John McClain (CAS '07), an Anthropology
major, intends to work in Biological Anthropology, specializing
in early Homo Sapiens, but is also interested in Biblical and
Near Eastern archaelogy. This paper was written for Professor
Michael Danti's AR532: Studies in Near and Middle Eastern Archaeology.
The destruction of the ancient metropolis of Nineveh was widely
discussed in many early historical and geographic accounts including
the Bible, Greek sources, and the Babylonian historical chronicle.
Each seems to have told a different story, though, ranging from
a massive flood overtaking the city to an extended three year
siege. For being such a major event in the history of the Near
East it is strange to see so many different accounts, some of
which are marked by total confusion. After excavations over
the past century, however, archaeologists have been able to
piece together the story of Nineveh’s collapse and find which
sources seem to be the most factual.
A Brief History of Assyria and Nineveh
Assyria was located in northern Mesopotamia, with the Tigris
River running along its core. At its peak, the empire’s sphere
of influence stretched in all directions, as far as the Mediterranean
Sea to the West and into Iran to the East. The Assyrians were
first seen in the archaeological record at about 2000 B.C. but
were never a major world power until the Neo-Assyrian period,
which lasted from 934–610 B.C.
The complete account of the downfall of Assyria is not very
clear. The limited amount of textual sources makes reconstruction
of the political structure of Mesopotamia difficult. The basic
story, though, was that a powerful Assyrian king, Assurbanipal
(669–627 B.C.), expanded his empire to its largest extent. Directly
following Assurbanipal’s death, a Babylonian noble, Nabopolassar,
declared himself king of Babylonia, in direct defiance of the
Assyrian empire, which controlled Babylon at the time. It is
not quite clear how this Babylonian took control, but sources
seem to say that Assurbanipal’s son, Sin-shar-ishkun, may have
appointed Nabopolassar as general of Babylonia (Kuhrt 543),
and Nabopolassar eventually seized the throne. Events like these
occurred all over the empire. As more time passed Assyria became
weaker and weaker as its vassal states stopped paying tribute
and began to revolt. At this point in the Near East “nothing
was to be feared from Assyria” (Olmstead 635). The final deathblow
to the country came in 612 B.C. with the destruction of its
capital, Nineveh. While the empire lingered until the fall of
Harran two years later, there was no chance for its revival
after Nineveh was devastated (Sasson 1397).
Nineveh was located on the east bank of the Tigris River less
than fifty kilometers upriver from where the Greater Zab River
joins the Tigris. Modern Mosul stands directly across the river
and poses a threat to the ancient remains through urban development
(Stronach & Lumsden 227), but with the events of the past
fifteen years in Iraq Nineveh has been looted very little because
of its proximity to Mosul. Occupation at the site dates back
to the 7th Millennium B.C. In the Neo-Assyrian period the city
contained two mounds: the citadel of Kuyunjik and Nebi Yunus,
the arsenal mound. A major reason for its significance is that
it was a center for the worship of the goddess Ishtar, a major
Assyrian deity. A large temple devoted to her was built on the
Kuyunjik mound (Roaf 186).
Nineveh was a very large city, with an area of seven-hundred
and fifty hectares at its peak in the 7th century B.C. (Stronach
& Lumsden 227). According to Jonah 4:11, its population
was in excess of 120,000 people. While Jonah may not be taken
as a credible historical source as far as raw numbers are concerned,
it is interesting to note that whoever wrote the book of Jonah
recognized Nineveh as a significant urban development. The city
was surrounded by a large mudbrick wall that was twenty meters
tall, fifteen meters thick, and had a circumference of twelve
kilometers. The wall had a stone curtain that projected four
meters into the city that was used for troop movements. In ancient
times it was aptly named “the Wall Whose Splendor Overwhelms
the Foe.” Fifteen gates were constructed around the city wall,
with the largest ones having an inner courtyard, large towers,
and an opening that was as wide as seven meters. A small river
flowed through the center of the city and is known as the Khosr
River.
The city reached its peak when it became the capital of Assyria
in 704 B.C. At this time a new Assyrian king, Sennacherib (705–681
B.C.) moved the capital from a city to the north, Khorsabad,1
to Nineveh. Sennacherib added onto the city by building himself
a very large palace on Kuyunjik, called by him ekallu sa
sanina la isu meaning “the Palace without Rival” (Russell
1), and added onto its fortifications. Nineveh had many natural
fortifications, which must have been a major reason why Sennacherib
moved the capital. The Tigris ran alongside the west wall and
made an attack from this direction very difficult, and the east
wall had a large conglomerate ridge running parallel with it.
The city was built up on a high mound built up from past populations.
With these attributes to Nineveh, Sennacherib may have had defense
at the forefront of his mind after deciding to move the Assyrian
capital from Khorsabad (Stronach 311).
In the end, Sennacherib’s precautions did not pay off. Almost
one hundred years after he established Nineveh as the capital,
it was destroyed, which led to the subsequent destruction of
Assyria (Olmstead 635). Though the city had very strong fortifications
and was very well protected, it is possible that the walls were
not properly maintained given Nineveh’s history of security
and left in an inadequate state. When the terminal siege was
undertaken on Nineveh its fortifications were not as strong
as they used to or should have been (Thompson & Hutchinson
127; Stronach 313).
The story of how Nineveh was destroyed is discussed in a number
of ancient sources, few of which are in agreement. Some tell
of a large flood that overwhelmed the city, others propose that
the city was brought to its knees by competing empires, and
some combine the two. When viewed alongside the archaeological
evidence, though, the validity of the ancient sources can be
examined, and the true story of the destruction of such a great
city can be brought to full view.
Mesopotamian Pre-614 B.C.
As stated earlier, Nineveh became the capital of Assyria in
704 B.C. This move was one of the first acts of the new king
Sennacherib. His son and grandson, Esarhaddon (680–669 B.C.)
and Assurbanipal (669–627 B.C.), respectively, were known to
be very powerful leaders. Esarhaddon was a very learned man
and easily held sway over the empire, while Assurbanipal was
a great military leader and expanded the Assyrian Empire to
its farthest extent. His two sons, Assur-etil-ilani (626–622
B.C.) and Sin-shar-ishkun (622–612 B.C.) were the last real
kings of Assyria.
