four powerful kings seated in the south and south-east of the Euphrates valley, two of whom, the king of Shinar and the king of Ellasar, occupy between them the territory described as the beginning of Nimrod's kingdom. What has become of the earlier and more extensive dominion of the mighty hunter? And what of the great city, with a correspondingly great authority over the surrounding region, which he reared in Assyria? The expeditions westward of Chedorlaomer and his confederates must have proceeded up the valley of the Euphrates (cf. Gen. xiv. 5, 14, 15), yet no account is taken in the narrative of Nineveh and its king. This is a fact all but utterly unaccountable, if the great Assyrian city was then built, and Nimrod's conquests had already taken place; and it becomes the more so when we consider that according to Scripture Chedorlaomer exercised a somewhat lengthened dominion over the tribes in the Jordan valley. Thus the statements of the Bible lead us to the conclusion not only that the ordinary date of Nimrod and his conquests is erroneous, but also that they ought to be assigned to a period subsequent to the events recorded in Gen. xiv. We know not that from this source we can obtain any more precise data for the determination of the question in hand. We simply notice, what we may have occasion again to refer to, the statement in Judges iii. 8-10, as to the existence, at that time, of the kingdom of Aram-Naharaim under Cushan-rishathaim. This name has not yet been satisfactorily explained. The component Cushan, however (cf. Hab. iii. 7), certainly favours the idea that the monarch here spoken of was, like Nimrod, of Cushite descent, and that a Cushite race was then predominant in Northern Mesopotamia. II. Let us now proceed to inquire what light is thrown upon this question by the cuneiform monuments. Here it is to be remarked, on the one hand, that the negative evidence against the primeval date assigned to Nimrod and the building of Nineveh is as strong as such evidence can be. Not till long after the period when historical light begins to break from contemporary records upon the Mesopotamian lands, is there any trace of the existence of the city Nineveh. The country of Assyria first appears as a territory under the dominion of the Chaldean kings who ruled at Babel, at which time its capital is not Nineveh, but Asshur, identical, according to Rawlinson, with Kileh Sher h We here assume as correct Rawlinson's identification of Ellasar with Senkereh. Oppert, we believe, as Rawlinson at a former period was inclined to do, places Ellasar at Kileh Shergat; we know not on what grounds. The reasoning in the text is not materially affected, though the latter view be adopted. See Rawlinson's Herodotus, vol. i., p. 437, 456. gat. These Chaldean kings occupy the very cities, Babel, Erech, Accad and Calneh, mentioned in Scripture as the first conquest of Nimrod (a fact which certainly countenances the idea that their age was previous to that of Nimrod), and their power is shewn by the monuments to have gradually extended northwards, till they planted a subordinate kingdom at Asshur. Thus again we are led to ask, Where have the city and empire of Nimrod gone? On the other hand, the supposition that the conquests of Nimrod follow the reign of the early monumental kings of Babylon and the South, makes the course of events and the narrative of Scripture altogether intelligible and probable. The Cushite invader falls first upon the Chaldean capitals, Babylon, Warka, Kinzi Akkad, and Niffer (to accept Rawlinson's identifications); and having established his power in the South, he follows the track of Chaldean conquest northwards, gains possession of Asshur the capital (or territory) of the younger branch of the dynasty he had already subdued, and rears for himself a new metropolis, some distance higher up the Tigris, and in a much more advantageous position. If we adopt the view thus commended to our acceptance, we obtain the materials, from cuneiform discovery, of an approximation to the age of Nimrod. Among the Chaldean kings just referred to is Ismidagon, whose reign is certainly determined to about B.c. 1860. But this king is far from being the last of his dynasty, and the legends of a number of others who came after him have been recovered. Sir H. Rawlinson, who has had the largest opportunities of studying the relevant materials, brings down the latest monarch to about B.c. 1550. Somewhere about this date may be presumed to fall