ffers almost a solitary instance of a great and re- nowned city having entirely passed away previously to what may be termed the historic period. It did not survive the empire of which it was the capital. Both perished together about a century and a half before the birth of Herodotus, the father of history. Even the very ruins of its great national monuments seem to have disappeared before any pen could describe them. The Greek geographers col- lected some fabulous stories concerning the magnitude and duration of the empire, and the extent and magnificence of the capital; but the only contemporary notice of either is to be found in the Bible, and the details afforded by the Sacred records are few and meagre. It is, however, its connection with the Jews, with the fulfillment of prophecy, and more especially with the events of the first Captivity, that renders the history of Nineveh of so much interest.

The earliest biblical mention of Nineveh is to be found in the 10th or genealogical chapter of Genesis. It is there placed among the primitive cities built after the dispersion of mankind, and its foundation is attributed to Nimrod or to Asshur, according to the different reading of the Hebrew text, which leaves it somewhat in doubt whether the latter name applies to an individual or to the country of Assyria. It would appear from the context that the Jews believed it to have been built and inhabited by the same race that raised Babylon, from which city the Ninevites were a colony. The next allusion to it, according to the generally received chronology, would be in the book of Jonah, n.c. 850; but some German critics have shown that that narrative could scarcely have been compiled earlier than the fifth century n.c., and consequently long after the destruction of the city. It is there described as an “exceeding great city, of three days’ journey,” containing “more than six score thousand persons that cannot discern between their right hand and their left, and also much cattle.” Nahum, when foretelling its approaching fate, about 720 n.c., alludes to its vast riches of silver and gold (ii. 9), and the multitude of its great men and merchants (iii. 16, 17). It is next men- tioned in Isaiah as the residence of Sennacherib, the King of Assyria, about 710 n.c. Zephaniah prophesies its impending ruin; and this is the last allusion to it we find in Scripture as an existing city. In the apocryphal books it is spoken of as the dwelling-place of Tobit and his family, and in Judith as the capital of Nebuchodonosor, King of Assyria.

Zephaniah prophesied in the reign of Josiah, the date of whose death may be fixed about 609 n.c. Jeremiah Nineveh, (xxvi. 18-26) enumerating, in the first year of the Captivity, or about 605 n.c., “the kings of the north far and near, and all the kingdoms of the world,” omits from the list Assyria and Nineveh. It has been presumed, therefore, that both empire and city had ceased to exist, and that their fall had taken place between 609 and 605. This date is remarkably consistent with the statement of Hero- dotus, that Cyaxares conquered the Assyrians after the expulsion of the Scythians from Western Asia,—an event which did not occur, according to the most accurate com- putation, until 606 n.c.; the precise date which may therefore be assigned with some confidence, as founded upon the concurrent testimony of sacred and profane his- tory, to the ultimate destruction of Nineveh. (Clinton, Fasti Hellenici, i. 269.) It would appear, however, from the statements of Greek writers, that about two centuries and a half before that period the city had been devastated, if not destroyed, by Arbaces, King of the Medes, upon whose successful invasion of Assyria, Sardanapalus, the last monarch of the ancient Assyrian dynasty, burnt himself with his wives and riches on the funeral pile, according to the well-known Greek legend. Although Abydenus places this event 67 years before the first Olympiad, or 843 n.c. (Euseb. Chron. i. 12), it has been confounded with the final overthrow of the empire, which occurred 237 years later, upon the invasion of Assyria by the combined armies of Cyaxares, King of Persia and Media, and Nabopol- lassar, King, or more probably Satrap, of Babylon, who had rebelled against the King of Assyria. Many ancient writers bring the Assyrian empire to a close with the death of Sardanapalus. To reconcile this confusion of dates and events, it has been conjectured that there were two kings of the same name, and that the second Sardanapalus, who was also called Saracus, was the last of the second dynasty, and, like his predecessor, destroyed himself with his palaces and wealth when his capital was about to fall into the hands of his enemies. Josephus, on the other hand (Ant. ix. 11, 3), distinguishes between the extinction of the Assyrian empire and the fall of Nineveh; the latter he places 115 years after the date of Nahum’s prophecy, or about 626 n.c.; the former (x. 2, 2), in the reign of Hezekiah, probably on the murder of Sennacherib by his sons, or 710 n.c. Hitherto the discoveries amongst the ruins of the city, and the interpretation of the cuneiform inscriptions, have furnished no evidence of any conquest of Assyria by a foreign race corresponding with the statements of the Greek historians and of Josephus, although there is reason to believe from the monuments that a change of dynasty took place about 750 n.c. It may therefore be presumed that the supposed destruction of Nineveh by Arbaces refers rather to a revolt of the Medes, ultimately suppressed, with which it has been confounded, than to a revolution causing the over- throw of the empire and an organic change of government. The whole question is involved in so much obscurity, that it can scarcely be determined by any attempt, however ingenious, to reconcile the conflicting statements of Greek writers. A better acquaintance with the contents of the cuneiform inscriptions can alone afford authentic informa- tion upon this subject.

