Assur-belkala not only extended to this usurper the friendly relations he had kept up with the legitimate sovereign, but he asked for the hand of his daughter in marriage, and the rich dowry which she brought her husband no doubt contributed to the continuation of his pacific policy.  He appears also to have kept possession of all the parts of Mesopotamia and Kammukh conquered by his father, and it is possible that he may have penetrated beyond the Euphrates.  His brother, Samsi-ramman III., does not appear to have left any more definite mark upon history than Assur-belkala; he decorated the temples built by his predecessors, but beyond this we have no certain record of his achievements.  We know nothing of the kings who followed him, their names even having been lost, but about a century and a half after Tiglath-pileser, a certain Assurirba seems to have crossed Northern Syria, and following in the footsteps of his great ancestor, to have penetrated as far as the Mediterranean:  on the rocks of Mount Amanus, facing the sea, he left a triumphal inscription in which he set forth the mighty deeds he had accomplished.  This is merely a gleam out of the murky night which envelops his history, and the testimony of one of his descendants informs us that his good fortune soon forsook him:  the Aramaeans wrested from him the fortresses of Pitru and Mutkinu, which commanded both banks of the Euphrates near Carchemish.  Nor did the retrograde movement slaken after his time:  Assyria slowly wasted away down to the end of the Xth century, and but for the simultaneous decadence of the Chaldaeans, its downfall would have been complete.  But neither Ramman-abaliddin nor his successor was able to take advantage of its weakness; discord and want of energy soon brought about their own ruin.  The dynasty of Pashe disappeared towards the middle of the Xth century, and a family belonging to the “Countries of the Sea” took its place:  it had continued for about one hundred and thirty-two years, and had produced eleven kings.*

* It is no easy matter to draw up an exact list of this dynasty, and Hilprecht’s attempt to do so contains more than one doubtful name.  The following list is very imperfect and doubtful, but the best that our present knowledge enables us to put forward.

[Illustration:  242.jpg TABLE OF KINGS]

What were the causes of this depression, from which Babylon suffered at almost regular intervals, as though stricken with some periodic malady?  The main reason soon becomes apparent if we consider the nature of the country and the material conditions of its existence.  Chaldaea was neither extensive enough nor sufficiently populous to afford a solid basis for the ambition of her princes.  Since nearly every man capable of bearing arms was enrolled in the army, the Chaktean kings had no difficulty in raising, at a moment’s notice, a force which could be employed to repel an invasion, or make a sudden attack on some distant territory; it was in