Al-Masʿūdī
Meadows of Gold
947 CE
translated by Jason Colavito
2026
|
NOTE |
The Arab historian and traveler Al-Masʿūdī (896-956 CE) sits among the most famous Islamic historians and is often called the “Herodotus of the Arabs.” He wrote a number of books, many lost, including volumes on geography, history, and religion and philosophy. Some were abridgments of his own longer works. His most famous volume, Kitāb Murūj al-Dhahab wa-Ma‘ādin al-Jawhar, or the Meadows of Gold, brought together a lifetime of learning into a historical encyclopedia explaining everything he knew about the world. This book included a few chapters about the legendary history of Mesopotamia. The author draws on both Abrahamic religious traditions (Nimrod, especially) and Late Antique Greek traditions (notably Belus and Semiramis), but much of the account bares little resemblance to earlier lists of kings, whether they be Greek, Syriac, or even those in the earlier Arabic history of al-Tabari. What remains in al-Masʿūdī seems to be a highly distorted Late Antique Greek tradition filtered through many layers. For instance, the legendary figure Belus or Bel appears twice under slightly different names, as Balūs in chapter 19 and Belus in chapter 20, where al-Masʿūdī seems to have changed sources. The earlier reference appears to derive from a Greek source while the latter appears to reflect an Abrahamic one.
Below I have translated chapters 19 and 20 of the Meadows of Gold, which cover the ancient history of Assyria and Chaldea. My translation is made from the 1863 French edition of C. Barbier de Meynard and Pavet de Courteille. As I am not a speaker of Arabic, the reader must forgive me if my transliterations of the Arabic names, despite my best efforts to cross-reference with works by scholars of Arabic sources, are not fully up to current standards. |
THE MEADOWS OF GOLD
CHAPTER XIX.
KINGS OF MOSUL AND OF NINEVEH, ALSO KNOWN AS ASSYRIAN KINGS: AN OVERVIEW OF THEIR HISTORY AND DEEDS.
Nineveh is situated opposite Mosul, from which it is separated by the Tigris River, lying between Ferda and Mazenda—two districts falling under the jurisdiction of the city of Mosul itself. Today, in the year 332 (944 CE), it is nothing more than a heap of ruins, amidst which lie villages and cultivated fields. It was to this city that God once sent Jonah, the son of Mattai. Traces of a defensive wall can still be seen there, and stone statues bearing inscriptions have been discovered on the site. Outside the city stands a prominence upon which are found a chapel and a spring known as the Spring of Jonah the Prophet; the chapel serves as a gathering place for a great number of devotees and the faithful. The founding of this city and its ramparts is attributed to a powerful king who held no regard for other sovereigns or their peoples. He was called Bassūs, son of Balūs; his reign lasted no less than fifty-two years, during which he had to wage long and bloody wars against his adversary, the King of Mosul—who, at that time, was said to be Sahik, son of Malik, a native of Yemen. After Bassūs, the rule of Nineveh passed to a princess named Semiramis, who maintained her hold on power for forty years, ceaselessly waging war against the King of Mosul. Her empire extended from the banks of the Tigris to the borders of Armenia in Azerbaijan, reaching the limits of the Jezirah, Mount Judi, Mount Titel, the land of ez-Zawzān, and other parts of Armenia.
The population of Nineveh originally consisted of those we have termed Nabataeans and Syrians—peoples who, in reality, constituted but a single race, speaking one and the same language, given that the expressions used by the Nabataeans are identical to those of the Syrians, save for a few minor differences in spelling. Returning to that great queen: she was succeeded by Al-Arsis, who was, it is said, her own son. His reign lasted approximately forty years. Attacked by Armenian princes, he waged war against them with varying fortunes until the moment when—victory having definitively declared itself in their favor—they were then compelled to contend against the kings of Mosul.
It is believed that Al-Arsis was the last king of Nineveh; others maintain that, following him, the throne was occupied by twenty more princes of his lineage who paid tribute to the kings of Armenia. Furthermore, we have recounted the history of this dynasty, its deeds, and its wars in our Historical Annals (Akhbār al-zamān) and in our Middle-Length History (Kitāb al‑Awsat).
