Assyria; and as all the great ruins on the site of Nineveh have now been partially explored, it may be presumed that no earlier building of this nature exists. 2dly, According to Castor, the last Assyrian king, or one of the last, of the second dynasty, perhaps the Saracus of Abydenus, was called Ninus II.* It will be remembered, that the names of the builders of the most ancient and recent edifices discovered in Assyria, are identical; and from the appearance of the southwestern building of Nimroud, there is every reason to believe that it was destroyed before completed. It may, consequently, be conjectured to have been the last of the Assyrian palaces. 3dly, Diodorus Siculus states, that in the palace of Ninus or Semiramis, at Babylon, were represented various hunting scenes, in which the queen was seen throwing a javelin at a panther, and Ninus as transfixing a lion with a lance. It is remarkable that whilst at Khorsabad and Kouyunjik such representations have not been discovered, they abound in the earliest palace at Nimroud; not only forming separate bas-reliefs, but being constantly introduced into the embroideries on the robes of the principal figures. 4thly, Ctesias, and several writers, speak of the Bactrian, and Indian expedition of Ninus and Semiramis. The obelisk discovered at Nimrcud belongs to the period of the earliest palace, having, it appears, been erected by the son of the founder of that building; upon it are represented the Bactrian camel, the elephant, and the rhinoceros, all animals from India and central Asia, brought as tribute by a conquered people to the king.

Even if his father and grandfather were called in the inscriptions "kings of Nineveh," Ninus himself may still have founded and given his name to the city.† Eusebius, after

This second Ninus is also mentioned in the Excerpta Chronologica Euseb. apud Scal. See authorities collected in notes to p. 265, Appendix, vol. i. of Clinton's Fasti Hellenici.

+ Dr. Hincks, as it has been mentioned, reads the title of these early kings, King of Assyria.”

Abydenus, names six kings as the predecessors of this Ninus;* although by giving the name of Nineveh to the capital, he evidently assigns its foundation to him. This king may have been the first to build monuments, such as those recently discovered; or, he may have first used inscriptions and sculptures for monumental records; or, as Moses of Chorene states, Ninus may have displaced a more ancient dynasty, and, jealous of its glory, and wishing to appear to posterity as the founder of the race, and the origin of its arts and civilization, may have destroyed all the monuments of his predecessors.† This statement of the Armenian historian, from the advanced state of art shown in the most ancient edifices of Assyria, is not altogether unworthy of credit.

In conclusion, it may appear from the preceding re marks

1st. That there are buildings in Assyria which so far differ in their sculptures, in their mythological and sacred symbols, and in the character and language of their inscriptions, as to lead to the inference that there were at least two distinct periods of Assyrian history. We may moreover conclude, that either the people inhabiting the country at those distinct periods were of different races, or of different branches of the same race; or that by intermixture with foreigners, perhaps Egyptians, great changes had taken place in their language, religion, and customs, between the building of the first palace of Nimroud, and that of the edifices at Khorsabad and Kouyunjik.

2d. That the names of the kings on the monuments, show

*They are Belus, Babius, Anebus, Arbelus, Chaalus, and Arbelus. I believe Major Rawlinson is satisfied with the reading of Arbel and Aneb, for the father and grandfather of the king in the inscriptions.

+ Moses Chorenensis, lib. i. c. 13. "Item et alias ejus rei rationes affert, utique Ninum superbiâ inflatum, suæque gloriæ cupidissimum, cum se unum summæ potestatis et fortitudinis ac bonitatis fontem atque originem haberi vellet, complures libros et historias antiquas rerum ubicunque egregiè gestarum jussisse concremari; et de se tantum suisque temporibus conscribi." The same is recorded of Nabonasser when he ascended the throne at Babylon.

a lapse even of some centuries, between the foundation of the most ancient and most recent of these edifices.

