Mesopotamia

Ancient Geography.

In most countries there is little change in the position of inhabited sites, which continue over long periods either on the same spot or on one nearby. In Mesopotamia on the other hand much of the desert is strewn with the ruins of ancient cities where now only an occasional shepherd is to be found. The reason for these changes is not always apparent but usually three causes appear to have operated. There may have been a change of climate, the rivers may have altered their posi tion or their mouths, or in some cases political events may have triumphed over geographical situation. Whether there has been a change in climate or not in Mesopotamia since ancient times has been disputed. There is no doubt that in upper palaeolithic times the Syrian desert was sufficiently humid for permanent settlement, and Buxton found numerous traces of palaeolithic implements in districts now only inhabited by wandering Bedouins. There were even some traces of Neolithic peoples. In Mesopotamia itself we have no evidence before Sumerian times, since when most writers maintain that there is no evidence of any change of climate. Sir William Willcocks thinks the ancient canals were not in use at the same time and that the presence of all these waterways is not theref ore evidence of a progressive desiccation. In the neighbour hood of Babylon and Kish where canals are particularly numerous a study of levels shows that there at least Willcocks' statement is abundantly justified. Thus the change in the siting of ancient cities was not due to a change in climate. Secondly there can be no reasonable doubt regarding the change in the position of the rivers, for both the Tigris and Euphrates have shifted their course since ancient times. All the cities of Sumer have therefore been left without water. Apart from Borsippa the only ancient city of Sumer on the river is Babylon, itself a relatively modern town which took the place of Kish, i 5 miles away when a change in the river made that site no longer usable. It may seem difficult to understand how, if there has been no change in the climate, re gions which are now desolate can once have been the site of pros perous cities. A study of the hydrography of ancient Mesopotamia will however explain this change. First the course of the old bed of the Euphrates, the river on which ancient Mesopotamia de pended chiefly for its water supply, has changed its place very considerably. The modern stream runs ten and in places more miles east of its ancient course. Ancient Mesopotamia was there fore much smaller than modern 'Iraq. Apart from minor diver gencies that have not yet been fully explored the Euphrates di vided into two branches almost due west of where Baghdad now stands. One branch ran past Sippar and Cutha and the other followed the course of the present stream as far as Babylon, where it turned west and ran slightly north of but in the same general direction as the modern Shatt-al-Nil past Kish and Nippur. Lower it divided again, the western branch being in the general direction of the modern Shatt-al-Kar past the cities of Kisurra and Shurup pak and the more westerly branch running past the modern Bismya, the ancient Adab, in a south-easterly direction till it was joined by the Shatt-al-Hai, which communicates with the Tigris. From this point onwards its general direction was south, past the ancient city of Lagash. The true Mesopotamia therefore, the re gion between the rivers, as opposed to the lower marshes of both streams, was much narrower. Of all the ancient cities in Akkad those in lower Sumer will be discussed later—only Borsippa lay away from this narrow strip and Borsippa was close at hand. In these circumstances it is clear that to a large extent the altera tion in Mesopotamia has been the conversion of fertile land into desert and poor steppe in the central region, while on the western boundary the converse has taken place. But this movement of the rivers is not sufficient to explain the whole of the changes. In ancient times when the strip was narrower irrigation was com paratively easy. The normal method has always been to dig canals from one river to the other. When the Tigris was nearer at hand it was easier to ensure a more ready flow of water through the canals. It is also abundantly clear from an examination of the ancient canals that great difficulty was found in keeping them in proper condition. Further unless conditions are very favourable and the water used for irrigation is kept very dilute from certain salt solutions the irrigated land becomes very hard and imperme able. By itself the mere hardening of the land may not have been sufficient in ancient times to have converted cultivated land into desert, but it probably played its part. The increasing dis tance of the rivers and the consequent difficulty of irrigation has always been felt. Ancient Akkad consisted of a narrow strip of cultivated soil, bounded throughout much of its length by a river or canal on both sides, not as today a narrow strip along the Euphrates with desert to the west and a further strip of desert to the east, between the fertile lands and the Tigris.