It was at Assurbanipal’s death that Assyria’s power began to
die out. In 626 B.C. a Chaldean2 named Nabopolassar seized the
throne in Babylonia, to the south. His real name was Nabu-apa-usur
but was known as Nabopolassar in Greek texts. He claims to be
the “son of nobody”; however, he has been traced to a Chaldean
family known as Iakin of the Sealands (Olmstead 633). Sources
say he ruled in Babylonia from 625–604 B.C., but given the obscurity
of his early rule he may not have been in control until 616
B.C. when he began leading his armies against Assyria.
Prior to Nabopolassar’s reign the Babylonian region had long
been within the control of Assyria, but not anymore. After his
conquests he had full control of the area. The fact that someone
could take and keep the throne of an Assyrian province evidences
the weak state of the empire. This Babylonian king played a
major role in the collapse of Nineveh and the Assyrian empire
as a whole.
The other world player that participated in Nineveh’s destruction
was a Median king named Cyaxares (625–585 B.C.). Media was located
to the east of Assyria, up in the Zagros Mountains of modern
Iran. This king is cited in ancient texts as being “more warlike
than any other of his ancestors” because he was the first to
organize his military into separate units (Herodotus I 103).
The Medes had a military in the past, but Cyaxares’ was the
first that could threaten major world powers with it. The reliable
texts site both him and Nabopolassar as being the destroyers
of Nineveh.
Textual Evidence for Nineveh’s Destruction
When trying to learn about battles and victories that ancient
Assyria accomplished, the most obvious source to seek out would
be the Assyrian annals. These historical records are widely
published and easy to access; two problems arise, though, when
searching for Assyrian sources of the destruction of Nineveh.
The first is that records are generally kept to make the leader
look good and to be remembered positively in future generations.
The Assyrian king at the time of Nineveh’s destruction would
not want to include major defeats in his annals because it could
make him appear weak. Another problem that is found when trying
to use the Assyrian sources is that “with startling suddenness,
our records cease about 640 … Business, we can see, continued
as usual, since we have documents from virtually every year,
but they show nothing of the march of events” (Olmstead 627).
Since, then, Assyria can not be depended on for their records,
outside sources must be consulted. Many ancient sources existed
that mention Nineveh’s destruction and some are more reliable
than others. A number of major textual sources will be examined
for their significance and historicity in relation to the destruction
of Nineveh.
Probably the most widely known story of Nineveh’s destruction
comes from the Bible. The book of Nahum, dating to between 626
and 612 B.C. (Coogan 1336), is an oracle that is devoted specifically
to the downfall of the Assyrian capital and dates prior to its
destruction, which seriously hurts its credibility. It is a
relatively short book, being only three chapters in length,
but it gives a full account of, and reasoning behind, the annihilation
of Nineveh.
Nahum states that the destruction will be due to a river flooding
and overtaking the city, which will destroy the metropolis.
“The river gates are opened, the palace trembles. It is decreed
that the city be exiled, its slave women led away, moaning like
doves and beating their breasts. Nineveh is like a pool whose
waters run away” (Nahum 2:6–8, NRSV). It is generally assumed
that the river spoken of is the Khosr, a tributary of the Tigris
that runs directly through the middle of Nineveh. Another option,
though, could be the Tigris flooding the city, but this choice
is less likely the one referred to by the prophet because its
floods are not high enough to flood the city (Stronach 319).
The archaeological evidence does not fall into agreement with
this scenario. In his time as king, Sennacherib planned for
a disaster of this sort. He built a number of flood defenses
that would have made flooding Nineveh nearly impossible. Within
the city Sennacherib built strong river walls along the Khosr
to keep the river from overflowing its banks (Stronach 320).
Remains of these walls can only be found in association of the
citadel mound to protect the mound from erosion, but they would
have also protected the city as a whole against flooding. A
dam was also built upstream, at an area known as Shallalat,
to slow the waters of the Khosr (Stronach 320–321), which has
been restored and is still in functional use today (Roaf 187).
In modern times the Khosr is little more than a creek, but the
fact that the defenses existed could be evidence of possible
flooding from the Khosr.
The defenses that Sennacherib built were too strong to have
allowed a flood to have destroyed the city. Some researchers,
though, support the prophet’s oracle and believe that “the Medes
took advantage of a great flood to bring their battering-rams
against the wall on rafts” (Lloyd 31), but no evidence exists
for this scenario. To understand the full meaning of the prophecy
given by Nahum, a background of the political situation of Judea
must be understood.
Controlling Palestine was in the interests of the Assyrians.
Several trade routes passed through this region, and controlling
the trade routes meant controlling the flow of money. Earlier
kings had led campaigns through the Judean countryside, but
the best known of them is Sennacherib’s third campaign. In 701
B.C. Sennacherib took his army down the Mediterranean coastline
and went down to Jerusalem but failed to conquer it (2 Chronicles
32).
As a result, Judea was always at risk from the Assyrians, and
many Judeans held a large amount of hatred against the Assyrians.
Nahum’s prophecy seems to be driven by a strong political agenda:
“to build up the view that Assyria’s downfall was certain” (Graham
40). The prophet was obviously very interested in the downfall
of Nineveh and all of Assyria, and also the rebuilding of Jerusalem
(Graham 38). Many of the Judeans felt that the fall of Assyria
meant they were free from the risk of being destroyed; however,
not everyone felt this way. Another prophet, Jeremiah, clearly
predicted disaster if the anti-Assyrian policy was followed
(Graham 44), and might have represented a significant portion
of the Judean population. Nahum, then, could have been trying
to convince these Assyrian supporters that they have nothing
to fear from the formerly great empire, and that God would destroy
the Assyrians for their oppression (Coogan 1336). The prophecy
given by Nahum, then, does not even attempt to give an account
of Nineveh’s destruction, but instead helps to show the political
situation of the Near East at the time. Nahum was trying to
compel the Judeans into hating the Assyrians.
Other histories give different accounts and have different agendas.
