Chapter XIII

.)

_By Harper and Banks._--During the year 1903-1904 the University of Chicago sent an expedition to Babylonia. The expenses were borne by a contribution from John D. Rockefeller. The late Prof. Robert Harper was Scientific Director of the expedition, and Dr. Edgar J. Banks, Field Director. The work was conducted at the mound of Bismya, which proved to be the site of the ancient city of Adab, one of the oldest Babylonian cities, which seems not to have been occupied since about 2600 B. C. Many interesting finds were made, including a statue of a king, Lugaldaudu, and many tablets. Friction with the Turkish government brought the expedition to an untimely close, and owing to the same cause the tablets discovered are hoarded at Constantinople and have not been given to the world.

_By Genouillac._--During the early part of the year 1914 a French expedition, under the direction of H. de Genouillac, excavated at Ukhaimir, the site of ancient Kish. They have discovered the great _Ziggurat_ of the temple of Zamama, the god of Kish, and are said to have made other important finds, but the details are not yet published.

=4. The Decipherment of the Inscriptions.=--The task of learning to read the inscriptions of Babylonia and Assyria was much more difficult than the decipherment of the Egyptian hieroglyphs, for no such simple key as the Rosetta Stone was at hand. The key that finally unlocked the mystery came not from Babylonia, but from Persepolis in Persia. When Cyrus the Great conquered Babylon in 538 B. C. the Persians had not developed a system of writing. They accordingly adapted to their language the characters of the Babylonian script. The Babylonian script had begun, like the Egyptian hieroglyphs, as a system of picture-writing, in which each picture represented an idea. These had gone through a long development, in which the original picture-forms had been supplanted by conventional characters derived therefrom. In making these characters on clay, one end of a line was always wider than the other, hence the characters are called “wedge-shaped” or “cuneiform.” In the course of the ages the Babylonians had come to use the characters to express both syllables and whole words, and a scribe might mingle these uses of a sign at will in writing a composition. Many of the signs might also express any one of several syllables. In adapting this complicated system, the Persians had the wisdom to simplify it. They selected or constructed a character for each sound, making a real alphabet. Three of the Persian kings, Darius (521-485), Xerxes (456-465), and Artaxerxes II (405-359), wrote their inscriptions in three languages,--Babylonian, Elamite, and Persian,--employing wedge-shaped scripts for all of them.

_By Niebuhr._--In the ruins of the great palace of the Persian kings at Persepolis many of these inscriptions in three languages were preserved. These ruins attracted the notice of many travelers from the time that Odoric, a monk, saw them in 1320 A. D., and a number of travelers had made copies of some of them and brought them back to Europe. The inscriptions were a great puzzle. After Alexander the Great (331-323 B. C.) Persia had been subject to foreign powers until 220 A. D., when the Sassanian dynasty (220-641 A. D.) made Persia again an independent kingdom. In the revival of Persian letters that occurred in Sassanian times, a form of the Phœnician alphabet was used, because the old characters of these inscriptions had been forgotten. In 1765 Carsten Niebuhr, a Dane, visited Persepolis and made accurate copies of a large number of these inscriptions. The first correct reading of any of these inscriptions was done from Niebuhr’s copies; (see Fig. 20).

_By Grotefend_, _de Sacy_, and _Rawlinson_.--A number of scholars had studied Niebuhr’s copies, but the first to read any of them correctly was Georg Friedrich Grotefend, a German scholar. He began with the assumption that the three groups of lines in the inscriptions contained respectively three languages, and that the first of these was the Persian of Cyrus and his successors. In the years 1787-1791 Sylvestre de Sacy, a French Oriental scholar, had studied and in part expounded some Sassanian alphabetic inscriptions from Persia, which had also long attracted the notice of scholars. These Sassanian inscriptions were many of them cast in the same mould. They ran thus:

“X the great king, king of kings, the king of Iran and Aniran, son of Y, the great king,” etc.

