page 405 note 1 There are thus a series of characters which fluctuate between t and b, such as They represent sometimes the complete syllable, but more usually one only of the component sounds. They may perhaps be illustrated by a comparison with the Sanskrit which has produced in Greek, and bis in Latin. Many other characters also have double powers; the represents indifferently the r and s, and at Behistun the for t, is undistinguishable from the sign which answers to Par.

page 405 note 2 I take for an example the character . This sign certainly represents phonetically an , but it is also the ideograph for “a son,” and in that capacity must, I think, be sounded bar. The same sound of bar would seem to appertain to it in the name of the Euphrates, where as the initial sign it replaces , but as the final letter of the name of Nineveli it must be a simple labial; while in the names of Nabopolasser, (the father of Nebuchadnezzar) and Sardanapalus, we must give to the sign in question the pronunciation of pal, that articulation, probably being considered by the Assyrians and Babylonians to be phonetically identical with bar.

page 406 note 1 For instance, the ordinary sign for Bel is a simple B, stands for Sut; for Husi. In many cases, however, the monograms seem to be arbitrary, as in for Nit; another sign for . The phonetic rendering of proper names in Assyrian depends almost entirely on a full understanding of the Pantheon, and this is unfortunately the most difficult branch perhaps of the whole Cuneiform inquiry.

page 406 note 2 I refer to the interchange of the l and v, exemplified in such characters as . Many other signs represent the l, and d, or t, indifferently, such as . There is also the greatest possible difficulty in distinguishing between the k, and the d, or t; and the gutturals, and sibilants everywhere interchange.

page 407 note 1 I take this opportunity of mentioning that I am indebted to the late Mr. Tasker for a very excellent copy of the Nakhsh-i-Rustam Babylonian Inscription, a copy, indeed, so good, that, with the exception of a few letters, I have been able to make out the entire legend, and hare succeeded moreover in referring every word to its correspondent in the Persian original. Mr. Tasker, far more adventurous than Westergaard, descended by ropes from the summit of the cliff, and took his copy of the writing swinging in mid-air. He remained indeed for several hours in this perilous position during five successive days, in order to secure for his work the ntmost available accuracy.

page 409 note 1 Many of the standard expressions at Behistun, such as “the rebels having assembled their forces came against me offering battle; I fought with them and defeated them, &c., &c.,” prove to have been adopted almost verbatim from the Assyrian annals. It was, indeed, the discovery of known passages of this sort in the Obelisk Inscription, that first gave me an insight into the general purport of the legend.

page 410 note 1 See Gesen. Monum. Phænic., vol. I., p. 431.Google Scholar

page 410 note 2 The true, or at any rate the primitive pronunciation of the Bab. article, which is also used as a demonstrative pronoun and adverb, may perhaps be halv or harv. Compare the Chaldee , and see Gesenius's remarks on this word in page 84 of his Lexicon. Some of the forms of the article are, .

page 411 note 1 I may here observe, that my reason for reading the abbreviated monogram signifying “a king,” as “arko” is, that at Behistun the word is always written at length , which can only be, I think, . The other monogram , which has the fall phonetic power of men, may very possibly stand for melik.

page 412 note 1 These pronouns occur repeatedly at Behistun and Nakhsh-i-Rustam, and the forms used are precisely the same as we find in the earliest inscriptions of Assyria.

page 412 note 2 It will thus be seen that the letter , which has been a stumbling-block to:all previous inquirers, is a hard guttural.

page 413 note 1 I am here alluding especially to the past tense, which in Hebrew and Arabic is considered to be the root of the verb. In the present tense, those languages, it must be admitted, prefix the personal characteristic, as in Babylonian, and make use indeed of the same, or nearly the same prefixes, to denote the different persons.

page 413 note 2 This confusion of time may, perhaps, be considered to corroborate Mr. Garnett's explanation of the Semitic verb, as a mere abstract noun in combination with oblique personal pronouns.

page 414 note 1 Other Babylonian particles of undoubted Semitic origin are, lipenai, “before;” itta, “with;” ad, “to;” anog, “in front of,”&c. Compound prepositions are alsa extensively used both in Assyrian and Babylonian.

page 415 note 1 Aa a further proof of the identity of the Arabic “to say,“with the Bab. guv, it may be observed, that the same form answers in the Insortptlos for the word “all,” which is , thus almost determinately eonneeting the l and v, and affording another example of the interchange of the gutturals.

page 416 note 1 In the term etua, which occurs so frequently in the trilingual inscriptions, tha termination is the pronominal suffix of the 1st person, used independently of the possessive pronoun signifying “my.”

page 416 note 2 is for a-nac-s, as rex is for rec-s, nac and rec being the stem-words; it is this positive identity of the n and r in the cognate forms, which makes me doubt whether n may not stand for eneko, as r for arko, rather than retain its full phonetic power of men, as an abbreviation of melik.

page 416 note 3 I also wish to be understood, that in giving these examples, I do not consider myself pledged to their definite phonetic rendering. I have neither adopted, nor do I conceive it possible to adopt, any system with regard to the employment of the vowels in Assyrian and Babylonian, and no great dependence therefore can be placed on the appearance of the word in the Roman character.

page 417 note 1 The name is written indifferently and the initial character which is thus common to all the forms, is one unfortunately regarding which I still entertain some doubt. Its complete syllabic power is, I think, l-v, (or, which would be the same thing in Assyrian, r-m,) but it also appears very frequently to represent one only of these sounds, and whether this curtailment may be the effect of that resolution of the syllable into its component literal powers to which I have already alluded, or whether it may be owing to the homogeneity of the l and v, is a point which I cannot yet venture to decide. Such, indeed, is the laxity of alphabetical expression in Assyrian, that even if the true power of were proved to be L-v, I could still understand being pronounced Halukh.

page 417 note 2 See Gen. x. 11.Google Scholar; 2 Kings xviii. 11.Google Scholar; 1 Chron. v. 26.Google Scholar

page 417 note 3 It has been asserted that the Calachene of the Greeks was exclusively a mountain district; bat I cannot see any sufficient grounds for that geographical restriction. Strabo (Lib. XVI., ad init.) in describing Assyria, classes together , all these applying certainly to the low country between the mountains and the Tigris. In another passage, also, he says, , (Lib. XI., p. 770,) thereby positively excluding Calachene from the mountains. Ptolemy, also, when he says that Calacine lies above Adiabene, means perhaps to the north of it.Google Scholar

page 418 note 1 Michaelis noticed the Samaritan in his Spicilegium, p. 247, but failed to recognize its identity with Larissa, though he must have remembered that Eusebius writes of Josephus.

page 418 note 2 —Xen. Anab., Lib. III., C. 4. 6–12.Google Scholar

page 418 note 3 The Jerusalem Targum and Jonathan translate the Calah of Genesis, by Hadith, a name which, owing to careless transcription and vicious punctuation, has usually been read Parioth or Harioth. Hadith, however, or “the New,” is the name of a large town in the immediate vicinity of Nimrud, built under the Sassanians, and restored by Merwan Ibn Mahommed, one of the earliest Arab leaders; and it was certainly, I think, in allusion to this place, that the Chaldee interpreters substituted for See Yacút's Lexicon, in voce .

page 418 note 4 The forts of Ninawi to the east, and of Mosul to the west of the Tigris, are mentioned in the accounts of the campaigns of Abdullah Ibn Mo'etemer, in A.H. 16, and of 'Otbeh Ibn Farkad, in A.H. 20. See Ibn Athir, quoting from Beladheri, in the annals of those years.

page 418 note 5 The name of Nineveh occurs upon most of the Koyunjik bricks, but it is united with a qualifying epithet, which denotes, I think, the particular northern suburb, and of which I have never yet met with a fair and legible impress. That Koyonjik can hardly be the true and original capital, I gather from the certainty we possess of its having been built by the son of the Khorsabad king, whilst Nineveh, under both its forms, is frequeutly mentioned as the royal residence, in the Inscriptions of the Obelisk king, who lived perhaps a century earlier.

page 419 note 1 It seems to me, at the same time, very possible, that Xenophon's name of Mespila may denote Mosul, and not Nineveh. He says the Greeks encamped, , and we may very well understand the description which follows of the ruins to apply to the , “the great deserted inclosure,” rather than to Mespila. If Xenophon, indeed, had forgotten the name of the ruins, nothing would have been more natural than for him to illustrate the position by a reference to the neighbouring city; and that the name of Mosul, which so very much resembles Mespila, is far more ancient than the Mohammedan period to which it has been usually assigned, can be proved, I think, from a variety of sources.

page 419 note 2 Yacút, quoting from some unknown ancient author, speaks of Khuratabadh, as a village east of the Tigris, opposite to Mosul, among the dependencies of Nineveh, and adjoining the old ruined city of Sarghun, (written ), where treasure to a large amount had been found by excavating. It was I believe this very passage of Yacút, well known to the Mohammedan doctors, which led the Turkish authorities, in the first instance, to watch M. Botta's proceedings with so much jealousy and mistrust.

page 421 note 1 As quoted by Suidas, in voce .

page 421 note 2 Amynthas, it is true, considers this capital to be Nineveh, and his historical authority is still further vitiated by his ascribing the captare of the city to Cyrus instead of Cyaxares; but at the same time, as he was a professed geographer, his statement is of value, that the tomb of Sardanapalus was in Assyria, and not in Cilicia, as the later Greeks unanimously believed. See Athen. Deip., lib. xii. c. 7.

page 421 note 3 The words of Xenophon are, . Anab., lib. iii. c. 4. s. 11. The account given of this Mausoleum by Diodorus, quoting from Ctesias, is also very striking, but the value of the notice is destroyed by the geographical blunder of placing Nineveh on the Euphrates. Ovid alludes to the same spot under the name of “Busta Nini,” in his story of Pyramus and Thisbe, though, with a poet's license, he transfers the locality to Babylon.

page 422 note 1 This passage occurs in line 15, of No. 1 of the British Museum series; from a similar expression at Behistun, there can be no doubt but that the allusion is to a precession of race, but I question very much if the sign can here represent a number.

page 423 note 1 I refer to the Inscription of the second published to Plate 70 of the British Museum series. I have not yet been able to assure myself of the meaning of the terms, nor the connexion of the clauses of this Inscription, but it seems quite impossible to reconcile the genealogical detail with the family notices contained in the legends of Sardanapalus and his son.

page 423 note 2 This name might be read Deven as well as Temen. In fact, I consider the two forms to be identical in Assyrian.

