CHAPTER XIV—LIFE, MANNERS, CUSTOMS, LAW, RELIGION

(_A_) THE EARLY SUMERIAN PERIOD

1. _LAWS, MANNERS AND CUSTOMS_

Thanks to the indefatigable labours of Père Scheil and M.

Thureau-Dangin, and to the admirable work of M. Genouillac on _Sumerian

Society_, in which that scholar publishes, translates and comments on

many of the early tablets from Tellô, we are able to obtain a very fair

idea of the manners and customs of the Sumerians at the time of the

first dynasty of Lagash.

An investigation of the conditions of any society naturally commences

with a brief consideration of the laws, which regulated the process of

propagation upon which the continuance and prosperity of the community

ultimately depends. It would appear that from the earliest Sumerian

times marriage was regarded in the light of a legal contract, and

divorce could similarly only be effected by legal procedure. But the

Sumerian marriage laws of the time of Lugal-anda and Urukagina differed

from the European laws of to-day in at least one important point, the

contract being made by the man with his father-in-law rather than with

his prospective wife, and consequently in the case of divorce it was the

father-in-law and not the divorced wife who was entitled to

satisfaction.

Polyandry was evidently not unknown, for Urukagina had occasion to apply

the utmost rigour of the law to its repression, although it had hitherto

been by no means condoned, but was on the contrary already regarded as a

criminal offence, and not only was this the case, but even polygamy

seems to have been discountenanced, for such expressions as “the wife of

the priest of Nin-girsu,” or “the wife of the patesi” implicitly

suggests that there was only one lady in it, and that there was no

liability to confusion in the matter. It is however quite conceivable

that the patesi had an official wife, just like the priests of Amen, or

the kings of Egypt, the other ladies of the harem not ranking with the

royal spouse or enjoying the same distinguishing appellative, but this

is of course a matter of conjecture. However that may be, there is

abundant evidence to show that the Sumerians compare very favourably

with other primitive peoples in their regard for and treatment of women.

They could act as free agents in the matter of property, and could be

legal witnesses to contracts, while widows were especially safeguarded

against the extortion of those in power, and the very poor were legally

protected against the rapacity of the priest, who exacted a kind of

tithe from the members of the community. Two other social reforms

carried out during this reign are noteworthy in this connection, one

being the abolition of the tax hitherto laid upon the parties to a

divorce, and the other, the reduction of the priests’ burial fees. But

in spite of the checks that it was thus found necessary to place upon

the extortionate priesthood, the service of the gods was deserving of

special recompense, and thus it was that in accordance with this

principle an orphan, the son of a priestess of the goddess Bau, received

a larger pension than other orphans.

But apart from what may be termed domestic and family duties, women were

expected to perform other functions even as early as the time of

Urukagina. Some women devoted themselves to the more menial services of

the gods and attended to the offerings of the sanctuary; others again

were employed as weavers, while another class of women attached to the

court were occupied with the care of sheep, goats and other small

domestic animals. Some again were gate-keepers, and a certain number

pursued the art of hair-dressing.

As might be expected, the trades pursued by men were more numerous and

various. The boat-building trade engaged a considerable number of the

men of Lagash, while carpenters and furniture-makers also appear to

have had plenty to do. The currier’s trade similarly flourished, and

among the more æsthetic trades which were practised, perfumery and

jewellery may be specifically mentioned, while of the proficiency to

which the art of metal-working and stone-carving had been brought, we

have abundant evidence in the numerous bas-reliefs, figures and

statuettes that have come down to us. A large part of the working

population were gardeners or tillers of the soil, for the Babylonians

had long since emerged from the bedouin stage of primitive civilization,

and had settled upon the land, which they cultivated apparently with

great success. Among the domesticated animals of which they made use,

the cow, the sheep, the ass and the goat may be specifically singled

out. The ass was used both for riding and also for draft purposes. The

ox was the principal beast of labour, his services being required both

in the work of irrigation and in the transport of building materials,

though the ass was also sometimes employed for these and similar

purposes. The ox was further used for food, while cows were seemingly

reserved for breeding and for supplying milk, from which they made

butter, and possibly also cheese. The sheep was reared for the double

purpose of providing wool as a material for clothing, and meat for

consumption, some breeds being held in particularly high value for their

wool, while others were specially prized for their tastiness as an

article of diet, though some were utilized for both of these purposes.

It appears to have been the custom to offer the flesh of the sheep in

whole or in part to the gods before mortal man ventured to partake

thereof, the shorn wool being given over to the female weaver of the

harem. The sheep enjoying the especial royal patronage was white in

colour, and was therefore presumably the most uncommon and the most

highly valued, while the commonest breed was brown. The male sheep or

lamb was usually selected for sacrifice to the gods in preference to the

female. The kid seems to have been regarded as a medium of exchange, at

all events rent was paid by means of kids, or sometimes sheep, while

the goat often served as a sacrificial victim as we have seen

elsewhere.[174] The kids belonging to the goddess Bau were tended by the

women of the harem, though also sometimes by herdsmen. Goats as well as

sheep were held in high value for their wool, two species being

particularly singled out, one being known as the white-fleeced goat and

the other as the black-fleeced. Other animals of a nondescript character

also played an important part in the life of the people as well as in

the service of the gods. Birds too formed part of the offerings due to

the powers above, the principal of which were apparently the goose, the

duck, the chicken and the turtle dove.

The fertility of the soil naturally encouraged its cultivation even in

the earliest times. Part of the land in the time of Urukagina belonged

to the royal domains, the remainder being occupied by private

individuals. Cereals, such as corn and barley, were cultivated with

success, as in the days of Herodotus,[175] while some of the land was

reserved for fruit trees and vegetable products.

But the land was not entirely divided up into crown-lands and landed

estates, “small ownership” accounted for a certain amount of the

available ground, and it would appear that even poor women sometimes had

their little plots; the small owners were often however the victims of

the extortionate capitalist, and their wrongs from time to time called

for redress. On such occasions the official entrusted with the task of

readjusting matters took great care to distinguish between arable-land

and land which did not admit of being cultivated. The supervision of the

royal estates involved, as might be expected, the employment of a whole

army of agricultural officials with different degrees of responsibility

and varying duties to perform. Agriculture in the time of Urukagina even

as to-day entailed a regular series of operations: the land had to be

ploughed, the seed sown, and the harvest reaped, and last, but perhaps

the most important and the most laborious of all, there was the work of

irrigation, which in a land subject to floods in winter and a rainless

semi-tropical heat in summer required constant attention and an infinite

amount of hard work. The cutting of canals, even in our own day, with

all the appliances at the disposal of modern hydraulic science, is by no

means an easy or quickly accomplished task, and we can readily

understand that the labour was no less, and the process no simpler some

four or five thousand years ago. The work of irrigation, so essential

and so arduous, was not left to individual enterprise, but was

undertaken by the state and formed one of the principal departments of

public works, and the early rulers of Lagash seem to have been as proud

of their irrigation-engineering performances as they were of their

triumphs on the battle-field. The persons employed were either regular

engineers, or else navvies turned on to the work for the time being. But

the work of irrigation was not finished with the cutting of the canals;

some means had to be devised for conveying the water from the canals to

the soil. No doubt in earlier times this was done by means of a hand

machine, perhaps consisting in a bucket attached to a pole, to the other

end of which a counterpoising weight was suspended. In Assyrian

times,[176] these machines were set by the side of a “pit” or cistern,

which was often a depression in the bed of the stream, into which the

buckets were lowered and from which they were raised when full, or else

a pit dug actually on the field into which the water of the canal flowed

by means of a runnel. The machine itself in its simplest form resembles

the modern “shadûf,” such as was used in ancient Egypt[177] and is in

common use among the fellahin of Upper Egypt to-day. But on big estates

some more efficient apparatus would be obviously required, and was

undoubtedly used, at all events by the Assyrians. What the larger

machines were, we do not know, but as Johns suggests, they may have very

possibly consisted in a set of buckets fastened to a wheel, which was

revolved by oxen, the buckets taking up the water as the wheel brought

them to the bottom, and emptying their contents on their way round: but

whatever the machine was it must have been fairly elaborate, for it

sometimes required as many as eight oxen to work it.

The important part which agriculture played in the life of the community

is shown by the name of one of the months which was called “the month

during which the oxen labour.” The rainy season of November and December

over, the labourers proceeded to sow the seed, the harvest of which was

to be reaped in the summer during the “month of harvesting.” The corn

was cut with a kind of sickle, after which the grain was beaten or else

trodden by oxen on the field itself. Next it was passed through a sieve,

and was then ready to be distributed or stored in the granaries.

As we have already seen, much the same animals were reared for the

maintenance and comfort of man some five thousand years ago as to-day.

Human nature and human requirements vary but little compared with the

marked differences which separate one civilization from another, and one

stage of culture from one more primitive or more advanced, though these

differences are indeed superficial rather than fundamental, but the

elementary laws upon which human life depends essentially belong to

those things which are fundamental, and in that sense they are eternal.

Thus it was that the members of Urukagina’s community partook of beef,

mutton or lamb according to the season, as we do to-day; his bill of

fare however not only comprised joints but also poultry and

birds—chicken, duck, goose, or turtle as the case might be. Fish of all

kinds, including both fresh-water and salt-water fish, were prepared in

various ways for food, while milk, butter and cheese all appear to have

been in regular use. Wheat and barley, as we have several times had

occasion to note, were grown on a large scale, and without doubt formed

the staple food of the people, providing them with an ample supply of

material for cakes and different kinds of bread, including milk loaves

and black bread. The principal fruits which were cultivated at this

period, were dates, figs, pomegranates and grapes: they were eaten

cooked and uncooked, sometimes forming part of a fruit salad, at other

times being made into fruit cakes.

The date-palm flourished everywhere and was a principal means of support

to the poor, while the dates themselves seem to have been used as a

medium of exchange. The apple appears to have been cultivated and to

have furnished certain drink,[178] while the tamarisk provided a kind of

sweet gum. As regards vegetables, onions, radishes, cucumbers and beans

appear to have been the most favoured, though various other vegetable

products, which have not as yet been identified, are mentioned in the

texts. At this early period the art of fermenting cereals was already

known, and beer, date-wine, and other alcoholic drinks were to be found

in the Sumerian cellars.

With their arts and crafts we have dealt elsewhere, as also with their

architectural remains, which however afford us little or no information

regarding the structure of private dwelling-places, but from the

literature we learn that wood as well as brick was used more extensively

in their building operations than we should suppose. Wool formed the

principal material for making clothes, though linen was also possibly

manufactured,[179] while fur was sometimes worn, presumably in the cold

weather.

Business transactions were made by contracts, the transactions in

question usually having reference to the sale of slaves, animals or

other property. The validity of the contracts apparently depended upon

their being duly attested, as in later times, the witnesses receiving

gifts for their services. In regard to the purchase of slaves, and the

price which they fetched in the market, it is a significant fact that

according to the stele of Manishtusu, an ass and a slave were worth

exactly the same, which betrays a lack of appreciation of the

superiority of the working capacity of a human being over that of a

brute beast.