Diodorus’, for example, states that Nineveh was destroyed after
a three year siege when the Euphrates flooded and breached the
walls of the city (Diodorus 127.1–2; Stronach 319). Two major
problems arise from this account – Nineveh is located on the
Tigris, not the Euphrates; and, as stated earlier, the Tigris
could not have flooded high enough to destroy the city – and
a close look at other sources will show that the siege was much
shorter than three years.
Quite clearly, Diodorus is mistaken about Nineveh’s location
on the Euphrates River. The city is, in fact, over two hundred
kilometers from this river. He could have meant either one of
the rivers that Nineveh was located near. Diodorus also may
have been confused with the historical records. In ancient Assyria
the Tigris was called “Tigris” and the Euphrates was called
“River” (Luckenbill, Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia
409), which could have caused confusion. He may have also meant
the Khosr River, which could not have flooded Nineveh because
of its small size and the strong defenses that Sennacherib had
built. If he was writing about the Tigris, then, his story is
mistaken. The Tigris does not have large enough inundations
to breach the walls of Nineveh, particularly in the campaign
months of the summer (Stronach 319). Diodorus’ histories are
generally discarded because of his agenda. He frequently “turned
… to lesser sources in order to enhance the ‘value’ of his Bibliotheke”
(Drews 385-386) and was more interested in the moral response
of the reader rather than the historical accuracy of his writings
(Drews 384).
One other major historian mentions the attack on Nineveh, but
is far less helpful in the story of its destruction. Herodotus
makes note of Cyaxares leading a march on the city, but says
little more than that. “The Medes won back their empire and
gained control over their former subjects, and they took Nineveh
(how they took it I shall show in other logoi) and subjected
the Assyrians, with the exception of the Babylonian territory”
(Herodotus I, 104; Drews 181).
The “other logoi”3 that Herodotus refers to have never
been found, and many textual scholars have devised theories
describing why. The first is that Herodotus might have actually
written this new book, aptly named the ‘Assurioi lçgoi
(Assyrian Logoi), and it simply has not been recovered.
This unanswered promise could have acted as an advertisement
to try to persuade people to read another one of his histories
(Drews 191).
Other scholars believe that Nineveh’s destruction did not apply
to Herodotus’ histories. Herodotus saw the Assyrians as a sort
of subspecies of Babylonians (Drews 184), so the destruction
of Nineveh would not have seemed as important as it actually
was. Still another idea is that he did not want to concern himself
with Median business because he felt it did not apply to his
history (Drews 185).
The last textual source, and seemingly most accurate, was the
Babylonian Chronicle, which were the year-by-year records kept
by the national scribes. Like many other ancient federal histories,
this chronicle gives a very incomplete and fragmented picture
(Price 125-126; Brinkman 271), but it still offers a relatively
complete account of Nabopolassar’s reign and the destruction
of Nineveh when viewed alongside the archaeological evidence.
All of the textual evidence can lead to quite a lot of confusion.
Conflicting accounts give multiple pathways through which Nineveh
could have been destroyed. Only after evaluating the archaeological
evidence can the true story of the downfall of Nineveh be fully
understood.
The Archaeological Evidence
The archaeological evidence of the final days of Nineveh is
quite clearly laid out, and when used in conjunction with textual
sources, can give a very complete story of the destruction of
this former Assyrian capital. In contrast to many of the ancient
texts, the evidence has not been found to be associated with
the nearby rivers or with an excruciatingly long siege. The
most convincing evidence for the attack(s) on Nineveh has been
found in the gates surrounding the city (Stronach 315).
Before delving directly into the archaeology, though, it is
important to fully understand Nineveh’s defenses. As discussed
earlier a very large wall surrounded the city. Moats were dug
around the wall that may have held water distributed by the
Khosr to slow down any large scale attacks, which still survive
today. River walls were constructed along the Khosr to protect
the city from flooding; and an upstream swamp and dam were constructed
for the same purpose. All of these new fortifications were constructed
by Sennacherib and most likely fell into disrepair as Assyria’s
collapse approached as kings neglected to keep the fortifications
strong (Thompson & Hutchinson 127; Stronach 313). Nineveh,
though, had very good natural protection, with the Tigris River
running along its west wall and a conglomerate ridge along its
east – both of which were very important because of Nineveh’s
elongated shape with very long walls that made the city vulnerable
(Stronach 321).
The wall was partitioned by fifteen city gates evenly spaced
around the city. The largest gates were located along the southeast
side of the city, which could mean that it was the busiest section.
The smaller gates were of a standard design, with an entrance
of about seven meters wide; the large gates, though, were quite
extravagant. They projected about seventy meters out from the
wall and had a large open court (45 x 20 m) that could be used
for general public proceedings (Stronach 315). Multiple large
towers projected from the walls of the entrance to serve as
posts for guards. The entrance was generally on a bent axis
to slow attackers. Nineveh contained two large entrances of
this sort, and they have been named the Halzi Gate and the Shamash
Gate. Both gates were located adjacent to each other in the
busy southeast section of the city.
The best evidence for the attack(s) on Nineveh can be seen associated
with three of the gates: the two large gates already discussed
– the Halzi and Shamash – and a smaller gate to the north called
the Adad Gate. The Halzi Gate gives the most complete evidence
out of the three (Stronach 315). A closer look at this gate
and the others will reveal the events of how Nineveh fell.
Excavations on the Halzi Gate have revealed two separate dates
of construction. The first was the original building of the
gate with a seven meter wide entrance, as stated above. The
date of this construction was at the same time as the rest of
the city wall around 700 B.C. An addition to the gate, though,
shows good evidence for an attack on the city. Sometime after
the initial construction of the wall, city officials felt it
necessary to constrict the entrance of the gate from its original
seven meters to just two. The workers who made this constriction
were obviously in a rush, too, because the brickwork was done
very poorly. A clear line can easily be seen where the original
bricks end and the new begin. The new blocks were not cut to
proper sizes and it is apparent that they were laid for their
functional purpose of blocking the entrance rather than any
aesthetic value.
The constriction at the Halzi Gate has also been seen at the
Shamash and Adad Gates. They too were altered from seven to
two meters with very poor masonry. The reasoning behind the
low-level of workmanship is relatively easy to understand when
viewed in conjunction with ancient sources.