page 423 note 3 The second element of this king's name, which is usually written , may also possibly have the power of Sver or Smer, rather than simple Bar, as it represents the first syllable in the name of the Magian impostor, which was Bardiya in Persian, but in Greek.

page 423 note 4 In the Standard Nimrud Inscription the sign used is always regarding the true phonetic power of which I am still in doubt; tlie genealogical inscription, however, No. 70, line 22, employs the same character, , which is used in the name of Temen-bar II., thus proving that the two tiles are identical.

page 424 note 1 The character , which interchanges with , as the initial sign of this king's name, being used at Behistun for the first syllable of the name of Imanish, may, I think, with some certainty be assigned the phonetic power of —m or —v, and I consider it almost immaterial in Assyrian how we complete the articulation. Where however represents a god, as in this name, we can never be sure that the phonetic power of the character is the value to be attributed to the sign. may be abbreviation for Khemosh, (comp. Heb. , and Polyhistor's name ); or, and may be ideographs for some god, whose name has not yet been phonetically identified. The homogeneity, indeed, of m and v, which are the true powers of and , is the chief argument I possess in favour of the phonetic reading of the name. For the Greek , see Cory's, Fragments, p. 67.Google Scholar

page 424 note 2 Compare the Cylinders numbered 54, 58, 67, 133, &c., in Cullimore'g collection.

page 424 note 3 I remarked this in an Inscription lately found at Koyunjik, which has not yet been published.

page 424 note 4 I conjecture that the abbreviation k, or the more complete form k, t or with the determinative prefixed, , may represent the idea of “serving,” the Assyrian term being perhaps cognate with the first syllable of the Arabic root , and I further hazard au explanation of ab(?), which is also used for the first element of the name in place of . as an abbreviation of abd. With regard to the second element of the name, supposing the true phonetic power of to be Sver, rather than Bar, as I generally render the sign, the variant monograms , might perhaps be referred to this actual title; the first, or sb, being an abbreviation of the name; and the second, sr, being pronounced sur, which would be phonetically equal to Sver. At the same time, I think it safer to suppcse Bar, Seb, and Sur to denote the same god, than to assume the phonetic equivalence of the monograms. Possibly, indeed, which commences many names of gods, may be a distinct title, and the adjuncts may be qualifying epithets.

page 425 note 1 I do not affect to consider this identification of the name of Sardanapalus as any thing more than a conjecture. The first element , representing by abbreviation the god Assarac, and also commencing the name of Assyria, had, I think, the true phonetic power of As-sar, but if, as would appear probable from the indifferent employment of and , the monogram should be here intended to denote the god, then a guttural must be introduced after Assar in pronouncing the king's name. The attribution again of the power of adan to the middle element, or , is exceedingly doubtful. The only direct argument in its favour is that as the determinative of “a province,” interchanges with or , which has usually the phonetic value of du, while the adjunct , I think, represents a terminal liquid, optionally softening to u. The last element, also, or , I merely read as pal, from its appearing to have that power in the name of Nabopalasaar, father of Nebuchadnezzar, as explained in note 2, p. 405. These few remarks upon the component parts of the Assyrian royal names will show the extreme difficulty of ascertaining their true pronunciation.

page 426 note 1 As I shall repeatedly have occasion to notice the god Assarac, I may as well explain at once that I consider it to be almost certain that this name represents the Biblical Nisroch, the god of the Assyrians, in whose temple Sennacherib was slain. (2 Kings, c. xix. v. 37; and Isaiah, c. xxxvii. v. 38.) Whether the initial N of the Hebrew name was an error of some ancient copyist, or a euphuism not uncommon in Syriac, or whether it was not rather owing to the determinative for a god, , which precedes the Cuneiform name, being read as a phonetic sign, I will not pretend to decide; but it is worthy of remark that the Septuagint, who wrote while the god in question was still probably worshipped on the banks of the Tigris, and who may thus be supposed to have been familiar with the title, replaced the Hebrew by in one passage, and in another. That Assarac, moreover, was the true form of the Cuneiform name which was usually expressed by the abbreviations as-sar, is rendered highly probable, by the full orthography which occurs in one passage, (British Museum, No. 75, A. 1.3,) of , the title being there expressed with pure phonetic signs, while the epithet which is Added, of “father of the gods,” would seem to establish the identity. Now it can be shown by a multitude of examples occurring in the Assyrian Inscriptions, that in early times the countries and cities of the East were very commonly named after the gods who were worshipped there, or under whose protection the land was believed to be. Assyria was thus certainly named after Assarac, the tutelar divinity of the nation, the geographical title being not only usually written in full, Assarak or Assarah, but being sometimes also represented by the same abbreviated monogram , which is used for the name of the god. The question then arises, if the god Assarac, who imposed his own name on the country where he was worshipped, can be identified with the Biblical Ashur, who colonized Assyria. That the Greeks (Xenocrates, quoted in the Etym. Mag. in voce ', and Eratosthenes, cited by Eustatliius, ad Dion vs. V. 775,) derived the name of Assyria from a certain leader named ', I should not consider an argument of much weight, for the heroes Armenus, Medus, and Perseus, after whom it was pretended that tiie neighbouring provinces were named, were undoubtedly fabulous: and the genealogies, moreover, recorded in the tenth chapter of Genesis, are considered by an eminent authority to be nothing more than “an historical representation of the great and lengthened migrations of the primitive Asiatic race of man,” (Bunsen's, Egypt, p. 182Google Scholar); but at the same time the double employment of the Hebrew and the Cuneiform is certainly remarkable, and there is no improbability in the Proto-patriarch of Assyria having been deified by his descendants and placed at the head of their Pantheon. Assarac is named in the Incriptions “father of the gods;” “king of the gods;” “great ruler of the gods,” &c, and he would seem therefore to answer to the Chronos or Saturn, whom the Greeks in their Assyro-Hellenic Mythology (conf. Paschal Chronicle: John of Malala, &c.) made to be the husband of Semiramis or Rhea, the grand father of Belus, and the progenitor of all the gods. Curiously enough, also, Beyer, who annotated Selden's work, “de Diis Syris,” and who illustrated the Biblical notices of the Assyrian and Babylonian gods by references to the Talmud and the Rabbinical traditions, states (page 323) that Nisroch was considered to be identical with the Greek Chronos or Saturn, thus confirming, on Jewish authority, the indication afforded by the epithets applied to Assarac in the incriptions. It has been assumed pretty generally in England, that the vulture-headed god, who is very frequently figured on the Nineveh marbles, múst necessarily represent the Biblical Nisroch, nasr or nisr signifying “a vulture,” both in Hebrew and Arabic, and the Zoroastrian oracle, , appearing te refer to the same Assyrian divinity. I cannot, however, at all subscribe to this doctrine. Nisr, “a vulture,” can hardly by possibility have any etymological connexion with Assarac, which is the true orthography of the name of the Assyrian god. I do not indeed think that the vulture-headed figure is intended to represent any god, in the popular acceptation of that term. I should rather consider it to be an allegorical figure—a symbol, perhaps, connected with the philosophy of early Magism—of which the hidden meaning was known only to the priesthood. If Nisroch or Assarac is figured at all upon the Assyrian marbles, I should suppose him, as the head of the Pantheon, to be represented by that particular device of a winged figure in a circle, which was subsequently adopted by the Persians to denote Ormazd, the chief deity of their religious system. The Zoroastrian oracle of the hawk-headed god may, at the same time, very possibly refer to the Nimrud figure; for all the Zoroastrian Cabala, and in fact, the whole structure and machinery of Magism, as detailed in the Zend Avesta and Bun Dehesh, were derived, I think, from the later Chaldees; but I take the Theos of the oracle to be used altogether in an esoteric sense, and to have no connexion whatever with the primitive and vulgar mythology of Assyria.

page 427 note 2 My reasons for supposing to represent Beltis, are, Istly, a common Variant groupe for the deity in question is, , when denotes Bel, and is, I think, a feminine characteristic, or at any rate an epithet applying exclusively to goddesses; 2ndly, the deity is symbolised on a cylinder, (see Cullimore's Cyl. No. 50) by a naked female figure nearly resembling the Ken of the Hieroglyphs; and 3rd, on the Obelisk, side 1, line 12, attached to is the epithet , “mother of the gods,” being used at Behistun for the Persian mátá.

page 427 note 3 The epithet “nero,” which I propose to render “shining,” is applied to many of the gods; to Bel, to Bar, to Nebo (or Sut ?), even to Assarac; and it can hardly therefore be made use of as an argument in favour of the Sabæism of the Assyrian worship. It is probably the same word which occurs in the Biblical Nergal.

page 427 note 4 The name of this deity is written indifferently , but I have no clue to its identification in the general mythological system. At Khorsabad, Ani is usually joined with Ashtera, or the goddess Astarte.

page 427 note 5 The usual phonetic form of this name is, perhaps, Kati-bar.

page 428 note 1 I may as well note that it is extremely doubtful if the middle character of this king's name really represent an n; I merely give it that power as I find , and or , to interchange in the word for “man;” but there are equally strong grounds for classing among the dentals; and the name in question therefore may very possibly read Hem-tak or Hem-tag.

page 428 note 2 Nahiri frequently occurs as the name of a country about the head streams of the Tigris and Euphrates; it is, I think, the same as the Biblical , and the Egyptian Naharaina; but I do not consider either of those names to apply to Mesopotamia, as that term was used by the Greek geographers.

page 428 note 3 If this be the same name as the Khorsabad , the allusion will be to a country lying between Armenia and Susiana, the Matiene, in fact, of Herodotus.

page 428 note 4 The word which I doubtfully render “plains,” is written or , and is, I believe, identical with the Biblical . Gesenius, it is true, translates Aram, “highlands,” but this is hardly in accordance with the use of the term in Scripture; and I observe, moreover, in the last line of the Obelisk, the verb “I came down,” in connexion with which would seem to show that the word must signify “low country” or “plains.”

page 428 note 5 The most ancient name of the Tigris was , of which I cannot venture to give the pronunciation. Its better-known appellation was Barseber, always written in Assyrian , but with many variants in Hieratic and Cursive Babylonian. (Compare India-House Slab, col. 5, lines 15, 38,45; col. 7, line 46, &c; Bellino's Cylinder, col. 2," line 42; Rich, PI. IX, No. 4,1. 22.) The name of Dikel or Diglet, (Chaldee Arabic Diglito of Pliny,) however, was not unknown. At Behistun, is used in one passage for the more usual , and I have found the same title, but slightly varied in the spelling, in an Inscription of the time of the Khorsabad king. See British Museum series, No. 65, 1. 14, where the phrase occurs, “I slew the Arab tribes who dwelt upon the Tigris.”