But the crown and the church took good care not to allow the laity the

full possession of their own property, and managed to make a very

comfortable livelihood for themselves by means of various impositions

and taxes. Farm produce, garden fruits, fish, cattle, wool and perfumes

were all levied as royal or ecclesiastical dues, while the temple

sacrifices were of course for the most part mere perquisites of the

priests, though the latter had to hand a goodly proportion over to their

royal patron.

A civilization such as this, with its commercial enterprises and its

legal transactions, of course presupposes the invention of systems for

ascertaining the weights and measures of the various objects and

different forms of property with which those transactions were

immediately concerned. There was a square or area measure, a sine quâ

non in property-conveyancing; there was a long measure, equally

necessary for the sale and purchase of wood or stuffen goods, the

smallest unit of which appears to have been the thumb. Then again the

daily requirements of man made the invention of a measure of capacity an

absolute necessity. Other modes of reckoning besides the regular

metrical systems were however sometimes adopted, thus fishermen appear

to have sold their fish either by number or by the basket, while liquids

were measured by means of different sized vessels. Lastly there was a

weight measure, which was the same in Urukagina’s time as in that of the

later dynasty of Ur.

2. _RELIGION_

The religion of the Babylonians and Assyrians was polytheistic

throughout the whole course of their history. It is true that in later

times a certain tendency towards monotheism was exhibited, but it never

became forcible enough to create such a revolution in the religious

ideas of the people as the change from polytheism to monotheism

necessarily implies. The gods worshipped in the later period of Gudea

were, with the exception of Nin-gish-zi-da the personal god of Gudea,

known and venerated in the time of Urukagina.[180] It is further an

interesting and noteworthy fact that the name Gishgibilgemesh

(Gilgamesh) is sometimes accompanied by the determinative for “god” in

the literature of the time, a clear indication that even at this date

the hero of Babylonian folk-lore was accredited with divine or

quasi-divine attributes. The local god of Lagash was Nin-girsu; to him

the land belonged, and it was he who entrusted the government of it to

the king; the people of Lagash are indeed identified with their divine

lord, their triumphs are his, and their wrongs are crimes against his

godhead. The priest of Nin-girsu ranked immediately after the patesi

himself, and his temples are entirely national in character. The very

palace of the patesi was in reality the house of Nin-girsu, while that

of his queen was the dwelling-place of Nin-girsu’s divine spouse, the

goddess Bau. Another goddess who was deeply revered and worshipped even

as early as Ur-Ninâ’s day was the Lady Ninâ, from whom the founder of

the dynasty derived his royal name, while the goddess Gatumdug, in whose

honour Ur-Ninâ built a temple, was regarded as the “Mother of Lagash.”

En-lil, the ever famous lord of Nippur, also occupied a prominent place

in the assemblage of gods at this time; he is mentioned first in the

royal protocols of Eannatum and Entemena, and is also first in the

divine invocations on the Vulture Stele of the former ruler.

But the influence of the powers unseen upon the minds and lives of the

people is reflected in the authority of the priests. The priest,

minister or servant is not in truth “greater than his lord,” but his

authority and his power are entirely proportional to those enjoyed by

his heaven-born master. The temptation on the part of earthly emissaries

to abuse the power which their position gives them is generally found to

be irresistible, and the priests of Lagash were, as we have seen, no

exceptions to the all but universal rule. The power enjoyed by the high

priest of Nin-girsu may be judged from the fact that both Enlitarzi and

Enetarzi occupied this position before they ascended the throne.

Sacrifice formed the principal part of early Sumerian worship; animals,

birds, fruit, vegetables, bread and cakes all contributing to the

heavily-laden altars of the gods, and incidentally to the rapacious

appetites and pockets of the priests; offerings were also made to the

statues of the living and the dead, the offerings being placed on an

altar close to the statue; thus a certain Shagshag seems to have derived

satisfaction by placing offerings before her own effigy, while the

statue of the deceased Ur-Ninâ was similarly honoured. Another

interesting practice in vogue at this period was that of burning

oil-lamps before the statues. The latter were apparently votive in

character, and they seem to have performed the religious obligations

required of the people whom they represented, to have actually offered

the prayers inscribed on their lifeless bodies, and, in short, to have

played the noble part of a vicarious worshipper. Without doubt this is

the real explanation of the devotional attitude displayed by Gudea in

his statues. Magic and divination, the ever-ready handmaids of all

primitive religions, were cultivated and fervently believed in at this

period as in later times, prophets, seers, and dream-interpreters being

almost as much in demand as they are to-day.

A special order of priests was appointed to take funerals and perform

the necessary rites and ceremonies, and they received fees or honoraria

for their services. The dead required sustenance in the grave, and it

was customary to place seven jars of liquor and four hundred and twenty

loaves of bread beside the corpse; this custom had become virtually

binding and obligatory upon the unfortunate relations of the deceased,

and one of Urukagina’s reforms was the reduction of these dues.

The temples themselves, which sometimes stood in their own grounds and

were surrounded by a sacred wood, were enriched with statues, vases,

inscribed slabs, treasures of silver and precious stones, and luxuries

of all kinds.

The actual and inward piety of the people of Lagash, as of the

Babylonians and Assyrians of a later period is evinced in the

divinely-compounded names which they bore, names which were clearly

intended to secure the assistance and favour of the god whose earthly

namesakes they were, and in whose honour these names were compounded.

Thus the designation of one individual is “En-lil is my defence,” of

another, “Bau is my mother,” and of a third “Enki is my companion,”

names which vividly recall some of the proper names in the Old

Testament. Another striking testimony to the reality of what may be

termed the individual religion of those days, is the prevailing belief

in the beneficence of one particular god towards oneself; it is clear

that the personal element in the religious feelings and aspirations of

the times was not satisfied by the oblations and ceremonies of the

official cults, but sought and presumably found satisfaction in the

comforting belief that some one god really understood the peculiar

circumstances, difficulties and perplexities of the aspirant, and,

understanding, might be counted upon to render help in time of need.

(_B_) THE KHAMMURABI PERIOD

1. _LAWS, MANNERS AND CUSTOMS_

The reign of Khammurabi is in some respects the half-way house in the

history of Mesopotamian civilization. The king was of course the supreme

head of the state, and indeed he was not only “the first gentleman” in

Babylonia, but also enjoyed the unique privilege and blessing of being a

demigod. The deification of kings was a practice in vogue centuries

before the time of Khammurabi, and it was doubtless a practice

assiduously cultivated by the kings themselves. Some of the early Semite

kings of Kish were deified after death, while the name of

Shar-Gâni-sharri of Agade is often written with the divine

determinative, and the name of his son Narâm-Sin is hardly ever written

without it. But during the later dynasty of Ur the practice grew up of

deifying the king while still alive, instead of waiting for him to take

his seat on the bench of gods after death. Of Khammurabi’s divine nature

we have evidence in the use of such names as “Khammurabi-ilu”

(==Khammurabi is god), as well as in the frequent coupling of his name

with those of the gods in oaths.

After the king, but a long way after, come the nobility and gentry, a

class which not only comprehended the men of high birth but also those

who, though artisans, had the distinction of belonging to old trade

guilds, among which may be mentioned carpenters, tailors, builders, or

potters. Next came what may be termed the lower middle classes, while at

the bottom rung of the ladder—if indeed he can correctly be said to have

been on the ladder at all—was the slave, who was nothing more than a

piece of goods or a chattel.

The full extent of Khammurabi’s empire is not known, but his claim to

immortality rests not on the ever-shifting sands of territorial

aggrandizement, but on the solid rock of moral progress. To form an

accurate estimate of the influence which Khammurabi’s code of laws has

had on the Mosaic code and indirectly on the European codes of to-day is

beyond our power, but one fact is indisputable, and that is that the

legal code of Khammurabi some four thousand years ago enshrines many of

those principles of justice and mercy which we are apt to regard as the

peculiar offspring of our own enlightened age.

Many however of the laws embraced in this world-famed code show little

or no variation from those in force if not actually systematized in the

time of Urukagina. The laws relating to marriage are almost a replica of

those which obtained among the early Sumerians, the contract being still

made between the suitor and the father of the prospective bride, to whom

he normally paid a price for his daughter’s hand, the price of course

varying according to the station in life of the parties concerned. The

sum given to the father was often handed over by him to his daughter,

but if no children were born of the marriage the man was entitled to

receive back the price he had paid for his wife on her death, if it had

not been returned to him previously. The father in his turn usually gave

his daughter a dowry or marriage-portion, which on her death reverted to

the family in the event of her having no children. The dowries often

comprised various kinds of property including gold and silver, slaves,

furniture and apparel, and generally appear to have exceeded in value

the marriage-price paid by the husband. If children born of the marriage

survived the wife, her dowry was divided amongst them. Even if the woman

was divorced she retained her marriage-portion, though it was forfeited

in the event of gross moral misconduct on her part. In the eyes of the

law a married man and woman were one, each being held accountable for

the other’s debts, not excepting even prenuptial liabilities. But though

the Babylonian of Khammurabi’s day, as in the time of Urukagina, was

apparently a monogamist, he was permitted to have a concubine in the

event of his wife not providing him with an heir, the children of the

concubine being regarded as legitimate, and the concubine being entitled

to all the respect and consideration due to a wife. There are various

clauses in the code dealing with special cases, such as the marriage of

a free woman with a slave, or the marriage of votaries, but for a

detailed account of these, reference must be made to the standard works

on the Khammurabi Code, among which may be specially mentioned Harper’s

_Code of Hammurabi_[181] and John’s translation of the code in his

_Babylonian and Assyrian Laws, Contracts and Letters_.

As in the earlier period, the Babylonians of Khammurabi’s day were

essentially an agricultural people, but since the time of Urukagina,

agriculture had developed enormously, and the relationship of landlord

to tenant, and of employer to labourer, was regulated and fixed by a

number of legal enactments embodied in the code.

Ordinary arable land was let at a fixed rental, the rent being paid in

corn, but the owner was entitled to a deposit, and non-payment of the

rent was a legal debt. The code contains two special provisions, the

effect of which must have been to make the tenant postpone the payment

of his rent as long as possible. The one enacted that if the rent had

not been paid, or if the land had been lent on the share-profit

principle and the crops were destroyed by a storm, the damage done was

shared either equally or proportionally by landlord and tenant. If on

the other hand the rent had been already paid, the tenant could claim no

compensation. The share-profit system was very common, and in such cases

the landlord generally received a half or two-thirds of the crop. But

the inequalities calculated to arise from such a system were obvious,

for though it safeguarded the tenant to some extent, it left the

landlord without remedy in the event of his tenant being an idler, and

to provide for such a case a clause was inserted to the effect that the

negligent small owner should pay an average rent “like his neighbours.”

Often the landlord further secured himself by stipulating in the

contract for the erection of a cottage on the land, or insisted on the

tenant renting a cottage already built there, the cottage to be vacated

on the termination of the lease.