The earliest mention of Nineveh after its fall is to be found in the Greek geographers. Herodotus, n.c. 410, alludes to it, when describing a canal connecting the Euphrates with the Tigris, as having stood upon the banks of this latter river (i. 193); and again mentions it casually in his sketch of Assyrian history. He evidently speaks of it as no longer existing in his day. As he gives so ample a description of Babylon, and as, in his journey thither, he probably descended the Tigris, and must have passed the very site of the sister city, it is to be presumed that he would have left some account even of any ruins that might have been still standing. The supposition that Nineveh had been entirely destroyed and deserted by its inhabitants long before his time, and had not been rebuilt, is confirmed by the fact, that Xenophon does not even mention the name of Nineveh, although, when leading the Ten Thousand in their memorable retreat through the Assyrian plains forty years later, he actually marched over the ground on which the city once stood; a remarkable circumstance, considering the important part Nineveh had played in the history of Asia. He describes, however, a large uninhabited castle, the walls of which consisted of a plinth 50 feet high, and as many broad, built of polished stones full of shells, and supporting a superstructure of brick masonry of the same breadth, but double the height. He gives no name to these ruins, although they were actually the walls of part of the ancient city of Nineveh, merely observing that they were near a Median town called Mespila, also, it would appear, uninhabited. Some similarity in the name has suggested the identification of this place with Mosul, which stands on the western bank of the Tigris, immediately opposite the remains described by the Greek commander.

Ctesias, who was Xenophon's contemporary, describes the city as one which had never been exceeded in the extent and magnificence of its walls, but makes the strange blunder of placing it on the Euphrates (Frag. i. 4), in which he has been followed by Diodorus Siculus (ii. 27, 28), and which can only be accounted for on the supposition, either that the city had completely disappeared, or that an error had crept at a very early period into the original text. A fragment from Ctesias, preserved by Nicolaus Damascenus, restores the city to its true site on the Tigris (K. O. Müller, Frag. Hist. Græc. iii. 883).

About seventy years after the retreat of the Ten Thousand, Alexander fought his great battle of Arbela near the village of Gaugamela, almost within sight of the very ruins described by Xenophon; yet none of the historians of his campaigns ever allude to them, or mention the name of Nineveh. Strabo, Diodorus Siculus, Ptolemy, and other writers, only refer to the city as having been the capital of the extinct Assyrian empire, or describe some of its monuments from traditions preserved in earlier records. We may therefore conclude that Nineveh was not only entirely deserted and destroyed after its capture by the Persians and Babylonians, but that no attempt was made to rebuild or re-occupy it. Indeed, its position was not such as to render it important as a centre of trade or traffic. It could only have risen to greatness and wealth as the capital of an empire and the seat of government. When Babylon usurped those honours, a busy population was no longer attracted to Nineveh.

Some centuries later, however, a small fortified town, probably of Parthian origin, seems to have been built on the ruins of the ancient city, and to have been even called by its name. From the numerous Roman and Parthian remains, such as fragments of terra cotta figures and coins, found in the rubbish which had accumulated over the Assyrian ruins, we may suppose that it stood on one of the great mounds opposite Mosul. Ammianus Marcellinus (xxiii. 20) mentions "Nineve," and Tacitus (xii. 3) alludes to the capture of "Ninos" by Meherdates. It became incorporated at one time in the Roman empire; and two Roman coins are known to have been struck there; one of Trajan, with the legend AUG. FELI. NINI. . . . CLAV., the other of Maximinus, with the legend COL. NINIVAE. CLAVD. It would seem, from the epithet "Claudiopolis," that the new town had been restored or rebuilt under the Emperor Claudius. (Layard, Nim. and Bab. 591.) It appears to have also borne at one time the name of Hierapolis. In a tomb, probably of Parthian origin, found amongst the ruins, was preserved a gold coin of the Emperor Maximinus.

