at first to have given way under the blow thus dealt him, and to have acknowledged the suzerainty of his rival, who thereupon assumed the title of Lord of the four Houses of the World, and united under a single empire the valleys of the Tigris and Euphrates.  But this state of things lasted for a few years only; Merodach-nadin-akhi once more took courage, and, supported by the Chaldaean nobility, succeeded in expelling the intruders from Sumir and Akkad.  The Assyrians, however, did not allow themselves to be driven out without a struggle, but fortune turned against them; they were beaten, and the conqueror inflicted on the Assyrian gods the humiliation to which they had so often subjected those of other nations.  He took the statues of Eamman and Shala from Ekallati, carried them to Babylon, and triumphantly set them up within the temple of Bel.  There they remained in captivity for 418 years.* Tiglath-pileser did not long survive this disaster, for he died about the year 1100 B.C.,** and two of his sons succeeded him on the throne.  The elder, Assur-belkala,*** had neither sufficient energy nor resources to resume the offensive, and remained a passive spectator of the revolutions which distracted Babylon.

* We know this fact from the inscription of Bavian, in which Sennacherib boasts of having brought back these statues to Assyria after they had been 418 years in the possession of the enemy.  I have followed the commonly received opinion, which places the defeat of Tiglath-pileser after the taking of Babylon; others think that it preceded the decisive victory of the Assyrians.  It is improbable that, if the loss of the statues preceded the decisive victory, the Assyrian conquerors should have left their gods prisoners in a Babylonian temple, and should not have brought them back immediately to Ekallati.

** The death of Tiglath-pileser must have followed quickly on the victory of Babylon; the contents of the inscription of Bavian permit us to fix the taking of Ekallati by the Chaldaeans about the year 1108-1106 B.C.  We shall not be far wrong in supposing Tiglath-pileser to have reigned six or eight years after his defeat.

     *** I followed the usually received classification.  It is,
     however, possible that we must reverse the order of the
     sovereigns.

Merodach-nadin-akhi had been followed by his son Merodach-shapik-zirim,* but this prince was soon dethroned by the people, and Bamman-abaliddin, a man of base extraction, seized the crown.

     * The name of the Babylonian king has been variously read
     Merodach-shapik-zirat, Merodach-shapik-kullat, Merodach-
     shapik-zirmati and Merodach-shapik-zirim.