as far as Thapsacus, and thence carried their goods by land in various directions.1

The third route was towards the North. It connected Babylon with Assyria, and probably followed mainly the line of the Tigris, which it may have struck in the vicinity of the great mart of Opis. The trade between the two countries of Babylonia and Assyria was, in the flourishing times of the latter country, highly valued; and we find frequent provision made for its restoration or continuance in the treaties which from time to time were concluded between the two powers. The alabaster blocks which the Babylonians sometimes employed in their buildings came probably by this line, and the two countries no doubt interchanged various manufactured products.

2

A fourth line of land trade, and one of great importance, was that towards the North-east, which may be I called the Medo-Bactrian. This line, after crossing

Mount Zagros by the way of Holwan and Behistun, was directed upon the Median capital of Ecbatana, whence it was prolonged, by way of Rhages and the Caspian Gates, to Balkh, Herat, and Cabul.3 The lapis lazuli, which the Babylonians employed extensively, can only have come from Bactria, and probably arrived by this route, along which may also have travelled much of the gold imported into Babylon, many of the gems,

1 Strab., 1. s. c.

2" Records of the Past," vol. iii., pp. 34, 35; vol. v., p. 90.

3 Heeren, "Asiatic Nations," vol. ii., pp. 203, 209–211.

the fine wool, the shawls, the Indian dyes, and the Indian dogs.

The fifth line was towards the East and South-east. At first it ran nearly due east to Susa, but thence it was deflected, and continued on to the south-east, through Persepolis, to Kerman (Carmania). Wool was probably imported in large quantities by this route, together with onyxes from the Choaspes, cotton, and the "greyhounds of the East."2

The sea trade of the Babylonians was primarily with the Persian Gulf. Here they had an important settlement on the southern coast, called Gerrha, which had a large land traffic with the interior of Arabia, and carried its merchandise to Babylon in ships. The "ships of Ur" are often mentioned in the early inscriptions, and the latter ones show that numerous vessels were always to be found in the ports at the head of the gulf, and that the Babylonians readily crossed the gulf when occasion required. It is uncertain whether they adventured themselves beyond its mouth into the Indian Ocean; but there is reason to believe that by some means or other they obtained Indian commodities which would have come most readily by this route. The teak found in their buildings, the ivory and ebony which they almost certainly used, the cinnamon and the cotton, in the large quantities in which 2 See above, p. 100.

1 Dionys. Perieg., ll. 1073-1077.

8 Strab. xvi. 4, 18; Agathemer, "De Mar. Erythr.," & 87. "Ancient Monarchies,” vol. i., p. 16, note 1.

5" Records of the Past," vol. i., pp. 40, 43, 73; vol. vii., p. 63; vol. ix., p. 60.

they needed it, can only have come from the peninsula of Hindustan, and cannot be supposed to have travelled by the circuitous road of Cabul and Bactria. Arabian spices were conveyed by the Gerrhæans in their ships to Babylon itself, and the rest of the trade of the Gulf was probably chiefly in their hands. Perfumes of all kinds, pearls, wood for shipbuilding and walkingsticks, cotton, gems, gold, Indian fabrics, flowed into the Chaldæan capital from the sea, and were mostly brought to it in ships up the Euphrates, and deposited on the quays at the merchants' doors. Eschylus calls the Babylonians who served in the army of Xerxes

navigators of ships." Commercial dealings among the dwellers in the city on a most extensive scale are disclosed by the Egibi tablets; "spice merchants" appear among the witnesses to deeds.3 Their own

records and the accounts of the Greeks are thus in the completest agreement with the Prophet when he describes Babylon as “a land of traffick . . . a city of merchants."

1"Eschyl. Pers., 11. 52–55.

2 "Transactions of the Society of Biblical Archæology,” vol. vii., pp. 1-78.

3 "Records of the Past," vol. xi., p. 94.

CHAPTER IX.

FURTHER NOTICES OF BABYLON IN DANIEL.

"Belshazzar the king made a great feast to a thousand of his lords, and drank wine before the thousand. Belshazzar, whiles he tasted the wine, commanded to bring the gold and silver vessels which his father, Nebuchadnezzar, had taken out of the temple which was in Jerusalem; that the king, and his princes, his wives, and his concubines, might drink therein. Then they brought the golden vessels that were taken out of the temple of the house of God that was at Jerusalem; and the king, and his princes, his wives, and his concubines, drank in them. They drank wine, and praised the gods of gold, and of silver, of brass, of iron, of wood, and of stone.”—DAN. v. 1-4.

THE main difficulties connected with the Book of Daniel open upon us with the commencement of chapter v. A new king makes his appearance-a king unknown to profane historians, and declared by some critics to be a purely fictitious personage.' We have to consider at the outset who this Belshazzar can be. Does he represent any king known to us under any other name in profane history? Can we find a trace of him in the inscriptions? Or is he altogether an obscure and mysterious personage, of whose very existence we have no trace outside Daniel, and who must there

1See De Wette, "Einleitung in das Alt. Test.," p. 255 a.

fore always constitute an historical difficulty of no small magnitude?

Now, in the first place, he is represented as the son of Nebuchadnezzar (vers. 2, 11, 13, 18, 22). The only son of Nebuchadnezzar of whom we have any mention in profane history is Evil-Merodach,' who succeeded his father in B. C. 562, and reigned somewhat less than two years, ascending the throne in Tisri of B.C. 562, and ceasing to reign in Ab of B. C. 560.2 It has been suggested that the Belshazzar of Daniel is this monarch.3

The following are the chief objections to this theory:-(a) There is no reason to suppose that EvilMerodach ever bore any other name, or was known to the Jews under one designation, to the Babylonians under another. He appears in the Book of Kings under his rightful name of Evil-Merodach (2 Kings xxv. 27), and again in the Book of Jeremiah (Jer. lii. 31). Unless we have distinct evidence of a monarch having borne two names, it is to the last degree uncritical to presume it. (b) The third year of Belshazzar is mentioned in Daniel (ch. viii. 1). EvilMerodach is assigned two years only by Ptolemy, Berosus, and Abydenus; the latest date upon his tablets is his second year; he actually reigned no more

4

1 Mentioned by Berosus, Fr. 14; Polyhistor (ap. Euseb., "Chron. Can." i. 5), and Abydenus (ap. Euseb. i. 10). He appears in the Babylonian dated tablets as Avil-Marduk.

2 "Transactions of Bib. Arch. Soc.," vol. vi., pp. 25, 26.

3 So Hupfeld and Hävernick.

Ptol., "Mag. Syntax.," v. 14; Beros., 1. s. c., Abyden., 1. s. c.