With the last of these, however, Asshur ceased to be the royal residence. The seat of govern ment was transferred by his son Asshur-dani-pal to Calah, now supposed to be represented by Nimnici, forty miles to the north, near the conflu ence of the upper Zab and the Tigris, and on the east bank of the latter river. The reason of this change is not known, but it is thought that it was connected with the extension of the empire in the direction of Armenia, which would therefore demand greater vigilance in that quarter, This king, Sardanapalus II., pushed his conquests to the shores of the Mediterranean, levied tribute of the kings of Tyre and Sidon, and therefore perhaps of Ethbaal the father of Jezebel. He was also the founder of the north-west palace at Nimrfld, which is second only to that of Sennacherib, at Koyunjik, in magnificence and extent. The next monarch who sat on the Assyrian throne was Shalmanu-bar the son of Sardanapalus. He reigned thirty-one years, spread his conquests farther than any of his predecessors, and recorded them on the black obelisk now in the British Museum. In his reign the power of the first Assyrian empire seems to have culminated. He carried his victorious army over all the neighbouring countries, imposing tribute upon all Babylonia, Mesopotamia, Syria, Media, Armenia, and the Scriptural kingdoms of Hamath and Damascus ; the latter under Benhadad and Hazael are alike conspicuous among his vanquished enemies, But what is of paramount interest in the records of this king is the identifica tion in the second epigraph in the above-named obelisk of the name of Jehu the king of Israel, who there appears as Vahua the son of Khumri, and who is said to have given the Assyrian monarch tribute of gold and silver. This name was dis covered independently, but almost on the self-same day, both by Dr. IIincks and Colonel Rawlinson, the latter being at Baghdad and the former in the north of Ireland. It is supposed that Jehu is called the son of Khumri or Omri, either as being king of Samaria, the city which Omri built, or as claiming descent from the founder of that city to strengthen his right to the throne, and possibly even as being descended from him on the mother's side.
Shalmanu-bar was the founder of the central palace at Nimritd, and probably reigned from about goo to 85o or 86o. He was succeeded by his second son Shamas-iva, his eldest having made a revolt during the lifetime of his father, which probably lost him the succession, and was with difficulty quelled by his younger brother. The annals of Shamas-iva extend only over a period of four years. At this time the history is enveloped in much obscurity, hut it is probable that the reign of Shamas-iva lasted much longer, as it is with his son and successor Iva-lush III., that the first Assyrian dynasty comes to a close, and the reigns of these two princes are all we have to fill up the interval from 85o to 747, which is about the time it is sup posed to have ended. Iva-lush is perhaps the Pul of Scripture. Among those from whom he received tribute are mentioned the people of Khumri, i. e., Samaria, and Menahem gave Pul moo talents of silver to confirm the kingdom in his hand. There is a statue of the god Nebo in the British Museum which is dedicated by the artist to his Lord Iva lush and his lady Sammuramit.' This personage is in all probability the Semiramis of the Greeks, and her age remarkably agrees with that which Hero dotus assigns her, viz., five generations prior to Nitocris, who seems with him to represent Nebu chadnezzar. Ile also speaks of her as a Babylonian princess, and since Iva-lush asserts that Asshur had ' granted him the kingdom of Babylon' he may very likely have acquired it in right of his wife or reigned conjointly with her. But we cannot here replace conjecture by certainty. As we arc alto gether ignorant of the causes which terminated the first Assyrian dynasty or established the second, the interval between both may have been con siderable, and may account for the difficulty above mentioned with respect to the period from the death of Shalmarrubar and the end of the first em pire. Tiglath-Pileser IL, who founded the second empire, appears before us without father, without mother.' Unlike the kings before him he makes no parade of his ancestry in his inscriptions, from which circumstance we may fairly assume that he was a usurper. Much uncertainty has arisen about the date of his accession, because he states that he took tribute from Menahem in his eighth year, which would make it B. C. 767 or 76S (received chronology), whereas it is more likely that it was connected in some way with the change of events in Babylon that gave rise to the era of Nabonassar, or 747. However, as LXX. give the reign of Manasseh thirty-five years instead of fifty-five, this diminution of twenty years would exactly rectify the discrepancy, or else it is possible that in the said inscription Menahem may be by mistake for Pekah, since he is joined with Rezin, whom Scripture always couples with Pekah. The annals of Tiglath-Pileser II. extend over a period of seventeen years, and record his wars against Mesopotamia, Armenia, and Media ; he also invaded Babylon, took the city of Sepharvaim or Sippara, and slew Rezin the king of Syria. It was this king whom Ahaz met at Damascus when he saw the altar of which he sent the pattern to Urijah, the priest at Jerusalem. Of Shalmaneser, his probable successor, little is known but what has come down to us in the sacred narrative. His name has not been found on the monuments. Shalmaneser twice invaded Israel ; upon the first occasion it seems that Hoshea the king bought him off by tribute, but subsequently revolted upon having made an alliance with Sabaco or So, king of Egypt. Upon this, Shalmaneser again invaded Israel, and besieged Samaria for the space of three years. He is supposed to have died or to have been deposed before the city surrendered, and to have left the final subjugation of it to his successor. This was Sargon or Sargina who came to the throne in B. C. 721, was the founder of a dynasty, and is therefore suspected of being a usurper ; he reigned nineteen years after the captives of Samaria had been brought to Assyria ; he made war against Babylon, and perhaps placed Merodach-Tialadan upon the throne. After this he marched in the