Grotefend had these inscriptions before him, and compared this formula with the inscriptions from Persepolis. He noted that as often as the formula contained the word “king” the inscriptions from Persepolis contained the same group of signs, and that as often as it had “of kings,” they reproduced the group with a different ending. He therefore rightly concluded that these signs were the old Persian spelling of the Persian word for “king” with its genitive plural. Taking from the Sassanian inscriptions the word for king, he proceeded to parcel out its sounds among the characters with which the word was spelled in the Persepolis inscriptions. He also found a king, who was the son of a man not a king. This, he rightly held, could be none other than Darius, the son of Hystaspes. Apportioning the proper groups of signs among the sounds of these names, he obtained still further alphabetical values. Thus a beginning was made. Grotefend was, however, unable to carry the work far, and in the years that followed Eugène Burnouf, Christian Lassen, Isidore Lowenstern, Henry C. Rawlinson, and Edward Hincks all made contributions to the subject. The honor of having first correctly read and interpreted a long inscription belongs to Rawlinson. Rawlinson was a young army officer, who as a boy had been in India, where he learned Persian and several of the dialects of India. In 1833 he was sent to Persia with other British officers to assist in the reorganization of the Persian army. Here his attention was attracted by the great Persian inscriptions in the mountains near Hamadan, the ancient Ecbatana, and in the intervals of military duties he copied and studied several of them. He was, in the early stages of his work, quite unaware of the work done by Grotefend and others, but hit independently upon the method followed by Grotefend. Owing to the fact that the inscriptions on which Rawlinson worked were longer than those accessible to Grotefend, and also contained more proper names, Rawlinson attained greater success than any of his predecessors. He did not publish his results, however, until he had become thoroughly familiar with all that others had done. It was not until 1846 that he published a full interpretation of the Persian column of the great Behistun[10] inscription of Darius I.

_Babylonian Column._--This successful achievement related, however, only to the Persian column. The mysteries of the Babylonian column had not yet been solved. This task, as will be evident from the complicated nature of the writing mentioned above, was a much more difficult one. The decipherment of the Persian had, however, taught the sound of many cuneiform signs. These sounds were carried over to the Babylonian column as a nucleus of information. Excavations were all the time also bringing new material to light, and a comparison of inscriptions, in many of which the same words were written in different ways, sometimes ideographically and sometimes syllabically, helped on the general stock of knowledge. Rawlinson, Hincks, Jules Oppert, and Fox Talbot were the men who at this stage of the work were still wrestling with the problem. Again Rawlinson was the man to achieve the first distinguished success. In 1851 he published one hundred and twelve lines of the Babylonian portion of the Behistun inscription with transliteration and translation, and accompanied the whole with copious notes in which the principles of the grammar were set forth. A list of the signs and their values was also added. From that day to this the study has steadily gone forward.

_Babylonian-Semitic._--The work of Rawlinson and his co-laborers proved that the language of the ancient Babylonians was a Semitic language, closely akin to Hebrew, Aramaic, Arabic, and Ethiopic. Within the next few years after he had found the key to the cuneiform writing, Rawlinson announced that the inscriptions from Babylonia contained material in another and very different language. The researches of later years have fully confirmed this, and scholars call this language Sumerian. The people who spoke it were the inventors of many elements in the civilization of early Babylonia, and for many centuries at the dawn of history divided the country with the Semites.

=5. Chronology.=--The materials for constructing the chronology of Babylonian and Assyrian history are as follows:

(1) Claudius Ptolemy, an Egyptian astronomer who flourished in the second century A. D., made a list of the kings of Egypt, Persia, and Babylonia back to the accession of the Babylonian king, Nabonassar, in 747 B. C. This list was compiled as an astronomical aid, and is very accurate.

(2) The Assyrian kings kept lists of years and of principal events, to which scholars have given the name “Eponym Lists,” because each year was named after the king or some officer. Tablets containing these lists have been recovered on which we can still read the chronology from 893 to 666 B. C. This list accordingly overlaps the list or “canon” of Ptolemy. Some of these Assyrian kings were also kings of Babylon, and where the lists overlap they agree. One of these lists mentions an eclipse which occurred at Nineveh in the month Sivan (May-June), 763 B. C. This eclipse has been calculated and verified by modern astronomers, so that the chronology covered by these lists rests upon a secure scientific basis.

(3) For dates in Assyrian history anterior to 893 B. C. we have to depend upon incidental notices in the inscriptions. Thus Sennacherib, whose date is fixed by the Eponym Lists as 705-681 B. C., relates that during his reign he recovered from Babylon the images of two gods that had been taken as booty by Marduknadinakhi, King of Babylon, from Tiglath-pileser, King of Assyria, 418 years before Sennacherib brought them back. It follows from this that Tiglath-pileser I of Assyria and Marduknadinakhi of Babylon were ruling from about 1120 to 1100 B. C.

We also have a long inscription from the Tiglath-pileser mentioned here, who relates that in his reign he restored a temple, which had been built by Shamshi-Adad, ruler of Assyria, son of Ishmi-Dagan, ruler of Assyria, 641 years before the time of Ashur-dan, King of Assyria. Ashur-dan had, he tells us, pulled the temple down and it had lain in ruins 60 years until he (Tiglath-pileser) rebuilt it. By adding these numbers we reach 1819 or 1820 B. C. as the accession of Shamshi-Adad.