The tenant was empowered to sub-let his ground, the principal landlord’s

consent apparently not being necessary. The landlord was of course

legally entitled to the rent agreed upon in the contract with his

immediate tenant, but provided that was forthcoming, and the ground

properly cultivated, he could raise no objection. Sometimes the landlord

found the seed, the necessary tools, and also the oxen, and in addition

paid a wage to the farmer; in this case the status of the tenant

somewhat resembled that of a gardener in his cottage on an estate

to-day. The seed, the oxen, and everything belonged to his master, and

the penalty for any embezzlement of the same on the part of the tenant

was the amputation of the latter’s hands. Again, if a tenant of this

kind were a rogue, he might hire out the oxen, purloin the provender he

had received from his master for the said oxen, and at the same time

produce no crop: in this case he was liable to a heavy fine, and if he

were insolvent, he was torn to pieces by the oxen on the field which he

had neglected to cultivate.

The laws and regulations which applied to agricultural land-tenure,

applied for the most part to the leasing of plantations and gardens as

well. Thanks to the extraordinary fertility of Babylonian soil the

owners of land became very wealthy; this notwithstanding, the

money-lender was not without clients. Unforeseen disasters occurred,

which crippled the landowner, and but for the money-lender he would not

be able to tide over the trouble. As security for the loan he frequently

mortgaged his land, but the code enacted that he should at all times

reap the crop himself, and pay off the debt and the money-lender’s

expenses from the produce. Moreover the money-lender was legally bound

to accept such produce or corn in settlement of the debt, and could not

insist on being paid in money, unless, as was frequently the case, he

had stipulated in the contract that the loan was to be repaid in the

same form as that in which it had been received. As a further safeguard

for the unfortunate money-borrower it was made illegal to exercise

distraint for rent or anything else upon a working ox. This was a humane

law, for the watering of the ground, as well as the ploughing of the

soil and the threshing of the wheat, was largely done by oxen.

The laws regulating the irrigation of the land were stringent owing to

the disastrous consequences resulting from negligence on the part of any

concerned. Once the canals had been made, it was the bounden duty of

each landowner, whether small or great, to keep that part of the canal

which passed by or through his land in good repair. If that part of the

bank of the canal for which he was responsible gave way, and the water

thereby flooded his neighbour’s land, he had to pay damages in full, and

if he were insolvent he could be sold up. He was entitled to open a

runnel to water his field, but if the water swamped the adjoining fields

through some inadvertence or negligence on his part, he had to give full

compensation.

The wages, presumably the minimum wage of the labourer, was fixed by

law, as also was the hire-price of oxen and wagons. The hirer of animals

was under a legal obligation to take proper care of them, and omission

to do so involved a penalty. But if an accident occurred which the hirer

could not be expected to foresee or prevent—such as an attack by a

lion—the owner had to bear the loss. This was also the case if the

person in charge of the animal was a shepherd or herdsman in the owner’s

employ, the principle being the same in both cases. Wilful negligence

was not to be condoned, but on the other hand, the consequence of

unforeseen and unavoidable accidents was not to be visited upon either

hirer or employee.

The larger half of the working population in Khammurabi’s time were

probably engaged in agricultural pursuits while the remainder were

occupied in trade or commerce. Now the expansion of trade depends upon

the existence of an adequate means of transport, whereby exports can go

out and imports come in. Before the invention and introduction of

locomotives, water was the unrivalled medium for conveying large

quantities of goods from one place to another, and even to-day with our

interlacing networks of railways we still find use for the canals of

primitive days. It was undoubtedly the two rivers, the Tigris and the

Euphrates, that were accountable for the development of the trading

faculty of the Babylonians, a faculty which ultimately made them the

great commercial people of the Oriental world. We are accordingly not

surprised to find that already, even in the time of Khammurabi, shipping

was an important trade. A sure and certain indication of this fact is to

be found in the number of laws directly concerning ship-builders and

boatmen in the Code. The ship-builder, or rather the boat-builder,—for

ships properly so-called were a very much later invention,—was

absolutely responsible for his workmanship, and was required to give a

year’s guarantee to the purchaser; if it proved faulty during that time

he had to provide another. As in the case of the agricultural

labourer,the hired boatman was responsible for the boat and cargo in his

charge, and any negligence on his part was penal. If a ship collided

with another ship riding at anchor, the colliding ship was liable for

all damages.

Business was carried on largely by means of agents as it is with us

to-day. The agent gave a receipt for the goods or money he received from

his chief, and then went off to trade with them. The agent generally

appears to have received an ordinary commission, which on his return he

was expected to repay with a reasonable profit, the profit sometimes

being a definitely fixed sum, at others, a prearranged share of the

actual proceeds. As in our own day, some merchants were speculators, and

all the uncertainty incidental to any kind of speculation seems to have

surrounded the prospects of the agent, who doubtless at times scored

well, while on other occasions he lost heavily. But any loss resulting

from an untoward event which the agent could neither foresee nor

prevent, had to be borne by the merchant. Thus if an agent were robbed

in the course of his travels, he could clear himself from all liability

in the matter by taking an oath to that effect. But this law might

clearly lead to sharp practice on the part of a dishonest agent; and

accordingly any false claims on his part had to be repaid threefold, but

a false claim by a chief in regard to the goods entrusted to his agent

had to be repaid sixfold. All business transactions had to be drawn up

in writing to make them legal.

The obvious advantages of partnership were soon recognized by the

commercially sagacious Babylonians, and business-partnerships were well

known in the time of Khammurabi. In arriving at the dividends, the usual

arrangement was for the partners to withdraw their capital and interest,

and then receive equal shares of the superfluous profits. The dividends

were made yearly and the withdrawal by each partner of his capital

virtually dissolved the partnership, which could of course be renewed

from time to time if desired.

As in all commercial enterprises, capital was the one essential, and the

need of immediate cash was supplied by the money-lender. The rate of

interest charged in Khammurabi’s time is not known, but the rate charged

on loans of corn was often as much as forty per cent. Such loans were

however generally in demand at seed-time, and if repaid at harvest, no

interest seems to have been charged. A debtor could repay his loan

either in the form of corn or sesame, and the value of each was fixed by

law. If a debtor was insolvent, he could hand over a servant to his

creditor to work off the debt which was due. The ownership of such a

servant was, however, still vested in the debtor, and the servant was

protected by law against maltreatment at the hand of the creditor. If he

were a free man, the creditor had to restore him to his original master

at the termination of three years, and the same rule applied if a wife

or child of the debtor were the pledge or surety.

Distraint was not unknown, but it was the last expedient which the

creditor was entitled to adopt after all other means had failed.

Distraint on corn without the previous consent of the debtor was

illegal, and illegal distraint _ipso facto_ forfeited the right of any

further claim on the part of the creditor, while the execution of a

distraint where no claim had been substantiated was penal, and the

theoretical creditor had to pay a fine. As before-mentioned no distraint

could be levied on a working-ox, and indeed distraint of any kind could

apparently only be issued subsequently to the consent of the debtor. In

short, the interests of the humbler and poorer members of the community

were safeguarded in every way possible. Not only were the small farmers

protected, but even the working-classes received the attention of the

legislators of Khammurabi’s time. Thus at harvest-time there was

evidently a tendency to put up the price of beer, and accordingly a

clause in the code enacts that drink was to be sold at a cheap rate in

spite of the increased demand.

Again, everyone in the community is practically at the mercy of the

housebuilder, and accordingly any damage caused by the use of faulty

materials or bad workmanship, had to be made good by the builder. If the

house collapsed and the owner was killed, the builder was put to death,

while if the owner’s son or servant was killed, the son or servant of

the builder was similarly put to death, in accordance with the primitive

law of retaliation. House-tenure in the time of Khammurabi was generally

on the repairing-lease system, the tenant being required to leave the

house in the same condition in which he found it, while it was customary

to pay rent half-yearly instead of quarterly, the rent being paid in

advance.

The ultimate sanction and enforcement of these various laws concerning

the relationship subsisting between capitalist and workman, owner and

hirer, and landlord and tenant, was to be found in the courts. Strange

to say, the chief scene of jurisdiction was the temple, the god himself

adjudicating through the mediumship of his earthly plenipotentiaries.

The precise form of legal procedure in the time of Khammurabi is not

known, but certain facts in regard to the institution and conduct of

suits have been elucidated.

One great difference between law-suits in the time of Khammurabi and

those of our own day was that the cases were not apparently conducted by

counsel, but by the parties themselves, an arrangement which must have

considerably accrued to the advantage of the abler of the two suitors.

The more important cases were heard by a bench of judges somewhat

resembling our Court of Appeal, while the minor suits were heard by a

single judge, as in our High Courts and County Courts. The plea had to

be set down in writing in the form of an “affidavit”; whether the

defendant was able to file a counter-affidavit does not seem quite

clear. At the trial itself the plaintiff and defendant both summoned

their witnesses, and the judgment was signed by both parties. Appeal to

a higher court was the only remedy for the loser of the suit, the judge

in the lower court not being allowed to hear the same case a second time

under pain of being struck off the list, and at the same time mulcted

for twelve times the amount of the fine he had previously ordered, or

the damages he had assessed.

The date of the trial was fixed by the judge, but it had to be within

six months of the filing of the affidavit. This time was allowed in

order to enable the plaintiff to procure his witnesses in the event of

their being absent from home. The appointment of the judges, or at least

of some of them, was vested in the crown; whether they were paid or not

is a matter of doubt. Sometimes judgeships were hereditary. But whether

judges received fees or not they appear to have been regarded as

professional men and retained their title even after they had ceased to

exercise their judicial functions. The supreme judge was the king

himself, to whom cases of primary importance were occasionally referred,

while the principal officers of state often acted as judges.

The following crimes were capital offences, though the precise form in

which the death sentence was to be carried out is not always quite

clear:—a false accusation of witchcraft; perjury on the part of a

witness in a capital case; burglary of a temple, palace, or private

house; kidnapping a free-born child; highway robbery; theft of the goods

of a man whose house is on fire; adultery; various forms of incest; rape

of a betrothed maiden; persuading a slave to flee from his master, or

being an accessory after the fact by harbouring him; various forms of

theft and fraud; and building a house so badly that it collapsed and

thereby killed the owner. The penalty of death appears to have been

inflicted either by burning, impalement, dismemberment, or drowning.

Criminal offences of a less serious character were treated differently.

Among the penalties enumerated in the code, mutilation, branding and

scourging are the most barbarous. Mutilation was a punishment based

logically on the “eye for an eye,” and “tooth for a tooth” principle,

its application being primarily to those who had mutilated their

neighbour. But its application was extended to cover other forms of

crime or offences adjudged in those days as crimes, thus insolence on

the part of an adopted child to his foster-parents was effectually

stopped by the removal of the child’s tongue; while an adopted son who

is unduly inquisitive into the origin of his birth has his eye plucked

out; lastly—and what perhaps to us seems the most amazing of all—if a

surgeon performed an operation and the patient died through any

carelessness or lack of skill on his part, the surgeon’s hands were

amputated—a law which must have considerably cooled the ardour of any of

the surgeons of those days particularly addicted to the use of the

knife. Branding was the outward and visible sign (usually imprinted on

the arm) of degradation to slavery,—the punishment for slandering a

votary or a married woman. Scourging was the penalty for striking a

superior; the scourging was to be performed in public, the strokes

numbering sixty, and the implement used a cow-hide whip; while

banishment from the city was the very fitting and meet punishment for

incest.