In Sumer the changes have even been greater. Here also the country was much smaller. Pliny writing in the first century A.D. says that the Euphrates had in ancient times its own mouth, but that the men of Erech dammed it up, possibly as Sir A. T. Wilson suggests to irrigate the rich land near Suk-esh-Shuyukh. Before the time of Rim-sin the Euphrates ran west of Ur reaching open water near Eridu. This region is the only part of its course which in ancient times was more westerly than at present, but Ur is today only a little way from the stream. Rim-sin straightened out the course of the river so that it passed by Ur and left Eridu a waterless city. Here in ancient times Mesopotamia ended. It seems probable that both Eridu and Lagash were in ancient times on the edge of the sea and that they were closely connected owing to the ease of communications. The progressive silting up of this region and the action of Rim-sin and his successors have now left both cities in the desert and today the river runs east of Ur while Erech, which, in the opinion of ancient geographers was the cause of all the trouble, lies away in the waterless desert. South east all the lands to Basra and the rich palm groves and marshes of modern Iraq were as yet to be. We do not know exactly where the true coast line was in ancient times but for all practical pur poses Eridu marked the southernmost extension.

All these changes have been progressive, the Euphrates had ceased long before our era to flow past Cutha and Kish. Eridu was an inland city nearly four thousand years ago, and unless steps are taken the Euphrates threatens to run still farther to the west. The changing course of the rivers is partly due to natural causes and partly to methods of irrigation.

In spite however of these progressive changes most of the an cient sites do show evidence of continued occupation, at or near the spot where the ancient city stood. The Mongol invasion prob ably accomplished more in a few years than the hand of nature or the irrigation projects of ancient kings did in many centuries. In 1258 Hulagu Khan, a grandson of the great Genghiz sacked Bagh dad and the invasion of the Mongols destroyed all the ancient irri gation systems and converted Mesopotamia into a desert. Many of the old towns had long ago ceased to exist but on many of the sites there are traces of continued occupation. The towns which grew up after the Mongol invasion have survived until today and mark the contrast between ancient and modern Mesopotamia.

The distribution of ancient cities in Mesopotamia is therefore extremely different from those in modern times. They fall into four groups, those of the northern foothills, the Assyrian group and the cities of Akkad and Sumer; all except the last two groups are widely separated from one another. In ancient times there were hardly any cities of importance on the middle Euphrates and as today few of any note on the lower Tigris. The foothill towns of the north including such cities as Samosata, Edessa and Nisibis were never of any great political importance except for their stra tegic value as border forts. Usually small in size they commanded various entrances between the plains and the mountains and passed from one hand to another, being used against the plain, or against the mountains according to the position of the dominant power. This line of towns was also of value as it still is owing to the fact that it commands the upper and easier route from east to west. Edessa and Nisibis therefore have played for a long time the dual role of forts in times of war and of entrepots on a main caravan route in times of peace. The second group of cities lies within the fertile triangle of land which lies between the Tigris and the Greater Zab. It has always been a region of red earth and great fertility and is remarkable for the closeness of occupa tion in ancient times. To the north of the triangle, just below the mountains lay the city of Khorsabad, which has been generally accepted as being the site of Dur-Shurrukin, Sargon's city. Nine veh itself lay on the Tigris opposite the modern city of Mosul and about 4o miles above the confluence of the Greater Zab. Further south, but still in the triangle lay Kalakh, the modern Nimrud. The other cities of the group are more isolated. Ashur lies down the Tigris, about 6o miles from Nineveh, and separated from it by desert, an easy journey down stream, but more diffi cult up stream. The last city is Arbela, today Irbil. This is a foothill town of considerable importance lying almost due east of Kalakh and south of the river Zab. Of these cities it is interest ing to note that three, Nineveh, Ashur and Arbela, are close to if not on the same site as a modern town. The foothill towns also have not moved. In lower Mesopotamia the towns are practically all on different sites.