Among the small objects, undoubtedly of the Assyrian period, found in the ruins, were copper vessels (some embossed and incised with figures of men and animals and graceful ornaments), bells, various instruments and tools of copper and iron, arms (such as spear and arrow heads, swords, daggers, shields, helmets, and fragments of chain and plate armor), ivory ornaments, glass bowls and vases, alabaster urns, figures and other objects in terra-cotta, pottery, parts of a throne, inscribed cylin- ders and seals of agate and other precious materials, and a few detached statues. AH these objects show great mechanical skill and a correct and refined taste, indicat- ing considerable advance in civilization.
These great edifices, the depositories of the national records, appear to have been at the same time the abode of the king and the temple of the gods — thus corre- sponding, as in Egypt, with the character of the mon- arch, who was both the political and religious chief of the nation, the special favorite of the deities, and the interpreter of their decrees. No building has yet been discovered which possesses any distinguishing features to mark it specially as a temple. They are all precisely similar in general plan and construction. INIost proba- bly a part of the palace was set apart for religious wor- ship and ceremonies. Altars of stone, resembling the Greek tripod in form, have been found in some of the chambers — in one instance before a figure of the king himself (Layard, Nin. and Bah. p. 351). According to the inscriptions, it would, however, appear that the As- svrian monarchs built temples of great magnificence at Nineveh, and in various parts of the empire, and pro- fusely adorned them with gold, silver, and other pre- cious materials.
IV. 8ite of the City. — ^luch diversity of opinion e:i- ists as to the identification of the ruins which may be properly included within the site of ancient Nineveh. According to Sir H. Kawlinson, and those who concur in his interpretation of the cuneiform characters, each group of mounds we have described represents a sepa- rate and distinct city. The name applied in the in- scriptions to Nimrud is supposed to read " Kalkhu," and the ruins are consequently identified with those of the Calah of Genesis (x, 11); Khorsabad is Sargina, as founded by Sargon, the name having been retained in that of Sarghun, or Saraun, by which the ruins were known to the Arab geographers ; Sherif Khan is Tar- bisi. Selamiyah has not j'et been identified, no inscrip- tion having been found in the ruins. The name of Nineveh is limited to the mounds opposite IMosul, in- cluding Kuyunjik and Nebbi Yunus. Sir H. Rawlinson was at one time inclined to exclude even the former mound from the precincts of the city (Journ. of As. Sac.
SoalPofOneMile
Modern Site of Niueveh.
NINEVEH
123
NINEVEH
xii, 418). Furthermore, the ancient and primitive cap- ital of Assyria is supposed to have been not Nineveh, but a city named Asshur, whose ruins have been dis- covered at Kalah Sherghat, a mound on the right or west bank of the Tigris, about sixty miles south of Mo- sul. It need scarcely be observed that this theory rests entirely upon the presumed accuracj' of the interpreta- tion of the cuneiform inscriptions, and that it is totally at variance with the accounts and traditions preserved by sacred and classical history of the antiquity, size, and importance of Nineveh. The area of the enclosure of Kuyuiijik, about 1800 acres, is far too small to repre- sent the site of the city, built as it must have been in accordance with Eastern customs and manners, even after allowing for every exaggeration on the part of an- cient writers. Captain Jones (Topography of Nineveh, in the Journ. of R. Asiat. Soc. xv, 32-1) computes that it would contain 174,000 inhabitants, fifty scpiare yards being given to each person ; but the basis of this calcu- tion would scarcely apply to any modern Eastern city. If Kuyunjik represents Nineveh, and Nimrud Calah, where are we to place Resen, " a great city" between the two? (Gen. x, \'l). Scarcely at Selamiyah, only three miles from Nimrud, and where no ruins of any importance exist. On the other hand, it has been con- jectured that these groups of mounds are not ruins of separate cities, but of fortified royal residences, each combining palaces, temples, propyliea, gardens, and parks, and having its peculiar name ; and that the}' all formed part of one great city built and added to at dif- ferent periods, and consisting of distinct quarters scat- tered over a very large area, and frequently very distant one from the other. Nineveh might thus be compared with Damascus, Ispahan, or perhaps more appropriately with Delhi, a city rebuilt at various periods, but never on exactl}' the same site, and whose ruins consequently cover an area but little inferior to that assigned to the capital of Assyria. The primitive site, the one ujion which Nineveh was originally founded, may possibly have been that occupied by the mound of Kuyunjik. It is thus alone that the ancient descriptions of Nineveh, if any value whatever is to be attached to them, can be reconciled with existing remains. The absence of all traces of buildings of any size within the enclosures of Nimrud, Kuyunjik, and Khorsabad, and the existence of propytea forming part of the approaches to the pal- ace, beneath and at a considerable distance from the great mound at Khorsabad, seem to add weight to this conjecture. Even Sir H. Rawlinson is compelled to admit that all the ruins may have formed part of "that group of cities which, in the time of the prophet Jonah, was known by the common name of Nineveh" {On the Inscriptions of Bahylonia and Assyria, in the Journ. As. iSoc). But the existence of fortified palaces is consistent with Oriental custom, and with authentic descriptions of ancient Eastern cities. Such were the residences of the kings of Babylon, the walls of the largest of which were sixty stadia, or seven miles, in circuit, or little less than those of Kuyunjik, and con- siderably greater than those of Nimrud. See Baby- lon. The Persians, -who appear to have closely imi- tated the AssjTians in most things, constructed similar fortified parks — or paradises, as they were called — which included royal dwelling-places (Quint. Curt. 1, 7, c. 8). Indeed, if the interpretation of the cuneiform inscrip- tions is to be trusted, the Assyrian palaces were of precisely the same character; for that built by Esar- haddon at Ncbbi Yunus is stated to have been so large that horses and other animals were not only kept, but even bred within its walls (Fox Talbot, Assyi: Texts translated, p. 17, 18). It is evident that this description cannot apph' to a building occupying so confined an area as the summit of this mound, but to a vast enclosed space. This aggregation of strongholds may illustrate the allusion in Nahum (iii, 14), "Draw thee waters for the siege, fortify thy strong holds," and " repair thy for- tified places." They were probably surroiuided by the