The population of Nineveh originally consisted of those we have termed Nabataeans and Syrians—peoples who, in reality, constituted but a single race, speaking one and the same language, given that the expressions used by the Nabataeans are identical to those of the Syrians, save for a few minor differences in spelling. Returning to that great queen: she was succeeded by Al-Arsis, who was, it is said, her own son. His reign lasted approximately forty years. Attacked by Armenian princes, he waged war against them with varying fortunes until the moment when—victory having definitively declared itself in their favor—they were then compelled to contend against the kings of Mosul.
It is believed that Al-Arsis was the last king of Nineveh; others maintain that, following him, the throne was occupied by twenty more princes of his lineage who paid tribute to the kings of Armenia. Furthermore, we have recounted the history of this dynasty, its deeds, and its wars in our Historical Annals (Akhbār al-zamān) and in our Middle-Length History (Kitāb al‑Awsat).
CHAPTER XX.
OF THE KINGS OF BABEL OR NABATAEANS, AND OF OTHER PRINCES KNOWN UNDER THE NAME OF CHALDEANS.
Here follows the account given by Abū al-Ḥasan ʿAlī ibn al-Ḥusayn ibn ʿAlī al-Masʿūdī. According to the opinion generally held among scholars devoted to conscientious research into the history of dynasties, the most ancient kings of Babel were the first in the world to foster the prosperity of agriculture. The kings of the first Persian dynasty subsequently wrested power from them, just as the kings of Rūm later seized it from the Greeks.
The first king of Babel was Nimrod, surnamed “the Mighty” (al-Jabbar), who remained on the throne for approximately sixty years. It was he who excavated numerous canals in Iraq, diverting them from the Euphrates; among others, the Canal of Kuta, the principal of those leading to Kufa, is attributed to him; it is situated between Qasr Ibn Hubayra and Baghdad, and is perfectly well known to everyone. Further on in this work, we shall speak in detail regarding matters concerning Iraq, when we come to treat of the first and second Persian dynasties, and of the satraps in general. For the moment, the primary objective we have set ourselves in writing is to provide a chronological overview of the history of the various dynasties, and to refresh the memory regarding what we have set forth in our previous compositions.
Nimrod was succeeded by Belus, who held the throne for approximately seventy years. He was a powerful prince, violent and arrogant in his demeanor, whose reign was stained with blood by prolonged wars. After him, the empire was governed by Fiūmnūs, who tyrannized the world for nearly a hundred years. He was succeeded by Saūsūs, who held the scepter for about ninety years. Then came Kūrūsh, who reigned for nearly fifty years; followed by Azfar, whose reign lasted twenty years. He was succeeded by Sanila, who remained in power for forty years—or even longer, according to other accounts. He was succeeded by Būsmis, whose life spanned seventy years. His successor, Aniūs, remained on the throne for approximately thirty years. After him, Aflaūs reigned for only fifteen years. He bequeathed the crown to Alhalūs, who wore it for about forty years. Ūmarnūs, who took possession of it after him, held it for nearly thirty years and passed it on to Kelūs, who enjoyed it for the same number of years. Upon his death, Sibferūs ascended the throne and remained there for forty years—or even longer, according to other accounts. His successor, Marnūs, was replaced, after a reign of thirty years, by Oneslalini, who himself governed for forty years. After him, Amenūtūs exercised supreme power for fifty years, then left it to Tebaūliūs, who in turn enjoyed it for another half-century. His heir was Alâdâs, who, after a reign of approximately thirty years, left the crown to Atirūs. This prince directed the affairs of the empire for sixty years and was succeeded by Saūsas, whose administration lasted no more than twenty years. His successor, Farbanūs, held the scepter for fifty years—or, according to others, for only forty-five years. Upon his death, Sūsa Adrinūs ascended the throne and occupied it for about forty years. One of the Persian kings came to attack him in the very heart of his palace. Masrūs, his heir, reigned for fifty years. After him, Tātāiūs exercised supreme power for some thirty years; he then passed it on to Tātāūs, who retained it for nearly forty years. The reign of his successor, Afrūs, was of the same duration. Laūqis, who succeeded him, reigned for fifty years—though others say for only forty-five. Next came Afrikris, to whom some attribute a reign of fifty years, while others say forty-two. Then Mantūrūs remained on the throne for twenty years, where he was succeeded by Fūlakasma, who remained there for no less than sixty years. During a reign of thirty-five—or, as others claim, fifty—years, his successor, Hankeles, was compelled to wage prolonged wars against one of the kings of Saba; such, at least, is the account given in the Ancient Chronicle. Then followed, in succession: Marjad, who reigned for three years; Mardūh, who reigned for forty years—or less, according to other sources—and Sendjarih, who held the scepter for