A small village called Ninova is mentioned both by the Arab geographers and by European travellers as standing on the site of Nineveh in the middle ages. Both village and name have long since disappeared. The tradition of the site of the ancient city is, however, still preserved by the few Christians who live around the ruins, and by the Mohammedans in their peculiar veneration for an edifice supposed, but without any reason whatever, to cover the tomb of Jonah, built over one of the principal buried ruins, and probably upon the foundations of an early Christian church or monastery dedicated to the prophet. The great mound opposite Mosul on which the Roman or Parthian fortress of Ninos is supposed to have stood, is now called by the Turks Kouyunjik—i.e., "The Little Sheep;" by the Arabs, Armousheehah. The origin of both names is unknown.

The ruins opposite Mosul have been mentioned by most travellers, ancient and modern, who have visited that town; but the first to give any accurate description and plan of them was Mr Rich, for some years political agent of the East India Company at Baghdad. In the year 1820 he was able to make a careful survey of them, which was subsequently published by his widow. The Arabs in the neighbourhood informed him that some time previous to his visit the figures of men and animals sculptured in stone had been dug out of one of the mounds. They had been immediately destroyed by the Mohammedans as idols belonging to the infidels, and Mr Rich was unable to obtain even a fragment. He only succeeded in collecting a few specimens of pottery and bricks inscribed with cuneiform characters, and one or two Assyrian relics. Ruins similar to those examined by Mr Rich abound in the region watered by the Euphrates and Tigris. They consist of enormous mounds of earth rising abruptly from the plain. At some distance they appear like natural elevations or mere heaps of earth; it is only on closer inspection that they are found to be the work of men's hands. Where the winter rains have worn deep furrows in their sides, may be traced masses of solid masonry, either of bricks baked in the kiln, or simply dried in the sun. On and around them, far and wide, are scattered fragments of pottery, the sure sign of former population. The Arabs not unfrequently choose these artificial elevations as the site of their villages of rude mud huts, either building upon their summit, as a position easy of defence against marauding Bedouins, or at their foot. They call them Tel, a name by which they appear to have been known even in the time of the Jewish captivity. The principal mounds of this description on or near the site of Nineveh are those already mentioned near Mosul, usually identified with the remains of the city—Nimroud, near the junction of the Rivers Tigris and Great Zab, about 20 miles to the S. of Kouyunjik; Selamiyah, 3 miles to the N. of Nimroud; Khorsabad, 12 miles to the N.E. of Mosul; and Karamles, about 15 miles to the N.E. of Nimroud. The space between these ruins contains numerous smaller mounds covering the remains of ancient edifices; and on all sides may be found the traces of former habitations. The groups of Kouyunjik, Nimroud, Selamiyah, and Khorsabad, are remarkable as each comprising one or more large mounds, and the remains of a regular system of walls and defences inclosing a considerable area. The other ruins are isolated and scattered over the face of the country without apparent order or design.

In the year 1841 M. Botta, who had been recently appointed French consul at Mosul, determined to examine more carefully than had hitherto been attempted the mound of Kouyunjik. For this purpose he employed a party of Arabs to excavate in it, but without other result than the discovery of a few fragments of inscribed slabs. A peasant having informed him that remains of ancient buildings had been found at Khorsabad in digging the foundation of a house, he removed his workmen to that ruin. He was almost immediately rewarded by the discovery of a series of upright slabs in a coarse grayish alabaster, sculptured in bas-relief; with figures of men and animals, and with inscriptions in the cuneiform or arrow-headed character, then only known from Persian monuments of the Achemenian dynasty, and a few fragments from the ruins of Assyria and Babylonia. These slabs were found to be the panelling of the lower part of a room filled with earth and rubbish. A doorway opened into a second apartment, and further excavations disclosed a series of halls and chambers of different dimensions lined with similar sculptured slabs. After some months' labour, the greater part of the ground plan of a magnificent palace was laid bare.

This edifice had evidently been destroyed by fire, which had calcined the alabaster slabs. A mass of charred wood, bricks, and other materials, employed in the construction of the building, completely covered the ruins. Above this heap of rubbish soil had accumulated. The surface of the mound yearly produced a crop of barley or corn, and on one part stood a small Arab village. The huts were purchased, and pulled down. Subsequently, under the directions of M. Place, the ruins of a propylaeum and of a broad flight of steps leading up to the building were uncovered.

The principal mound at Khorsabad may be divided into two parts; an upper, about 650 feet square, and 30 feet high; and a lower, connected with it, about 1350 feet by 300. At one corner it is a low pyramidal elevation, which may mark the remains of a watch-tower or the superstructure of a royal tomb. The entire quadrangle, inclosed by walls, would be about 1½ mile square. It contains no other ruin of any importance.

