clay tablet, but it is uncertain when his second expedi- tion to Syria was undertaken ; some, however, consider his two Syrian expeditions to have been identical. The object of the second was to recover the cities of Lachish and Libnah, which had again fallen under the power of Egypt. While he was warring against Lachish he heard of the agreement that Hezekiah had entered into with the king of Egypt, and sent a detachment of his host against Jerusalem, under Eab-Saris and Rab-Sha- keh. For some reason which we are not told, these generals found it expedient to retire from Jerusalem and join their master, who had raised the siege of Lachish, at Libnah. Meanwhile Tirhakah, the Ethiopian, per- haps not yet king of Egypt, advanced from the south to meet Sennacherib, and reinforce the Egyptian party against whom he was contending; but before the de- cisive battle could be fought, the Angel of the Lord had smitten in the camp of the Assyrians 185,000 men. Sennacherib, with the rest of his army, fled in dismay, and the Egyptians perhaps commemorated his disaster in the manner related by Herodotus (ii, 141). It is not a matter of surprise that this event is unnoticed on the Assyrian monuments. In all probability the murder of Sennacherib by his sons did not immediately follow his defeat at Libnah, but this also we have no means of knowing from the Assyrian records. He was succeeded by one of his j'ounger sons (not his eldest, who had been regent in Babylon, and was probably dead), Esar- haddon, or Asshur-akh-iddina. He was celebrated for his victories and his magnificent buildings. He carried on his father's war with Egypt, which country, as well as Ethiopia, he seems to have subdued. He is also thought to have reigned in his own person at Baby- lon, and perhaps to have held his court indifferently either at Nineveh or Babylon, which would account for Manasseh being carried by the captains of the king of Assj'ria to Babylon (2 Chron. xxxiii, 11); but in B.C. 667, thirteen years after his accession, he was succeed- ed on the throne of Babylon by Saosduchinus, who was either a rebel or a viceroy appointed by Esarhaddon, About the year 6C0 his son Asshur-bani-pal, or Sarda- napalus HI, succeeded to the throne of Assyria, and with him began tlie fall of the empire. He may have reigned till 640; but he feebly imitated the conquests of his predecessors, and appears to have contented himself with hunting. He was succeeded by his son Asshur- emit-ili, the last king of whom any records have been discovered. Under him Assyria was hastening its downfall, and Cyaxares, with his victorious Medes, was preparing for the final attack. If he was not the last king, he was the last but one, and the Saracus of Berosus, perhaps his brother, may have succeeded him, or else we must consider Saracus to be identical with Asshur-emit- ili, who corresponded in fate with the warlike Sarda- napalus of the Greeks.
HI. Present Ruins. — Previous to recent excavations and researches, the ruins which occupied the presumed site of Nineveh seemed to consist of mere shapeless heaps or mounds of earth and rubbish. Unlike the vast masses of brick masonrj^ which mark the site of Babylon, they showed externally no signs of artificial construction, except perhaps here and there the traces of a rude wall of sun-dried bricks. Some of these mounds were of enormous dimensions, looking in the distance rather like natural elevations than the work of men's hands. Upon and around them, however, were scattered innumerable fragments of pottery — the unerring evidence of former habitations. Some had been chosen by the scattered population of the land as sites for villages, or for small mud-built forts, the mound itself affording means of refuge and defence against the marauding parties of Bedouins and Kurds which for generations have swept over the face of the countrj'. The summits of others were sown with corn or barley. During the spring months they were covered with grass and flowers, bred by the winter rains. The Arabs call these mounds " Tell," the Turcomans and Turks " Tep-
NINEVEH
116
NINEVEH
peh," both words being equally applied to natural hills and elevations, and the first having been used in the same double sense by the most ancient Shemitic races (comp. Hebrew b'Tj, "a hill," "a mound,"' "a heap of rubbish"' [Ezek. iii, 15; Ezra ii, 59; Neh. vii, 61; 2 Kings xix, 12]). They are found in vast numbers throughout the whole region watered by the Tigris and Euphrates and their confluents, from the Taurus to the Persian Gulf. They are seen, but are less numerous, in Syria, parts of Asia Minor, and in the plains of Armenia. "Wherever they have been examined they appear to have furnished remains which identify the period of their construction with that of the aftcrnate suprem- acy of the Assyrian, Babylonian, and Persian empires. They differ greatly in form, size, and height. Some are mere conical heaps, varying from fifty to one hun- dred and fifty feet high ; others have a broad, flat sum- mit, and very precipitous, cliff-like sides, furrowed by deep ravines worn by the winter rains. Such mounds are especially numerous in tlie region to the east of the Tigris, in which Nineveh stood, and some of them must mark the ruins of the Assyrian capital. There is no edifice mentioned by ancient authors as forming part of the city, which we are required, as in the case of Baby- lon, to identify with any existing remains, except the tomb, according to some, of Ninus, according to others, of Sardanapalus, which is recorded to have stood at the entrance of Nineveh (Diod. Sic. ii, 7 ; Amynt. Froff.