thirty years. It was this prince who marched against Jerusalem. He left the crown to Neshūh-Menūsha, who wore it for thirty years—or even less, it is said—and bequeathed it to Bokht-Nassar the Powerful, whose reign lasted forty-five years. After Farmūdūj, who remained on the throne for scarcely more than a year, came Bentasfūr, whose reign extended over sixty years, or less, according to other accounts. Mansūs, his successor, governed the empire for eight years, or even ten, as is claimed. Upon his death, Maoūssa held power for only one yea, or even less, and was succeeded by Dāūnūs, who reigned for thirty-one years—or less still, according to other testimonies. After him came, in succession: Qassarjūs, for twenty years; then Martiāsseh, for nine months, at the end of which he was killed; then Fenhast, for forty-one years; then Ihtarast, for three years—or, according to others, for two years and two months; then Chāriās, for one year, or perhaps only nine months; and finally Durions, for twenty years—though others say nineteen. At last, the reins of the empire passed into the hands of Dārū-Elissā, who guided them for a span of fifteen years, according to some, or ten, according to others.
The princes we have just enumerated while noting the duration of each of their reigns are named in the ancient chronicles. To them, we owe the erection of significant edifices, the founding of several cities, and the reclamation of numerous districts; they opened canals, planted trees, dug wells, cleared the land, and mined the mountains for iron, copper, lead, and other metals. They forged swords, stockpiled resources for war, devised ruses and stratagems for combat, and established a military system and a regular order of battle, comprising a center, a right flank, a left flank, and wings, all modeled after the limbs of the human body. A distinct class of men was assigned to each of these divisions, and could not be replaced by any other. The banners of the center bore the image of an elephant, a tannin, or some other animal of colossal proportions; those of the right and left flanks depicted ferocious beasts of life size and of various species. As for the banners of the wings, their emblems were wild beasts of the smallest stature, such as panthers, wolves, and the like. On the standards of the light troops, intended for ambushes, one could see serpents, scorpions, or other reptiles known for their stealthy movements. The painting of these banners incorporated black along with each of the other colors—six in number, though some say eight: black, white, red, yellow, green, and sky-blue. These colors were distributed according to the specific nature of the subject depicted; however, red was generally prohibited, save for minor details in the design of most of the animal figures represented on the standards. Undoubtedly, they say, nothing would have been more logical than to dye all war banners red since it is the color most closely resembling blood, and since, moreover, it would have been highly fitting to adopt one single, uniform shade for them all. Yet this was not done; for that color has come to serve as a ceremonial and festive livery, perfectly appropriate for moments of celebration, and is specifically associated with women and children, being both cheerful and pleasing to the eye; consequently, it had to be abandoned.
They add that the sense of sight is sympathetic to the color red, since whenever the eye perceives this color, its pupil dilates. And that, quite to the contrary, when it encounters the color black, its pupil, far from dilating, contracts; a phenomenon which, in the former case, must be attributed to the affinity existing between the pupil of the eye and the color red, and, in the latter case, to the antipathy found between that same pupil and the color black. These same authors engaged in profound discussions regarding the classification of colors such as red, black, white, and others as well as the various degrees of light intensity; subsequently, addressing the most curious problems associated with this subject, they sought to precisely define the limits of that mysterious affinity existing between the pupil of the eye and the colors red and white, as well as that antipathy which causes the pupil to repel black above all other colors, such as red, green, yellow, white, and so forth. Once embarked upon these observations, they extended their inquiry to an examination of celestial bodies such as the sun, the moon, and the five other planets, noting the differences in color exhibited by their discs; they then proceeded to examine other aerial globes. We have reproduced these theories in our previous works, and we have provided detailed accounts of the deeds and exploits of the kings of Babel in our Historical Annals and in our Middle-Length History. These princes, according to the opinion of several authors, were descended either from the Nabataeans or from other foreign races. Among them were those who subjugated the kings of the Persians, whose seat of residence was Balkh. Moreover, we have already mentioned above the most significant aspects of these events. Further on in this work, God willing, we shall present a summary of the history of the Nabataeans and of the various races descended from them.