M. Botta's discoveries at Khorsabad were followed by those of Mr Layard at Nimroud, where ruins of a similar character, though of greater antiquity and of more importance, as being the remains of buildings of several different epochs, were uncovered. A mound 700 yards by 400, surmounted by a conical elevation or pyramid 140 feet high, forms the corner of a walled inclosure 2331 yards by 2095 in the widest part. The Tigris once flowed under the western face of this quadrangle, and at the foot of the great mound. It is now 1½ miles distant. The northern wall still shows the remains of fifty-eight nearly equidistant towers; in the eastern only fifty can be traced. A deep ditch or moat appears to have defended such parts of the inclosure as were not protected by the river. The remains of several distinct buildings, erected by different kings, were found in the principal mound. In one instance, materials, such as sculptured slabs, had been taken from one edifice to be used in the erection of another. Some had been destroyed by fire, others appeared to have been suddenly covered by the falling in of the upper stories. In the one case, the sculptures were calcined, as at Khorsabad; in the other, they were perfectly preserved with all their original sharpness and minute details. Many of the chambers were panelled with slabs having nothing but the same inscription repeated over and over again. Others were lined with bas-reliefs singularly interesting and elaborate. The pyramid was found to be the remains of a square edifice, solidly constructed of sun-dried bricks, faced to the height of 20 feet with masonry of large stones carefully squared and bevelled, and above that height with kiln-burned bricks. In the interior was discovered one vaulted gallery 100 feet long, 12 high, and only 6 broad. It was probably a royal sepulchre, but had been despoiled at some remote period of its contents. It has been conjectured that it may represent the tomb of Sardanapalus, which the Greeks described as placed at one of the entrances to the city. No remains of modern habitations existed in any part of the ruins. A small Arab village, named after them, has been built about one mile from the great mound.

Excavations were also carried on by Mr Layard in the ruins opposite Mosul, which consist of two principal mounds, Kouyunjik, and that of Nebbi Yumus (or the tomb of the prophet Jonah). On the sides and at the foot of the latter, facing the river, is an Arab village, and the summit is covered with the graves of Mohammedans who have been buried around the holy edifice. A village formerly stood on Kouyunjik, but its inhabitants deserted it many years ago, and established themselves in the plain beneath. The two mounds form part of the western or river side of the fortified inclosure. Kouyunjik, the largest, measures about 866 yards by 500; Nebbi Yumus, 566 by 400. They are connected by the remains of part of the wall forming the western face of the quadrangle, which is 4530 yards in entire length. The northern wall is 2330 yards; the eastern, which forms a considerable curve, is about 5300; whilst the southern is scarcely 1000; the inclosure having thus the form of an irregular quadrangle, approaching to a trapezium. The northern face was defended by a deep moat; the western was protected by the Tigris, which washed the walls, but has long since deserted its ancient bed, and now flows about three-fourths of a mile from Kouyunjik; still, however, approaching the north-west corner of the inclosure. On the southern face was a ditch and an exterior rampart. The eastern face, being the most exposed, was the most strongly fortified. For this purpose the nature of the ground offered many advantages. The Khausser, a deep, sluggish stream, divides the quadrangle into two nearly equal parts, and winds round the base of Kouyunjik. Before entering the quadrangle, it runs for about 1½ mile parallel to and near the wall, thus furnishing a strong natural defence. A low ridge of conglomerate rock beyond the Khausser was heightened, by artificial means, to form strong outer ramparts. The fortifications to the south of the point where the Khausser enters the inclosure were very extensive and complete. Two deep and broad ditches, fed by that stream, one dividing itself into two branches, and the outer and larger moat being no less than about 200 feet in width, were separated by a second wall or rampart; whilst a third, still in some places about 100 feet high, faced the open country, and extended almost the entire length of the quadrangle. This outer wall was probably that described by Diodorus Siculus as 100 feet high, and sufficiently wide for three chariots to drive abreast upon it. Its length he absurdly exaggerated. It appears to have been constructed chiefly of the earth and rubbish. Nineveh, removed to form the ditch. No remains of stone facings have been found. The inner wall was built of stone and brick masonry. It no doubt resembled those of the fortified cities represented in the Assyrian bas-reliefs, with towers at equal distances (many may still be traced), and surmounted by ornamental battlements of stone, portions of which have been found among the ruins. The entrances or gateways were probably arched; two have been discovered and partly excavated, one nearly in the centre of the northern, the other in the inner eastern wall. The former consisted of two halls, 70 feet by 23, opening upon the plain, and upon the interior of the inclosure by gateways flanked by colossal man-headed bulls and winged human figures. On the pavement of limestone slabs could still be traced the ruts of the chariot wheels. From the immense mass of bricks, charred wood, and rubbish in which this gateway was buried, it may be conjectured that a lofty tower rose above it, which, like the palace, was destroyed by fire.

