116 



KNOWLEDGE. 



[May 1, 1896. 



is lost ; ami in tidelcss seas, where there is no scour of 

 coast tide-current to remove the deposit, the month of the 

 river becomes choked. 



Anything which tends to chock the passage of a tide 

 wave up or down a river has, generally, a bad ellbct upon 

 the channel, increasing the deposit of mud. The re- 

 moval of old London Bridge, with its numerous piles and 

 broad foundations, considerably improved that part of the 

 tideway of the Thanies, by enabling the llood tide to How 

 up more freely and by increasing the scour of the ebb. 



In the transport along the coasts of the sand and 

 shingle which are formed by the action of the breakers, 

 several circumstances concur to prevent the action of the 

 tides from being simply a reciprocating removal and 

 restoration of material, such as the oscillatory character 

 of the tide might lead one to expect. Not only is the ebb 

 tide not necessarily the exact reproduction of the flood 

 tide, but the coasts are not symmetrical cither in form 

 or material with respect to the direction of How of the 

 tides. l\Iaterial is in general scoured off the promontories, 

 where the currents run strongly, so that no beaches are 

 left, and is deposited at slack water {i.e., at high tide) in 

 bays and inlets. The transport is to some extent in both 

 directions from a headland, but chiefly in the direction in 

 which the tide runs most strongly, or in which the wind 

 exerts most force (from west to east in the Channel, and 

 from north to south on our east coasts). The prevailing 

 trend of tidal transport on our southern and eastern 

 coasts is well shown by the positions in which banks of 

 shingle accumulate. Thus, in the Channel, we have the 

 Chesil Beach to the west of Portland, and the shingle 

 bank in a corresponding position at Dungeness ; while, on 

 the east coast, Lowestoft Ness grows southwards by the 

 deposit of shingle brought from the north. In the same 

 way, on the east coast, the accumulation of shingle has 

 shifted the mouths of the Yare and the Aid several miles 

 to the south of Yarmouth and of Aldborough. In the 

 latter case the river runs for miles parallel to the sea, 

 from which it is separated only by a bank of shingle. 

 On our west coasts the direction of tidal transport is from 

 south to north. 



The principal sand deposits are situated differently from 

 the great shingle banks, as we see, for instance, in the 

 Channel, by the sandbanks near the mouth of the harbour 

 of Poole, in Dorset, which are formed on the eastern and 

 more sheltered side of the promontory called Purbeck 

 Island. 



BABYLONIA AND ELAM FOUR THOUSAND 

 YEARS AGO. 



By Theo. G. Pinches, M.R.A.S., 



Department of Eyi/ptian and Assyrian Antiquities, 

 British Museum. 



THE cuneiform inscriptions of Babylonia and Assyria 

 have thrown a flood of light upon the history of 

 the countries in which they were written. That 

 they would do so was to be expected ; but they 

 also incidentally restore the history of the nations 

 around, and one of the powers of which their records con- 

 stantly speak is Elam. Thus one of the important facts 

 of the early history of Babylonia and Elam is that related 

 by King Assur-bani-apli, of Assyria, who tells us that 1532 

 or 1032 years before his time ( = 2180 or 2280 b.c.) Kudur- 

 nankhundi. King of Elam, invaded Akkad or Babylonia, and 

 carried off" from Erech the image of the goddess Nana ; and 

 contemporary documents furnish us with ihe names of 

 Simti-silkhak and Kudur-mabug, his son, Elamite kings 



who reigned in Babylon, probably at a somewhat later 

 date. For other periods native records furnisli some data, 

 and the Babylonian (Chronicle and Assur-baniapli's history 

 of his reign are of great value. Though the gaps are 

 many, it must be admitted that satisfactory progress in 

 restoring the lost history of Islam has been made. 



No inscription, however, had revealed to the explorer in 

 the realms of Assyriology the name of Chedorlaomor, of 

 Genesis xiv. Kudur-Nankhuudi and Kudur-Mabug had 

 been found, but Kudur-Lagamar (or Lagamal), which 

 would have been the ]'>abylonian form of Chedorlaomer, 

 was wanting. Not only was this royal name lacking, but 

 those of Tidal and Amraphel, his companions, were absent 

 too. The name of Arioch alone, of the four allied kings 

 who went against Sodom, had been recognized in the 

 inscriptions. 



Yet Chedorlaomer, Tidal, and Amraphel were important 

 rulers — powerful in tfie extreme, to come so far (all the 

 way from Elam and liabylonia) to the valley of the Jordan, 

 to defeat and subjugate again the nations of the district, 

 which had rebelled against them. Was the story true, or 

 merely a romance '.' Why did these names noi occur in 

 the extensive literature of Babylonia and Assyria '? 



It would probably be a difficult matter, even now, to 

 answer all the possible questions that a well-armed critic 

 might put ; but we can at least say one thing, and that is 

 that we are in a better position to answer them than we 

 were a short time ago. 



It came about in a very simple manner. Being on the 

 look-out for historical texts, the writer chanced upon one 

 of more than ordinary difficulty, which he decided to copy. 

 It was a tablet of a late date, probably of about 850 b.c, 

 and it was very mutilated ; but one name shone out with 

 an attractive clearness, namely, that of " Tudkhula, son 

 of Gazza — *." Now, any Assyriologist would have had 

 the thought that immediately occurred to the writer : Can 

 this be the Tidal ] of the Hebrews ? The consonants all 

 corresponded — it was the vowels alone that differed ; but 

 even these did not differ more than those of Tukulti-apil- 

 csarra do from the Hebrew (and Aramaic) form of the 

 name Tiglath-pileser. Proceeding, therefore, hopefully, 

 there were found on the same tablet the names Eri-[E]aku, 

 probably Arioch, and Kudur-lakhmal, a name mentioned 

 in close connection with Elammat or Elam, and therefore 

 possibly Chedorlaomer. 



It is true that there was not much to be learned from 

 the fragment, but it proved to be, in any case, a text of 

 the greatest importance. There is the usual number of 

 references to killing which are to be found in the records 

 of those ancient nations. Besides this, however, we learn 

 that the son of Eri-[E]aku was called Dur-makh-ilani, 

 that some place was spoiled, and that (apparently) a flood 

 invaded Babylon (or Babylonia) and the great temple called 

 E-saggil (or Saggil) within the renowned capital. Then there 

 is a statement to the effect that " the old man and the 

 child [were slain] with the sword," and executions took 

 place. Two lines after the mention of Tudkhula (or Tidal), 

 son of Gazza^, it is stated that " his son (Gazza — 's, 

 Tidal's, or another's) fell upon him with the weapon of his 

 hand," and then "his dominion (?) [was proclaimed'?] 

 before the temple (of the goddess) Annunit." 



Whether in consequence of these high-handed proceed- 

 ings or not we do not know, but " [the King of?] Elam 

 spoiled the city Akhkhrlal (?) and the land of Eabbat," 

 rendering [the land] " like heaps of ruins," and capturing, 



* The complete form of tliis name was, possibly, Gazzani. 

 t Properly, this name should be transcribed Tid'al, for a more 

 ancient Tidghal. The Grreeli gives Thargal, a mistake for Thadgal. 