page 429 note 1 1 In some copies of this Inscription Syria is denoted by the capital city of the Hittites, a city well known, under a slightly altered form, in the Inscriptions of the Khorsabad period, and which I have been often tempted to read Shaluma, and to identify with Jerusalem, : but generally, instead of this name, , we have the country of , which is certainly, I think, the Lemenen or Remenen of the Hieroglyphs, and which may very possibly be tlie Scriptural Lebanon. Coraparing, indeed, the following passages in the British Museum series, Pl. 26, l. 16; Pl. 39, l. 23; and Pl. 40, ls. 40 and 45, we can hardly doubt but that the three names and , or Lemenen, Hamana, and Serar, refer to places immediately contiguous, and the most reasonable explanation therefore certainly is, that they deuote the great mountain chain of Syria, the hills, in fact of Lebanon, Amana, and Shenir, which are associated in the famous passage of Solomon's Song, c. iv. v. 8, and which are otherwise well known in geography.

page 429 note 2 Of the river Sbenat I know nothing, as it is not mentioned in any other passage. The etymology, however, would seem to be Zend; compare sventa, “holy.” Armenia in this passage is sometimes named Ararat and sometimes Aram Bedan, to the identification of which, unless it be the Padan Aram of Scripture, I have no clue whatever.

page 429 note 3 In this list the only remarkable place is Taha-Tanis, or, as it is may rather perhaps be read, Taha-Dnnis. This was a very celebrated city of Lower Chaldæa, but I cannot identify the name in classical or Scriptural geography. I shall reserve all inquiry into the other names, the phonetic rendering of many of which is extremely doubtful, for the Memoir to be published hereafter.

page 430 note 1 See British Museum series, Pl. 43, 1. 10. The names of Tyre and Sidon, of Akarra (for the Heb. Greek , and modern Acre), of Gubal (Heb. , and Greek ), and Arvada (Heb. , and Greek ) are certain; but the other three, which are moreover of very rare occurrence, are doubtful. In the Khorsabad Inscriptions, for Akarra or Acre is often substituted Maratha, which is of course the of Strabo, Lib. xvi. p. 518Google Scholar. As these sheets are passing through the press, I observe that Dr. Hincks has mistaken these Phoenician cities of Acre and Marath for the remote provinces of Aria and Parthia, provinces to which I am pretty sure the Assyrian arms never penetrated. See Khorsabad Inscriptions by DrHincks, , p. 31.Google Scholar

page 430 note 2 See British Museum series, Plates 48 and 49.

page 431 note 1 The claims here put forward require perhaps to be qualified, for I do not affect to consider my reading of the Obelisk Inscription in the light of a critical translation. Whenever, indeed, I have met with a passage of any particular obscurity I have omitted it, and the interpretation even which I have given of many of the standard expressions is almost conjectural. My object has been throughout to give a general idea of the nature of the Assyrian records, rather than to resolve particular difficulties of orthography or etymology.

page 431 note 2 That the monogram denotes the goddess Nit, (Egyptian Neith ?), I infer from its being used at Behistun to express the last syllable in the name of king Nabunit, (). Nit and Artank are named in the E. I. H. Insc., col. 4, l. 10.

page 431 note 3 Most of these names are very doubtful indeed.

page 431 note 4 The application to Assyria and Babylonia of the general name Perrat, seems to explain a passage in the Etym. Mag. .

page 432 note 1 This name has many different forms, but wherever it occurs, it denotes, I think, Northern Syria, or rather perhaps the particular mountain ranges stretching from Gilieia to Libanus, being in fact the of the Greeks, and of Scripture. (See authorities in Bochart's Phaleg, col. 359.) The name should be pronounced Hamána or Amána, I think, in preference to the form I generally use of Khamána.

page 432 note 2 The Sheta or Khita are repeatedly mentioned in the Egyptian Inscriptions of the eighteenth and nineteenth dynasties. By Mr. Birch they have been supposed to represent the Chaldees. Others have identified them with the Scythians: whilst Bunsen has recognised in the Khita, the Hittites of Scripture, and this last explanation is undoubtedly the true one; for the Sheta of the Assyrian Inscriptions, (written Sveta or sometimes Khetta,) who are certainly the same people as the Khita of the Hieroglyphs, can be distinctly proved from the numerous notices concerning them, to have been the dominant tribe of Palestine, and the of Joshua, c. i. v. 4, and the of 2 Kings, c. vii. v. 6, have the same general application. Tins name , indeed, appears to have always been the special and vernacular designation of Palestine, the governors of that province during the period of the Babylonish captivity, taking on their coins the title of See the de Luynes's, Due Essay on Phœnicia, p. 76, sqq.Google Scholar

page 433 note 1 The name of the Euphrates is written in Assyrian or optionally with a final t, and each of these forms must, I think, be sounded Berát or Perat. The Babylonian orthography was , which, I think, was also pronounced Huperátah, although singularly enough this particular term (spelt in many different ways, and generally without the initial sign) was used in all the Assyrian Inscriptions from the earliest period to the latest, as one of the titles of the monarch, and certainly with no reference whatever to the river. For the Babylonian form of the name as it occurs at Behistun, see India-House Inscription, col. vii. 1. 45; Bellino'a Cylinder, side ii, l. 40; Rich, Pl. IX. No. 4. l. 21; British Museum series, Pl. 18, 1. 32; and for the same word written in full, instead of with the syllabic sign , see British Museum series, Pl. 76,1. 3. Care must be taken not to confound with the name of the Euphrates the word, usually written , and preceded by the determinative of “water,” which occurs so often at Khorsabad in connexion with the “Chaldees,” and in many other places besides; for this term, although pronounced nearly in the same manner as the name of the Euphrates, does in reality apply to the “sea” or “ocean,” being perhaps cognate with the Latin mare.

page 433 note 2 Bither is, perhaps, the Biblical (Numb. xxii. 5Google Scholar, and Deut. xxiii. 5) but all this part of the Inscription is very difficult, and little dependence can be placed on the translation.Google Scholar

page 434 note 1 The Belek is, I conclude, the of the Greeks and modern Bilikh, a large affluent of the Euphrates above the Khabúr.

page 434 note 2 Atesh is so frequently mentioned in this Inscription, and is apparently a place of 60 much consequence, as to merit some inquiry into its site. Its connexion with the Sneta would seem to identify it determinately with the Atesh or Ati pf the Egyptian records, a city, as Mr. Birch observed in a recent paper, “the ascertaining the Bite of which has been deemed one of the greatest desiderata in Egyptian history.” (See Trans, of Royal Society of Literature, vol. II. 2nd Ser. p. 336Google Scholar.) Mr. Birch, from an examination of the Egyptian evidence regarding Atesh, came to the' conclusion that it was a large city of Syria, to the north of Palestine, and the Cuneiform indications all tend to the same emplacement. That jt could not have been far from the sea-coast of Phœnicia, is proved by the Assyrian king having received, whilst sojourning in the land of Atesh, the tribute of Tyre and Sidon, and Byblos; and its uniform association with Hamath would further naturally point out Emessa or Hems, as its modern representative, these two cities having been conjoined in all ages both politically and geographically. It is interesting, therefore, to remark that St. Jerome, in commentating the passage of the Toldoth Beni Noah, where the Zemarite and the Hamathite are spoken of together, explains the former name, which the Jerusalem Targum and all the Oriental Jews identify with Hems or Emessa, as applying to a famous city of Oœ.o-Syria, called Edessa. The critics, of course, unanimously suppose that Edessa is here an error for Emessa; but I would inquire if Edessa might not have been really an ancient name for Hems, an Hellenic form, indeed, of the Assyrian and Egyptian Atesh. St. Jerome could not possibly have meant the real Edessa, for that city was not in Cœlo-Syria; nor was it ever conjoined with Hamath; nor could the Mesopotamian Edessa possibly represent the Atesh of the Hieroglyphics, for it was not situated upon a river; and the latter feature was the distinguishing local characteristic of the city taken by Sethos I. Whatever may be thought of this attempt to reconcile Atesh with Hems, through St. Jerome's employment of the name of Edessa, it is at any rate certain, that no cities of Syria will so well meet the Cuneiform requirements for Atesh and Hamath, as the modern and , and if we allow for some exaggeration on the part of the Egyptian artists in representing the Orontes as almost equal to the Nile, the pictures of the siege of Atesh, which Mr. Birch conjectures to have given rise to the Greek fable of the Assyrian campaign against Bactria, may, I think, be brought to apply equally well to the same locality of Hems. There are, however, some remarkable ruins on the Orontes above Hems, named , which are said to be of an Assyrian character, and which may possibly mark the site of Atesh.

page 435 note 1 I take this name from the Bull Inscriptions, but I do not think the place alluded to can be the famous Chaldean city of Beth Takara, of which mention js so frequently made at Khorsabad. All this part of the Inscription, however, describing the wars of Sut-Baba and Sut-Bel-herat, is exceedingly difficult, and I cannot conjecture even the meaning of several passages.

page 436 note 1 The name here made use of on the Obelisk and in the Inscription on the Statue from Shergat, (which was dedicated in commemoration of this particular campaign) is Hekdi, and I translate it Armenia, from observing that at Khor- V sabad, the three names of and or Hekdi Sheshah, and Ararat, interchange; but I think that the province of Hekdi must also have included Adiabene; for in the Shergat Inscription it would certainly seem to intervene between Assyria and Babylonia.

page 436 note 2 There is a name here used on the Obelisk and in the Shergat Inscription for Babylonia which deserves some attention; it is written , and was pronounced, perhaps, Pekhodh or Pekhods, being, I think, the same as the Biblical , which in Jer. 1. 21, and in Ezek. xxiii. 23Google Scholar, is understood to designate some part of the province of Babylon. The same name is found in several other inscriptions referring to Babylonia, (see among others, Ehors. Ins. p. 152,12; ls. 5, 8,11); and on Bellino's Cylinder it is used almost indifferently for the more common term . I take this opportunity, also, of suggesting that the , conjoined with Pekod in the verse above quoted, Jer. 1. 21, may be identified with the of the Inscriptions. The Cuneiform term is usually in the plural number, as the Hebrew is in the dual; the two names must be pronounced almost similarly and their geographical application can hardly vary.