The ruins of the palace at Kouyunjik are similar to those at Nimroud and Khorsabad, but belong to an edifice of greater extent and magnificence than either. The dimensions of the principal courts or halls exceed those of any other Assyrian building yet discovered. Every part of the palace was adorned with sculptures. During the excavations carried on by Mr Layard no less than 71 chambers, panelled with nearly two miles of bas-reliefs, and 27 entrances formed by colossal winged bulls or lion sphinxes, were uncovered, and scarcely half the palace was examined. Works since carried on under the superintendence of Mr Hormuzd Rassam and of Mr Loftus have brought to light a large number of additional apartments.

The sanctity attached by the Mohammedans of Mosul to the tomb of Jonah, has prevented Europeans from exploring to any extent the mound upon which it stands. Remains of building resembling those at Kouyunjik, and of nearly the same period, were, however, discovered in it by Mr Layard; and subsequent excavations on a small scale, undertaken by the Turkish government, have proved the existence of a palace adorned with sculptures and sphinxes.

The ruins of a palace or temple have also been discovered in the mound of Shereef-Khan, about 5½ miles to the north of Kouyunjik; and nearly all the mounds scattered over the plain between the Tigris and the hills have, when examined, been found to contain remains of edifices, but none have furnished sculptured or inscribed slabs. The principal ruins in the district are—Sammiyah, three miles north of Nimroud; Karamles (near the field of the battle of Gaugamela or Arbela); Baashiekha; and Bazanii.

The most ancient Assyrian edifice hitherto discovered is that at the north-western corner of the mound of Nimroud. It appears to have been rebuilt, if not founded, by a king whose name is believed, by some interpreters of the cuneiform character, to read Ashur-dan-pal, and to correspond with the Greek Sardanapalus. The approximate date of his reign may be from 950 to 920 B.C. His son, whose name is read Shalmance-bar, erected a second palace in the centre of the same mound. His grandson (? Phal-lukha), who is identified with the Scriptural Pul, and whose queen is supposed to have been the celebrated Semiramis, her name having been found on monuments from this building, rebuilt this edifice, and founded a third near the spot.

The next palace in order of date is that at Khorsabad, raised by a king who has been identified with the Sargon of Isaiah (xx.), and who would have consequently reigned about 725 B.C. The ruins of this building were called, after him, Sarkoun even long after the Arab conquest. The great palace excavated at Kouyunjik was founded by Sennacherib about 700 B.C., as well as those at Shereef-Khan and at Nebbi-Yunus, the latter of which appears to have been finished by his son Esarhaddon, who added an additional edifice to the group already erected at Nimroud, and for this purpose appears to have destroyed, or taken materials from, those built by Sardanapalus, by the Tiglath-pileser of Scripture, and others, his predecessors. The son of Esarhaddon, whose name also has some resemblance to Sardanapalus, completed or enlarged the palace of his grandfather at Kouyunjik, and added to that at Shereef-Khan. Remains of an edifice belonging to his son, rudely constructed, and without the usual ornamental sculptures, were discovered in the south-east corner of the mound of Nimroud.

It is possible that all these palaces may have been built upon the sites of more ancient edifices, of which, however, no traces have hitherto been found. There can be little doubt that Nineveh was founded several centuries previous to the erection of the earliest buildings as yet uncovered. If any value is to be attached to the dynastic lists of Ctesias and other Greek writers, which are, however, rejected as entirely untrustworthy by the interpreters of the cuneiform inscriptions, the city must have existed nearly twenty-two centuries B.C.; and this conjecture is strengthened by its agreement with biblical chronology. The name of Nineveh occurs more than once on Egyptian monuments of Thothmes III., or fourteen centuries B.C. Kings who occupied the throne long previous to the first Sardanapalus, the builder of the north-west palace at Nimroud, are mentioned in the inscriptions; but although Nineveh appears to have been a flourishing city even under those monarchs, the capital of the empire, according to Sir Henry Rawlinson, was some 60 miles lower down the Tigris, on the western bank, and is marked by the ruins of Kalah-Shergat, where monuments of a highly interesting character have been discovered. The first of these kings may have reigned about twelve centuries B.C., but there is reason to believe that events of Assyrian history are alluded to on monuments of a much earlier date. According to the inscriptions it would seem that Sennacherib was the first to move the seat of government to Nineveh, which he almost entirely rebuilt, the city having fallen into decay and ruin. But it must be observed, with reference to all conjectures founded upon the interpretation of the cuneiform characters, that our present knowledge of the ancient writing and language of Assyria is far too uncertain to admit of any positive conclusions. The dates of the earlier edifices at Nineveh depend entirely upon the correct rendering of the inscriptions. We know that the ruins of the north-west palace at Nimroud are the most ancient yet discovered, and the traditions still existing in the country point to them as such; but as yet we have no positive evidence to identify its founder with any monarch mentioned in history, or the date of whose reign can be established by any proof. On the other hand, there is much concurrent evidence of a very remarkable character, besides the interpretation of the names on the monuments themselves, to enable us to assign the palaces of Khorsabad, and Kouyunjik to Sargon and Sennacherib. On monuments of the latter monarch have been discovered inscriptions of extraordinary interest, containing the name of Hezekiah, and a record of the invasion of Judea and siege of Lachish, mentioned in the book of Kings.