2. _RELIGION_

The one outstanding feature of the Babylonian religion of Khammurabi’s

time was the unique position assigned to Marduk in the Babylonian

pantheon. Marduk owed his exaltation to what we may without undue levity

call local interest. The dynasty of which Khammurabi was so illustrious

a monarch was the first dynasty of the city of Babylon itself; and

Marduk the local god of Babylon naturally shared in the good fortune and

prosperity of the people over whose welfare he presided. To Marduk

belonged the real credit, honour and glory of his people’s success, what

wonder then that he should be accorded the post of honour in the

hierarchy of heaven! Other gods indeed existed, and received such

attention as befitted their inferior position, but their light was as

that of a planet compared with the dazzling radiance of the midday sun,

while a monotheistic tendency sprang up, fostered by a desire to

attribute to Marduk such marvellous performances as the creation of the

world, performances which had hitherto been ascribed to the older gods

of Southern Mesopotamia.

But reverence and respect for the traditions of a heroic past precluded

the possibility of dishonouring the gods who had made that past so

glorious, and the only way to satisfy the religious aspirations of

Marduk’s devotees on the one hand, and maintain the loyalty due to the

time-honoured gods of Babylonian infancy on the other, was to identify

the latter with Marduk; had this process of identification been carried

to its logical conclusion it would have resulted in the evolution of a

monotheism as exclusive and as simple as the most dogmatic Unitarianism

of to-day.

Fortunately or unfortunately such was not the case; the practical

sequence of the tendency was realized in the identification of Marduk

with the ancient god of Nippur, but apart from that, the tendency

remained a tendency and nothing more. Notwithstanding this fact however,

Marduk’s supremacy was so firmly established, and his position so

impregnably secured, that the passing changes and chances of some two

thousand years were unable to oust him from his high estate, and it is

to Marduk that Cyrus, the vanquisher of Babylon’s last native king, and

the fated heir to her evanescent empire, ascribes the triumphant victory

which attended his arms. He recorded the acknowledgment of his

obligations to the lord of E-sagil on a clay cylinder now preserved in

the British Museum.

The inscription is written in cuneiform characters, and states that

Marduk “sought out a righteous prince, a man after his own heart whom he

might take by the hand, and he called his name Cyrus. And Marduk the

great lord, the protector of his people, beheld his good deeds and his

righteous heart with joy.” Thus 1500 years after the time of Khammurabi,

the cult of Marduk was still intimately bound up with the prosperity of

his people, and it was owing to the neglect of his worship and to the

mal-preservation of his fanes that Nabonidus the last king of the

Neo-Babylonian dynasty was unable to withstand the onslaughts of a

foreign conqueror.

Although Marduk was thus the supreme god of Babylon, to whose shrine all

true patriots were wont to resort, other gods were still the subjects of

veneration, and it was still thought prudent to seek their favour and

assistance. The sun continued to pursue the even tenor of his way, and

after all, the sun is an important factor in the manifold operations of

agriculture, it therefore behoves man to pay his respects to a god whose

mere momentary absence behind a cloud of displeasure may bring about

such momentous consequences. Among other deities worshipped at this

time, mention should be made of Ishtar, the mother of the gods, and the

goddess of love and war, Anu the lord of heaven, and Ea the god of the

deep, of Sin the moon-god and the specific patron of the people of Ur,

of Ninib the god of war, and Adad the weather deity.[182]

The great religious movement which characterized the establishment of

the first dynasty of Babylon, naturally brought in its train all the

paraphernalia required by and incidental to a highly-organized state

religion. The priesthood became a power, and the temples commercial

centres as well as seats of learning. The revenue of the temple was very

large; its principal source seems to have been the endowments and royal

bounties of the kings. As in earlier times, it owned a large number of

cattle and sheep, and the administration of its property seems to have

caused Khammurabi a considerable amount of anxiety. A great many priests

and laymen were attached to the service of the temple, and the spiritual

labourer of those days seems to have deserved an altogether exorbitant

hire. It was clearly a most profitable concern, and the privilege of

serving in the temple was a positive asset which could be bought, sold,

or mortgaged. This valuable privilege which brought such pecuniary

advantages with it, was, needless to say, very jealously guarded by the

elect, who firmly adhered to the hereditary principle—then in full

swing. These privileges were in fact inalienable and were transmitted

from father to son.

The financial prosperity of the temple and its attachés is shown by

their opening their doors for financial business pure and simple,

money-lending in time becoming quite an important branch of the temple

work. The loans however seem to have generally been free loans, no

interest being exacted.

But the temple had its obligations to perform as well as its privileges

to enjoy, one of the duties incumbent upon the temple authorities being

the ransoming of a fellow townsman who had been taken prisoner by the

enemy.

(_C_) THE ASSYRIAN ERA

1. _STATE OF SOCIETY_

In Assyrian times the same explicit or implicit regulations in regard to

the family seem to have been in force, or tacitly agreed to, as those

which obtained in the older Babylonian period. Apparently a man was only

expected in the normal way to marry one woman, though it seems probable

that in the event of the first wife proving childless it was regarded as

quite justifiable and legitimate for a man to take to himself another

woman, in view of the desirability of his having an heir.[183]

Accordingly monogamy seems to have been the general rule, though

polygamy was by no means unknown. When a man married, he left his

father and mother and was expected to “cleave” unto his wife, and they

became “one flesh” and inhabited “one house”; in short, the Assyrian

“home” was normally the same as the English “home” of to-day. As in the

time of Khammurabi, women could be legal owners of property, and often

owned farms and occupied vineyards.

The general pursuits of the people were much the same as those followed

by the earlier inhabitants of Mesopotamia. The population was, as then,

largely agricultural; the land required the same careful and elaborate

irrigation while the ground had to be ploughed, the seed sown, and the

harvest reaped as heretofore. A corn-land holding[184] usually had a

house attached to it, and also a court where the corn was stored, which

thus served the purpose, if not resembling the appearance, of a barn. A

large number of people were evidently employed in the vineyards, which

must sometimes have been very extensive, for the number of plants in a

single vineyard in one case was as many as 49,300, and it is a

significant fact that the most celebrated wines in Babylonia came from

the north, while it is also worth noting the frequency with which the

vine occurs on Assyrian bas-reliefs. Orchards and gardens also abounded,

though what grew in them is to some extent a matter of conjecture; if

however we may assume that the list of plants mentioned in the

Babylonian _Garden Tablet_ published by Meissner, holds good also for

the Assyrian garden, leek, onion, garlic, lettuce, coriander, hyssop,

turnip, cabbage, and radish must have been familiar garden products.

Cattle and sheep were reared as in the old days, the latter both for

their wool and also for food, while goats provided milk, as well as meat

and hair, goat’s hair being used even to-day in the East for the

coverings of tents. Oxen were used largely for working the irrigation

machines, while asses also served as beasts of labour. The camel was not

unknown, and is often named in connection with the sales of estates. The

horse at this period was in common use, but was seemingly reserved for

riding and driving.

The legal paraphernalia of Assyrian times was the natural development of

the Babylonian law code of which it was the off-shoot. In the ownership

of land the hereditary principle seems to have been the dominating

factor, and probably farms and vineyards passed automatically from

father to son in the same way as crown lands and larger estates. The

peasant was still a serf, bought or sold with the land to which fate had

attached him; he was not permitted to migrate elsewhere, but on the

other hand he was under the protection of the state; he could not be

ousted by invaders, and his living was a first charge on the estate. It

is certain that estate-slaves were sometimes requisitioned for military

or other state purposes, the owner being of course compelled to meet the

demand, while the produce of his land was also subject to taxation. Some

estates were however exempt from dues of this kind, the exemption

doubtless being granted by the royal favour and confirmed by royal

charter.

Among the smaller land-owners we find a number of farmers or vine-owners

who have forsaken business or industrial pursuits, and have left the

bakery and the scribe’s office to return to the soil.

The landlord frequently did not reside on his land, but let it out to

tenants, whom he expected to pay rent in due season. The original

ownership of land was no doubt largely if not entirely the gift of the

king, while conquests would continually place fresh tracts of land in

his hands. Probably some of the newly acquired property went to swell

the extent of the crown lands, while the rest or part of the rest was

distributed among the king’s ministers, generals and other court

favourites.

2. _RELIGION_

The Assyrian religion was Babylonian both in origin and character. Anu,

Bel, and Ea, Marduk, Nergal, Adad, Shamash and Sin, Nanâ and Ishtar were

all held in esteem, and temples were erected in their honour. The

supremacy of Assyria and the corresponding decline in Babylonian power

scarcely affected the authority and influence of the time-honoured gods

of the Babylonian pantheon. But the new political situation required

some recognition in the religious life of the nation, and the exigencies

of the present demanded some consideration, as well as the hallowed

traditions of the past. These two conflicting interests had to be

reconciled, and the reconciliation was effected and a way of escape

devised similar to that adopted by the earlier Babylonians when

confronted with a like dilemma. The local god of Ashur was exalted to

the first place in the pantheon, and became as it were the Marduk of

Assyria, though his position was even more unassailable than was that of

Marduk in Babylon, for the latter[185] was bound to acknowledge Ea as

his father, whereas Ashur is above all ties of this kind; the

Babylonian-Assyrian pantheon is recognized by him, but it in no way

touches his lofty estate.

The cult of the god of Ashur goes back to the earliest known period of

Assyrian civilization, while he gave his name to the first known capital

of the country, and ultimately to the country itself. Ashur is the

divine impersonation of Assyria, as Marduk was of Babylonia, only the

identification was more pronounced, for the decline of Assyrian power

and the death of her empire meant virtually the death of Ashur, whereas

Marduk maintained his influence during the time of Babylon’s adversity

as well as during that of her prosperity; foreign conquerors sought to

do him honour, Cyrus the Persian ascribes his conquest of Babylon to the

lord of E-sagil, and even Antiochus Soter (280-260 B.C.) restores his

renowned temple. But another difference between the Ashur-cult of the

north and the Marduk-cult of the south must also be noted. Ashur was

worshipped in temples erected all over the Assyrian empire, whereas

Babylon was the place “where men ought to worship” Marduk, just as in

later times Jerusalem was the only authorized centre for the worship of

Jehovah. But in spite of the universality of his presence, Ashur had a

principal seat of worship, the locality of which was the same as that of

the then centre and capital of the empire, Ashur, Calah, Nineveh or

Khorsabad as the case might be.