page 436 note 3 I am hardly prepared to maintain that the ancient name of Babylonia, , can be read Phonetically Shinar, though, if the Biblical title of does anywhere occur in the Inscriptions, this group of characters has certainly the best claim to be considered its correspondent; for of the four signs which compose the name, the three last have certainly the powers n, r, h, and the first may possibly be s. Perhaps it would be a preferable explanation to regard the Cuneiform title as composed entirely of ideographs, and signifying “the country of the god Rah”(?), for the first sign, which has many variants, seems very frequently to denote a country; the second sign is the determinative of a god,.and was, I think, in the early times used exclusively in that capacity; and with regard to the third element, we may very well understand that all the various forms which it takes, and which cannot possibly be brought into phonetic identity, may be monograms or groups denoting the same deity. I do not lay much stress on the particular name Bah, but make use of it as the phonetic value of the characters most commonly employed. The chief objection to this explanation is, that the deity is otherwise unknown in Assyrian mythology, (for it would hardly, I suppose, be allowable to compare 'Pśa or Semiramis, the tutelar divinity of Babylon); but on the other hand, a comparison of a passagevin the Khorsabad Inscriptions, Pl 153, l. 5, where is joined to , with a Passage in line 9 of the Bame plate, where the name of a well-known deity , used geographically, is also joined to the same term, would certainly seem to place and in the same category of divinity. Of one thing, at any rate, I am pretty well persuaded, that cannot represent Babylon phonetically. The name of Babel, usually written , is never brought, so far as my experience goes, into the remotest alphabetical connexion with the other title, and until therefore I find the one term written with an r, , instead of an l, , or the other written with an l instead of an r, I shall hardly be brought to admit that they can be pronounced in the same manner, or indeed, that they represent phonetically the same name.

page 437 note 4 The name of Borsippa, is, I think, undoubted. It occurs in every notice of Babylon from the earliest time to the latest, and the name is written indifferently, Bartsebah, Bartseleh, and Bartsira, another example being thus afforded of the interchange of the l or r with the v or b.

page 437 note 5 The name written on the Obelisk is replaced by in the Bull Inscriptions, but I know nothing of the cities thus indicated, unless they are various forms for the name of Sitace. The chief place of Babylonia, in an Inscription of the Khorsabad period, (British Museum series, Pl. 68, l 11,) is named and in Pl. 65, l. 19, of the same series, another place is mentioned, which also seems to have been a Babylonian capital. may, perhaps, be the place of which the name is usually written , and which has been already noticed. In a later age, the Jewish Sura was called , which somewhat resembles the Cuneiform orthography of .

page 437 note 6 Although I always translate the Assyrian term by Chaldeo from the location of the tribe to which the title belongs in Lower Chaldæa, that is, between Babylonia Proper and the sea, I am by no means sure that the Cuneiform characters will represent that name phonetically; nor am I satisfied that the Greek term , for the Biblical , is of itself a genuine ancient form. At the same time, as the character has properly the full syllabic power of l-v, it may, according to my system, represent one of those sounds without the other, and may even admit an initial vowel, or, which is the same thing in Babylonian, an aspiration; BO that I think it quite possible and may be read Halah and Haldi, for Calah and Chaldi. Othe* readings have occurred to me for , such as Labdi for Nabti, “the Nabathæans;” or Ludi, the Lud of Scripture, joined with Persia and Phut, (which latter is certainly the Putiyá of the Nakhsh-i-Rustam Inscription) in Ezek. c. 27, v. 10, and perhaps the Luten or Rute of the Hieroglyphs; but on geographical as well as etymological considerations I prefer adhering to my translation of “Chaldee.”

page 438 note 1 This name is written indifferently and , leading to the inference that the monogram denotes the same god as the group , but I have not otherwise met with either of these forms in connexion with the Assyrian Pantheon.

page 438 note 2 The city, of which the name is written or , and which was the capital of the Hittites, and the 6hief place apparently in Syria, must represent, it would seem, either Baalbek, or IJamascus, or Jerusalem; but I have not yet been able to satisfy myself to which place the notices in the Inscriptions are most applicable, nor, owing to the strangely contradictory employment of the character , can I determine with any certainty the true form of the name.

page 439 note 1 I have sometimes thought that the twelve tribes who are confounded with the Hittites, and who confederate with the kings of Atesh and Hamath against the Assyrians, might represent the children of Israel, but such an identification can be at present but a mere conjecture. In one passage they are spoken of, I think, as “the twelve tribes of the Upper and Lower country;” (the word that I translate “Upper” being the epithet applied to the Upper Zab, which is crossed on the march from Nineveh to Media;) and if accordingly the Jews should be the people indicated, the notice must be supposed to refer to them soon after their arrival in Palestine, from “the Upper and Lower country” of Egypt, a somewhat greater antiquity being thus given to the Inscriptions of Nimrud than I should be otherwise disposed to claim for them.

page 439 note 2 This tribute is represented in the fifth row of sculptures upon the Obelisk. Perhaps the true reading of the name of the tribe is the Sevtina or Sebtina, for as the letter represents the s and b indifferently, the inference is that it must have originally possessed the full syllabic power of Seb. I conjecture the Sevtina, who are very frequently spoken of in the early Assyrian Inscriptions, but rarely or ever in the later, to be the Shairutena of the Hieroglyphs. They Inhabited some parts of Syria, but I have no clue to their particular emplacement.

page 440 note 1 I may here notice, once for all, that there is no doubt whatever about the reading of Ararat, nor its identity with Armenia; for both at Nakhsh-i-Rustam and Beliistuu, the Persian Armina is represented in the Babylonian translation by Hararat, written nearly in the same manner as at Kliorsabad. I have added this note as the sheets are passing through the press, in consequence of remarking that Dr. Hincks has mistaken the name of Ararat for that of Chorastmia.

page 440 note 2 Conjecture the Dayini or Dayani to be the Tahia of the Hieroglyphs, Scriptural and of Herodotus, , Lib. i. c. 125.Google Scholar

page 440 note 3 The identification of the with the Arians (or , whom Herodotus mentions as the ancient inhabitants of Media, Lib. vii. c. 62) is very doubtful. The people mentioned in the Inscriptions, however, evidently dwelt within the mountain range east of Assyria, and were neighbours of the Medes. The name seems to have been become obsolete at the Khorsabad period of history.

page 441 note 1 Gubal is the Greek . The form of occurs in several passages of Scripture, (see Ezek, . xxvii. 9Google Scholar, and I Kings, v. 32Google Scholar); and the same orthography was retained until a late period upon the coins of the city. See the de Luynes's, Due Essay, “Sur la Numismatique de la Phænicie,“p. 88, sqq.Google Scholar

page 442 note 1 The Syrian tribe of Tubal, connected, in all probability, if not identical with the or of Scripture, will be more particularly noticed in my remarks on the Khorsabad Inscriptions.

page 442 note 2 I have ventured to read phonetically, as it here certainly represents the name of a country; but the term, which is of very common occurrence, usually denotes some well-known natural object, (perhaps a palm-tree,) and the initial character is determinative. The same word, I may add, is used to designate a city of Babylon in the E. I. H. Insc, col. iv. l. 27.

page 442 note 3 The land of Kharkhar, which is very frequently mentioned in the Inscriptions of Nimrud, of Khorsabad, and of Van, was certainly a part of Armenia. There are two people known in Armenian history whose names nearly resemble the Cuneiform title, the Karkatians ( of Strabo), and the Khorkhorunians, descended from Khorh, son of Haig. The latter, however, who dwelt upon the lake Van, and were of much traditional celebrity, hare certainly the best elaim to be identified with the Cuneiform Kharkhar (see St. Martin's, Armenia, Vol. II. p. 246Google Scholar). The siege of the city of Kharkhar, capital of the province, is represented in the Khorsabad sculptures, Salle II. No. 7; and this may possibly be the same place as the modern city of Van, for the hill on which the castle is built retains the name of Khorkhor to the present day: though as the Kharkhar, which is mentioned in the Inscriptions Oh the Van rock, appears to be a foreign place, the mere coincidence of name is by no means sufficient to prove an identity.

page 443 note 1 I infer, from the geographical distribution contained in this paragraph, that the Persian tribes, when they were thus first brought in contact with the Assyrians, had not yet turned to the southward in their immigration from beyond the Oxus, or, at any rate, had not yet reached Persia Proper. The or Arians, who were first met with after the passage of the Zab, inhabited probably Central Media. The Persian tribes I should place about Ehages and the Caspian Straits (the date of the Nimrud Inscriptions being thus apparently synchronous with the composition of the first Fargard of the Vendidad). The Medes might then be understood as the inhabitants of Atropatene, and Kharkhar would be Pers-armenia. I do not of course give these emplacements as certain, but it would be difficult, according to any other explanation, to bring the tribes and countries indicated into geographical relation. I may add that it is, I think, undoubtedly in allusion to the Kharkhar of the Inscriptions, that Alexander Polyhistor, quoting Berosus, says of the ark or vessel in which Xisuthrus escaped from the flood, Syncell. Chron. 28; Eus. Chron. 5. 8.

page 444 note 1 If the name here written be really Khamána (and as the and commonly interchange, I can hardly doubt the identity), we must give a somewhat greater extension to the country indicated than I have before proposed. We must consider Khamána, indeed, not only to apply to the true , but to include a part of Taurus; for the river Artseni, crossed on the march from Assyria to Ararat, or “the Great Armenia,” can only be the of the Greeks (modern ); and Ambaret, or perhaps Akberet, I should suppose to be the Armenian Kharbert, or, as it is usually called, Kharpoot.