---

1 On the black obelisk (now in the British Museum) raised by the son of the founder of the north-west palace, mention is believed to be made of Jehu, the son of Omri, "Yahush, the son of Rumri," and of Samaria as "Beth-Kumri," (the House of Omri); and on monuments from the same edifice, Benhadad, King of Damascus (1 Kings xx.) is supposed to be included in the list of kings who paid tribute to Assyria. In an inscription of a later monarch, ascertained to be the Scriptural Pul, "Menahem, King of Samaria, and Hiram, King of Tyre," are spoken of. Such being the ruins on or near the site of Nineveh, and their relative antiquity, it remains to be determined which represent the ancient city. It is evident that the space inclosed within the quadrangle opposite Mosul could not have contained a capital of such vast extent and importance as is assigned to Nineveh by the concurrent testimony of sacred and profane writers. The description in the book of Jonah is too vague and obscure to convey any definite idea of its size. "Do the three days' journey imply the circuit of the city; its extreme length, or the time employed in traversing its principal streets?" Are the "six score thousand persons who did not know their right hand from their left" intended to comprise a particular class, such as children; or is the expression used to mark the general ignorance of the whole population? In the one case, the city would have been of enormous extent, and would have contained about 600,000 inhabitants; in the other, it would have been of moderate size, with a population of 120,000. The dimensions assigned to Nineveh by the Greek geographers are more definite; and although in many respects undoubtedly fabulous, curiously confirm those given in the book of Jonah. Diodorus Siculus, who derived his information chiefly, it would appear, from Ctesias, states that the city formed a quadrangle 150 stadia by 90, the square being thus 480 stadia, or about 60 miles, corresponding to the three days' journey of Jonah. Strabo declares that Nineveh was larger than Babylon, the circuit of whose walls were, according to him, 385 stadia; and according to Herodotus 480. The inclosure of Kouyunjik being scarcely 9 miles in circuit, including even the outer ramparts, cannot be that described by Diodorus; but as an instance of the inaccuracy of Greek writers in giving such dimensions, or of errors that may have crept into the text of their works, we find this very quadrangle opposite Mosul stated by Xenophon, after actual personal observation, to be six parasangs, or about 18 miles in circuit, just double its actual extent.

To reconcile all conflicting statements, it has been conjectured that Kouyunjik, Khorsabad, Nimroud, and Karamles, with the numerous ruins in the intervening plain, may represent altogether the site of Nineveh. The careful surveys of Captain Felix Jones of the East India Company's navy (published by the East India Company), prove that these mounds occupy the four corners of a square, inclosing an area agreeing very nearly with that assigned to the city by Diodorus. It is assumed that each of these four groups was a fortified quarter of the city, a place of refuge and defence, including the palace of the king and his attendants, the temples and the dwelling-places of those attached to them, and the royal park or paradise. The space between them is assumed to have been occupied by the habitations of the people at large, scattered far and wide over the face of the country, and not collected together, as in a European city, by gardens and by cultivated fields. This is not inconsistent with Eastern habits. Ispahan and Damascus, with their suburbs, are cities of this kind. Within the precincts of Babylon, according to Diodorus Siculus and Quintus Curtius, corn could be raised sufficient for the sustenance of the whole population, in the event of a siege.

On the other hand, if the inscriptions be correctly deciphered, the inclosure opposite Mosul was alone called Nineveh; Khorsabad and other mounds around having distinct names. Nimroud (the Larissa of Xenophon) Sir H. Rawlinson would identify with Calah, mentioned in the 10th chapter of Genesis. But then no ruins, except Selamiyah, which are not of sufficient extent or importance, would mark the site of Resen, "a great city between Nineveh and Calah." He assumes that all the ruins described represent separate and distinct cities, which were, however, in the time of the prophet Jonah, known altogether by the common name of Nineveh. It is quite clear that, whatever may have been the extent of the city, there were no walls corresponding in extent with the description of Diodorus. If such ever existed, it is impossible that no traces of them should be found.

