The History of Antiquity Volume Iii Part 5

[144] _Sera en mashush._

[145] Chabas, "Melanges," Ser. 2, pp. 73-107.

[146] Lepsius, "Abh. Berl. Akad. Phil. Hist. Kla.s.se," 1856, s. 264.

Mariette, "Bull. Archeolog. Athen. Franc." 1855, pp. 93, 98-100.

[147] Cp. Von Gutschmid, "Beitrage zur Geschichte des alten Orients," s.

104, _seqq._

[148] Diod. 1, 45.

[149] Plut. "de Isid." c. 8; cf. Athenaeus, p. 418.

[150] Joseph. "c. Apionem," 2, 2, 6.

[151] Mariette, "Revue Archeolog." 1865, 12, 178.

[152] Pianchi is also called the son of the high priest Herhor (p. 51).

But this coincidence does not compel us to explain the kings of Napata as descendants of that Herhor who lived 400 years before Pianchi of Napata.

[153] De Rouge, "Memoire sur une inscript. de Piankhi;" Brugsch, "Hist.

of Egypt," I. 129; II. 243, 247.

[154] I have shown above that Petubastis came to the throne about the year 775 B.C., and Bocchoris, the son of Tnephachtus, about 753 B.C.; Tnephachtus, therefore, must be placed in the time between 770-753 B.C.

Thus the time of the campaign of Pianchi is fixed. To throw back the campaign nearly 100 years is not possible, owing to the mention of Osorkon, the names of Nemrut, Ssheshonk, Petise, which belong to the house of the Bubast.i.tes, and the date of Tnephachtus. If the lists of a.s.surbanipal mention a Ssheshonk of Busiris, a Tafnecht--not of Sais, but of Buni or Bunubu; a Pefabast, not of Chnensu but of Zoan--the reappearance of these names can be explained by the fact that these dynastic families have also been preserved among the Ethiopians (p. 72).

[155] Athenaeus, p. 418; Diod. 1, 74.

[156] Diod. 1, 94.

[157] Diod. 1, 79.

[158] Plut. "Demetr." c. 27.

[159] aelian. "Hist. An." 12, 3.

[160] Diod. 1, 94.

[161] Mariette, "Bab. Athen. Franc." p. 58-62.

[162] aelian. "Hist. An." 11, 11.

[163] aelian. _loc. cit._ 12, 3.

[164] De Rouge, "Melanges d'Archeol." 1, 37, concludes from the monuments of Tirhaka and the statue of Ameniritis, that Kashta succeeded Pianchi, that Sabakon and the others are children of Kashta (?) According to Brugsch the -ka in Shabaka and Shabataka is the attached article of the Barabra language. Hence it is explained how Saba(ka) can become Seveh among the Hebrews, or Sabhi among the a.s.syrians. Cf.

Oppert. "Memoire sur les rapports de l'Egypte et de l'a.s.syrie," p.

12-14.

[165] Herod. 2, 137-141.

[166] Diod. 1, 45, 65.

[167] I have already been able to fix the end of the Ramessids, the date of the Tanites and Bubast.i.tes, by the date of the accession of Shishak in the Hebrew reckoning; the length of the dynasty of the Tanites in Manetho; and the length of the Bubast.i.tes as corrected by the monuments, and the synchronism of the first Olympiad for Petubastis. For the period from the end of the Bubast.i.tes to the accession of Sabakon, the important points are the seventh Olympiad for Bocchoris, and the sarcophagus of the Apis of Bokenranef. If Bocchoris came to the throne in the year 753 B.C., Ssheshonk IV. died in the year 780 B.C.; if this was the thirty-seventh or thirty-eighth of his reign, the successor of the Apis buried in the thirty-seventh year of Ssheshonk might certainly live to the year 748, the sixth year of Bocchoris according to my reckoning. It is decisive for Sabakon's accession in Egypt that Hoshea of Israel undoubtedly ascended the throne in 734 B.C. (p. 16, note; 48).

Shalmanesar IV. of a.s.syria marched against Israel in the year 726 B.C., when he had discovered the conspiracy of Hoshea with Seveh (Sabakon, p.