page 446 note 1 I will not pretend at present to discuss the geography of either of these two last campaigns; for though many of the names, such as Hubiska, Bazatsera, otherwise Mekhatseri, Ladsán, &c, are well known in the Inscriptìons, I have not been able to discover anything certain with regard to their positions, further than that they were contiguous to Northern Media and Armenia. The province of Minni, however, which is mentioned in the campaign of the thirtieth year, and which occupies a conspicuous place in the Inscriptions both of Khorsabad and Van (the name being written indifferently as and is certainly the of Scripture, associated by Jeremiah (c. li. v. 27) with Ararat and Ashchenaz, and also spoken of by Nicolaus of Damascus under the form of . I may also hazard a conjecture that the Aslikenaz of Scripture is the Arzeskan of the Inscriptions, which was the capital city of Arama, king of Ararat, the two names being almost identical, if we admit a metathesis in the orthography. Aslikenaz must at any rate necessarily have some Cuneiform correspondent, and I know of no name but Arzeskan that at all resembles it. The similarity of the Arama of the Inscriptions with the Armenian king Aram, sixth in descent from Haig, cannot of course be overlooked; but I would hardly propose to draw any historical inference from this coincidence of name. I will only add that the notice of the Persians in “both of these campaigns, in evident connection with tribes and countries belonging to Northern Media and Armenia, is to my mind strongly confirmatory of the osupposition that at the date of the Kimrud Inscriptions the tribes in question were still encamped at the foot of the mountains south of the Caspian, in those aeats which the traditions of the race identified with the exploits of Feridoun and his successors. I believe indeed that these Cuneiform notices of the Persians will go far to verify the suspicion which has been long entertained, of the subjection of the race to the Assyrian yoke being figured under the tyrannical rule of the usurper Zohák, and will enable us in the end to introduce something like chronological accuracy and order into the myths and traditions embodied in the Shahnámeh.

page 447 note 1 The Misr of Behistun and Nakhsh-i-Ruetam, answering to Mudráya, is written , whilst the name occurs under a variety of forms in the Inscriptions of Assyria, the first character being or equal to m or v; the second, or equal to s; and the third, uniformly or r. There can be little doubt therefore, I think, about the identity of the names; and the geographical indications of the Khorsabad Inscriptions are applicable to Egypt, and to Egypt only. As the name of by which the Jews designated Egypt, was unknown in the country itself, it is highly interesting to find that it was in use amongst the Assyrians, at as early a period as the Nimrud sculptures.

page 448 note 1 Dr. Hincks has declared this explanation to be quite untenable, and I am not prepared myself to support it very warmly. As the term however, denotes ordinarily some natural feature, whilst preceded by the determinative it represents “a camel,” it is certainly most reasonable to explain the connexion between the two meanings by supposing the camel to be the beast especially belonging to that natural feature; and if this be admitted, “desert” will assuredly be a more suitable reading for than “forest.” There would be no impropriety also in connecting the desert with Lebanon, especially where, as in line 8 of the Nimrud Standard Inscription, a great territorial boundary is indicated, for a phrase of very similar structure and application occurs in the fourth verse of the first chapter of Joshua:-“From the wilderness and this Lebanon, even unto the great river, the river Euphrates.” At the same time I fully admit the force of Dr. Hincks's observations, which I have just read in page 68 of his Paper on the Khorsabad Inscriptions; and I bear a most willing testimony to the great sagacity which he lias brought to bear on this nnd many other points connected with the Cuneiform Inscriptions, and which very frequently has rendered him independent of data.

page 449 note 1 See British Museum series, Pl. 70, l. 25. There is no certain genealogy in this Inscription above Temen-bar II., for although four other royal names are mentioned, it is extremely doubtful how they may be connected.

page 449 note 2 I refer to the title “king of Sabiri and Sheshak,” which is found line 21 of the Inscription in question, applied to Katibar, who was also king of Assyria.

page 449 note 3 I observe, however, that the worship of Ashteroth or, Ashtera,) seems to have been introduced into Assyria during this interval; for the name, although of very frequent occurrence in the Inscription of Khorsabud, it nevar once met with in the earlier annals of Nimrud. The term Ashtera, howerer, is often used simply for a goddess, as in the phrase, “the gods and goddesses inhabiting Assyria.” Sea Khorsabad Plates, No. 131, ls. 8 and 20, &c.

page 450 note 1 See British Museum series, Pl. 33, l. 13. As the characters and interchange in the name of the Euphrates, and as the former is often used after a king's name, apparently as a title Or epithet, I believe I must abandon the idea of their representing “third” and “fourth” in the two passages where they refer respectively to Ternon-bar I. and Sardanapalus. That however signifies “an ancestor” or “one going before,” I consider to be almost certain, not only from a very similar expression at Behistun, but from the occurrence of the phrase in several Inscriptions at Khorsabad, where the context proves the sense; compare amongst others, line 8 of Pl. 153, and see British Museum series, Pl. 76, ls. 22 and 23.

page 451 note 1 Compare Isaiah, xx. 1Google Scholar with 2 Kings, xviii. 17.Google Scholar

page 451 note 2 The first element of the name is (which is the Assyrian form of the Babylonian ) or these characters being abbreviations or monograms for the word “king.” I hare already mentioned that the word of which is the abbreviation, is written at Behistun at full length as arkau or arko, but I am in great doubt whether should be made to assimilate with this title, or whether it may not stand for Melik. The word properly signifies merely “a prince,” but as the root has the general Sense of “ruling” or “having dominion,” we may reasonably suppose a derivative from it to be applied to “a king” or “supreme ruler.”

page 451 note 3 It is whh some doubt that I render the term by . This reading, indeed, depends on the character being the same as or , and although the one form is certainly often interchanged with the other, I am by no means assured of their identity. For an instance of the interchange of with see the name of the Chaldeean king at Khorsabad, which occurring as it does in almost every inscription, is written indifferently and . It has sometimes occurred to me that the Khorsabad king's name is to be found in the of the Greeks. might very well be made to read and greatly resembles , drukhs, although the union of Assyrian and Zend is somewhat incongruous.

page 452 note 1 That is, it is the name of the king, preceded by a noun of locality. This noua is written and from its interchanging with (see British Museum series, Pl. 44,18th variant,) it may be conjectured to havb the phonetic value of amen. In use, however, it is equivalent to the Beth, Tel, Hazar, Kefer, Kiriath, &c, used in Arabic and Hebrew geography.

page 452 note 2 See Cory's, Fragments, p. 199.Google Scholar

page 452 note 3 I examined this Inscription a short time back in the Museum at Berlin, and I have since received a very perfect paper cast of it, through the kindness of Dr. Olfers. It is very similar to the Standard Inscription of Khorsabad, but contains a brief local notice of much interest.

page 452 note 4 See British Museum series, No. 33, 1. 8. The name is written .

page 453 note 1 I proceed to give a brief analysis of this name. The first element is either or , that is, it is the name represented by either one or the other of these groups, and that god was undoubtedly or Belus; for the monogram which is a contraction of , is used at Behistun for the last syllable of the name of Naditabir, and , moreover, denoting simply a lord or master, like the Hebrew , is replaced in the Khorsabad Inscriptions by the forms of or , all of which give the sound bel ' and by the fuller form of or Bil, upon Bellino's Cylinder. My own belief is, that is a simple b, and is used by abbreviation for Bel, both as the name of the god, and to express the word “lord.” The character invariably joined to the in Assyrian, and usually in Babylonian (but not always-compare the names of the witnesses to the contracts published by Grotefend, which mean “the servant of Bel,” “given by Bel,” “devoted to Bel,” &c), is phonetically an l, and is thus either used to complete the phonetic expression of the name, or, as I think more probable, to distinguish the male deity Belus, from the female Beltis, or . I am not sure of the phonetic power of in Babylonian. Curiously enough, in Median it does, I think, actually represent s-n, but it would seem to be a simple b or b-s in the other alphabet; for the groups and are phonetically identical, and at Khorsabad, in Pl. 80,1. 7, is used for the initial character of the name of Media.

The second element of the name I am considering is or and I do not pretend to have any satisfactory grounds for reading it as adonim. The or has, however, I think, almost certainly the phonetic value of m or v, and I have spoken of the other characters in my note on the name of Sardanapalus.

The third element is or , and, either as ideographs or phonetic groups, both these terms are strange to me; the latter group, however, has certainly the power of r-b, and would thus answer well enough for the concluding syllable of the name of Sennaoherib

Since writing the above, I have received Dr. Hincks's paper on the Khorsabad Inscriptions, and have attentively read his remarks on the presumed name of Sennaoherib, contained in pages 25 and 35. I am bound to say that I can discover no authority whatever for reading or as sen, beyond the clue afforded by the value of the character in Median, and in this case I certainly think that clue fallacious. I must further add, with all due deference to Dr. Hincks's happy talent of solving enigmas almost by intuition, that or is not ci-na, but Bel (the n being substituted for l, as usual); that is not in Median, but sar, being in fact the Assyrian and Babylonian ;that “from” in Median is simply mer, the preceding being the case inflexion, answering to the Turkish that has in Babylonian the power of m rather than of gi, and that I believe the plural sign to have a similar phonetic value of im, though the m probably lapses before a following n. After reading, indeed, and carefully considering all Dr. Hincks's arguments, I remain as incredulous as ever of the identity of the Koyunjik king with the Sennacherib of Scripture.

page 454 note 1 See Cory's, Fragments, pp. 6, 16, 63.Google Scholar

page 455 note 1 See British Museum series, Pl. 61, 1. 8. The name of the king of Sidon, muoh mutilated, and consequently of a very uncertain orthography, is found at the and of line 7 in Pl 59 of the British Museum series.

page 455 note 2 Compare with Josephus, Ant., lib. x. c. 1, the passage in Herodotus, lib. ii. c. 141, and Isaiah c. xx. v. 4, where, however, the subjugation of Egypt would seem to be attributed to Sargon or Shalmaneser rather than to Sennacherib.

page 455 note 3 The only Inscription known of this king is that published in Pl 19 of the British Museum series.

page 456 note 1 Bocohoris reigned but six years, according to Manetho; and as the war between Assyria and Egypt is distinctly placed in the seventh year of the Nineveh reign, he could not have been upon the throne when Khorsabad was built, which records events as late as the fifteenth year of the same reign. The date of the Egyptian war is fixed in the No. II. series of the Khorsabad Historical Annals (see Pl. 75). where the events are chronicled according to their yearly order, while the number 15 is found in the phrase “from the commencement of my reign to the 15th year,” which heads each section of the annals.

page 456 note 1 I state this on the authority of the Chevalier Bunsen, who has kindly allowed me to inspect his MS. Chronological Tables.

page 457 note 1 See British Museum Series, from 20 to 29 inclusive; and see particularly 1. 53 sqq. of Pl. 22 for the proof of posteriority.

page 457 note 2 See Plates 17 and 18 of the British Museum series. These Inscriptions are described in some detail in their proper places.

page 458 note 1 See, amongst others, Bisri of Shaluma and Tarkheler of Taguma, named in lines 11 and 12 of the British Museum series, Pl. 50, No. 1, both of these chiefs being well known in the Inscriptions of Khorsabad.

