ASSYRIAN INFLUENCE Assyrian Empire.—Meanwhile Mesopotamia continued to be crossed and re-crossed by the endless marches of the Assyrian kings (such as Adad-nirari, Shalmaneser I. and his son), build ing and rebuilding the Assyrian empire (see BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA), and eventually pushing their conquests towards Asia Minor at the expense of the Hittite domain. If, on the fall of the Kassites, Nebuchadrezzar I. established more direct relations between Mesopotamia and Babylon, his work was presently un done by the vigorous campaigns of Tiglath-pileser I., who seems even to have won Egypt's sanction of his succession to the Hittite claims. The tablet of Tukulti-Ninib, the grandfather of Shal maneser II., is interesting from its account of an expedition down the course of the Tharthar to Hit =Id (river and town now first mentioned in cuneiform sources) and up the Euphrates to the Khabur district.
Now that Mesopotamia had passed out of the hands of Bab ylon, all that the later kings could do was to encourage local Mesopotamian rulers in their desire for independence (Nabua pluiddin). These were convinced that Assyria was master, but refused their tribute when they thought they dared. To over power thoroughly the troublesome Bit-Adini (see above 3, viii.), which had naturally been aided by the states west of the Euphra tes, Shalmaneser III. (859-824 B.c.) settled Assyrians in their midst. Harran was one of the few places that remained on his side during the great insurrection that darkened his last days. Similarly the province of Guzanu (Heb. Gozan, I'avav'irts) on the Kahbar, held with the capital Asshur in the insurrection that occurred in 763 (the year of the eclipse), when evidently some one (an Adad nirari?) wore the crown, at least for a time. Harran was clearly closely associated with Asshur in the rights and institutions that were the subject of so much party struggle in the new Assyrian empire that began with Tiglath-pileser IV. (see BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA). When the policy of transporting people from one part of the empire to another was developed, new elements were in troduced into Mesopotamia, amongst them Israelites, of whom perhaps traces have been found in the neighbourhood of Harran at Kannul. These new elements may have been more organically attached to the Assyrian state as such than the older inhabitants, to whom the affairs of state at Nineveh would be of little interest. On the conditions at Harran some light is thrown by the census partly preserved in Ashurbanipal's library'. The governors of sev eral Mesopotamian cities, such as Nasibin, Amid, took their turn as eponyms; but this would not have much significance for the people. Hence even the fall of Nineveh (612 B.c.) at the hands of Nabopolassar and the Medes would be a matter of compara tive indifference; tribute paid to Babylon was just as hard to find as if it were going to Nineveh. Necho did not succeed, like his great XVIIIth dynasty predecessor, in crossing the Euphrates. He was defeated by Nebuchadrezzar at Carchemish (6o5 B.c.), and Mesopotamia was confirmed to Babylon. Its troubles began
again shortly after Nebuchadrezzar's death ; the Medes seized Mesopotamia and besieged Harran. Before long, however, the overthrow of Astyages by Cyrus cleared Mesopotamia, and Na bonidus (Nabu-naid) was able, drawing on the resources of the whole of Syria for the purpose, to restore the famous temple of Sin at Harran, where a few years later he erected in memory of his mother, who seems to have been a priestess there, the stele published in 19o7 by Pognon.
H. W. Johns, An Assyrian Doomsday Book (Igoi).
vided, Mesopotamia belonged; probably it was included in 'Abar naluirii. The fact is, we have no information from native sources'. The probability is that conditions remained very much what they had been; except, that the policy of transportation was not con tinued. The satraps and other high officials would naturally be of Persian extraction; but local affairs were probably managed in the old way, and there was no important shift of population. The large Aramaic infusion had by this time been merged in the gen eral body of the people. These settlers doubtless influenced the "Assyrian" language'; but gradually, especially in the west, their own language more and more prevailed. Although Aramaic in scriptions of the Assyrian period, like those of Zanjirli or that of King ZKR of Hamath, have not been found in Mesopotamia, already in the time of Shalmaneser II. mention is made of an Aramaean letter (Harper, Ass. Bab. Letters, No. 872, obv. 1. so.), and Aramaic notes on cuneiform documents begin to appear. Weights with Aramaic inscriptions (the oldest from the reign of Shalmaneser IV., 727-722) were found at Calah. By the Achae menian period Aramaic had become the international language, and was adopted officially.
How Mesopotamia was affected by the passing of Persian armies on their way to suppress revolts in Syria or Egypt, or to conquer Greece, we do not know ; on the whole it probably en joyed unwonted peace. The expedition of Cyrus, the Younger, with which Xenophon has made us so familiar, only skirted the left bank of the Euphrates. The route followed by Alexander, though he also crossed at Thapsacus, took him unresisted across the northern parts ; but the poor people of Mesopotamia suffered from the measures taken by their satrap Mazaeus to impede Alexander's progress. In spite of this, where Cyrus failed Alex ander succeeded.