Again Sennacherib found at Babylon a seal which bore the following inscription:

“Tukulti-Ninib, king of the world, son of Shalmaneser, King of Assyria, conqueror of the land of Chaldæa. Whoever changes the writing of my name, may Ashur and Adad destroy his name. This seal was presented by the land of Assyria to the land of Akkad” (Babylonia).

To this Sennacherib added the following inscription:

“I, Sennacherib, after 600 years conquered Babylon, and from its treasures brought it out and took it.”

We learn from this that Tukulti-Ninib was ruling in Assyria from about 1300 to 1290 B. C.

Andrae has recently (1914) published an inscription of Tukulti-Ninib in which he states that he repaired a temple which had been built by his ancestor, Ilu-shumma, King of Assyria, 720 years before. Ilu-shumma was, accordingly, ruling in Assyria about 2020 to 2010 B. C.

(4) Among the tablets in the British Museum are two so-called “dynastic tablets” which contain lists of the kings of Babylon from the time that Babylon became the leading city of the country to its capture by the Persians. The kings are divided into eight dynasties, the length of the reign of each king was originally given, and at the end of each dynasty a statement was given of the number of kings in that dynasty and the total length of their reigns. These tablets are unfortunately much broken, so that they afford us little help after the year 1000 B. C. We learn from them, however, that Marduknadinakhi, the king mentioned by Sennacherib as ruling about 1100 B. C., belonged to the fourth Babylonian dynasty, and, if we add together the years given for the previous dynasties, we are taken back nearly to the year 2400 B. C. for the accession of the first dynasty of Babylon. Evidence has, however, come to light in recent years which proves that the first and second of these dynasties overlapped, one ruling in the north while the other ruled in the south. A reliable chronology cannot, therefore, be obtained by adding these numbers together. In order to correct them recourse must be had to other evidence.

(5) Franz Xaver Kugler, who is both an astronomer and an Assyriologist, has recently shown that an astronomical tablet which was published as long ago as 1870, and which notes for a series of years when Venus was the evening and when the morning star, contains a date formula which fixes its compilation in the reign of Ammi-zadugga, the tenth of the eleven kings of the first dynasty of Babylon. From mathematical calculations of the position of the planet Venus, Kugler is accordingly able to fix the accession year of Ammi-zadugga as either 2040, 1976, or 1857 B. C. As the first of these dates is too early, and the third is, in the judgment of most scholars, too late, it follows that his accession year was in 1976. From the lengths of the reigns of the various kings of this dynasty as given in the dynastic tablets, it follows that the first dynasty of Babylon began its rule in 2206 B. C.

(6) Under Adad-nirari III, King of Assyria (810-782 B. C.), a so-called synchronistic history of Assyria and Babylonia was compiled. It covered about 600 years, beginning with a treaty of peace between Karaindash, King of Babylon, and Ashur-rim-nishishu, King of Assyria. It aids in filling gaps left by breaks in other lists.

(7) A chronological tablet in the Babylonian collection of Yale University contains a list of the kings of Larsa. This city was conquered by Hammurapi, of the first dynasty of Babylon, in the 31st year of his reign. The tablet, therefore, counts Hammurapi one of the kings of Larsa, ascribing to him twelve years of rule. The tablet was apparently compiled in the twelfth year of Samsuiluna, Hammurapi’s successor, to whom twelve years are also ascribed. It gives the total length of the dynasty of Larsa as 289 years. That dynasty, accordingly, began its rule in 2358 B. C.

(8) In a chronological list of the kings of Ur and Nisin on a tablet in the University Museum, Philadelphia,[11] it is stated that the kings of Ur ruled 117 years and the kings of Nisin 225 years and 6 months. A tablet has now been discovered which shows that the dynasty of Nisin was not overthrown until 2117 or 2116 B. C. Its 225 years, therefore, were all parallel to the time of the dynasty of Larsa. As the dynasty of Nisin rose upon the ruins of the kingdom of Ur, the dates of the kingdom of Ur are, therefore, fixed as 2458-2341 B. C.

(9) A chronological tablet published by Scheil in the _Comptes rendus_ of the French Academy for 1911 gives a list of five early dynasties of Babylonia: a dynasty of Opis, one of Kish, one of Agade, and two of Erech.

(10) A group of chronological tablets in the University Museum in Philadelphia,[12] which assign several dynasties to each of several well-known Babylonian cities, ascribe to their kings incredibly long reigns. One of these is translated in Part II,