page 458 note 2 Whilst these pages are passing through the press, I learn from Mr. Layard that he has found the names of two new kings at Nimrud, the son and grandson of the king who dedicated the bulls in the south-western palace; and that in excavating a mound four miles to the north-west of Koyunjik, he has met with two other names, belonging apparently to monarohs posterior to the Khorssbad family. All these discoveries furnish additional arguments for supposing the builder of Khorsabad and Koyunjik to be anterior to the age of Shalmaneaer and Sennacherib.

page 459 note 1 In the second and third class of Inscriptions I. should observe thai the building of the city of Khorsabad is also commemorated at the conclusion of the historical and geographical detail.

page 459 note 2 I observe that Dr. Hincks (p. 41 of his pamphlet on the Khors"bad Inscript.) infers, from the absence of the title “King of Babylon,” and the omission of all notice of Nebo, the special divinity of Babylonia, on the Khorsabad reverses, that these Inscriptions were executed at an early period of the monarchś reign, before his conquest of Babylon, and were subsequently rejected: but I can hardly adopt this view of the matter. When the king styles himself , I understand him to include Babylonia. Immediately after proclaiming his titles, he further invokes the tutelary gods of Mesopotamia (or , the special name of the Euphrates in a later age) and of Babylonia. That Nebo is omitted in recapitulating the gods is true, but so also are omitted “both Assarac and Sut, and the former was certainly the special divinity of Assyria. That, however, which to my mind seems to prove that the Inscriptions on the reverses and on the faces of the slabs at Khorsabad were executed at the same time, and that the only difference is of a religious character, is that they both equally refer to the building of Khorsabad, which indeed was the special object they were designed to commemorate, and which assuredly was a work undertaken at a late period of the monarch's reign. At the end of the Inscription on the Khorsabad reverses there is an invocation to “the great goda inhabiting heaven and earth, and the gods inhabiting this city,”—Khorsabad being then built.

page 460 note 1 I conjecture that the name Hekti, or rather perhaps Haikdi, may be connected with the Armenian Haik; but the title would seem, from the geographical indications, to be applicable to Adiabene rather than to Armenia Proper.

page 460 note 2 Sut was known to the Egyptians as a god of the Semite nations. Mr. Birch suggests an identity with Sadak ( of Sanchoniathon), or even with Satan (see Trans. Royal Soe. of Lit., 2nd ser., Vol. II. p. 338Google Scholar); but I would prefer comparing the Babylonian Hercules, whom Berosus, quoted by Agathias, names for the initial character of the name has the primary power, I think, of Sar or San, and is only used for su by a softening of the liquid. I have not been able to recognize the emblems of Sut, on the Cylinders, though the name is far from uncommon.

page 460 note 3 It is of some interest to compare the geographical catalogues that occupy so conspicuous a place in the Standard Inscriptions of Nimrud and Khorsabad with certain passages of the Greek authors referring to the same subject. I allude to the list of the conquests of Ninus given by Diodorus Siculus, on the authority of Ctesias, and to the statement of the Assyrian boundaries which, according to Polveenus, was found on the famous monument of Semiramis, (see Diod. Sic. lib. ii pp, 64, 65Google Scholar, and Polyæn. lib. vii. c. 26). It can hardly be doubted, I think, although the individual Greek names are not to be recognized in the Inscriptions, that both Ctesias and Polyænus must have had some knowledge of the geographical matter contained in the Assyrian tablets.

page 460 note 4 Compare the of Joshua, xv. 23.Google Scholar

page 460 note 5 The god whose name is written indifferently and , or simply or is, I feel pretty sure, “the sun;“for it is impossible otherwise to explain the phrase which occurs in almost every Inscription, to indicate the extension of the Assyrian sway, and which must needs be translated, I think, “from the land of the rising to the land of the setting sun,” or “from east to west” (see British Museum series, Pl. 1, 1. 14; Pl 17, 1. 2; Pl. 33,1. 5; Pl. 73, 11. 5—7, &c. &c). Another name for the god Husi is or , which, as it may read Shemir or Semir, has some resemblance to Semiramis. The same orthography, however, would answer to Shemes on the one side (r and s interchanging), and to Sur on the other (the labial being softened to a vowel), and both of these are well-known names for the sun. Since writing the above, I have observed that Dr. Hincks (Khors. Ins., p. 24) considers the god to be undoubtedly “the moon.” I suspect, however, that the crescent figured on the Cylinders refers to the god , who is joined with or “the sun,” as an object of worship. Compare the Cylinders numbered 23, 25, 30, 57, &c, with the passages on Bellino's large Cylinder, side 2, 11. 40 and 42 where and are associated. At Behistun, at any rate, is never used for “a month;” the determinative monogram for that period of time is as in British Museum series, Pl. 53, 1. 32, and in all the contracts published by Grotefend.

page 461 note 1 Maratha and Acarri are and or Acre, as already explained.

page 461 note 2 The names are given in greater or less detail in the different Inscriptions. The tribes which are usually mentioned, and which are particularly stated to be “Arabs” , are, along the banks of the Tigris, the Yetah, the Rebiah (), the Kheril, the Lemdod (compare , and perhaps modern Lemlun), the Khamran (compare applied by Eupolemus to Ur of the Chaldees), the Hubil (Heb. ), the Rahua, and the Luhti; and along the rivers of Susiana (which are identified quite positively by the ample geographical notices contained in Pl. 66 of the Khorsabad series), the Tebilu, the Akindara (or Akirdaru), the Bildu (?), and the Sati. Of the cities mentioned in this list, those of most consequence, as we learn from other notices, are Taha Dunis, Beth Takkara, and Beth Eden, upon the sea coast. On reading Dr. Hincks's paper on the Khorsabad Inscriptions, I find that he has transferred these names from the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean, applying titles which really belong to tribes and cities of Susiana and Lower Chaldsea to the Syrian districts of Iturcea, Galilee, Lebanon, and Hauran. He has been led into this error, I presume, from overlooking the names of Susiana, or , (the latter being perhaps a plural form equivalent to the Heb. ), and from his ignorance that the name denoted the Tigris.

page 462 note 1 In this sketch, I follow the order observed in the sculptures which surround Salle X., the events of the king's reign being there given in a sort of continuous narrative, without any reference to yearly dates. In Salles II. V. and XIV., the same events are chronicled, but they are given in greater detail, and strictly in the form of annals.

page 462 note 2 The account of receiving tribute from Egypt is given in a somewhat fuller manner in Salle II. No. 11, Pl. 75; but the writing is too much mutilated to render the notice of any great value. The name of the Egyptian king, however, is written Biarka, rather than Biarku, the final being dropped.

page 462 note 3 In the annals given in Salle II., the campaign here noticed is spoken of in the second year of the king's reign, while the Egyptian tribute was not received till the seventh year; yet in the passage, as it occurs in Salle X. (Pl. 145, 2, 11. 1—3), the two events are most certainly connected.

page 463 note 1 That the Ra-bek of the Inscriptions must represent On or Heliopolis is rendered almost certain by the name of the Syrian Heliopolis, which was vernacularly termed Baal-bek, the Phœnician Baal being exactly equivalent to the Egyptian Rá, or “the sun.” Herodotus, in the same way, names the city of Venus ; Ptolemy, for the city of Ammon, has indeed, is still retained in the Coptic to denote “a city,” and the Coptic translator, therefore, of the Bible explains the Hebrew or , which is the Greek Heliopolis, by . This determination of Heliopolis as the Egyptian capital, will agree sufficiently well with the synchronism which I have throughout sought to establish between the Khorsabad royal line and the twentyfirst dynasty of Hanetho; for that dynasty was the first that established its seat of government in Lower Egypt. I do not pretend, at the same time, to give the identification of Biarku with Pe-hur, the fifth king of the dynasty, as anything more than a conjecture. The name or simply , will read Bianka as well as Biarka, for the n and r interchange perpetually; and Bianka resembles Pi-anch (as the name is read by Buusen), the sixth king of the dynasty, rather than his immediate predecessor, Pe-hur; and, as far as the chronology ig concerned, one king will suit as well as the other.

page 463 note 2 The animals mentioned in this passage, which I have translated by camels, may possibly be elephants; for the epithet “with the double back,” used in the epigraphs on the Obelisk, and applied especially to the camel depicted in the sculpture, is here omitted. It appears to me, indeed, extremely probable that as the elephant and the camel are denoted by nearly similar terms in the old Gothic and Slavonian tongues (the original signification perhaps being “the big animal”), so the Assyrian Habba (compare Sans, ibha; Egypt, abu; Heb. habbim, &c. &c.) may have been applied to the two animals indifferently. It is, at any rate, natural enough to find elephants included amongst the tribute of Egypt, whereas the export of camels from that country to Assyria can only be explained by their having been imported in the first instance from India, The attribution of the name of Habba to the elephant, as well as to the camel, will also render it probable that the same word applied to a natural object may signify “a forest” rather than “a desert.” There are, however, some very obscure questions of etymology connected with this subject, which it would be inconvenient to discuss at present.

page 464 note 1 The name of this chief is usually written at Khorsabad as , but at Nimrud, in Inscriptions of the Khorsabad epoch, as (See British Museum series, Pl. 67, 1. 1, where, however, the initial character is mutilated). From a comparison of the two forms, the orthography of Methati of Atheni seems to me undoubted.

page 464 note 2 I have long considered the identification of the country of which the name is represented by or (or any of the intermediate forms) to be one of the most difficult points connected with the Khorsabad Inscriptions. It did at one time appear to me highly probable that Misr was “Lower Egypt,” and Misek “Upper Egypt,” the similarity of the names causing them to be united in the Hebrew dual ; but I have since found it impossible to apply to a monarch who reigned in that remote country the many geographical notices which connect Meta of Misek with Syria and Armenia.

I now conjecture the people of Miaek to be the Mes-segem of the Hieroglyphs, or the Semite inhabitants of Southern Syria, immediately bordering upon Egypt (see Birch's, remarks on this nation—Trans. of Royal Soc. of Lit. 2nd series, Vol. II. p. 321Google Scholar), and it seems to me far from improbable that Adonibezek, whom the Israelites met on their first entrance into Palestine, and who was evidently very powerful (Judges i. 4—9), may have been king of the same people, Bezek and Misek being orthographically one and the same. There will still, however, be considerable difficulty in reconciling with a Syrian monarch the many Egyptiar notices that refer to Meta; for he is described in some passages, according to the readings which seem to me most probable, as “residing in the city of Rábek, and administering the country of Misr.”

