The History of Antiquity (Vol. 1-6). Duncker Max

Diod. 1, 74.

[298] Wilkinson, "Manners and Customs," 3, 4.

[299] Strabo, p. 758; cf. p. 147.

[300] Supra, p. 94; Ebers, "Durch Gosen," s. 135 ff.

[301] Herod. 2, 78.

[302] Wilkinson, "Manners and Customs," 2, 132.

[303] Cf. infra, Book II. cap. 3.

[304] 1 Kings x. 28, 29; 2 Chronicles i. 16, 17; ix. 28.

[305] "Od." 14, 288; 4, 225, 355; 17, 448; Movers, "Phœnizier," 2, 70.

      BOOK II.

      THE SEMITIC NATIONS.

       Table of Contents

      CHAPTER I.

      THE ANCIENT KINGDOM OF BABYLON.

       Table of Contents

The neighbours of Egypt on the east were the Syrians and Arabians. Herodotus gives the name of Syrians to the inhabitants of the Syrian coasts and Mount Lebanon, the settlers on the Euphrates and Tigris, and the population of the eastern districts of Asia Minor. In Xenophon the Babylonians speak Syriac. Strabo remarks that the Syrians and Arabians are closely related in language, mode of life, and physique—that Syrians dwelt on both sides of the Taurus—that the same language was spoken on both sides of the Euphrates—that Babylon and Nineveh were cities of the Syrians—that the Assyrian kingdom was a kingdom of Syrians, and that the inhabitants of the kingdom of Babylon and Nineveh were called Syrians by their own historians.[306] As a fact tribes closely related in language and nature—which we denote by the general term Semitic—invaded with their armies the broad steppes of Arabia, and the Syrian desert, occupied the coasts of Syria and a part of Asia Minor, and inhabited the district of the Euphrates and Tigris, from the mountains of Armenia to the Persian Gulf on the south, and the tableland of Iran on the east. The languages of the Arabians, the Semitic tribes of the south, the Aramæans and Canaanites in the west, and the Babylonians and Assyrians in the east, are three ramifications springing from one and the same stem of language, which spreads from the Black Sea and the Mediterranean to the Arabian and Persian Gulfs. Living under different conditions, the Semitic nations attained to different degrees of civilization. The tribes of the desert did not go beyond the simplest and most primitive forms, at which point a considerable portion of them still remain; but the inhabitants of more favoured districts developed independently, and in the course of time these developments operated on each other, and thus led to a far more varied, and, in certain directions, far more vigorous culture, than the isolated, exclusive, and self-concentrated civilization of Egypt.

The two rivers which determine the character and nature of the depression between the Syrian plateau and the tableland of Iran rise at no great distance from each other on the mountains of Armenia. The Euphrates rises to the north, the Tigris to the south. After leaving the mountains of Armenia—the Euphrates, by a broad circuit to the west, the Tigris by a direct course to the south—both rivers enter a tolerably lofty steppe, where the uniform surface is broken by ridges of rock, by ranges of hills, pastures, and fruitful strips of land, while the banks of the rivers are overgrown with forests of plane-trees, tamarisks, and cypresses, and shut in by meadows. As the soil becomes more level, these fruitful depressions by the rivers become somewhat broader, but the land between the streams becomes more sterile and treeless, and supports only nomad tribes and herds of wild asses, ostriches, and bustards.[307] When the Euphrates has left behind the last spurs of this desolate hill country, at the place where the two rivers approach each other most nearly—about 400 miles from their mouths—there commences a plain of brown rich soil. Through this the Euphrates passes with a quiet stream, but the Tigris hurries to the sea down a bed which is both narrower, and often inclosed by rocks, while at the same time the river is increased by copious additions from the western edge of the tableland of Iran. In spite of the excellent soil this flat would remain unfruitful unless the two rivers, year by year, when the snow melted on the Armenian mountains, overflowed their banks, and thus irrigated the land for the summer. In the Tigris the inundation commences about the beginning of June, in the Euphrates, whose sources lie far higher, about the beginning of July. But this inundation does not take place nearly so calmly and regularly as that in the Nile. Instead of fertilising water, the Tigris often sends down destructive floods over the plain, and changes it, down to the marshy Delta at the mouth, into a broad and rolling sea.

By its simple structure and the absence of any internal limitations, this low-lying land on the Euphrates and Tigris was favourable to the development of great kingdoms, and was hardly behind the Nile in incentives and instigations to a civilised life. The writers of antiquity celebrate the fruitfulness and natural wealth of these flats. While on the other side of the Euphrates, so writes a Babylonian historian of his own home, the land as far as Arabia is without water and fruits, and on the other side of the Tigris the land is indeed fruitful but rocky; in the land between the streams wheat and barley, linseed beans and sesame grow wild; both in the marshes and the reeds of the river nourishing roots are found in abundance, as valuable for food as barley. Besides these there are dates, and apples, and other different fruits, and abundance of fish and birds in the marsh and on the land. Herodotus commends the wealth of the land in wheat and palms in the strongest terms; Xenophon speaks in admiration of the size and beauty of the dates.[308] Even now the palm-forests which run without interruption along the lower course of both rivers produce dates in abundance, and with their slender forms and lofty tops give a picturesqueness to the otherwise uniform landscape. This vigorous vegetation, together with the peculiar character of the land, must have early incited a capable population to a regular cultivation and a higher civilization. The protection of the land against the rapid overflow, the conducting of the water to the higher districts, and the removal of water from the marshes, must have led to measures calculated to produce and develop a fertility of technical resources. Basins were required of more considerable extent, longer canals, and stronger dams against the violent inundations, and more extensive conduits, in order to convey the water into the middle of the land, than were necessary in Egypt. Long before Egypt had reached the height of her power and prosperity under the Tuthmosis and Amenophis and the early Ramessids, the inhabitants of this plain had attained to a peculiar culture and civilisation.

The accounts which the Greeks have handed down to us of the fortunes of these districts in ancient times are meagre and defective. The power of the Semitic empires on the Euphrates and Tigris had fallen long before inquisitive Greeks penetrated the East, and the Persians, who were the rulers at that time, had little interest in instructing the Greeks in the former splendour of their opponents and ancient masters. Herodotus intended to write the history of the Assyrians; if ever composed, it has not come down to our times. On the other hand, he has described the land, manners, and customs of the Babylonians; of their history, however, he only tells us that many kings and two queens ruled over Babylon.[309] Aristotle remarks that