The adaptability displayed by Ashur in regard to his earthly home may,

as Jastrow suggests, be partly due to the fact that a statue was not the

only, or even the principal symbol of his divine presence, as was the

case with Marduk and the other great gods. His usual emblem was a

standard consisting of a pole surrounded by a winged disc to which is

attached an archer with drawn bow. It is impossible to say the exact

time when a military standard came to be regarded as the natural and

fitting symbol of the patron god of the country, but the nature of the

symbol itself makes it quite clear that Ashur was regarded as a god of

war. Indeed the patron deity of a people as warlike as the Assyrians,

could not but reflect the military spirit of his people. The Assyrian

warriors were the “troops of Ashur,” their enemies being his enemies and

their friends his friends. Ashur’s spouse was Bēlit (==“the Lady”),

but the same goddess sometimes appears as the consort of Bel[186] and

sometimes also as the wife of Ea, in the Assyrian inscriptions, while at

other times again Bēlit is merely a designation of Ishtar. The

last-named goddess occupies a very prominent place in the Assyrian

pantheon, only coming second to Ashur himself. There were indeed no less

than three Ishtars in Assyria—Ishtar of Nineveh, Ishtar of Arbela, and

Ishtar of Kidmuru, but the Assyrians do not appear to have preserved any

definite distinction between them, so that for all practical purposes we

only have one goddess to consider in this connection.

It is hardly to be wondered at that Ishtar, the goddess of war as well

as of love, should have been held in high reverence by the Assyrians,

who not unnaturally accentuated her warlike attributes. But the

Assyrians were not responsible for the origin of Ishtar’s warlike

character; she had been regarded in this light at least as early as the

time of Khammurabi,[187] while her fighting spirit is strongly painted

in the early Gilgamesh epic, but it remained for the Assyrians to

develop this aspect of her character to the virtual exclusion of all

other aspects. As the Assyrians extended their sway on every side, the

power of Ishtar the _Bēlit_, or “lady” of battles, advanced also; she

is the goddess of kings and people alike; in times of danger she

vouchsafes her counsel and her timely words of encouragement to the

king through the medium of dreams. She is “perfect in courage” and

incomparable in splendour; her appearance is like unto flames of fire,

and she rains streams of fire upon the enemies of Ashur-bani-pal. Unlike

other goddesses she reigns in her own right, and not in virtue of her

position as the spouse, counterpart, or reflection of any of the

important gods. She is their equal in rank, power and dignity, while her

very name becomes almost a synonym for “goddess,” and in later times all

goddesses, whether native or foreign, came to be regarded as so many

forms or manifestations of Ishtar.

But apart from the advancement to honour of the warlike deities of

Babylonia, and the further development of the military character which

they already bore, the Assyrian religion varies but little from that of

the mother-country. The civilization and culture of the Assyrians was

imported _en bloc_ from Babylonia, and this wholesale appropriation of

the manners and customs of the people of the south displays itself in

Assyrian art, religion, law and architecture. Their temples and palaces

were more or less faithful copies of those erected in Babylonia; their

beliefs, rites and ceremonies were derived from the same source, while

their literature shows hardly any originality at all. When

Ashur-bani-pal resolved to collect a library in his royal palace at

Nineveh he was obliged to dispatch his scribes to the south to make

search in the archives of the ancient temples which contained the

prayers and hymns addressed to the gods, the legends and epics of the

remote past, the astronomical reports and medical formulæ of the

immediate present. A large part of Ashur-bani-pal’s library consisted in

practically verbatim copies of these original texts, but the debt which

we owe to Ashur-bani-pal’s bibliographical propensities must not be

measured by the originality of the volumes of his library, but by the

large contribution which they make to the Babylonian and Assyrian

literature now at our disposal. In a great many cases the Babylonian

originals have not been recovered, and we are entirely dependent on the

copies of Ashur-bani-pal’s scribes, and but for this great king’s

assiduity in this direction we should be in entire ignorance regarding

the contents of a large part of the Babylono-Assyrian literature.

(_D_) BABYLONIAN AND ASSYRIAN SYMBOLISM

In all religions, whether ancient or modern, material representation

forms the connecting link between the natural and the supernatural, the

physical and the spiritual. The medium sometimes assumes the shape of an

image of a naturally or unnaturally conceived deity, at other times it

takes the form of an emblem, astronomical or otherwise, with which the

god is associated. We have had abundant evidence of the prominent part

played by images in the worship of the Babylonians and Assyrians, and it

will perhaps not be unfitting to devote two or three pages to a brief

consideration of some of the emblems of the deities to whom reference

has been made.

The chief sources for the study of Assyrian and Babylonian symbolism are

the cylinder-seals, the Babylonian Boundary-Stones, and the monoliths of

Assyrian kings. In a brief review of Mesopotamian cylinder-seals we have

had occasion to observe the frequent occurrence of emblems, many of

which are also found on the monoliths of Assyrian kings, e.g. Sargon,

Sennacherib and Esarhaddon. Among those of which the signification is

certain we may mention the crescent, obviously emblematic of the

Moon-god Sin, and the star of Ishtar, while the deity armed with

thunderbolts is certainly Adad. The winged disc which occurs on a stele

of Esarhaddon, as well as on other Assyrian monuments, is clearly

symbolic of Ashur, though in earlier times it apparently emblematized

Shamash, the Sun-god,[188] and if this be the case we have a useful

piece of evidence in support of the theory of a solar origin for Ashur.

[Illustration: FIG. 113.]

[Illustration: FIG. 114.]

But the Babylonian _kudurrus_ or boundary-stones provide far more

material for the study of Babylonian symbolism than do the Assyrian

royal sculptures, for the emblems of the gods, as well as the gods

themselves, were for the most part borrowed from Babylonia and adopted

with variations by the people of the north. We have the emblems which

are scattered about sporadically on the Babylonian cylinder-seals

collected together in more or less large groups on the boundary stones.

On one of these boundary stones (cf. Fig. 113) the name of the god with

whom the emblem is associated is inscribed by the side, thus giving us

definite data instead of hypothetical conjecture upon which to base our

investigation. Unfortunately all the names inscribed on this kudurru are

not legible, but among those which are certain, the following should be

noted: Shamash the Sun-god who is represented by a circle within which

are four rays of light alternating with four streams of water. Ishtar is

represented by a star, and Sin the Moon-god by a crescent as usual. Ea

is symbolized by a ram’s head on a column, the column being set on a

rectangular throne beneath which lies the fish-tailed capricorn. Marduk

is represented likewise by a column, the top of which however is shaped

like a lance. Nergal, the god of the dead, is symbolized by a

lion-headed column, while the seated goddess is Gula, who has been

identified with Bau.

Another important monument in this connection is the rock-relief of

Sennacherib near Bavian (cf. Fig. 114). The inscription mentions twelve

gods, and the same number of emblems, presumably corresponding to the

twelve gods, are sculptured on the rock. But the important point is that

not only does the number of emblems portrayed tally with the number of

gods mentioned, but there are definite indications that the order of

sequence is the same in both cases.[189] Thus the crescent which

obviously symbolizes the moon-god occurs fifth, the same place occupied

by Sin in the list of names. Again, the star, the undoubted emblem of

Ishtar, similarly comes eleventh, the name of the goddess also being

eleventh in the list. Lastly, the thunderbolt, which is the certain

symbol of Adad, occupies the seventh place and corresponds with that

occupied by the god in the inscription. These three coincidences can

hardly be regarded as accidental, and it is reasonable to assign the

remaining symbols to the corresponding gods in the list. Following out

this method we can provisionally assign the emblems as follows: Ashur,

Anu and Bel are represented by horned hats; Ea by a column with a ram’s

head; Sin by a crescent; Shamash by a winged disc; Adad by a

thunderbolt; Marduk by a column with a pine-apple termination; Nabû by a

simple column; Ninib (?) by a column surmounted by two lions’ (or two

bulls’) heads; Ishtar by a star; and Igigi by seven dots.

[Illustration: FIG. 115.]

Probably the finest specimen of a Babylonian stele of this character is

that of Nebuchadnezzar I (_circ._ 1120 B.C.) (cf. Fig. 115). In the

upper register we have the crescent, disc and star of Sin, Shamash and

Ishtar respectively, the second register being occupied with a row of

three emblems each consisting in a divine seat surmounted by a horned

turban. The last-named seemingly represent Anu, Bel and either Ashur or

Ea.[190] Next in succession we appear to have the emblems of Marduk and

Nebo, while in the fourth register we have the double-headed column of

Ninib, a horse’s head resting on a seat and surmounted by a vaulted

arch, (this is of particular interest, as according to Ward, it is

probably the earliest representation of the horse in Babylonian art); an

eagle on the top of a column, and another column surmounted by a hawk’s

head and representing Zamama. In the fifth register is the goddess Gula

seated on a throne and accompanied by a dog; a scorpion-man or

Sagittarius; while last of all we have the thunderbolt of Adad over a

calf, a tortoise which is possibly an alternative emblem for Ea,[191] a

scorpion, and the lamp of Nusku, the god of fire. Finally the whole of

one side of this remarkable stele is traversed by a gigantic serpent.

Other monuments exhibit different varieties of the same emblems, while

among those not included here, are the club, the arrow, the sparrow and

plough, the sheaf, the vase, the bull, the goose, the man-fish, the

dove, the rod and ring (cf. Pl. XIV), and the coiffure and knife of the

goddess Ninkharshag, for a full and exhaustive study of which the reader

should refer to Ward, _Cylinder-Seals_, pp. 389 ff. Of the burial

customs of the Babylonians and Assyrians, so far as they are known, we

have treated elsewhere (cf. pp. 62, 69, etc.), but it will perhaps not

be superfluous for us to briefly consider their eschatology.

(_E_) BABYLONIAN ESCHATOLOGY

Man’s ideas and thoughts are very largely determined by his environment,

so too his beliefs regarding the next world have as their material basis

and setting the world in which he now lives; the unknown but vaguely

guessed at, can only be defined, or rather depicted in terms of the

known, the unseen in terms of the seen, heaven in the terms of earth,

God in the terms of Man—in short, the doctrine of the Incarnation

underlies all religion and all religious systems. As we have already

seen, the early Babylonians in all probability came from the mountainous

country of Elam, for they used the same picture-sign or ideogram for

both “mountain” and “country”; the earth was therefore conceived by them

under the form of a mountain, and if this world be shaped like a

mountain, the world beyond must also doubtless bear a similar shape,

hence one of their names for the other world was E-KUR, which signifies

“mountain-house,” the same name being also applied to the present world.

In the early days of Babylonian mythology, the gods themselves were

believed to inhabit E-KUR, the mountain-house of the world, and it is

perhaps not unnatural to find the gods so intimately associated with

mother-earth, when one recalls that the Babylonians believed the gods

themselves to have been evolved from the same watery chaos from which

the earth as it were emerged—the gods and the earth were children of the

same parent, and were brought into being in the same way.

But this mountain-theory with regard to the other world in no way

excluded or apparently even collided with other views of quite a

different character; indeed the most popular conception of the next

world, as the realm of the dead, was that of a hollow, or cave situated

underneath the earth, which was believed to be shaped somewhat after the

fashion of an inverted saucer: this cave was called “Aralu,” and was

poetically described as “irṣitum la tarat”—“the land without return”—a

description which is strangely negative, and which illustrates how

little the Babylonian concerned himself with the life after death

compared with the Egyptian, who may with some truth be said to have

devoted his attention more to the life beyond than to the life which now

is. The locality of Aralu under the earth may also be inferred from the

story of Ishtar’s descent into Hades; this practically universal

conception is so natural a one that it hardly calls for an explanation.