There are no remains to show the general plan of the city or of its principal quarters, the form of its streets, or the nature of the common dwelling-places of its inhabitants. It probably consisted, like most modern Eastern cities, of a few great edifices devoted to royal or sacred purposes, and constructed of rich and valuable materials; the abodes of the people being of the meanest and rudest description. Bricks made of clay, mixed with chopped straw, and simply dried in the sun, were generally used for building, as they still are in Assyria. Houses so built, when once abandoned, soon fell into complete decay; and their ruins, exposed to the winter rains and the summer's sun, soon crumbled to dust. A modern Arab village, when once deserted, disappears in a few years, leaving scarcely a trace behind. Masonry of sun-dried bricks, when properly protected, and when buried, as in the Assyrian mounds, defies the ravages of time. The walls of the palaces of Nineveh in this material are in many places still as perfect as when first raised.

The great public edifices have alone been sufficiently well preserved to furnish any idea of the style of architecture presented at Nineveh. Assyrian architecture appears to have originated on the banks of the Tigris and Euphrates. It owes its distinctive features to the fact of the first great public edifices of the race which devised it having been erected upon the plains of Assyria and Babylonia. In order to raise the building, for the sake of dignity or defence, high above the surrounding country, it was necessary to form an artificial elevation, and those enormous platforms or mounds were constructed which form one of the chief characteristics of Assyrian and Babylonian ruins. This substructure was either of solid masonry of sun-dried bricks, or simply of earth and rubbish heaped up. In the bas-reliefs from Kouyunjik is represented the process of building it. Long lines of workmen, many of them prisoners or slaves, chained together and in fetters, are seen emptying baskets filled with earth and stones on the accumulating heap. The substructure was raised about 40 or 50 feet above the level of the plain, and was generally faced with masonry or stone. Broad flights of steps led up to the summit. The public edifice or palace was constructed principally of sun-dried bricks, but parts of the building required more solid and more costly materials. To supply the first, the kiln-burnt bricks were used; for ornament, the Ninevites employed a coarse greyish alabaster found in abundance in the immediate vicinity of their city. A remarkable feature in these buildings was the immense thickness of the walls, rarely less than 10 feet, generally about 15 feet. They were built of sun-dried bricks, and panelled with upright sculptured alabaster slabs, from 8 to 10 feet high, 3 to 4 feet broad, and about 18 inches thick, placed close to one another, but not united by any mortar or cement. Above these slabs the wall was either faced with kiln-burnt bricks, plain or coated with enamel, forming elegant designs and patterns of the most brilliant colours, or plastered and painted. Cedar and other precious woods, gilding, ivory, and bronze, were also used to decorate the sides of the chambers. These materials appear to be mentioned in the inscriptions as having been brought from afar; cedar-wood, for instance, from Mount Lebanon. The ceil... ings of the rooms were also probably of cedar. Large quantities of this precious wood were found in the ruins of Nimroud. There is reason to believe that many of the chambers were vaulted. Discoveries in the ruins prove that the Assyrians were well acquainted with the principle of the arch, and employed it in forming these entrances. The principal doorways, and generally all those leading into the great halls or courts, were flanked by those well-known emblematic figures, now characteristic of Assyrian architecture, uniting the body of a lion or a bull with the head of a man and the wings of an eagle. These were usually of gigantic proportions, and on these were generally inscribed the annals of the reign of the king who caused them to be erected.

The alabaster slabs placed against the walls were sculptured in bas-relief, or had an inscription carved upon them. The sculptures were of two kinds—either figures of priests or divinities of colossal size, or subjects representing battles, sieges, hunting scenes, sacrifices, &c. In the latter case, the slab was divided into two parts by an inscription running across in a horizontal band, and containing a description of the work portrayed above or beneath. Remains of colour upon the bas-reliefs prove that they were originally painted. The pavement of the chambers consisted of alabaster slabs, either carved with rich and elegant pictures, or covered with inscriptions, or more usually of large square kiln-burnt bricks. On the back of almost every slab or stone used in the building was carved the name of the king who founded it, together with a short inscription containing his titles, the names of the principal gods, and the countries he ruled over. Upon the kiln-burnt bricks also was generally stamped or inscribed the name of the king. The interior of these magnificent edifices was adorned with statues of the gods and of the king, and with obelisks and steles of marble and other materials covered with bas-reliefs and inscriptions recording the conquest and other remarkable events of the reigns of Assyrian monarchs. Several of these monuments discovered in the ruins are now in the British Museum.