69). Hoshea must, therefore, have negotiated with Seveh in 727 B.C. at the latest, and probably earlier. Sabakon must have been previously established on the throne of Egypt. He cannot, therefore, have conquered Egypt later than 730 B.C. Bocchoris therefore reigned 23 years (753-730 B.C.); the time which Manetho allots to Bocchoris, six years, is too short for the completion of his legislation and the attainment of that fame as a legislator which he left behind him, according to the account of the Greeks. That Tirhaka reigned over Meroe and Egypt in the year 702 at the latest, is proved by the battle of Eltekeh, which was fought in 701 B.C. (p. 125). If Seveh, who negotiated with Hoshea, is supposed to be Sabataka, the conquest of Egypt by Sabakon must be put in the year 739. The Apis discovered in the twenty-sixth year of Tirhaka and buried in the twentieth year of Psammetichus, shows that according to the chronology of that period, Psammetichus was regarded as the immediate successor of Tirhaka. According to the reign of 54 years allotted to him by Herodotus and Manetho, Psammetichus begins in 664 B.C., since his death is fixed with certainty in 610 B.C. If Tirhaka's reign over Egypt began in the year 703 B.C., the year 678 would be the twenty-sixth of his reign; the Apis lived down to the twentieth year of the reign of Psammetichus, _i.e._ down to the year 645 B.C.--consequently 30 years, an age (the number on the inscription is illegible), which even a less carefully tended bull might attain. Tirhaka reigned from 703 to 664 B.C., _i.e._ 39 years. If the lists of Manetho, according to our excerpts, allow him only 18 years (Syncellus gives 20), this is obviously due to the fact that the reigns of Stephinates, Nechepsus, and Necho, who ought to stand side by side with Tirhaka, with seven, six, and eight years, _i.e._ with 21 years in all, are deducted from the reign of Tirhaka, in order to place these three princes after him. To the predecessors of Tirhaka, Sabakon and Sebichus, Manetho allows eight and fourteen years. The monuments of Egypt show that Sabakon reigned at least 12 years; Sabakon must, therefore, according to these dates, have begun to reign in Egypt not later than 729 B.C. (664 + 39 + 26). The a.s.syrian monuments show that Sabakon fought with Sargon at Raphia in the year 720 B.C., and his successor negotiated with him; that Tirhaka fought with Sennacherib in Syria in 701 B.C., and that he was at war with a.s.surbanipal about the year 666 B.C.

[168] Goodwin in Chabas, "Melanges," 1, 249 ff.

[169] Among the Hebrews, the king with whom Hoshea of Israel (734-722 B.C.), negotiates is called Seveh (So). Sargon's inscriptions name the opponent against whom he fought at Raphia in the year 720 B.C. "Sabhi, Sar of the land of Muzur," and also "Sabhi Siltannu of Muzur." The inscription of Karnak gives Sabakon's (Shabaka's) twelfth year; we must, therefore, although Manetho's list allows him only eight years, a.s.sume that Sabakon was the opponent of Sargon at Raphia, as stated in a preceding note. If Sabakon died immediately after his twelfth year, he died in 717 B.C. The ruler of Egypt who pays tribute to Sargon in the year 716, is repeatedly called by the a.s.syrian inscriptions, "Pirhu (Pharaoh), Sar of Muzur." So in the cylinder of G. Smith ("Disc." p.

295), the ruler of Egypt, who unites with Ashdod in the year 711 B.C., is called "Pirhu Sar of Muzur;" finally, the prince who delivers up Yaman, when it has been mentioned that Yaman fled beyond Egypt into the border land of Miluhhi, is called by Sargon "Sar Miluhhi." The Pharaoh, Sar Muzur, whom we find on the throne of Egypt in 716 to 711 B.C., and the Sar Miluhhi, who gives up Yaman, can only be Shabataka-Sebichus, the successor of Sabakon.

[170] Mariette, "Monuments," pl. 29 e.

[171] Not much weight could be laid on the observation in the Palatine codex of Hieronymus (Jerome); Tarachus (ab aethiopia duxit exercitum), Sebico interfecto aegyptiis regnavit annis xx.; but in the inscription of Medinet Habu Tirhaka calls himself conqueror of Kemi, _i.e._ of Egypt.

[172] Lepsius, "Briefe," s. 239, 275.

[173] Brugsch, "Geogr." 1, 163.

[174] Strabo, p. 61, 686, 687. Budinger's view ("aegypt. Forschung.

Herodots," 2, 32), that we must recognise Tirhaka in the Etearchus of Herodotus might be adopted if the narrative did not too definitely point out travelling Cyrenaeans as the source; and the founding of Cyrene cannot be carried back to the time of Tirhaka.

CHAPTER IV.

THE FIRST COLLISION OF a.s.sYRIA AND EGYPT.