The Babylonian Chronicle clearly states that there were two
separate attacks on Nineveh – the first being unsuccessful,
in 614 B.C., the twelfth year of Nabopolassar’s reign (Luckenbill
418). It is likely that after this first attack the Assyrians
knew that another attack was coming, and they felt that they
needed to improve on Nineveh’s fortifications in a hurry (Stronach
316). The new constriction of the gates formed a bottleneck
to make it harder for attacking armies to get large masses of
soldiers through the gates. The three gates mentioned above
show evidence of constriction, and it is likely that all three
were attacked in the initial 614 B.C. attack, but it also possible
that only the Halzi and Adad Gates were involved in this initial
attack. This idea will be discussed in full below. Excavation
at the Halzi and Adad Gates, though, gives clear evidence of
the terminal attack on Nineveh – none of which can be seen at
the Shamash Gate.
Both the Halzi and Adad Gates have shown very good evidence
of an armed conflict beyond the entrance constriction. Over
a dozen bodies were found within the gates, which were clearly
associated with battle. They were excavated at ground level,
which shows that they were not intentionally buried; and they
were laid out in very awkward and overlapping positions: one
is sprawled face down, while another is laying supine with his
arms outstretched (Stronach, “Excavations at Nineveh” 232).
The bodies have shown a broad age range, but many were “robust
men in the prime of life with the musculature and healed wounds
that would indicate a soldier’s profession” (Stronach &
Lumsden 233).
A significant number of tools were associated with these bodies
that help show they were in battle. Twelve bronze and iron arrowheads,
iron armor, a dagger, a spearhead, and a pike have been found
in close proximity. One of the soldiers is estimated to have
been as young as thirteen years old and has an arrowhead lodged
in his lower leg (Stronach & Lumdsen 232; Stronach 317).
The iron armor recovered from these bodies has been used to
identify the soldiers as Assyrians guarding their city. Along
with the tools, there are traces of burning around the bodies.
The bodies evidence a terminal attack, which was followed by
the destruction of Nineveh, which was mentioned in the Babylonian
Chronicle. The Chronicle says that in 612 B.C. a coalition of
Babylonian and Mede forces attacked Nineveh and defeated it
after a three month siege.
It is significant to note that the fallen soldiers have only
be seen at the Halzi and Adad Gates. These two gates were located
on almost opposite sides of the city, being over four kilometers
away from each other on a direct line and over five if the stone
curtain were used. By focusing on these two gates, the attacking
armies attempted to divide the Ninevite garrison to opposite
sides of the city. The reasons for the collapse in 612 The destruction
of the ancient metropolis of Nineveh was widely discussed in
many early historical and geographic accounts including the
Bible, Greek sources, and the Babylonian historical chronicle.
Each seems to have told a different story, though, ranging from
a massive flood overtaking the city to an extended three year
siege. For being such a major event in the history of the Near
East it is strange to see so many different accounts, some of
which are marked by total confusion. After excavations over
the past century, however, archaeologists have been able to
piece together the story of Nineveh’s collapse and find which
sources seem to be the most factual.
A Brief History of Assyria and Nineveh
Assyria was located in northern Mesopotamia, with the Tigris
River running along its core. At its peak, the empire’s sphere
of influence stretched in all directions, as far as the Mediterranean
Sea to the West and into Iran to the East. The Assyrians were
first seen in the archaeological record at about 2000 B.C. but
were never a major world power until the Neo-Assyrian period,
which lasted from 934–610 B.C.
The complete account of the downfall of Assyria is not very
clear. The limited amount of textual sources makes reconstruction
of the political structure of Mesopotamia difficult. The basic
story, though, was that a powerful Assyrian king, Assurbanipal
(669–627 B.C.), expanded his empire to its largest extent. Directly
following Assurbanipal’s death, a Babylonian noble, Nabopolassar,
declared himself king of Babylonia, in direct defiance of the
Assyrian empire, which controlled Babylon at the time. It is
not quite clear how this Babylonian took control, but sources
seem to say that Assurbanipal’s son, Sin-shar-ishkun, may have
appointed Nabopolassar as general of Babylonia (Kuhrt 543),
and Nabopolassar eventually seized the throne. Events like these
occurred all over the empire. As more time passed Assyria became
weaker and weaker as its vassal states stopped paying tribute
and began to revolt. At this point in the Near East “nothing
was to be feared from Assyria” (Olmstead 635). The final deathblow
to the country came in 612 B.C. with the destruction of its
capital, Nineveh. While the empire lingered until the fall of
Harran two years later, there was no chance for its revival
after Nineveh was devastated (Sasson 1397).
Nineveh was located on the east bank of the Tigris River less
than fifty kilometers upriver from where the Greater Zab River
joins the Tigris. Modern Mosul stands directly across the river
and poses a threat to the ancient remains through urban development
(Stronach & Lumsden 227), but with the events of the past
fifteen years in Iraq Nineveh has been looted very little because
of its proximity to Mosul. Occupation at the site dates back
to the 7th Millennium B.C. In the Neo-Assyrian period the city
contained two mounds: the citadel of Kuyunjik and Nebi Yunus,
the arsenal mound. A major reason for its significance is that
it was a center for the worship of the goddess Ishtar, a major
Assyrian deity. A large temple devoted to her was built on the
Kuyunjik mound (Roaf 186).
Nineveh was a very large city, with an area of seven-hundred
and fifty hectares at its peak in the 7th century B.C. (Stronach
& Lumsden 227). According to Jonah 4:11, its population
was in excess of 120,000 people. While Jonah may not be taken
as a credible historical source as far as raw numbers are concerned,
it is interesting to note that whoever wrote the book of Jonah
recognized Nineveh as a significant urban development. The city
was surrounded by a large mudbrick wall that was twenty meters
tall, fifteen meters thick, and had a circumference of twelve
kilometers. The wall had a stone curtain that projected four
meters into the city that was used for troop movements. In ancient
times it was aptly named “the Wall Whose Splendor Overwhelms
the Foe.” Fifteen gates were constructed around the city wall,
with the largest ones having an inner courtyard, large towers,
and an opening that was as wide as seven meters. A small river
flowed through the center of the city and is known as the Khosr
River.
