The political history of Nineveh is that of Assyria (q. v.). It has been observed that the territory included within the boundaries of the kingdom of Assyria proper was comparatively limited in extent, and that almost within the immediate neighborhood of the capital pet- ty kings appear to have ruled over semi -independent states, owning allegiance and paying tribute to tlie great lord of the empire, "the King of Kings," accord- ing to his Oriental title, who dwelt at Nineveh. (Comp. Isa. X, 8: "Are not my princes altogether kings?") These petty kings were in a constant state of rebellion, which usually showed itself by their refusal to pay the apportioned tribute — the principal link between the sovereign and the dependent states — and repeated ex- peditions were undertaken against them to enforce this act of obedience. (Comp. 2 Kings xvi, 7 ; xvii, 4, where it is stated that the war made by the Assyrians upon the Jews was for the purpose of enforcing the pay- ment of tribute.) There was, consequently, no bond of sympathy arising out of common interests between the various populations which made up the empire. Its political condition was essentially weak. When an in- dependent monarch was sufficiently powerful to carry on a successful war against the great king, or a depen- dent prince sufficientlv strong to throw otT his allegi- ance, the empire soon came to an end. The fall of the capital was the signal for universal disruption. Each VII.— H
petty state asserted its independence, until reconquered by some warlike chief who could found a new dynasty and a new empire to replace those which had fallen. Thus on the borders of the great rivers of Blesopotamia arose in turn the first Babylonian, the Assyrian, the IMedian, the second Babylonian, the Persian, and the Seleucid empires. The capital was, however, invaria- bly changed, and generally transferred to the principal seat of the conquering race. In the East men have rarely rebuilt great cities which have once fallen into decay — never perhaps on exactly the same site. If the position of the old capital was deemed, from political or commercial reasons, more advantageous than any other, the population was settled in its neighborhood, as at Delhi, and not amid its ruins. But Nineveh, having fallen with the empire, never rose again. It was aban- doned at once, and suffered to perish utterly. It is probable that, in conformity with an Eastern custom, of which we find such remarkable illustrations in the history of the Jews, the entire population was removed by the conquerors, and settled as colonists in some dis- tant province.
2. Monumenial Records. — From the annals of Tiglath- Pileser I we learn that a temple had been founded at Asshur, or Kalah Sherghat, as early as the nineteenth century B.C., by >Shamas-iva, a son of Ismi-dagon, who was one of the early kings in the series answering to the great Chaldiean dynasty of Berosus, and from this cir- cumstance may be inferred to have ruled over Assyria. In fact, as long as this dj-nasty lasted, Assyria probably occupied the position of an unimportant dependency of Babylonia, not being mentioned in one single legend, and not furnishing the Chaldisan monarchs with one of their royal titles. At what period Assyria was enabled to achieve her independence, or under what circum- stances she achieved it, we have no means of knowing, but the date at which, for several reasons, we may sup- pose it to have been accomplished is approximately B.C. 1273. Probably an Arabian conquest of Babylonia, which caused the overthrow of this Chaldsean dynasty in the sixteenth century, furnished the Assyrians with an op- portunity of shaking off the Babylonian yoke, but it was not till three centuries later that they appear to have gained a position of importance. During the period of Assyrian subjection to Chaldsea, and long after she became an independent empire, the vice-regal, or the royal city, was probably Asshur, on the west bank of the Tigris, sixty miles south of Nineveh, the name of which is still preserved in the designation given by the Arabs to the neighboring district. It may perhaps be as well to observe that the four kings in Gen. xiv. according to Josephus, were only commanders in the army of the Assyrian king, who had then, he says, dominion over Asia. But this is very improbable, and is really con- tradicted by recent discoveries, which show, at least negatively, that Assyria was not then an independent power. Sir II. IJawliuson tliinks that he lias found the name of a king (Kudur-Mapula or Kudur-Mabuk) stamped upon bricks in Babylonia which corresponds to that of Chedorlaomer, and supposes that this king was the Elamitic founder of the great Chaldiean empire of Berosus. Mr. Stuart Poole thinks it not improbable that the expedition of Chedorlaomer was directed against the power of the Egj-ptian kings of the fifteenth dynasty and their Phoenician allies or subjects. Jose- phus also calls Chushan Rishathaim — who in Judg. iii is said to have been king of Mesopotamia — king of the Assyrians; but this again demands an earlier rise of the Assyrian power than the monuments warrant us in as- suming. The first known king of Assyria is Bel-lush or Belukh, who, with three others in succession, viz. Pudil, Iva-lush, Shalmabar or Shalmarish, is reputed to have reigned shortly after its dependence on Babylon had been shaken off. The period from 1273 to 1200 may be assigned to the reign of these kings. They have left no other record but their names upon bricks, etc., which are found only at Kalah Sherghat; and the