3d. That from the symbols introduced into the sculptures of the second Assyrian period, and from the Egyptian character of the small objects found in the earth, above the ruins of the buildings of the oldest period, there was a close connection with Egypt, either by conquest or friendly intercourse, between the time of the erection of the earliest and latest palaces; and that the monuments of Egypt, the names of kings in certain Egyptian dynasties, the ivories from Nimroud, the introduction of several Assyrian divinities into the Egyptian Pantheon, and other evidence, point to the 14th century as the probable time of the commencement, and the 9th as the period of the termination, of that intercourse.*

4th. That the earlier palaces of Nimroud were already in ruins, and buried before the foundation of the later; and that it is probable they may have been thus destroyed about the time of the 14th Egyptian dynasty.

5th. That the existence of two distinct dynasties in Assyria, and the foundation, about two thousand years before Christ, of an Assyrian monarchy, may be inferred from the testimony of the most ancient authors; and is in accordance with the evidence of Scripture, and of Egyptian monuments.

-I cannot pretend to draw any positive conclusions from the data that I have attempted to bring together. It has been my object to place before the reader the facts which have been afforded by the examination of the ruins-facts, which, it must be admitted, will go far towards enabling us ultimately to form some opinion as to the comparative, if not the positive date of these newly discovered monuments. I trust that I have at least succeeded in showing, that there are grounds for admitting the possibility of the very early origin of some of these edifices; and that there is nothing in the discoveries hitherto

*I do not, of course, include the Assyrian conquests of Egypt, by kings of the latter dynasty, which are proved by positive historical evidence, and the effects of which are well known and traceable.

nade inconsistent with the early date which the dynastic lists, and the statements of ancient authors, would assign to the foundation of Nineveh. The subject is new, and has not yet been illustrated by the remains of the people themselves. The vast ruins of Egypt-its written and sculptured records-have enabled the antiquarian to enlarge, and rectify, the notices preserved to us through the Greeks and Romans; but hitherto Assyria has furnished no such materials. Their very absence has compelled us to neglect a branch of inquiry, replete with interest as connected with Biblical study, and with the history of the human race. Further researches will probably lead to the discovery of additional monuments and inscriptions, adding to the great mass of materials which in the last three years has been placed in our possession. It would scarcely be reasonable or consistent, after what has already been done, to discard all evidence of the antiquity of the Assyrian empire, because there are discrepancies in the statements of such authors as Ctesias, Eusebius, and the Syncellus; and at the same time to found arguments against that antiquity upon an isolated and doubtful passage in Herodotus, or upon the absence of the mention of an early Assyrian king in the Scrip

tures.

CHAPTER II

1r has been assumed in the previous chanter that the language of the Assyrian inscriptions is a Semitic, or Syro-Arabian, dialect; but the question of what race the Assyrians were, may still be considered by some as open to doubt. It may be questioned, perhaps, whether we have sufficient knowledge of the inscriptions to decide, with certainty, the language of their contents. There are, however, as it has been shown, good grounds for believing that it is closely allied to the Chaldee; or, to use a term which has become familiar, that it is a branch of the Semitic. Such, it is generally admitted, is the language of the Babylonian column of the Persian trilingual inscriptions; which, it can be shown, contains the same formulæ as the inscriptions of Assyria. For instance, the personal pronoun as used before the proper name of the king at Persepolis, is found precisely in the same position at Nimroud.* We are aware, moreover, that the names of the Assyrian gods, as Baal, or Belus (the supreme deity amongst all the Semitic races), Nisroch, and Mylitta (known by a nearly similar name to the Arabians),† of members of the family of the king, such as Adrameleck (son of Sennacherib), and of many of the princi

• + 1: Thus YYY

." (the name of the king).

If, as Dr. Hincks conceives, the language of the Van inscriptions is an Indo-European dialect, then the Assyro-Babylonian form of arrow-headed character would not be limited to any particular branch of languages-such as the Semitic.

+ Viz. Alitta, Herod. lib. i. c. 131.