The city reached its peak when it became the capital of Assyria
in 704 B.C. At this time a new Assyrian king, Sennacherib (705–681
B.C.) moved the capital from a city to the north, Khorsabad,1
to Nineveh. Sennacherib added onto the city by building himself
a very large palace on Kuyunjik, called by him ekallu sa sanina
la isu meaning “the Palace without Rival” (Russell 1), and added
onto its fortifications. Nineveh had many natural fortifications,
which must have been a major reason why Sennacherib moved the
capital. The Tigris ran alongside the west wall and made an
attack from this direction very difficult, and the east wall
had a large conglomerate ridge running parallel with it. The
city was built up on a high mound built up from past populations.
With these attributes to Nineveh, Sennacherib may have had defense
at the forefront of his mind after deciding to move the Assyrian
capital from Khorsabad (Stronach 311).
In the end, Sennacherib’s precautions did not pay off. Almost
one hundred years after he established Nineveh as the capital,
it was destroyed, which led to the subsequent destruction of
Assyria (Olmstead 635). Though the city had very strong fortifications
and was very well protected, it is possible that the walls were
not properly maintained given Nineveh’s history of security
and left in an inadequate state. When the terminal siege was
undertaken on Nineveh its fortifications were not as strong
as they used to or should have been (Thompson & Hutchinson
127; Stronach 313).
The story of how Nineveh was destroyed is discussed in a number
of ancient sources, few of which are in agreement. Some tell
of a large flood that overwhelmed the city, others propose that
the city was brought to its knees by competing empires, and
some combine the two. When viewed alongside the archaeological
evidence, though, the validity of the ancient sources can be
examined, and the true story of the destruction of such a great
city can be brought to full view.
Mesopotamian Pre-614 B.C.
As stated earlier, Nineveh became the capital of Assyria in
704 B.C. This move was one of the first acts of the new king
Sennacherib. His son and grandson, Esarhaddon (680–669 B.C.)
and Assurbanipal (669–627 B.C.), respectively, were known to
be very powerful leaders. Esarhaddon was a very learned man
and easily held sway over the empire, while Assurbanipal was
a great military leader and expanded the Assyrian Empire to
its farthest extent. His two sons, Assur-etil-ilani (626–622
B.C.) and Sin-shar-ishkun (622–612 B.C.) were the last real
kings of Assyria.
It was at Assurbanipal’s death that Assyria’s power began to
die out. In 626 B.C. a Chaldean2 named Nabopolassar seized the
throne in Babylonia, to the south. His real name was Nabu-apa-usur
but was known as Nabopolassar in Greek texts. He claims to be
the “son of nobody”; however, he has been traced to a Chaldean
family known as Iakin of the Sealands (Olmstead 633). Sources
say he ruled in Babylonia from 625–604 B.C., but given the obscurity
of his early rule he may not have been in control until 616
B.C. when he began leading his armies against Assyria.
Prior to Nabopolassar’s reign the Babylonian region had long
been within the control of Assyria, but not anymore. After his
conquests he had full control of the area. The fact that someone
could take and keep the throne of an Assyrian province evidences
the weak state of the empire. This Babylonian king played a
major role in the collapse of Nineveh and the Assyrian empire
as a whole.
The other world player that participated in Nineveh’s destruction
was a Median king named Cyaxares (625–585 B.C.). Media was located
to the east of Assyria, up in the Zagros Mountains of modern
Iran. This king is cited in ancient texts as being “more warlike
than any other of his ancestors” because he was the first to
organize his military into separate units (Herodotus I 103).
The Medes had a military in the past, but Cyaxares’ was the
first that could threaten major world powers with it. The reliable
texts site both him and Nabopolassar as being the destroyers
of Nineveh.
Textual Evidence for Nineveh’s Destruction
When trying to learn about battles and victories that ancient
Assyria accomplished, the most obvious source to seek out would
be the Assyrian annals. These historical records are widely
published and easy to access; two problems arise, though, when
searching for Assyrian sources of the destruction of Nineveh.
The first is that records are generally kept to make the leader
look good and to be remembered positively in future generations.
The Assyrian king at the time of Nineveh’s destruction would
not want to include major defeats in his annals because it could
make him appear weak. Another problem that is found when trying
to use the Assyrian sources is that “with startling suddenness,
our records cease about 640 … Business, we can see, continued
as usual, since we have documents from virtually every year,
but they show nothing of the march of events” (Olmstead 627).
Since, then, Assyria can not be depended on for their records,
outside sources must be consulted. Many ancient sources existed
that mention Nineveh’s destruction and some are more reliable
than others. A number of major textual sources will be examined
for their significance and historicity in relation to the destruction
of Nineveh.
Probably the most widely known story of Nineveh’s destruction
comes from the Bible. The book of Nahum, dating to between 626
and 612 B.C. (Coogan 1336), is an oracle that is devoted specifically
to the downfall of the Assyrian capital and dates prior to its
destruction, which seriously hurts its credibility. It is a
relatively short book, being only three chapters in length,
but it gives a full account of, and reasoning behind, the annihilation
of Nineveh.
Nahum states that the destruction will be due to a river flooding
and overtaking the city, which will destroy the metropolis.
“The river gates are opened, the palace trembles. It is decreed
that the city be exiled, its slave women led away, moaning like
doves and beating their breasts. Nineveh is like a pool whose
waters run away” (Nahum 2:6–8, NRSV). It is generally assumed
that the river spoken of is the Khosr, a tributary of the Tigris
that runs directly through the middle of Nineveh. Another option,
though, could be the Tigris flooding the city, but this choice
is less likely the one referred to by the prophet because its
floods are not high enough to flood the city (Stronach 319).
The archaeological evidence does not fall into agreement with
this scenario. In his time as king, Sennacherib planned for
a disaster of this sort. He built a number of flood defenses
that would have made flooding Nineveh nearly impossible. Within
the city Sennacherib built strong river walls along the Khosr
to keep the river from overflowing its banks (Stronach 320).