the invasion of Nimrod,-a conclusion, we may remark in passing, entirely coincident with the more indefinite results already derived from the statements of Scripture. It may be objected that if the activity of Nimrod is to be brought down to this comparatively recent period, we ought to find traces of his reign and dynasty in the monuments of Babylonia and Assyria, whereas none have ever been pointed out. In reply, we remark, on the one hand, that even if none such could be pointed out, it would not be decisive against the view which we advocate. None of the great remains of Babylonia or Assyria, except perhaps that of Khorsabad, the work of Sargon, have been thoroughly explored; and in Assyria, at least, the works of Nimrod would require to be sought for at the founda iSee Rawlinson's Herodotus, i., p. 433. VOL. XI.-NO. XXI. F tion of the oldest mounds. Moreover, it was common on a change of dynasty to destroy the monuments of that which had been displaced, and this procedure is expressly ascribed' to Ninus, the representative, we conceive, of the Assyrian dynasty which succeeded that of Nimrod. But, on the other hand, we believe that monumental traces exist which may with sufficient evidence be referred to the domination of the Cushite race in Mesopotamia. Thus (1.) Rawlinson mentions that bricks have been found at Kileh Shergat, which record the names and titles of four tributary satraps. The legends are of the Babylonian rather than the Assyrian type, and the titles belong to the most humble class of dignities. These legends seem to intimate that the old capital of Assyria was at that time degraded, and thus point to the predominance of Nineveh; and they cannot be so conveniently assigned to any period as to that of Cushite ascendancy. (2.) We venture to assign to this period also the remarkable ivory fragments found by Mr. Layard at Nimrûd, of which it has proved a difficulty hitherto to furnish any satisfying explanation." Only a brief indication of the leading points of the argument can here be given. These ivories are confessedly of Egyptian or quasi-Egyptian style and workmanship; "there are certain peculiarities in the execution and mode of treatment that would seem to mark the work of a foreign, perhaps an Assyrian artist." They were found buried under an immense heap of rubbish in the oldest of the Nimrûd edifices," which there is reason to believe had fallen to decay and been covered up long before the time of Sargon and his successors, when the more recent connexion between Egypt and Assyria was formed. The most perfect analogues of the royal name on the only complete cartouche, read by Birch Ubn-ra, are found in the Egyptian dynastic lists preceding the eighteenth. These and other considerations point us to an early period of Assyrian history for the origin of the relics in question; and we might almost venture to argue that since from their style and their hieroglyphics they cannot have emanated from the native Assyrian race, and since they cannot well be deemed to have been importations from Egypt, they must be of Cushite production. But we have 2 By Moses of Chorene, i. 13. See the passage in Layard's Nineveh and its Remains, vol. ii., p. 232. m See Rawlinson's Herodotus, i., p. 448, 7. n These ivories are figured in Layard's Monuments of Nineveh, first series, plate 88-91. See also his Nineveh and its Remains, ii., p. 207–211. Layard, Nineveh and it Remains, ii., p. 10. P Layard, 1. c., p. 9. See Birch, in Layard, Nineveh and its Remains, ii., p. 210; cf. Bunsen, Egypt's Place, ii., p. 494. further and more cogent evidence. Their Egyptian aspect and character certainly evince a connexion with Egypt; and a connexion with Egypt also can be proved in behalf of Nimrod and his family. According to the Scripture genealogy (Gen. x. 6), Cush and Mizraim are brothers. Their settlements also were contiguous, for while the latter occupied the valley of the Nile, by the former, the regions adjoining Egypt in the east, and doubtless the Arabian peninsula in general, was originally possessed. The two nations exercised also an important mutual influence. It seems to be now generally agreed that the Hyksos were of Arabian origin. We hear also, from independent sources, of an invasion of Egypt by the Amalekites, probably a Cushite people from the same quarter. It is apparently to the fourteenth or Xoite dynasty, i. e., a dynasty having its principal seat in a district of Lower Egypt, exposed to the attacks of enemies from