The association of the realm of the dead with the grave beneath the

earth where the remains of the dead were deposited—is almost inevitable,

and the corresponding association of the abode of the gods, or heaven

with the regions of light and brightness above this earth—the

ever-visible sun and moon being gods themselves—is equally natural, but

in passing, it must be remarked that in the system—for lack of a better

word—which set the abode of the gods in the regions of the sky, the

heaven which they inhabited was not accessible to mortal man, be he ever

so good or virtuous; it was apparently only in earlier times when the

home of the gods was located in or on the earth that the souls of the

departed are regarded as dwelling with or near them.

This is further corroborated by the application of the term

E-KUR—“mountain-house”—to the earth itself as well as to the abode of

the gods and the realm of the dead, while at the same time it was used

to designate the earthly abodes or temples of the gods; the theory which

located the home of the gods upon the E-KUR is probably the earlier, and

it was only in later times, when Babylon had made herself more or less

supreme in the Euphrates valley, and had thereby gained for her god

Marduk a similar supremacy, that the circumstances seemed to demand, as

it were, a more universal and less local home for the god whose sway

thus extended all over the country; if Marduk confines himself to his

temple-home in Babylon, how can he watch over the fortunes and receive

the homage of his devotees all over the empire?

Moreover, as has been already stated, on grounds independent of this the

temptation to assign a heavenly or sky-home to the gods has been yielded

to almost universally; this view of course did not exclude the

possibility of the god’s presence in the temples erected to his honour,

it only excluded the idea of his exclusive presence in the temple.

But there were yet other names besides Aralu and E-KUR, used to

designate the abode of the dead, one of which was “Shualu”; this term

signifies “enquiry” and comes from the same root as that from which the

proper name “Saul” (“asked for”) is derived, itself being the equivalent

of the Hebrew “Sheol” which the Greeks rendered “Hades,” and English

translators unfortunately rendered “hell”; the world of the dead is

accordingly regarded as a place of enquiry, the enquiry being presumably

of the nature of an oracle. The dead are thus supposed to be endowed

with the power of answering questions addressed to them by people on

earth; and in this capacity they resemble the gods, the only difference

being that the gods grant oracles through the hands of their priests,

while the dead use necromancers as their mediums, as was the case when

Samuel manifested himself to Saul through the agency of the necromancing

witch of Endor. Thus in connection with the E-KUR home of the gods and

of the dead, it will be observed that the dead are not only regarded as

with, or near the gods, but, like the gods they are also empowered to

assist earthly mortals with their oracular utterances; this presupposes

that the dead are endowed with a greater knowledge than the living, and

accordingly however gloomy Aralu, Shualu or E-KUR (as the home of the

dead) may be, the dead are at all events drawn nearer to the gods in

this respect, and partake more freely of the Tree of Knowledge than the

living.

Having arrived thus far, the deification of the dead is but a short

step, which the Babylonian found no great difficulty in taking; as

however the deification of the departed was the exception rather than

the rule, the exceptional cases of such deification must have had a

special raison d’être of their own, and that raison d’être was probably

the power of granting oracles which the Babylonian attributed to those

highly-favoured individuals, whose heroic achievements on earth had won

for them the greatest honour accorded to mankind in antiquity. The kings

indeed were often deified after death and even during their lifetime,

but that was the natural corollary of the belief that the next world is

similar in order and in its mode of government to this world, albeit it

was much more gloomy and also of a comparatively negative character.

But though the dead are thus regarded as more akin to the gods than the

living, and more the objects of their special care, yet their very

affinity to the gods seems to place them more beyond the power and

control of the latter, and the priests whose delegated divine authority

is paramount over the living, have no right of influence whatever over

the dead.

Another name for the under-world was “Ki-gallu” which signifies “great

land,” “Ki” being the regular ideogram for “earth” generally, or “land”

specifically, the two being to the early oriental mind practically

synonymous; this term, like E-KUR, thus associates the abode of the dead

with the abode of the living, the abode of the living being on the

earth, and the abode of the dead being under or within the earth. Other

epithets applied to the under-world were—“the dark dwelling,” “the house

of death,” “the grave,” “the great city,” “the deep land,” and the

above-mentioned “irṣitum la tarat,” “the land whence there is no

return,” the latter occurring in the well-known story of Ishtar’s

descent into Hades, where the nether-world is further described as a

house of darkness in which the dead, clothed in feathers like birds,

depend upon dust and clay for their nourishment. This account of the

world beyond the grave tallies well with the account given by Ea-bani,

when called up from the realms of the dead to speak to his friend

Gilgamesh; Ea-bani shrinks from paining his friend by describing the

horrors of the under-world, but is at last prevailed upon to do so, and

his description of Hades is that of “a place where the worm devours and

all is cloaked in dust”—“Dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou

return.” The idea of the dead being clothed with feathers like birds

recalls the characteristically Mesopotamian monsters of composite form,

half-bird and half-man, themselves apparently connected directly or

indirectly with the nether-world.

It was believed however that the pitiable lot of the dead could be to

some extent mitigated by acts of devotion and charity practised by those

that remain; thus it was of primary importance to the deceased that he

should receive a respectable and decent burial, and furthermore his

needs did not stop there, for in E-KUR—whether the term be applied to

the earth as the home of mortals, or to the land of the dead, man

requires both food and drink for his sustenance. The condition of the

hapless man who receives no burial and is provided with none of the

necessaries of life in the next world is described at the close of the

Gilgamesh Epic, where we are informed that such an one is consumed by

gnawing hunger and has perforce to satisfy his appetite with the offal

on the streets; but not only was the unburied shade a curse to himself

so to speak, he also became a curse to the living by assuming the form

of an “ekimmu” or demon, possessed with malignant intentions towards

mankind, and furthermore endowed with the regrettable power of carrying

those intentions into good effect; it therefore behoved the living to

attend to the requirements of the dead from the point of view of

self-defence quite apart from any considerations of pious charity.

There was no distinction made between the faithful and unfaithful

departed in the halls of Aralu, the only difference there was, lay

between the lot of those who received the rites of burial and the means

of sustenance at the hands of their surviving friends and relatives, and

the lot of those to whom were denied the last rites and offices; it

should however be observed that the future life of those who perished on

the battle-field was believed to be fraught with greater happiness, or at

least less unhappiness than that of the generality of mankind.

Thus to the Babylonian the sting of death was very far from being

removed, and their funeral dirges consisted chiefly in lamentations on

account of the pitiful plight of the departed one rather than for their

own personal loss; for them there was no swallowing up of Death in

Victory, the only possibility of future bliss lying in immunity from

death, an immunity which had only been offered to one or two mortals,

and of which only one had apparently succeeded in availing himself, that

single exception being Ṣit-napishtim whose exaltation to the godhead

apparently exonerated him from the necessity of dying. The prevailing

note was thus one of pessimism, a pessimism from which “the dwellers in

Mesopotamia” have never succeeded in entirely emancipating themselves, a

pessimism which is moreover discernible in the sacred writings of the

Hebrews long after their emigration from Babylonia to the land of

Canaan. To Job the lot of a tree is preferable to that of humanity, for

“it hath hope, if it be cut down, it will sprout again; but man lieth

down and riseth not; till the heavens be no more, they shall not awake

nor be raised out of their sleep”; so too the Psalmist begs that he may

be allowed to recover his strength—“before I go hence and be no more,”

the general inference being that to the Hebrew mind the life beyond the

grave resembled bare existence rather than a life with positive

activities and positive functions to perform.

The tendency to regard the unknown with suspicion and doubt is

incidental to the laws of our nature, and history demonstrates that only

a courageous buoyancy won through the ceaseless efforts of mankind to

combat the Mother who bore them, can overcome this as all other

tendencies inherent in human nature. To the peoples of antiquity the

world beyond was unknown and dark, for primitive man perforce regards as

dark a state of existence concerning which he is in the dark, just as he

has invariably attributed the causes of physical phenomena outside his

ken to the powers of darkness, but the very darkness of the other world

so far from diminishing the reality of its existence in his primitive

mind, seems to have contrariwise, intensified it; he regarded the unseen

through the medium of a mental telescope—to him it loomed dark but big;

seeing was by no means the necessary condition of his believing, he

believed where he did not see, and his imagination proved quite adequate

to the occasion. In the twentieth century on the other hand there is an

inclination to regard the unknown as _ipso facto_ non-existent, but it

must be confessed that the tendency exhibited by early man to accredit

the unknown with an even greater reality than the known, accords more

closely with the archetypal idealism of Plato and others whose mental

development is at least of no mean order, and whose theories have not as

yet stood convicted at the bar of Logic.

A SHORT BIBLIOGRAPHY

Those readers who may desire to enlarge their information on any

particular subject referred to in this volume cannot do better than

consult the following works. For a history of the excavations,

Hilprecht’s _Explorations in Bible Lands_ (T. & T. Clark, Edinburgh), is

a most useful book. For further details regarding the excavations at

Nippur Peters’ _Nippur, or Explorations and Adventures on the Euphrates_

(Putman) should be consulted, and also Fisher’s _Excavations at Nippur_

(Philadelphia). For a study of cuneiform writing and the inscriptions,

Sayce’s _Archæology of the Cuneiform Inscriptions_ (S.P.C.K.) should be

read. It is the most recent work on the subject, is full of interest and

original ideas. For the literature of the Babylonians and Assyrians, see

Harper’s _Literature of the Assyrians and Babylonians_, (Aldine

Library), which contains the translation of a thoroughly representative

selection of the literary products of both countries.

An account of the excavations carried on during the last decade by the

Deutsche Orient-Gesellschaft at Babylon and Ashur will be found in the

official reports of Koldewey and Andrae in the Mitteilungen of the

Society (published by J. Hinrichs’sche, Buchhandlung Leipzig), while for

a detailed account of the Anu-Adad temple at Ashur Andrae’s _Der

Anu-Adad Tempel_ (also published by Hinrichs) should be consulted. The

works of De Sarzec and Heuzey (published by E. Leroux, Paris) should be

studied by those who wish to gain a full and comprehensive account of

the excavations at Tellô; of these the _Découvertes en Chaldée_ is the

most important. This magnificently illustrated work, which contains a

complete statement of the early discoveries made on this site, and also

a critical and well-balanced judgment of the deductions which we may

make from those discoveries, is unquestionably one of the most important

contributions to the study of Sumerian art. Of M. Heuzey’s smaller

works, _Une Villa Royale Chaldéenne_ (Leroux, Paris) is calculated to be

of special interest to the student of Babylonian architecture, while his

numerous articles in the _Revue d’Assyriologie_ (Leroux, Paris) and

papers in the _Comptes Rendus de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles

Lettres_ solve many of the problems which beset the study of oriental

art. In regard to Cylinder-seals, the monumental work which has recently

been published by W. Hayes Ward, _The Cylinder-Seals of Western Asia_

(Carnegie Institute) is by far the most comprehensive on the subject,

and is the culmination of a great many years’ research in the public and

private collections of Europe and America.