Remains of these walls can only be found in association of the
citadel mound to protect the mound from erosion, but they would
have also protected the city as a whole against flooding. A
dam was also built upstream, at an area known as Shallalat,
to slow the waters of the Khosr (Stronach 320–321), which has
been restored and is still in functional use today (Roaf 187).
In modern times the Khosr is little more than a creek, but the
fact that the defenses existed could be evidence of possible
flooding from the Khosr.
The defenses that Sennacherib built were too strong to have
allowed a flood to have destroyed the city. Some researchers,
though, support the prophet’s oracle and believe that “the Medes
took advantage of a great flood to bring their battering-rams
against the wall on rafts” (Lloyd 31), but no evidence exists
for this scenario. To understand the full meaning of the prophecy
given by Nahum, a background of the political situation of Judea
must be understood.
Controlling Palestine was in the interests of the Assyrians.
Several trade routes passed through this region, and controlling
the trade routes meant controlling the flow of money. Earlier
kings had led campaigns through the Judean countryside, but
the best known of them is Sennacherib’s third campaign. In 701
B.C. Sennacherib took his army down the Mediterranean coastline
and went down to Jerusalem but failed to conquer it (2 Chronicles
32).
As a result, Judea was always at risk from the Assyrians, and
many Judeans held a large amount of hatred against the Assyrians.
Nahum’s prophecy seems to be driven by a strong political agenda:
“to build up the view that Assyria’s downfall was certain” (Graham
40). The prophet was obviously very interested in the downfall
of Nineveh and all of Assyria, and also the rebuilding of Jerusalem
(Graham 38). Many of the Judeans felt that the fall of Assyria
meant they were free from the risk of being destroyed; however,
not everyone felt this way. Another prophet, Jeremiah, clearly
predicted disaster if the anti-Assyrian policy was followed
(Graham 44), and might have represented a significant portion
of the Judean population. Nahum, then, could have been trying
to convince these Assyrian supporters that they have nothing
to fear from the formerly great empire, and that God would destroy
the Assyrians for their oppression (Coogan 1336). The prophecy
given by Nahum, then, does not even attempt to give an account
of Nineveh’s destruction, but instead helps to show the political
situation of the Near East at the time. Nahum was trying to
compel the Judeans into hating the Assyrians.
Other histories give different accounts and have different agendas.
Diodorus’, for example, states that Nineveh was destroyed after
a three year siege when the Euphrates flooded and breached the
walls of the city (Diodorus 127.1–2; Stronach 319). Two major
problems arise from this account – Nineveh is located on the
Tigris, not the Euphrates; and, as stated earlier, the Tigris
could not have flooded high enough to destroy the city – and
a close look at other sources will show that the siege was much
shorter than three years.
Quite clearly, Diodorus is mistaken about Nineveh’s location
on the Euphrates River. The city is, in fact, over two hundred
kilometers from this river. He could have meant either one of
the rivers that Nineveh was located near. Diodorus also may
have been confused with the historical records. In ancient Assyria
the Tigris was called “Tigris” and the Euphrates was called
“River” (Luckenbill, Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia
409), which could have caused confusion. He may have also meant
the Khosr River, which could not have flooded Nineveh because
of its small size and the strong defenses that Sennacherib had
built. If he was writing about the Tigris, then, his story is
mistaken. The Tigris does not have large enough inundations
to breach the walls of Nineveh, particularly in the campaign
months of the summer (Stronach 319). Diodorus’ histories are
generally discarded because of his agenda. He frequently “turned
… to lesser sources in order to enhance the ‘value’ of his Bibliotheke”
(Drews 385-386) and was more interested in the moral response
of the reader rather than the historical accuracy of his writings
(Drews 384).
One other major historian mentions the attack on Nineveh, but
is far less helpful in the story of its destruction. Herodotus
makes note of Cyaxares leading a march on the city, but says
little more than that. “The Medes won back their empire and
gained control over their former subjects, and they took Nineveh
(how they took it I shall show in other logoi) and subjected
the Assyrians, with the exception of the Babylonian territory”
(Herodotus I, 104; Drews 181).
The “other logoi”3 that Herodotus refers to have never been
found, and many textual scholars have devised theories describing
why. The first is that Herodotus might have actually written
this new book, aptly named the ‘Assurioi lçgoi (Assyrian
Logoi), and it simply has not been recovered. This unanswered
promise could have acted as an advertisement to try to persuade
people to read another one of his histories (Drews 191).
Other scholars believe that Nineveh’s destruction did not apply
to Herodotus’ histories. Herodotus saw the Assyrians as a sort
of subspecies of Babylonians (Drews 184), so the destruction
of Nineveh would not have seemed as important as it actually
was. Still another idea is that he did not want to concern himself
with Median business because he felt it did not apply to his
history (Drews 185).
The last textual source, and seemingly most accurate, was the
Babylonian Chronicle, which were the year-by-year records kept
by the national scribes. Like many other ancient federal histories,
this chronicle gives a very incomplete and fragmented picture
(Price 125-126; Brinkman 271), but it still offers a relatively
complete account of Nabopolassar’s reign and the destruction
of Nineveh when viewed alongside the archaeological evidence.
All of the textual evidence can lead to quite a lot of confusion.
Conflicting accounts give multiple pathways through which Nineveh
could have been destroyed. Only after evaluating the archaeological
evidence can the true story of the downfall of Nineveh be fully
understood.
The Archaeological Evidence
The archaeological evidence of the final days of Nineveh is
quite clearly laid out, and when used in conjunction with textual
sources, can give a very complete story of the destruction of
this former Assyrian capital. In contrast to many of the ancient
texts, the evidence has not been found to be associated with
the nearby rivers or with an excruciatingly long siege. The
most convincing evidence for the attack(s) on Nineveh has been
found in the gates surrounding the city (Stronach 315).