the East, that the name already referred to as analogous to that in the Nimrûd cartouche, belongs. Still more decisive is the fact that among the names belonging to the twenty-second or Bubastite dynasty, whose seat again adjoins immediately on Arabia, occurs that of Namurot, in which all have agreed to recognize the Egyptian form of Nimrod. It is allowed that this, with the other names of that dynasty, are non-Egyptian, and betray a foreign origin, and the attempts that have been made" to prove them Shemitic cannot be regarded as successful. The known facts are met and harmonized by supposing them Cushites from Arabia." Still further, the Egyptian monuments furnish evidence of the close relations subsisting between the two countries. With Arabia the Egyptians have important commercial relations, receiving thence gold, ivory, ebony, colours and pictures, with other articles. It is specially worthy of remark that some of the Egyptian deities seem to have been derived from the same quarter, among others, Hor and Hathor," and of these very deities representations occur upon the ivory fragments now in question. These considera This, we presume, is now generally acknowledged. See proofs collected by Bochart, Phaleg., lib. iv., cap. ii. Knobel, Die Völkertafel, & 27, 6; § 28, 5—11. See Chwolson, Die Ssabier, i., p. 322. Uhlemann Handbuch, iii., Cf. Bunsen, Eyypt's Place, ii., p. 483. P. 154. u As by Lepsius, On the twenty-second Dynasty, by Bell, p. 23. "There is evidence in an inscription of Seti I., that at that time (nineteenth dynasty), the north-eastern portion of Egypt was in possession of an Arabian race. Cf. F. Corbaux, Journal of Sacred Literature, Jan., 1852, p. 371. Bubastis is mentioned as one of the cities which they occupied. Brugsch, however, questions the reference of the original word. Geog. Inschriften, ii., p. 50. tions, to which not a few others might be added, seem to us sufficient to prove that a people allied by descent, and similar in culture to the Egyptians, occupied the country adjoining Egypt on the east, among whom such names as Nimrod, Ubn-ra, and probably others occurring later in the Assyrian royal lists, were indigenous, and thus make it probable that from that region Nimrod and his Cushites proceeded in their invasion of Babylonia, and that of their art and domination in Assyria we have traces in the Nimrûd ivories. (3.) Another coincident trace we find in a different part of Mesopotamia. Among the widelyextended researches of Layard, those at Arban on the Khabour produced results which have not been sufficiently attended to. He discovered there a pair of winged human-headed bulls, which are thus described: "They resembled, in general form, the wellknown winged bulls of Nineveh, but in the style of art they differed considerably from them. The outline and treatment was bold and angular, with an archaic feeling conveying the impression of great antiquity. . . . . The human features were unfortunately much injured, but such parts as remained were sufficient to shew that the countenance had a peculiar character, differing from the Assyrian type. The sockets of the eyes were deeply sunk, probably to receive the white and the ball of the eye in ivory or glass. The nose was flat and large, and the lips thick and overhanging like those of a negro." These are the well-known features of the Cushite race, and we see no reason why we should hesitate to ascribe this monument to the period of their predominance in Mesopotamia. Our confidence that it is the relic of an age antecedent to the rise of the proper Assyrian dynasty, is confirmed by the fact that a number of Egyptian scarabæi of the eighteenth dynasty were also discovered in the Arban mound. The discovery of such remains in central Mesopotamia is, further, in excellent harmony with the supposition that the Scriptural Cushan-rishathaim represents the Cushite dominion there established. These seem to us not obscure traces of the reign of Nimrod and his race, and they serve to support the results already obtained in regard to the chronology of his conquests. III. The monuments of Egypt will furnish us with additional and still clearer information. It is well known that the Egyptian kings of the eighteenth and nineteenth dynasties, in their Asiatic expeditions, came into contact with a powerful and widely-extended people called the Retennu or Rutennu. See Layard's Nineveh and Babylon, p. 275, 276, cf. p. 283. * See Layard, Nineveh and Babylon, p. 280 f. It |