For the study of Law, the reader should consult C. J. Johns’ _Babylonian

and Assyrian Laws, Contracts and Letters_ (Edinburgh), _Assyrian Deeds

and Documents_ (Cambridge), and _An Assyrian Doomsday Book_ (Delitzsch

and Haupt, _Assyriologische Bibliothek_, Band XVII, Leipzig), while the

student of Babylonian and Assyrian Religion should refer to Morris

Jastrow’s _Religion of Babylonia and Assyria_ (Boston, U.S.A), which is

the only exhaustive work on the subject. For a detailed and

comprehensive treatment of the arts and crafts of the Babylonians and

Assyrians in the light of the material available when the book was

published, Perrot and Chipiez, _History of Art in Chaldaea and Assyria_

(Chapman & Hall, London; A. C. Armstrong & Son, New York) should be

read.

In regard to manners, customs and general mode of life, reference should

be made to the standard works of Maspero—_The Dawn of Civilization_,

_The Struggle of the Nations_, and _The Passing of the Empires_

(S.P.C.K., London), to the same writer’s (Maspero) _Life in Ancient

Egypt and Assyria_ (Chapman & Hall) to Sayce’s _Assyrians and

Babylonians_ (J. C. Nimmo, London); and to Delitzsch’s _Handel und

Wandel in Altbabylonien_ (Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt, Stuttgart), while

for military matters, the reader should consult J. Hunger’s _Heerwesen

und Kriegführung der Assyrer_ in _Der Alte Orient 1911_.

This volume does not deal with the history of the Babylonians and

Assyrians, but those interested in that branch should read Rogers’

_History of Babylonia and Assyria_ (Eaton & Mains, New York; Jennings &

Pye, Cincinnati), Goodspeed’s _A History of the Babylonians and

Assyrians_ (Smith, Elder & Co., London); and the standard-works of

Maspero—_The Dawn of Civilization_, _The Struggle of the Nations and The

Passing of the Empires_ (S.P.C.K., London) for a general history, while

for the early period King’s _Sumer and Akkad_ (Chatto & Windus) and

Radau’s _Early Babylonian History_ (Oxford University Press) should be

studied.

LIST OF THE MORE IMPORTANT

KINGS AND RULERS

AND A BRIEF CHRONOLOGICAL SUMMARY

Approximate

dates

B.C.

Mesilim, king of Kish, suzerain of Southern Babylonia 3000

FIRST DYNASTY OF LAGASH.

Ur-Ninâ, the founder of dynasty 3000

Akurgal

Eannatum

Enannatum I

Entemena

Enannatum II

Enetarzi

Enlitarzi

Lugal-anda

Urukagina, defeated by Lugal-zaggisi, king of Erech 2800

and Sumer

DYNASTY OF KISH.

Sharru-Gi 2750

Manishtusu

Urumush

DYNASTY OF AGADE.

Shar-Gâni-sharri, established empire embracing Assyria, 2650

Syria and Palestine

Narâm-Sin

SECOND DYNASTY OF LAGASH.

Ur-Bau 2500

Gudea 2450

DYNASTY OF UR.

Ur-Engur 2400

Dungi, sacks Babylon, exercises suzerainty over Babylonia,

extends his sway to Elam

Bur-Sin I

Gamil-Sin

Ibi-Sin

DYNASTY OF ISIN. 2300-2100

FIRST DYNASTY OF CITY OF BABYLON.

Khammurabi, king of Babylon, establishes a powerful 1900

kingdom in Babylonia, expels the Elamites who

had effected a settlement in Ur and Larsa, restores

Shar-Gâni-Sharri’s empire in Palestine and embraces

Assyria within the sphere of his influence

This dynasty is brought to an end by an invasion

of the Hittites, who captured Babylon

The Kassites from the mountainous district, east of

the Tigris, invade Babylonia and establish themselves

as kings of Babylon. About a century

after the Kassite invasion Assyria asserts her independence

and becomes a separate kingdom

(?) Ushpia,[192] the probable founder of the temple of 2100

Ashur

(?) Ki-Ki-a, the first builder of the Dûru at Ashur, 2000

restorer of the temple of Ashur, and builder of

the Adad-temple

Shalmaneser I 1300

Tukulti-Ninib I, king of Assyria, conquers Babylonia 1275

Ashur-rêsh-ishi 1140

Tiglath-Pileser I 1100

Ashur-naṣir-pal extends the limits of the empire 885-860

Shalmaneser II becomes master of the whole of 860-825

Western Asia. The Israelites under Jehu

acknowledge his suzerainty

Tiglath-Pileser III recovers the ground lost by his 745-727

immediate predecessors, carries the tribes of

Reuben, Gad, and the half-tribe of Manasseh

into captivity

Shalmaneser IV besieges Samaria 727-722

Sargon, the usurper, takes Samaria and transports 722-705

most of population; defeats Egyptians and

Philistines at Raphia; reduces Babylonia,

carries on war in Elam; builds great palace at

Khorsabad

Sennacherib reduces rebellious Babylonia; defeats 705-681

Egyptians at Altaku in Dan; carries on war

in Palestine; Hezekiah of Judah acknowledges

his suzerainty; destroys Babylon (689)

Esarhaddon conquers Lower Egypt (672) 681-668

Ashur-bani-pal invades Egypt, the latter having 668-626

thrown off the Assyrian yoke; sacks Thebes,

the Egyptian capital (666); entirely subjugates

Elam; defeats and puts to death Shamash-shum-ukîn,

Viceroy of Babylonia

Egypt and Lydia assert their independence

The Medes made raid on the eastern borders

of the empire (_circ._ 634)

Ashur-bani-pal dies 626

Shortly after his death the Median king

Cyaxares defeats Assyrians and besieges

Nineveh. Invasion of Scythian hordes momentarily

checks Cyaxares, but soon after

Cyaxares and possibly Nabopolassar, an Assyrian

general in Babylon, besiege and ultimately

capture and destroy Nineveh (_circ._ 607)

Assyria goes to the Medes, Babylonia to

Nabopolassar, who founds the Neo-Babylonian

Dynasty

NEO-BABYLONIAN DYNASTY.

Nabopolassar 625-604

Nebuchadnezzar II defeated Necho, king of Egypt, 604-561

before his accession; captures Jerusalem and

takes Judah into captivity

Nabonidus, entrusts Babylon to his son Belshazzar. 555-538

Cyrus, the Persian, invades Babylonia, captures

Babylon and destroys the Neo-Babylonian

Empire

FOOTNOTES:

[1] Cf. Ward, _Seal Cylinders_, p. 24 ff.

[2] Cf. Pinches, _Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archæology_,

1910, p. 42.

[3] “Sargon” (i.e. Sharru-ukîn) was the name given to this ancient king

by the later Assyrian scribes.

[4] Cf. however Fisher in _Records of the Past_, Vol. II, part iv, p.

116.

[5] Cf. Fisher, _Excavations at Nippur_, p. 1; and Prestwich, _Geology_

(Map).

[6] Cf. _Comptes Rendus, Académie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres_,

1894, p. 409.

[7] Ward, _Cylinder-Seals_, p. 30, Fig. 55.

[8] Cf. note on page 86.

[9] Cf. Clay, _American Journal of Semitic Languages_, XXIII, p. 269.

[10] Cf. Ward, _Cylinder-Seals_, Fig. 289.

[11] Cf. Fig. 25, E.

[12] Cf. Ungnad in _Orient. Lit. XI._, 1908, _cols._ 533-537.

[13] Cf. Botta, _Nineveh_, II, Plates 108, 110; Layard, Series II,

Plates 9, 32.

[14] Cf. Ward, _Cylinder-Seals_, Fig. 179.

[15] Cf. No. 43, Nineveh Gallery, British Museum.

[16] Cf. Perrot and Chipiez, II, p. 153.

[17] Cf. Ward, _Cylinder-Seals_, Fig. 93.

[18] For representations of birds on Assyrian bas-reliefs, cf. Botta,

_Nineveh_, II, Plates 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, and Layard,

Series II, Plates 9, 32, 40.

[19] Cf. p. 185.

[20] Layard, _Nineveh_, p. 74 ff.

[21] Hilprecht, _Explorations_, p. 236.

[22] It has been argued that the burnt condition of human remains

discovered in Mesopotamia is in all cases to be regarded as the effect

of a general conflagration, and that in fact cremation was never

practised. But if such be the case, then the pottery buried with the

burnt human remains would similarly bear the marks of burning. In many

cases the pottery apparently affords no definite evidence for or against

the theory, but Dr. Koldewey informs me that the vessels containing the

burnt remains of human beings at Surghul, showed no trace of their

having been in the fire themselves, so here at all events we have clear

and incontrovertible evidence of the practice of cremation in Babylonia.

[23] Cf. Hilprecht, _Explorations_, p. 317.

[24] For description of the ziggurat, cf. p. 133 ff.

[25] Cf. however, Jastrow, _Journal of the American Oriental Society_,

vol. XXVII, pp. 147 ff.

[26] Clay, _Records of the Past_, Vol. II, Part II, pp. 47 ff.

[27] For a description of the famous Ishtar-Gate, and for further

details regarding Nebuchadnezzar’s palace, cf. pp. 136, 137, 149.

[28] Cf. _Mitteilungen_, No. 44, p. 11.

[29] For an account of this temple, cf. chapter on Architecture, pp. 141

ff.

[30] Cf. further, pp. 176 ff.

[31] Cf. Andrae, _Mitteilungen_, No. 38, pp. 23 ff.

[32] Cf. further pp. 144 ff.

[33] Cf. _Mitteilungen_, No. 42, p. 42.

[34] _Ibidem_, No. 42, p. 35.

[35] _Ibidem_, No. 43, p. 34.

[36] Cf. _Mitteilungen_, No. 44, p. 34.

[37] The Zend-Avesta is practically the equivalent of the Bible and

prayer-book of the Zoroastrians. The Zoroastrian faith flourished as

early as the sixth century B.C., and probably became the religion of the

later Achaemenian kings.

[38] The Pehlevi language and literature belongs to the middle Persian

period, i.e. from the third to the ninth century or so A.D. The language

is related to old Persian on the one hand, and to modern Persian on the

other. The Zend as it were bridged over the gulf between modern and

ancient Persian, and was of the greatest assistance in the decipherment

of the old Persian language as found in the cuneiform inscriptions.

[39] _Archæology of the Cuneiform Inscriptions_, p. 8.

[40] Squeezes are made by means of a series of layers of thick paper,

which has been moistened, the impression being gained by applying the

substance thus formed to the inscription and beating it in with a brush.

[41] A partial duplicate of this inscription on the Behistun Rock is

inscribed on a dolerite block discovered by the German excavators at

Babylon; it contains many interesting additions.

[42] The term “Assyrian” is used, as a large part of the earlier

Babylonian literature comes down to us through Assyrian hands, being

copied and as it were republished by Assyrian scribes. Assyrian and

Babylonian were different dialects of the same language; similarly

Assyrian and Babylonian cuneiform exhibit great differences in style,

Babylonian being more cursive and generally therefore more difficult to

read.