The first king of Babel was Nimrod, surnamed “the Mighty” (al-Jabbar), who remained on the throne for approximately sixty years. It was he who excavated numerous canals in Iraq, diverting them from the Euphrates; among others, the Canal of Kuta, the principal of those leading to Kufa, is attributed to him; it is situated between Qasr Ibn Hubayra and Baghdad, and is perfectly well known to everyone. Further on in this work, we shall speak in detail regarding matters concerning Iraq, when we come to treat of the first and second Persian dynasties, and of the satraps in general. For the moment, the primary objective we have set ourselves in writing is to provide a chronological overview of the history of the various dynasties, and to refresh the memory regarding what we have set forth in our previous compositions.
Nimrod was succeeded by Belus, who held the throne for approximately seventy years. He was a powerful prince, violent and arrogant in his demeanor, whose reign was stained with blood by prolonged wars. After him, the empire was governed by Fiūmnūs, who tyrannized the world for nearly a hundred years. He was succeeded by Saūsūs, who held the scepter for about ninety years. Then came Kūrūsh, who reigned for nearly fifty years; followed by Azfar, whose reign lasted twenty years. He was succeeded by Sanila, who remained in power for forty years—or even longer, according to other accounts. He was succeeded by Būsmis, whose life spanned seventy years. His successor, Aniūs, remained on the throne for approximately thirty years. After him, Aflaūs reigned for only fifteen years. He bequeathed the crown to Alhalūs, who wore it for about forty years. Ūmarnūs, who took possession of it after him, held it for nearly thirty years and passed it on to Kelūs, who enjoyed it for the same number of years. Upon his death, Sibferūs ascended the throne and remained there for forty years—or even longer, according to other accounts. His successor, Marnūs, was replaced, after a reign of thirty years, by Oneslalini, who himself governed for forty years. After him, Amenūtūs exercised supreme power for fifty years, then left it to Tebaūliūs, who in turn enjoyed it for another half-century. His heir was Alâdâs, who, after a reign of approximately thirty years, left the crown to Atirūs. This prince directed the affairs of the empire for sixty years and was succeeded by Saūsas, whose administration lasted no more than twenty years. His successor, Farbanūs, held the scepter for fifty years—or, according to others, for only forty-five years. Upon his death, Sūsa Adrinūs ascended the throne and occupied it for about forty years. One of the Persian kings came to attack him in the very heart of his palace. Masrūs, his heir, reigned for fifty years. After him, Tātāiūs exercised supreme power for some thirty years; he then passed it on to Tātāūs, who retained it for nearly forty years. The reign of his successor, Afrūs, was of the same duration. Laūqis, who succeeded him, reigned for fifty years—though others say for only forty-five. Next came Afrikris, to whom some attribute a reign of fifty years, while others say forty-two. Then Mantūrūs remained on the throne for twenty years, where he was succeeded by Fūlakasma, who remained there for no less than sixty years. During a reign of thirty-five—or, as others claim, fifty—years, his successor, Hankeles, was compelled to wage prolonged wars against one of the kings of Saba; such, at least, is the account given in the Ancient Chronicle. Then followed, in succession: Marjad, who reigned for three years; Mardūh, who reigned for forty years—or less, according to other sources—and Sendjarih, who held the scepter for thirty years. It was this prince who marched against Jerusalem. He left the crown to Neshūh-Menūsha, who wore it for thirty years—or even less, it is said—and bequeathed it to Bokht-Nassar the Powerful, whose reign lasted forty-five years. After Farmūdūj, who remained on the throne for scarcely more than a year, came Bentasfūr, whose reign extended over sixty years, or less, according to other accounts. Mansūs, his successor, governed the empire for eight years, or even ten, as is claimed. Upon his death, Maoūssa held power for only one yea, or even less, and was succeeded by Dāūnūs, who reigned for thirty-one years—or less still, according to other testimonies. After him came, in succession: Qassarjūs, for twenty years; then Martiāsseh, for nine months, at the end of which he was killed; then Fenhast, for forty-one years; then Ihtarast, for three years—or, according to others, for two years and two months; then Chāriās, for one year, or perhaps only nine months; and finally Durions, for twenty years—though others say nineteen. At last, the reins of the empire passed into the hands of Dārū-Elissā, who guided them for a span of fifteen years, according to some, or ten, according to others.