direction of Southern Syria and Egypt. At this time the latter country was under the dominion of the twenty-fifth or Ethiopian dynasty, and had recently gained possession of the five Philistine cities, according to the prediction of Is. xix. 18,. ' In that day shall five cities in the land of Egypt speak the language of Canaan.' It is remarkable that Sargon speaks of Gaza as belonging to Egypt, and its king is said to have been defeated at Raphia by the Assyrian monarch. Upon this the Egyptian ' Pharaoh' paid Sargon tribute of gold, horses, camels, etc. Afterwards he made war in IIamath, Cappadocia, and Armenia, turning his arms also against Mount Zagros and the Medes, whose cities he colonised with his Israelitish captives. Later, he made a second expedition into Syria, and took Ashdod by his Tartan, or general (Is. xx. the king of this place flying to Egypt, which is said to be under the dominion of Mirukha or Meroe. At this time; also, Tyre fell under his power. Subsequently, he made a second war upon Babylonia, and drove Merodach -Baladan, who seems to have offended him, into banishment. Finally, the Greeks of Cyprus, who are called `the Yaha Naga tribes of Yuman' or Ionia, are named among those who paid him tribute. He appears to have removed the seat of government from Calah to Khorsab6d, called from him Dur-Sargina. At this time the influence of Egyptian taste is manifest in Assyrian works of art. Sargon was succeeded in the year B. c. 702 by his son Sennacherib. He fixed his government at Nineveh, which, being now greatly decayed, he completely restored, and where he built the magnificent structures discovered and excavated by Layard. In the repairs of the great palace alone he is said to have employed nc less than 360,000 men among his captives from Chaldsea, Armenia, and elsewhere. Sennacherib immediately after his accession proceeded to Babylon, where Merodach-Baladan had contrived to place himself again upon the throne with the aid of the Susianians. Ile fought a bloody battle with him, in which the Babylonian was entirely defeated, and then appointed Belibus, or Elibus, viceroy of Babylon. In his second year he marched on the north and east of Assyria, and penetrated to certain Median tribes whom he asserts to have been quite unknown to his predecessors. The Philistines also were subdued by him, and the kings of Egypt who fought with him near Lachish were worsted. Lachish and Libnah fell before his arms, and Hezekiah, at Jerusalem, had to purchase peace by a tribute of 30o talents of silver and 30 talents of gold (a Kings xviii. 13, 14). This, however, is not recorded in his annals, which extend only to his eighth year, and therefore may have occurred subsequently to the period at which they close. In the year 699 he again marched against Babylon, defeated the party of Merodach-Baladan, deposed the viceroy, Belibus, whom he had himself appointed three years before, and placed his own eldest son, Asshur-nadin, upon the throne. We know that Sennacherib reigned twenty-two years, because we have his twenty-second year stamped on a clay tablet, but it is uncertain when his second expedition to Syria was undertaken : some, however, consider his two Syrian expeditions to have been identical. The object of it was to recover the cities of Lachish and Libnah, which had again fallen under the power of Egypt. While he was warring against Lachish he heard of the convention that Hezel:ialt had entered into with the king of Egypt, and sent a detachment of his host against Jerusalem, under Rab-Saris and Rab-Shakeh. For some reason which we are not told, these generals found it expedient to retire from Jerusalem and join their master, who had raised the siege of Lachish, at Libnah. Meanwhile, Tirhakah, the Ethiopian, perhaps not yet king of Egypt, advanced from the south to meet Senna cherib and reinforce the Egyptian party against whom he was contending, but before the decisive battle could be fought, the Angel of the Lord had smitten in the camp of the Assyrians 185,o0o men. Sennacherib, with the rest of his army, fled in dismay, and the Egyptians perhaps commemorated his disaster in the manner related (Herod. ii. 141). It is not a matter of surprise that this event is unnoticed on the Assyrian monuments. In all probability the murder of Sennacherib by his sons did not immediately follow his defeat at Libnah, but this also we have no means of knowing from the Assyrian records. He was succeeded by one of his younger sons, not his eldest, who had been regent in Babylon, and was probably dead, Esar haddon, or Asshur-akh-iddina. He was celebrated for his victories and his magnificent buildings. He carried on his father's war with Egypt, which country, as well as Ethiopia, he seems to have subdued. He is also thought to have reigned in his own person at Babylon, and perhaps to have held his court indifferently, either at Nineveh or Babylon, which would account for Manasseh being carried by the captains of the king of Assyria to Babylon (2 Chron. xxxiii. t) ; but in B.C. 667, thirteen years after his accession, he was succeeded on the throne of Babylon by Saosduchinus, who was either a rebel or a viceroy appointed by Esar haddon. About the year 66o his son, Asshur banipal or Sardanapalus III., succeeded to the throne of Assyria, and with him began the fall of the empire. He may have reigned till 64o, but he feebly imitated the conquests of his predecessors, and appears to have contented himself with hunting. He was succeeded by his son Asshur-emit-ili, the last king of whom any records have been discovered. Under him, Assyria was hastening to its downfall, and Cyaxares, with his victorious Medes, was pre paring for the final attack. If he was not the last king he was the last but one, and the Saracus of Berosus, perhaps his brother, may have succeeded him, or else we must consider Saracus to be identical with Asshur-emit-ili, who corresponded in fate with the war-like Sardanapalus of the Greeks.