I find from Dr. Hincks' paper on the Khorsabad Inscriptions, which has appeared since the above notes were written on Misr and Misek, that he reals the names as “Gita of Kush,” and actually makes use of this reading for chronological argument. That the letters and its variant represent m, rather than gi, is proved by many examples at Behistun, and might have been inferred from the powers of the corresponding characters in Median. There cannot, therefore, by any possibility be an allusion to the of Africanus, and it appears to me equally impossible that should be pronounced Kush, whether by that name we may understand the African Æthiopia, or, as Dr. Hincks subsequently suggest?, the Asiatic Susiana.

page 466 note 1 To illustrate, or even to give an outline of the geography of the Khorsabad Inscriptions, would require more core and space than I can here bestow upon the subject. The names, indeed, of the cities, tribes, rivers, and towns belonging to each province are ao numerous, and appear under such a variety of forms in the different Inscriptions of the period (the sculptured slabs of the centre and southwest Pakioa at Nimrad being referable to the same historical epoch as those of Khorsabad and Koyunjik), that their dissection and identification may be said to constitute a distinct study of itself. I shall reserve, therefore, the geographical detail of these Inscriptions for a future occasion.

page 466 note 2 The name of Mekhatseri or Mezatseri, (for the name is written either with the guttural or sibilant,) might be conjectured to apply to Van itself; inasmuch as the god , who was the special divinity of that place, and whom I am inclined to identify with the Armenian Anaitis, is mentioned in this passage at Khorsabad, and in this passage only, among the trophies brought away to Assyria after the conquest of Ararat. It is, I think, a remarkable circumstance, that so very few of the geographical names referring to Armenia and its dependencies in the Inscriptions of Nimrud and Khorsabad, should be found on the tablets of Van. I can only account, indeed, for the great discrepancy of nomenclature by supposing many centuries to have intervened between the two periods of history.

page 467 note 1 In the few notes which I have been klons able to add to the present Sheets in their passage through the press, since the publication of Dr. Hincks's Paper on the Khorsabad Inscriptions, I have purposely avoided all discussion upon points 3f etymology and grammar 5 for I could hardly hope in DO hurried a manner to make myself at all intelligible. I cannot avoid however mentioning that the phrases and , which Dr. Hinoks (p. 48) reads, “out of it I brought,” and “out of them I brought,” signify really, “I gave it the name,” and “I named them,” the forms of or being often substituted, which have fcj3~Y the same sense, as derivatives from a root corresponding to in Hebrew, and in Arabic.

page 468 note 1 The name is found in two passages at Behistun, and is repeated three times at Nakhsh-i-Rustam with the same orthography of . In Assyrian, the last letter is dropped as superfluous, the character representing the complete syllable mer, and the name, thus reduced to , may be observed in almost every Inscription of Khorsabad and Koyunjik and succeeding periods. I cannot be sure, as I have before, remarked, that the character represents tsi or dsi. This determination, indeed, depend on its resemblance to or and although the forms are often confounded, I see strong reason to doubt their phonetic identity. Very possibly should be pronounced Kimer or Cymr, rather than Tsimri.

page 469 note 1 This name, which is imperfect in the Persian copy, reads distinctly both in Median and Babylonian, as Humawarga or Humurga. I failed to recognize the, name until I obtained Tasker's copy of the Nakhsh-i-Rustant Inscription, owing to the faulty representation of the final letter in the published Median text of Westergaard, and the Manuscript of Dittel.

page 469 note 2 This Inscription, of which I saw an imperfect copy at Mosul, is repeated four times upon the rock at Bavian; and Mr. Layard having lately succeeded in taking copies of all the four legends, hopes, notwithstanding the mutilated condition of the writing, to be able, by comparing them together, to form one perfwt and continuous text.

page 470 note 1 See Plate 61, of the British Museum series.

page 470 note 2 Since the above was written, I have learnt from Mr. Layard that he has discovered a perfect, and apparently a very full historical Inscription of the Koyunjik king among the ruins of the palace which he has been excavating at that place. Such a discovery, which must almost certainly decide the question of this king's identity with Sennacherib, and which must further afford a most Valuable addition to our general knowledge of Assyria, appears to me to be of far more importance than the- mere laying bare of sculptured slabs, which, however interesting the design, neither furnish us with new ideas, nor convey any great historical truth.

page 470 note 3 The third element of the one name is, I think, uniformly or , and of the other , which I consider to be a contraction of . At the same time, I must repeat that very, little confidence can be placed on the phonetic rendering of these names.

page 471 note 1 The name of the father of the Khorsabad king is probably found at the commencement of the 5th line of Pl. 35 of the British Museum series. The initial letter or letters being lost, and some of the others being uncertain, I will not hazard a reading of the name; but I may observe that the fragments which remain are sufficient to show that the term appended to the royal title in the Khorsabad reverses is not a patronymic, as has been sometimes supposed. That term being compounded of the names of the gods, is probably an honorary epithet, but I know nothing certain regarding it.

page 471 note 2 See British Museum series from 20 to 29. As the date of this Inscription is of great consequence to the argument about the identification of Sennacherib, and as the passage in PL 22,1. 53, imperfect as it is, may be considered inconclusive, or may even be supposed to refer the cylinder itself to the Koyunjik king, I think it as well to notice that the fragments which remain of the king's name in 1.I, Pl. 20, cannot possibly be brought to assimilate with , and that there is the same disagreement between the name of the king of Sidon ou the Cylinder, which is given in Pl. 20, 1. 14, and again Pl. 21, 11. 40 and 50, and the king of Sidon, contemporary with the builder of Koyunjik, the fragments of whose name are found in 1. 7 of Pl. 59. These points of evidence are of themselves sufficient to convince me that the Cylinder king must be posterior to the builder of Koyunjik; but the question can hardly be considered to be decided until the Cylinder annals have been compared with Mr. Layard's new historical Inscription from Koyunjik.

I now find that Dr. Hincks derives from this name of the king of Sidon an additional argument iu favour of the identity of the Koyunjik king with Sennacherib; for he reads the name Abdistarti, and compares it with or , the name of a king stated by Menander to have ascended the throne of Phoenicia seven years after the death of Hiram, Solomon's contemporary, (see Khortabad Inscriptions by Dr. Hincks, , p. 69Google Scholar). I can hardly believe, however, that the Cuneiform name was read as Dr. Hincks supposes; for Ashtera, or Astarte, is always written in Assyrian as and I find an equal difficulty in reconciling Menander's Abdastartus, who must have lived in the beginning of the tenth century B.C., with the usually received era of Sennacherib, which was at least 230 years later.

page 472 note 1 I refer to the famous city inscribed on the Babylonian bricks, and on all the monuments of the age of Nebuchadnezzar, the name of which, , I read doubtfully as Beth Digla, comparing the of the Arabs (see line 16 of the last column of Lord Aberdeen's stone).

page 472 note 2 See Plates 17 and 18 of the British Museum series, and compare 1. 32 of Pl. 18, where the name is applied to the Euphrates as at Behistun, instead of the old title of or .

page 473 note 1 I must again notice the son and grandson of Assar-adon-assar, whose titles have been recently discovered by Mr. Layard, and also the two new monarchs, whose names be has found in excavating a mound to the north-west of Khorsabad. As I have not yet seen transcripts of these names, I can say nothing as to their possible phonetic reading.

page 473 note 2 Lib. I. c. 95.

page 473 note 3 With Niebuhr, I believe, originated this explanation of the numbers of Herodotus. The reasoning by which it is supported is considered by the German scholars to be conclusive, and Bunsen thus adopts throughout his work upon Egypt the dates which depend upon it (era of Nabonassar B.C. 747; commencement of Assyrian empire B.C. 1267) as established points in chronology.

page 473 note 4 Since ancient history first occupied the attention of the learned of Europe, the chronology of the Assyrian empire has been one of the “queestiones vexatæ” of classical literature. The long period and the short period, or the chronology of Ctesias and the chronology of Herodotus, have had their respective advocates, and authorities of almost equal weight have been marshalled upon either side. In confirmation of the dates of Herodotus, the Abbé Sevin has quoted Thallus, Appian, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Porphyry, Macrobius, Africanus, and perhaps even Alexander Polyhistor; while Freret has brought to the support of Ctesias the evidence of Manetho, Plato, Aristotle, Pausanias, Cephalion, Castor, Æmilius Sura, Josephus, Ælian, Diodorus Siculus, Eusebius, Sulpicius Severus, Philo of Byblos, Eustathius, and Syncellus (compare the two articles in the fourth and seventh volumes of the Mémoires de l'Acad., XII. edit.). The school of Niebuhr implicitly follows Herodotus, regarding Alexander Polyhistor's sixth dynasty of forty-five kings, as the only point of collateral evwJenoe which is at al deserving of consideration, or which it may be worth while to compare even with the 620 years fixed by the Father of history; and, as far as Cuneiform research haa hitherto extended, everything I think tends to confirm the German critique.

page 474 note 1 Mr. Birch observes in his paper “On the Statistical Tablet of Karnac” (Trans, of Royal Sao. of Lit., 3nd series, VoL II. p. 347Google Scholar), “During the nineteenth dynasty, Tyre and Sidon, Berytus, Aradus, Sarepta, and the Jerdan, are mentioned; and under Ramesen II. the empire bad probably stretched, as far as Bsyrout, where it was met by the Assyrian boundary.”

page 474 note 2 See Agathias, , Lib. II. p. 63.Google Scholar

page 475 note 1 Dr. Hincks, it is well known, has published an elaborate paper on these Inscriptions in the ninth volume of the Society's Journal, and has endeavoured to prove that the language is Indo-Germanic. Admitting, however, the extreme value of the dissections contained in that paper, and greatly admiring, as I do, the sagacity that has determined the signification of so many words of which the phonetic rendering is quite erroneous, I cannot attach much weight to presumed grammatical affinities, when I know that the forms on which these affinities depend are in reality quite different from Dr. Hincks's readings.

page 476 note 1 I discovered this tablet on the occasion of my last visit to Behistun, and with the help of a telescope, for there are no possible means of ascending the rock, succeeded in taking a copy of such portions of the writing as are legible. On the tablet itself, a figure, clad in sacerdotal costume and apparently a eunuch, is presenting to the monarch a throng of captives, who are chained together, their arms "being bound behind them, and rings being fastened in their nostrils, to which tha leading string is attached.