The princes we have just enumerated while noting the duration of each of their reigns are named in the ancient chronicles. To them, we owe the erection of significant edifices, the founding of several cities, and the reclamation of numerous districts; they opened canals, planted trees, dug wells, cleared the land, and mined the mountains for iron, copper, lead, and other metals. They forged swords, stockpiled resources for war, devised ruses and stratagems for combat, and established a military system and a regular order of battle, comprising a center, a right flank, a left flank, and wings, all modeled after the limbs of the human body. A distinct class of men was assigned to each of these divisions, and could not be replaced by any other. The banners of the center bore the image of an elephant, a tannin, or some other animal of colossal proportions; those of the right and left flanks depicted ferocious beasts of life size and of various species. As for the banners of the wings, their emblems were wild beasts of the smallest stature, such as panthers, wolves, and the like. On the standards of the light troops, intended for ambushes, one could see serpents, scorpions, or other reptiles known for their stealthy movements. The painting of these banners incorporated black along with each of the other colors—six in number, though some say eight: black, white, red, yellow, green, and sky-blue. These colors were distributed according to the specific nature of the subject depicted; however, red was generally prohibited, save for minor details in the design of most of the animal figures represented on the standards. Undoubtedly, they say, nothing would have been more logical than to dye all war banners red since it is the color most closely resembling blood, and since, moreover, it would have been highly fitting to adopt one single, uniform shade for them all. Yet this was not done; for that color has come to serve as a ceremonial and festive livery, perfectly appropriate for moments of celebration, and is specifically associated with women and children, being both cheerful and pleasing to the eye; consequently, it had to be abandoned.
They add that the sense of sight is sympathetic to the color red, since whenever the eye perceives this color, its pupil dilates. And that, quite to the contrary, when it encounters the color black, its pupil, far from dilating, contracts; a phenomenon which, in the former case, must be attributed to the affinity existing between the pupil of the eye and the color red, and, in the latter case, to the antipathy found between that same pupil and the color black. These same authors engaged in profound discussions regarding the classification of colors such as red, black, white, and others as well as the various degrees of light intensity; subsequently, addressing the most curious problems associated with this subject, they sought to precisely define the limits of that mysterious affinity existing between the pupil of the eye and the colors red and white, as well as that antipathy which causes the pupil to repel black above all other colors, such as red, green, yellow, white, and so forth. Once embarked upon these observations, they extended their inquiry to an examination of celestial bodies such as the sun, the moon, and the five other planets, noting the differences in color exhibited by their discs; they then proceeded to examine other aerial globes. We have reproduced these theories in our previous works, and we have provided detailed accounts of the deeds and exploits of the kings of Babel in our Historical Annals and in our Middle-Length History. These princes, according to the opinion of several authors, were descended either from the Nabataeans or from other foreign races. Among them were those who subjugated the kings of the Persians, whose seat of residence was Balkh. Moreover, we have already mentioned above the most significant aspects of these events. Further on in this work, God willing, we shall present a summary of the history of the Nabataeans and of the various races descended from them.
|
Source: Maçoudi, Les Prairies d’Or, vol. 2, ed. and trans. C. Barbier de Meynard and Pavet de Courteille (Paris: L’Imprimerie Impériale, 1863).
|