These vast edifices were probably at the same time the palace and the temple, the residence of him who was both the high priest and the political chief of the nation. These offices were at one time similarly united in Egypt, and the palace-temple was the dwelling-place of the king. Parts of the building may have been specially set apart for worship and dedicated to a particular god; but no detached temple, as in ancient Greece, has been as yet found on the site of Nineveh. The inscriptions, however, appear to mention the fact of temples of extraordinary magnificence, adorned with silver and gold, having been raised in different parts of the empire. The palace was also the house of records of the nation; on its walls were pictured and described its triumphs, and the prowess of its monarch in war and in the chase.

The palaces of Nineveh seem to have been constructed upon one general plan, and consisted of a number of chambers of various sizes grouped round large central halls, which were probably open to the sky, and resembled the courts of modern Persian houses. No columns of any kind, nor pedestals for pillars of wood for supporting a roof, have been discovered. Pillars of wood brought from distant countries appear to be mentioned in the inscriptions, and columns are frequently represented in the bas-reliefs. No traces of windows have been found in the walls; consequently, it may be presumed that the rooms were either lighted from above or through the doors only. The latter may have been the case, as in modern houses at Baghdad and Mosul, in which, for the sake of coolness, the apartments are kept as dark as possible. From the immense heap of bricks, earth, and rubbish covering every part of the ruins, and filling every chamber, frequently rising as much as 15 or 20 feet above the level of the sculptured slabs, as well as from the representations of buildings seen in the bas-reliefs, it is probable that these palaces consisted of more than one storey, and that the upper part having fallen in, completely buried the lower. The admirable preservation of the greater part of the sculptures, although executed in a very soft material, which would have perished from even short exposure, proves that such must have been the case, and that the entire destruction of the buildings must have been very sudden.

No remains of the outer walls of an Assyrian palace, hitherto discovered, are sufficient to furnish an accurate idea of the exterior architecture of Nineveh. Only the lower part of a façade at Kouyunjik has yet been excavated. It consists of three grand entrances formed by groups of colossal winged bulls and human figures, some flanking the doorways, others placed back to back, and facing outwards. From what still remains, and by comparison with ancient buildings in other parts of the East, principally in Persia, Mr Fergusson (Palaces of Nineveh and Persepolis Restored) has with great ingenuity endeavoured to restore a Ninevite palace. The discoveries at Kouyunjik of bas-reliefs supposed to represent an Assyrian edifice go far to verify his conjectures. There is nearly the same arrangement of columns in an upper storey resting upon a solid basement. The capitals are ornamented with volutes resembling those of the Ionic order, and they rest upon the backs of winged bulls and sphinxes. The Persians appear to have derived both their religion and their architecture from the Assyrians. The latter was somewhat modified by locality, and by the vicinity of quarries of fine building-stone; but the palaces of Xerxes and Darius at Persepolis were erected upon nearly the same plan, and were adorned with nearly the same ornaments and the same typical figures, as those at Nineveh. Being built chiefly of stone, they have defied for a longer period, although exposed to the air, the ravages of time. One of the most remarkable facts connected with the discovery of the ruins of the palaces of Nineveh is, the proof which they afford that the Greeks derived their Ionic order of architecture from Assyria. It reached them through Asia Minor and Ionia. Not only was the Ionic volute the ordinary termination to an Assyrian column, but the usual ornaments found on Ionic monuments in Greece are for the most part purely Assyrian. According to the interpretation of the inscriptions, the kings of Assyria shortly before the fall of the empire employed Greek and Phoenician artists in decorating their palaces, and records have been found of the names of the kings who sent them and the cities from whence they came.

Another important result of the discoveries at Nineveh is, that they enable us to understand the architectural descriptions contained in the Bible, and especially those relating to the palaces and temples erected by Solomon, to which, both in the general plan, the materials employed, and the style of the ornaments, they appear to have borne a very close resemblance. The Jewish edifices were, however, far inferior in size to those of Assyria.

According to a tradition preserved by Greek authors, Nineveh was finally captured by the Persians and Babylonians through a breach in its walls caused by a sudden overflow of the waters of the Tigris. There are no indications of this event either in the ruins of Kouyunjik or of Nimroud. All the edifices hitherto discovered, except the north-west palace, attributed to Sardanapalus, show undoubted marks of having been destroyed by fire, and many conclude that the city was at last overwhelmed, never to rise again, by one mighty conflagration. (A.H.L.)