page 477 note 1 The principal ruins to which I refer in this part of Babylonia are, lstly, At a spot on the Ishaki canal, about fifteen miles north-east of Baghdad, where excavations are often made for the sake of obtaining bricks. 2ndly, At Baghdad itself, the right bank of the river within the town being formed for the space of nearly one hundred yards of an enormous mass of brickwork, which until lately was eupposed to be of the time of the Caliphs, but which I found on examining the bricks to date from the age of Nebuchadnezzar. 3rdly, A large mass of mounds near the Khan Kahya on the road to Hillah. 4thly, Akkerkuf, called in the old Arabic works, “the Palace of Nimrud,” and perhaps the Accad or Accar of Genesis. 5thly, Extensive ruins near Khan-i-Sa'ad, which formed the after site of Maiozamalca. 6thly, At Za'aleh near Musáib on the Euphrates. From this spot I obtained the black stone of Sut-athra-saram, and I have been assured that another inscribed tablet is to be found in the ruins, though as I once spent an entire day in vainly searching for the relic, I almost doubt its existence. 7thly, The famous city of Cutha, which I had the good fortune to discover in 1845, and which I have since repeatedly visited. The ruins are situated in Lat. 32° 41; 36 and Long. 44° 42 46, and are almost equal to those of Babylon. From this city came the Cutheeans who colonized Samaria, and it was traditionally the scene of the early miracles of Abraham. The other cities of Nebuchadnezzar are at, Kalwádha, Hym:r, Babylon, and Birs-i-Nimrud. I have no means at present of identifying with these Bites the numerous cities named in the India-House Inscription, and on Bellino's Cylinder; nor indeed, can I venture to point out the emplacement of the two cities mentioned on the bricks, Beth Digla and Beth Dsida, (or Beth Jida), which seem to have been accounted the chefs-d'æuvre of Nebuchadnezzar.

page 478 note 1 In addition to those deities whom I have already had oecasion to mention in speaking of the Assyrian Pantheon, I may notice the following gods named in Scripture, whom I have, I think, identified in the Inscriptions at Babylon. Shethach and Merodach, and Gad and Minni, , (See East India House Inscription, col. 4, ls. 38 and 52,) and , (ditto col. 1. 30). I suspect that the Suceoth Benoth of Scripture, is the god (or goddess) whose name is ordinarily written , (see Bellill's Cylinder, side 1, 1. 27, &c., and compare East India House Inscription, col. 4,1. 16, and Khorsabad Inscriptions, Pl. 87, 1. 8; Pl. 152, 1. 11, &c.)j and it seems also far from Improbable that , (East India House Inscription, col. 4, 1. 44,) may be the Biblical Leviathan, for on the cylinder numbered 76, in Cullimore's collection, this god is symbolized by a sort of marine monster.

page 478 note 2 8 Since I penned note 3 to page 436,1 have again earefully considered the whole question of the nomenclature of Babylon, and although in working out the argument I have followed a somewhat different course of induction from that pursued by Dr. Hmcks, I have arrived at the same result. I have observed in the first place, from comparing the form with the form , (see among other examples, East India House Insc, col. 4, 1. 47, and col. 4, 1. 28), that although in the former word an r is usually introduced, while in the latter, the n in every other example is replaced by l , still the resemblance of the two orthographies is sufficient to warrant the presumption of phonetic identity; and I have remarked in the second place, that the monogram does actually represent the same phonetic power as , for not only is the plural form at Khorsabad constantly replaced by , but at Persepolis this same character (imperfectly given by Westergaard, as or Plate xiv, a, line 10,) is used in the Babylonian translation of the Persian word Duvarthim, the term which it is intended to express being most assuredly Báb, “a gate,” answering to in Chaldee, and in Arabic. I now therefore regard it as almost certain that the two forms of and were used indifferently to express phonetically the name of Babileh, the remarkable and almost constant disagreement between them being the effect of a mere calligraphic fashion, rather than of any fixed alphabetic law; and I further conjecture, that the name orignated in the holy character of the city, the signification of it being “the Gate of God,” or if we follow the mythology of Sanchoniathon, “the Gate of Ilus or Chronus.“The objection, of course, which I have offered in the text to the possible occurrence of the name of Babel in the Hieroglyphic records must be now withdrawn, but I remain as incredulous as ever that the Egyptian arms could have really reached to the Lower Euphrates.

page 479 note 1 See Pliny, lib. v. c. 21. Some of the manuscripts have Mothi instead of Otris. The form of , which at Behistun is exclusively used for Babylon, is first found, I think, in the East India House Inscription, where Nabopnlasar, the father of Nebuchadnezzar, is in two passages distinguished as king of , (see col. 7, ls. 11 and 48). Now that the sign of has the phonetic power of tr or thr, is proved by its interchanging at Bchistun with the letters in the variant Babylonian orthographies of the Persian name Chitratakhma, as well as by its being often replaced in Assyrian by the characters , (see amongst other passages, British Museum series, Pl. 7, 1. 29); but I do not feel at all sure that as an ideographic monogram, it may not also have been pronounced Babel; just as the Assyrian monogram representing ideographically the phonetic powers of , was, I think, pronounced Nineveh. At any rate, it is in this manner alone, that I can account for the uniform employment of the orthography in question at Behistun and Persepolis, in an age when the name of Babylon was universally, if not exclusively used upon monuments, and where the Persian and Median texts co actually give the true vernacular title.

Before I quit the subject of Babylon, I cannot avoid adding a few remarks on the orthography of the name of Nebuchadnezzar, which DrHincks, , in p. 33Google Scholar of his paper on the Khorsabad Inscriptions, seems to have involved in unnecessary bscurity. The only ideograph ever employed in writing this name is the monogram or for the name of the god Nebu. The remainder of the name in all its forms is phonetic; the third character, which has the form of both on the bricks and on the East India House Inscription, but which is replaced by at Behistun and on some other monuments, is the guttural k , optionally interchanging with a sibilant according to a law of Babylonian orthography; while the fourth character, which has also the form of on the bricks, but which is more clearly represented as in the E. I. H. Inscription, col. 1,1. 1, is used at Behistun in other names for d, and is, I believe, a mere variant of or . The only other difficulty is in regard to the character , which has sometimes the power of du, sometimes of dar, and sometimes possibly of dan, for the final liquid in all characters of this class may be optionally softened to u. Whether the name therefore be read Nebu-kudarrussor or Nebu-sadusar, or be given any intermediate form, I consider immaterial, the Babylonians having been evidently unable to appreciate nice distinctions of articulation. I further remark on the subject of Babylon, in Dr. Hincks's paper (page 41) that he takes the word for a Bpecial title, and draws an inferenoe from the use of this word in the Khorsabad Inscriptions, that the monarch was actual king of Assyria, but only lord paramount of Babylon. If Dr. Hincks, however, will refer to the British Museum series, Pl. 12,1. 9, he will find the term used as a simple conjunction to connect the names of the two gods and , and will thus, I think, see sufficient reason for reading the title of the Khorsabad monarch as “king of Assyria and Babylonia.”

page 481 note 1 I have twice visited Niffer, which is in Lat. 32° 7 3, and Long. 45° 15, and have minutely examined the ruins. The name of the king is , and the countries over which he rules are called Sarrakam and Kabsikar, both of these names being also found on the Warka bricks, and the hitter, slightly varied in the orthography, being repeated on a very remarkable stone in the British Museum, and being also mentioned in the East India-House Inscription, col. 7, 1. 15. I consider Kabsikar or Karteikar to be the Cascara of the Greeks, and of the Arabs, the name of the province in which Niffer was situated; while Sarrakam may possibly be the Soracte of Pliny, a most ancient city of Babylonia, which he ascribes to Semiramis. Niffer is mentioned by the early Arab traditionists as one of the four primeeval cities of the world, and is also said to have been the original capital of Babylonia. It was the see of a Christian bishopric in comparatively modern times.

page 481 note 2 The following extracts from a very ancient and valuable Manuscript in my library, called Tiráz-el-Mejális, will I think, determinately connect the ruins of Warka with the Biblical Ur of the Chaldees, as far at any rate as local tradition may be trusted. “The traditionists report that Abraham was born at El Warka , in the district of Edh-Dhawábi , on the confines of Kaskar, and that his father afterwards moved to Nimrud's capital, which was in the territory of Kutha. As-sudi, however, states, that when the mother of Abraham found herself pregnant, Azer (the Biblical Terah) feared lest the child should perish; so he went out with her to a country between Kufa and Wasit, which was called and concealed her in a cave, where she was delivered.” Strabo mentions the Chaldæans of Orchoe in conjunction with those of Borsippa, and the city is noticed by all the geographers. I have not met with any Cuneiform name that will suit the Greek or Arabic orthography, unless it be the city of , mentioned in the Inscription on Bellino's Cylinder, side 3, 1. 28; and I cannot venture to draw any conclusion from a single notice. Mr. Loftus is at present employed in excavating the ruins of Warka, and will soon probably communicate to the world some account of his discoveries.

page 482 note 1 It should be remembered that Arrian places the tombs of the ancient Assyrian kings in this particular quarter, and that in the Peutingerian tables the same monuments are laid down with a precision that can leave no doubt of their having once existed, in the marshes south of Babylon. The Arabs, also, have very remarkable notices regarding Atet, Ba-nikaya, Hakeh, Haffeh and other ancient sites in this vicinity, of which nothing is at present known.

page 482 note 2 The Cuneiform orthography of the name is , and the father's name is perhaps Tarbadus , though it is not easy to distinguish some of the characters. It would be impossible, I may add, to publish this Inscription without casting a new type, the characters being fully as complicated as the forms employed in Babylonian and Assyrian Hieratic.

page 483 note 1 See British Museum series, Pls. 31, 32, and 36, 37. I perceive from a foot note in page 62 of Dr. Hincks's paper on the Khorsabad Inscriptions, that he has also observed the apparent similarity between the language of the Elymsean Inscriptions and that of the second column of the trilingual tablets, though he admits neither one.nor the other to be of the Scythic family. I shall publish the Behistun translations in the so-called Median dialect with all convenient dispatch, and the question of lingual type can hardly remain after that a subject of much controversy. Whether at the same time the Elymtean language was really of the same family I am not prepared to say, without a mere careful examination' of ths Inscriptions than I have yet been able to undertake.