Before delving directly into the archaeology, though, it is
important to fully understand Nineveh’s defenses. As discussed
earlier a very large wall surrounded the city. Moats were dug
around the wall that may have held water distributed by the
Khosr to slow down any large scale attacks, which still survive
today. River walls were constructed along the Khosr to protect
the city from flooding; and an upstream swamp and dam were constructed
for the same purpose. All of these new fortifications were constructed
by Sennacherib and most likely fell into disrepair as Assyria’s
collapse approached as kings neglected to keep the fortifications
strong (Thompson & Hutchinson 127; Stronach 313). Nineveh,
though, had very good natural protection, with the Tigris River
running along its west wall and a conglomerate ridge along its
east – both of which were very important because of Nineveh’s
elongated shape with very long walls that made the city vulnerable
(Stronach 321).
The wall was partitioned by fifteen city gates evenly spaced
around the city. The largest gates were located along the southeast
side of the city, which could mean that it was the busiest section.
The smaller gates were of a standard design, with an entrance
of about seven meters wide; the large gates, though, were quite
extravagant. They projected about seventy meters out from the
wall and had a large open court (45 x 20 m) that could be used
for general public proceedings (Stronach 315). Multiple large
towers projected from the walls of the entrance to serve as
posts for guards. The entrance was generally on a bent axis
to slow attackers. Nineveh contained two large entrances of
this sort, and they have been named the Halzi Gate and the Shamash
Gate. Both gates were located adjacent to each other in the
busy southeast section of the city.
The best evidence for the attack(s) on Nineveh can be seen associated
with three of the gates: the two large gates already discussed
– the Halzi and Shamash – and a smaller gate to the north called
the Adad Gate. The Halzi Gate gives the most complete evidence
out of the three (Stronach 315). A closer look at this gate
and the others will reveal the events of how Nineveh fell.
Excavations on the Halzi Gate have revealed two separate dates
of construction. The first was the original building of the
gate with a seven meter wide entrance, as stated above. The
date of this construction was at the same time as the rest of
the city wall around 700 B.C. An addition to the gate, though,
shows good evidence for an attack on the city. Sometime after
the initial construction of the wall, city officials felt it
necessary to constrict the entrance of the gate from its original
seven meters to just two. The workers who made this constriction
were obviously in a rush, too, because the brickwork was done
very poorly. A clear line can easily be seen where the original
bricks end and the new begin. The new blocks were not cut to
proper sizes and it is apparent that they were laid for their
functional purpose of blocking the entrance rather than any
aesthetic value.
The constriction at the Halzi Gate has also been seen at the
Shamash and Adad Gates. They too were altered from seven to
two meters with very poor masonry. The reasoning behind the
low-level of workmanship is relatively easy to understand when
viewed in conjunction with ancient sources.
The Babylonian Chronicle clearly states that there were two
separate attacks on Nineveh – the first being unsuccessful,
in 614 B.C., the twelfth year of Nabopolassar’s reign (Luckenbill
418). It is likely that after this first attack the Assyrians
knew that another attack was coming, and they felt that they
needed to improve on Nineveh’s fortifications in a hurry (Stronach
316). The new constriction of the gates formed a bottleneck
to make it harder for attacking armies to get large masses of
soldiers through the gates. The three gates mentioned above
show evidence of constriction, and it is likely that all three
were attacked in the initial 614 B.C. attack, but it also possible
that only the Halzi and Adad Gates were involved in this initial
attack. This idea will be discussed in full below. Excavation
at the Halzi and Adad Gates, though, gives clear evidence of
the terminal attack on Nineveh – none of which can be seen at
the Shamash Gate.
Both the Halzi and Adad Gates have shown very good evidence
of an armed conflict beyond the entrance constriction. Over
a dozen bodies were found within the gates, which were clearly
associated with battle. They were excavated at ground level,
which shows that they were not intentionally buried; and they
were laid out in very awkward and overlapping positions: one
is sprawled face down, while another is laying supine with his
arms outstretched (Stronach, “Excavations at Nineveh” 232).
The bodies have shown a broad age range, but many were “robust
men in the prime of life with the musculature and healed wounds
that would indicate a soldier’s profession” (Stronach &
Lumsden 233).
A significant number of tools were associated with these bodies
that help show they were in battle. Twelve bronze and iron arrowheads,
iron armor, a dagger, a spearhead, and a pike have been found
in close proximity. One of the soldiers is estimated to have
been as young as thirteen years old and has an arrowhead lodged
in his lower leg (Stronach & Lumdsen 232; Stronach 317).
The iron armor recovered from these bodies has been used to
identify the soldiers as Assyrians guarding their city. Along
with the tools, there are traces of burning around the bodies.
The bodies evidence a terminal attack, which was followed by
the destruction of Nineveh, which was mentioned in the Babylonian
Chronicle. The Chronicle says that in 612 B.C. a coalition of
Babylonian and Mede forces attacked Nineveh and defeated it
after a three month siege.
It is significant to note that the fallen soldiers have only
be seen at the Halzi and Adad Gates. These two gates were located
on almost opposite sides of the city, being over four kilometers
away from each other on a direct line and over five if the stone
curtain were used. By focusing on these two gates, the attacking
armies attempted to divide the Ninevite garrison to opposite
sides of the city. The reasons for the collapse in 612 B.C.
are summed up nicely by David Stronach:
The unusually elongated shape of the site, the sheer length
of the walls that had to be manned, the circumstance that not
all Sennacherib’s provisions for the defense of the great east
wall stood complete, and, perhaps the most critically, the fact
that the city’s numerous gates were not really in a condition
– notwithstanding the introduction of various detectable emergency
measures – to resist a series of determined assaults. (Stronach
321)
The evidence is simple enough to convey that the bulk of the
terminal attack occurred within the confines of the Halzi and
Adad Gates, but what about the initial attack in 614 B.C.? The
constriction evidence points to the attack being set on the
three gates mentioned previously. Such an assumption could easily
be incorrect, though. Both the Halzi and Shamash Gates were
very large and an easy choice for the attackers. If one of the
gates was clearly weaker than the other it would most certainly
be attacked and more easily penetrated. With this fact in mind,
it is possible that the initial attack in 614 B.C. was directed
at the same gates as the terminal attack two years later, but
Nineveh’s officials knew that if they did not strongly fortify
both of the large gates the weaker one would be attacked. As
a result, they added onto the two gates equally to give them
equal fortifications. It is possible, though, that all three
gates were attacked in the initial assault, but it would seem
far more effective to focus the attack on Nineveh through just
the Halzi and Adad Gates and avoid the Shamash Gate.