When Tiglath Pilesar ascended the throne of a.s.syria, he first compelled Babylonia to recognise his supremacy; after that he advanced into the table land of Iran, as far as Arachosia, and there at the least maintained his supremacy far and wide over the Medes. To the North he fought against Nairi and Urarti, against k.u.mmukh and Tubal (743 B.C.); even the union into which the distressed princes of that region entered against him did not protect them; after a second subjugation the Tubal, _i.e._ the Tibarenes, received a prince from the hand of Tiglath Pilesar (735 B.C.). Meanwhile he had already overthrown Arpad in the West, which had resisted his predecessors so vigorously in a struggle which continued for three years; received tribute from Karchemish, Damascus, and Tyre; and placed the region of Ama.n.u.s, Lebanon, Hadrach, and several districts of Hamath under a.s.syrian viceroys (742-740 B.C.). Two years afterwards the princes of Cilicia, of Hamath, of Byblus, Menahem king of Israel, and Zabibieh, the queen of the Arabs, submitted (738 B.C.). The appeal of Ahaz for help brought him again into Syria; after a struggle of three years Damascus was overthrown, Israel deprived of a portion of her population, and given to another prince, the cities of the Philistines conquered, the Ammonites, Moabites, and Edomites overthrown, and at length Samsieh, the queen of the Arabs, was defeated (734-732 B.C.). This complete subjugation of Syria was followed by new conflicts on the lower Euphrates. Nabu-sabzi and Kinziru were overpowered; Kinziru became a va.s.sal of Babylon, and when Merodach Baladan paid homage at Sapiya, the dominion of Tiglath Pilesar extended to the sh.o.r.e of the Persian Gulf (731 B.C.). He now called himself king of a.s.shur and Babel, and in the last years of his reign received the tribute of tribes from the south of Arabia. After an eventful reign of 18 years which gained for a.s.syria the supremacy over Media, Syria, and Babylonia, Tiglath Pilesar died in the year 727 B.C.

His successor was Shalmanesar IV. No inscriptions have been preserved from the short reign of this king. The astronomical canon represents a change in the succession of Babylon at the death of Tiglath Pilesar; in the place of the joint reign of Chinzirus and Polus, in which we believed that we might recognise the supremacy of Tiglath Pilesar, obscurely given in Babylonian tradition under the name Polus (Phul), and the va.s.sal-reign of Kinziru (p. 9), comes the reign of Elulaeus in the year 726 B.C. That Chinzirus and Polus died in the same year, that Kinziru died in the same year as Tiglath Pilesar, would be remarkable, but by no means impossible. It is more probable that Shalmanesar found it advisable to make a change in the va.s.sal king at Babylon, and that after his accession he placed Elulaeus (Illuhillu) there as a va.s.sal.

Shalmanesar's attention was soon occupied in another direction.

Saved by the arms of a.s.syria from the overpowering advance of the Damascenes and Israelites, the Philistines and Edomites, Ahaz, king of Judah, had paid homage to Tiglath Pilesar at Damascus. "When Ahaz saw the altar which was at Damascus," so we are told by the Books of Kings, "he sent a pattern of it to Uriah the priest, and Uriah built the altar after this pattern, and when Ahaz came from Damascus he sacrificed on this altar, and offered burnt offerings and meat offerings, and poured out his drink offering, and sprinkled the blood of his thank offering on the altar. The iron altar, which stood before Jehovah, he removed, and the iron sea he took from the oxen and placed it on the pavement (II.

184). And Ahaz bade Uriah offer the burnt offering in the morning, and the meat offering in the evening, and the burnt and meat offering of the king, and all the sacrifices of the whole people of the land, on the new altar, and the king's entry he turned to the house of Jehovah for the king of a.s.syria."[175] According to this Ahaz, in order to prove his submission to his sovereign, altered the altar and arrangements of the temple at Jerusalem after the pattern of an altar on which he had seen Tiglath Pilesar sacrifice to his G.o.ds at Damascus, and the ritual there observed.[176] The high priest Uriah submitted. He not only allowed the king to sacrifice in person, against which the priesthood had contended in the case of Uzziah, but he altered the service of the temple according to the wishes of the king.

Judah was laid waste through her length and breadth. The Damascenes and the Israelites, the Philistines and the Edomites, had got the whole land into their power as far as the metropolis. Even from this heavy blow Judah would learn nothing. Instead of turning thankfully to Jehovah for rescue from such distress, the altars of the temples were altered after an a.s.syrian pattern. Isaiah saw this movement with the deepest indignation. "Your country is desolate; your cities are burned with fire; your land, strangers devour it in your presence. And the daughter of Zion is left as a cottage in a vineyard, as a lodge in a garden of cuc.u.mbers. Had not Jehovah left to us a small remnant, we had been as Sodom and Gomorrah. From the sole of the foot to the head there is no soundness in us, but wounds and bruises and putrefying sores; they have not been pressed out, nor bound up, nor mollified with ointment. Why should ye be stricken any more, and revolt any more? They are replenished from the east, and are soothsayers like the Philistines, and agree with the children of strangers. The ox knoweth his owner, and the a.s.s his master's crib, but Israel knows him not."[177]

Israel suffered still more than Judah by the carrying away of the population of the northern and eastern districts, the land of Nephtali, and the land of Gilead. Hoshea reigned over the remainder from the year 734 (p. 48). According to the Books of Kings he set on foot a conspiracy, slew Pekah, and became king in his place; according to the inscriptions of Tiglath Pilesar, Tiglath made him king over Israel.

