and glass, but on going deeper the Assyrian cuneiform tablets were of frequent occurrence. In front of one of the entrances Mr. Smith discovered the lintel of a door- way, formed of a block of stone six feet long, and sculptured along the face. In the center was an ornamental cup or vase with two handles; on each side stood a winged griffin or dragon; and over the cup and the dragon was an, ornament of honeysuckles. This curious lintel is the first Assyrian object of the kind which has been discovered, and it is no wonder that when lifted out of the excavation it excited a thrill of pleasure. Many fragments were found along the floor of a long gallery, including syllabaries, bilingual lists, and mythological and historical tablets. There was a beautiful bronze Assyrian fork, with two prongs joined by an ornamental shoulder to a shaft of spiral work, ending in the head of an ass. This is a unique specimen of Assyrian work, and shows the advance of the people in the refinements of life. Near by was found part of a curious astrolabe and fragments of the history of Sargon, king of Assyria, B.C. 722. In one place, below the level of the floor, Mr. Smith discovered a fine fragment of the history of Asshur-bani-pal, containing new and curious matter relating to his Egyptian wars, and to the affairs of Gyges,. king of Lydia. From this part of the palace he also gained the shoulder of a colossal statue, with an inscription of Asshur-bani-pal. In another spot he obtained a bone spoon, and a fragment of a tablet with the history of the seven evil spirits. Near this was found a bronze style, with which the cuneiform tablets were probably impressed. In another part of the excavation there were the remains of crystal and alabaster vases, and specimens of the royal seal. One of these was a clay impression of the seal of Sargon, king of Assyria.
Mr. Smith left Mosul on April 4, and after various interesting excursions arrived at Alexandria toward the end of May, and finally reached London on June 9. The most important result of the expedition was the recovery of new tablets containing the Chaldaean account of the Deluge. There is still much required to complete the series, but in their present state they form one of the most remarkable collections of inscriptions yet discovered. The whole number of inscriptions discovered by Mr. Smith, during the four months in which he was engaged in excavation, amounted to over 3000, besides many other objects of great archeological interest. In many in
CYCLOPEDIA OF BIBLICAL, THEOLOGICAL AND ECCLESIASTICAL
press 1895.

FACEBOOK

Participe de nossa rede facebook.com/osreformadoresdasaude

Novidades, e respostas das perguntas de nossos colaboradores

Comments 2

BUSCADAVERDADE

Visite o nosso canal youtube.com/buscadaverdade e se INSCREVA agora mesmo! Lá temos uma diversidade de temas interessantes sobre: Saúde, Receitas Saudáveis, Benefícios dos Alimentos, Benefícios das Vitaminas e Sais Minerais... Dê uma olhadinha, você vai gostar! E não se esqueça, dê o seu like e se INSCREVA! Clique abaixo e vá direto ao canal!

Saiba Mais

Nutrição
Vegetarianismo e a Vitamina B12
Receita
Como preparar a Proteína Vegetal Texturizada
Arqueologia
Livro de Enoque é um livro profético?
Profecia
O que ocorrerá no Armagedom?

VIEW:27 DATA:01-04-2020

FACEBOOK

Participe de nossa rede facebook.com/osreformadoresdasaude

BUSCADAVERDADE

Saiba Mais

Tags