The archaeological evidence gives support to two separate attacks
on Nineveh. The first attack, which could have happened in 614
B.C., compelled the Assyrians to quickly add fortifications
to the city gates in preparation for a future assault. The added
fortifications are easily seen by the clear division between
high-quality masonry and low-quality brickwork within the entrance
of the city gates. The second attack might have come down on
the city in 612 B.C. and is evidenced by the bodies strewn about
two of the city gates. If the attack had not been terminal the
bodies would certainly have been given a proper burial. The
fact that they are present on the ground level is evidence that
the city was sacked, possibly burned, and abandoned soon after.
Putting it all Together
The archaeological evidence gives a clear view of the events
that took place when Nineveh was destroyed: two separate attacks
on the city, with the first having been turned back and the
second resulting in destruction. It fails to give a complete
picture, though, which can only be achieved when the archaeological
evidence is viewed side-by-side with the textual sources.
As mentioned in the previous section, the Babylonian Chronicle
seems to be most closely allied with the archaeological evidence.
The basic idea of the Chronicle was that the Medes attacked
Nineveh in Nabopolassar’s twelfth year, but failed to take it.
Two years later the Medes and Babylonians attacked the city
and defeated it, which was the end for ancient Nineveh.
It is quite easy to line-up the archaeological evidence with
this textual source. In 614 B.C. the Medes marched against Nineveh.
This attack was focused certainly on the Halzi and Adad Gates,
and possibly on the Shamash as well. The attackers were not
strong enough to take the city, and Nineveh was defended by
the Assyrians. That same year the Babylonians attacked and took
Assur (Roaf 198), a former Assyrian capital, which helps to
evidence the validity of the Babylonian Chronicle.
After turning away the Medes, the Ninevites knew that an attack
would be coming in the near future and that the city needed
to be further fortified. It was for this reason that they quickly
added blocks to the three gates mentioned. The quality and aesthetic
value held no importance because protection was of the highest
priority. It is difficult to tell exactly how long it would
have taken to construct the additional fortifications, but it
could not have been more than the two years that stood between
the two attacks. By not adding any more fortifications beyond
the gate constrictions the Ninevites either felt safe or thought
the second attack was imminent. Obviously the bottleneck formed
by the constricted gates was not enough to hold off a determined
attack, which occurred just two years later.
The Babylonian Chronicle reported that in 612 B.C. a coalition
of Babylonian and Median forces attacked Nineveh, which led
to the city’s final destruction. The evidence in the gates shows
that the attackers focused on two gates located at the city’s
opposite extremities, the Halzi and Adad Gates. This tactic
split Nineveh’s garrison in half, which made for an impossible
battle when being attacked by such large armies. The bodies,
identified as being Assyrian soldiers, at the two gates show
that the gates were breached and the Babylonians and Medes gained
access to the city. An interesting point about the bodies is
that a large majority of them were obviously Assyrian, which
would mean that the attackers might have had a relatively easy
time getting through the gate with few casualties being incurred.
After the city was breached there was no chance for Nineveh.
Many of the ancient sources that mention Nineveh’s destruction
unwaveringly site a flood as being the ultimate cause of the
collapse. The archaeological evidence does not support such
an idea. It is possible, though, that the attacking forces used
the Khosr River to weaken the city’s wall, but no obvious evidence
of such events remains. The major course of events, then, was
two major battles against Nineveh: one in 614 B.C. with the
Medes, and one in 612 B.C. with both the Medes and Babylonians
in which Nineveh was destroyed. Obviously one force was not
strong enough to defeat the Assyrians, but only after the two
were allied was victory possible (Dubberstein 42). The same
was true for the city of Assur – it found its defeat when the
Medes and Babylonians joined together in an attack in 614 B.C.
The End of an Empire
Nobody is absolutely sure what the fate of the Assyrian king,
Sin-shar-ishkun, was upon Nineveh’s destruction. Records show
that he was present in the city when it was destroyed, but nobody
is sure what happened to him. The Babylonian Chronicle reports
that he fled the city and was not heard from again. Another
tradition holds that he committed suicide by burning himself
with all of his possessions within the city (Olmstead 637).
Either way, he was not mentioned in any records and becomes
inconsequential.
After Nineveh was destroyed, the records show that Cyaxares
of the Medes returned back to Media, and Nabopolassar of the
Babylonians remained in Nineveh for one month to hold court
(Luckenbill 420). The end of the Assyrian empire was close at
hand.
Prior to Nineveh’s destruction an Assyrian noble named Assur-uballit
fled to an Assyrian city named Harran, which is about four hundred
kilometers to the west of Nineveh. Here he claimed the throne
of Assyria, but by 609 B.C. Nabopolassar defeated this city
as well. The destruction of Harran marked the end for the Assyrian
Empire (Roaf 198). As Nabopolassar states:
I slaughtered the land of Subartu (Assyria), I turned the hostile
land into heaps and ruins. The Assyrian, who since distant days
had ruled over all the peoples, and with his heavy yoke had
brought injury to the people of the Land, his feet from Akkad
I turned back, his yoke I threw off. (Roaf 198)
The final collapse of Assyria was due to a number of factors,
including a string of poor leadership, a dwindling economy,
and powerful competitors. Many people site the wealth of the
Chaldeans in Babylonia as being the major contributor to the
fall of Assyria (Brinkman 279), which must have been a very
large factor. It was not until Nineveh was destroyed, though,
that the Babylonians and Medes were able to march through the
remaining countryside, taking cities as their own. The fall
of this great city was the major decider in the story of the
Assyrian Empire. Many histories and records have recorded their
own version of Nineveh’s destruction, but when viewed against
the archaeological evidence, the true story has been discerned.
References
Brinkman, J.A. “Foreign Relations of Babylonia from 1600 to
625 B. C.: The Documentary Evidence.” American Journal of Archaeology
76.3 (1972): 271–281.
Coogan, M., ed. The New Oxford Annotated Bible (NRSV). Oxford
UP, 2001
Drews, R. “Diodorus and His Sources.”