These statements are not contradictory. Pekah had been in league with Rezin of Damascus, the opponent of a.s.syria and Judah: why should not Tiglath Pilesar recognise and establish as king of Israel the man who had removed the opponent of a.s.syria?[178] Hoshea sent his tribute yearly to the king of a.s.syria.[179] But when the dreaded warrior prince of a.s.shur--when Tiglath Pilesar died, there awoke in the Philistines, the Phenicians, and above all in Eulaeus, king of Tyre, and Hoshea, king of Israel, the hope of withdrawing themselves from the yoke of a.s.syria. If Hoshea had risen as a partisan of a.s.syria, he determined now that he was in possession of the throne to break loose from that empire. The hope of liberation rested not only on the fact that Tiglath Pilesar was no more; it received a still stronger point of support in the change which had taken place in Egypt in the last years of Tiglath Pilesar. Menahem of Israel had already thought of securing the a.s.sistance of Egypt before he sent his tribute to a.s.syria (p. 38), and the same thought must have occurred to Uzziah in his last years. Hanno of Gaza had taken refuge in Egypt from Tiglath Pilesar (p. 48). The prudent Bocchoris had left, or been compelled to leave, Syria untouched. But since his reign Sabakon had united the forces of Dongola, Nubia, and Egypt into a strong power.

When Tiglath Pilesar had extended the dominion of a.s.syria as far as Gaza and Elath, and a victorious aggressive power of great strength stood on the borders of Egypt, the attack of a.s.syria might be expected there. A far-seeing ruler of Egypt, secure of his military power, must endeavour to antic.i.p.ate this attack; he must prevent it by uniting the elements of resistance existing in Syria. If the issue were favourable, the dominion of a.s.syria over Syria would thus be removed; in any case Egypt would have allies in Syria for the war against a.s.syria. "Hoshea sent messengers to Seveh (Sabakon) king of Egypt," so the Hebrews tell us, "and brought the king of a.s.syria no present more as formerly." It is this attempt to gain a.s.sistance, and probably the presents which accompanied it--perhaps also gifts from Hanno at Gaza, the princes of Tyre, Zemar, and Hamath (see below)--which Sabakon, on the walls of Karnak, describes as tribute received from the inhabitants of Palestine (p. 73).

Isaiah foresaw very plainly what would be the issue of this undertaking which to him appeared madness and intoxication. He announced destruction and ruin to the Philistines, the kingdom of Israel, and the Phenicians.

The carrying away into captivity already sent by Jehovah upon Israel, in punishment of her offences, and the war against Judah had brought about no improvement, no reformation; the severe lesson teaching them to remain at rest, which the sons of Israel had then received, is disregarded; they are calling down upon themselves a still heavier judgment. Isaiah spoke the more strongly as he was desirous to prevent Judah also, where Hezekiah, the son of Ahaz, ascended the throne in 728 B.C., from joining in this attempt. In reference to the death of Tiglath Pilesar he cries to the cities of the Philistines: "Rejoice not, whole Philistia, because the rod is broken which smote thee. For out of the serpent's root shall come forth a c.o.c.katrice, and his fruit is a flying serpent. From the north cometh a smoke."[180] To the cities of Tyre and Sidon, he cries: "Howl, ye ships of Tarshish, for Tyre is laid waste: there is no house more, no entering in. Be still, ye inhabitants of the coast, which the merchants of Sidon that pa.s.s over the sea replenished.

By distant waters the seed of the Nile, the harvest of the river, was their revenue, and she was the mart of nations. Be thou ashamed, Sidon, for the sea hath spoken; the strength of the sea thus: I travailed not, and brought not forth; I brought up no young men and maidens. Pa.s.s ye over to Tarshish; howl, ye inhabitants of the coast! Is this your joyous city, whose antiquity is of ancient days? Her own feet shall carry her afar off to sojourn. Who hath taken this counsel against Tyre, the crowning city, whose merchants are princes, whose traffickers are the honourable of the earth? Jehovah the Lord of Hosts hath purposed it.

Jehovah gave command over Canaan to destroy her fortresses, and said: Thou shalt no more rejoice, thou oppressed virgin, daughter of Sidon!

Pa.s.s over to Chittim (the Cyprians, II. 53). There also thou shalt have no rest. When the report comes to Egypt, they shall be sorely pained at the report of Tyre."[181]