[43] Cf. A. J. Booth, _Trilingual Inscriptions_; Rogers, _History_, pp.

175 ff.; Sayce, _Archæology of the Cuneiform Inscriptions_, pp. 1-35;

Harper, _Biblical World_, XVI, pp. 294-7, 371-3 (a short and concise

summary).

[44] For references to texts in which these signs occur, cf. G. A.

Barton in Harper’s _Old Testament and Semitic Studies_, Vol. II, pp. 241

ff.

[45] Cf. _Babylonian Expedition of the University of Pennsylvania IV,

Series D_, for this Babylonian boundary-stone and for a full discussion

of the subject generally.

[46] An eponym was an official of high rank—sometimes the king

himself—who held office for a year, and whose name was used to date all

documents drawn up in that year. He corresponded to the Roman consul and

the Athenian archon.

[47] Cf. Hilprecht, _Explorations_, p. 517.

[48] A “plano-convex” brick is a brick which is flat on one side and

convex or oval on the other, its general appearance resembling an oblong

cake, or a small pillow.

[49] Cf. De Sarzec et Heuzey, _Une Villa Royale Chaldéenne_, p. 47.

[50] Cf. Loftus, _Travels_, p. 189.

[51] Loftus, _Travels_, p. 187.

[52] Cf. Heuzey, _Une Villa Royale_, p. 48.

[53] Heuzey, _Une Villa Royale_, pp. 47, 48.

[54] In the northern fortification wall, and according to Koldewey,

there only on the Kasr, great building blocks of limestone were also

discovered.

[55] J. R. A. S., 1855, p. 266.

[56] _Ibidem_, p. 407.

[57] Cf. Harper, _Assyrian and Babylonian Literature_, p. 57.

[58] _Ibid._, p. 87.

[59] Cf. King, _Sumer and Akkad_, p. 88.

[60] Cf. Taylor in J. R. A. S., 1855, pp. 261 ff.

[61] Cf. J. R. A. S., 1855, pp. 405 ff.

[62] Cf. however Andrae, _Der Anu-Adad Tempel_, p. 80.

[63] Cf. Pinches, Hastings Dict., Religion and Morals, “Architecture,”

_Perrot and Chipiez_, II, p. 393; Layard, _Discoveries_, pp. 348 ff.

[64] Cf. Harper, _Assyrian and Babylonian Literature_, pp. 25, 26.

[65] Cf. _Mitteilungen_, No. 44, p. 30.

[66] Cf. _Découvertes_, Pl. 22 bis, Figs. 2_b_, 3_b_.

[67] Cf. Andrae, _Der Anu-Adad Tempel_, p. 80.

[68] Hilprecht, _Explorations_, p. 286.

[69] Loftus, _Chaldæa and Susiana_, p. 133; J. R. A. S., XV, pp. 265,

266.

[70] Loftus, pp. 187 ff.

[71] Cf. p. 80.

[72] Cf. Hilprecht, _Explorations_, p. 372.

[73] _Ibidem_, p. 402.

[74] Cf. Taylor, _Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society_, 1853, p. 269.

[75] Loftus, _Travels_, pp. 174 ff.

[76] Cf. _Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society_, 1855, p. 406.

[77] Cf. _Mitteilungen_, No. 43, p. 7.

[78] Cf. Layard, _Discoveries_, p. 590; Dieulafoy, _L’Art Antique_, V,

pp. 57 ff.; _Perrot and Chipiez_, p. 214.

[79] Place discovered an eight-sided column at Karambs, but it

apparently belonged to the Parthian period (Place, _Nineveh_, II, pp.

169 ff.).

[80] Cf. _Mitteilungen_, No. 40, p. 25.

[81] Cf. _Ibid._, No. 40, p. 24.

[82] Cf. _Ibid._, No. 42, p. 40.

[83] Cf. Hilprecht, _Explorations_, pp. 397 ff.

[84] Cf. J.R.A.S., 1855, p. 266.

[85] Cf. _Mitteilungen_, No. 8, p. 4.

[86] Cf. _Perrot and Chipiez_, p. 231.

[87] Cf. Fig. 9.

[88] Cf. Andrae, _Mitteilungen_, No. 27, pp. 29-32.

[89] Cf. _Mitteilungen_, No. 40, p. 29.

[90] Cf. Hilprecht, _Babylonian Expedition of the University of

Pennsylvania_, Vol. I, part ii, Pl. XVI.

[91] Hilprecht, _Explorations_, pp. 474, 475.

[92] Cf. also above, Fig. 28, A.

[93] Cf. above, p. 33.

[94] For a rough sketch, cf. Rawlinson, _The Five Great Monarchies_, II,

79.

[95] Cf. p. 45.

[96] Cf. Rawlinson, _Five Monarchies_, pp. 151-62.

[97] Cf. E. J. Banks, _Scientific American_, Aug. 19, 1905, p. 137;

_American Journal of Semitic Languages_, XXI, p. 59.

[98] _Comptes rendus_, 1907, p. 399.

[99] Cf. _Mitteilungen_, No. 29.

[100] Cf. _Découvertes_, Pl. 24, Fig. 2.

[101] _Revue Archéologique_, 1894, I, 108.

[102] Cf. Heuzey, in _Mon. Mem. Acad. Insc. Fondation Piot_, XII, pp.

19-28, and _C. R. Acad. Inser._, 1905, p. 75.

[103] Cf. _Mon. Piot._, t. VII, Pl. 1, Fig. 1, and _Louvre Cat._, p.

324.

[104] Cf. _Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society_, XV, p. 410.

[105] Cf. Sayce, _Archæology of the Cuneiform Inscriptions_, p. 58.

[106] Cf. _Découvertes_, Pl. 28, Figs. 1 and 2.

[107] Cf. Hilprecht, _Explorations_, p. 539.

[108] Cf. _Louvre Cat._, No. 173; and _Mon. Piot._, t. VII, Pl. I, Fig.

1.

[109] Cf. Harper, _American Journal of Semitic Languages_, XX, pp. 266,

267.

[110] Cf. King, _Sumer and Akkad_, p. 26; and Hilprecht, _Explorations_,

p. 156.

[111] Layard, _Discoveries_, p. 357.

[112] Cf. Boscawen, _Transactions of the Society of Biblical

Archæology_, 1876, p. 347.

[113] Layard, _Discoveries_, p. 177.

[114] Cf. the Taylor Cylinder of Sennacherib.

[115] For an admirable reproduction of the best half of the Balâwât

Gates, a good introduction, and translation of text, cf. Birch and

Pinches, _The Bronze Ornaments of the Palace Gates of Balâwât_. Cf. also

Delitzsch, _Beiträge zur Assyriologie_.

[116] For translation, cf. Ungnad, _Or. Lit._, IX (1906), 534-8.

[117] Cf. Delitzsch, _Records of the Past_, 1903, pp. 323 ff.

[118] Cf. Harper, _Assyrian and Babylonian Literature_, p. 129.

[119] Harper, _Assyrian and Babylonian Literature_, p. 14.

[120] Cf. Harper, _Assyrian and Babylonian Literature_, pp. 54, 99.

[121] Cf. Perrot and Chipiez, p. 277.

[122] Layard, _Nineveh_ I, p. 64; II, pp. 306, 307.

[123] Layard, _Nineveh_, II, p. 15.

[124] _Ibid._, I, p. 130.

[125] Cf. Delitzsch, _Mitteilungen_, No. 6, pp. 13-17; and Diodorus II,

8.

[126] Cf. Koldewey, _Mitteilungen_, No. 3, pp. 5, 10, 11.

[127] Layard, _Monuments_, Series II, Pl. 55, 6; and Layard,

_Discoveries_, p. 167.

[128] _Discoveries_, p. 166.

[129] A considerable number of the seal-impressions here reproduced are

taken from Dr. W. Hayes Ward’s monumental work on cylinder-seals in

Western Asia, by the author’s generous permission.

[130] _Scarabs_, p. 5.

[131] Ward, _The Seal-Cylinders of Western Asia_, p. 1.

[132] Cf. Ward, _Seal-Cylinders_, p. 69.

[133] Cf. _Seal-Cylinders_, p. 48, Fig. 127.

[134] Cf. Ward, p. 128.

[135] Cf. _Mitteilung._, No. 9, p. 6.

[136] Cf. Menant, _Pierres Gravées_, II, p. 132; Ward, p. 193.

[137] Cf. Ward, p. 197.

[138] Cf. Heuzey, _Cat._, pp. 387 ff.

[139] For the early history of inlaid jewellery cf. Dalton,

_Archæologia_, LVIII, pp. 237-74.

[140] Cf. _Mitteilungen_, No. 44, p. 24.

[141] Cf. also the Assyrian seal reproduced in Fig. 76.

[142] Jastrow, _Religion of Babylonia and Assyria_, p. 208.

[143] Cf. Heuzey, _Catalogue des Figurines de terre cuite du Musée du

Louvre_, Pl. I, Fig. 2.

[144] For the other two, cf. _Ibidem_, Pl. I, Figs. 1 and 3.

[145] Cf. Heuzey, _Les Figurines Antiques de terre cuite_, Pl. II, Fig.

3.

[146] Cf. Koldewey, _Mitteilungen_, No. 5, pp. 19, 20.

[147] Cf. Banks, _American Journal of Semitic Languages_, Vol. 22, p. 35

ff.

[148] Cf. Banks, _American Journal of Semitic Languages_, Vol. 22, p.

37.

[149] Cf. Hilprecht, _Babylonian Expedition_, Vol. I, part ii, Pl. XX.

[150] Cf. _Découvertes, Description_, p. 118; Hilprecht, _Explorations_,

p. 170.

[151] Cf. p. 243.

[152] Cf. Layard, _Discoveries_, p. 197.

[153] Cf. Hilprecht, _Explorations_, p. 407.

[154] Hilprecht, _The Babylonian Expedition of the University of

Pennsylvania_, Series A, Vol. I, part ii, Pl. 27.

[155] Cf. E. J. Banks, _American Journal of Semitic Languages_, Vol. 22,

p. 139.

[156] _Ibidem_, p. 140.

[157] Cf. E. J. Banks, _American Journal of Semitic Languages_, Vol. 22,

p. 140.

[158] Cf. _Comptes Rendus, Académie des Inscriptions et des Belles

Lettres_ 1904, p. 115.

[159] Cf. _Mitteilungen_, No. 40, p. 8.

[160] Cf. _Ibid._, No. 26, p. 19.

[161] Cf. Heuzey, _Catalogue des Antiquités Chaldéennes_, p. 249.

[162] Prince, _Journal of the American Oriental Society_, XXVI, p. 93.

[163] Cf. _American Journal of Semitic Languages_, April, 1905, p. 173.

[164] Cf. Ward, _Cylinder-Seals_, Fig. 139 _c_.

[165] Cf. Heuzey, _Comptes Rendus_, 1908, pp. 415-22.

[166] Cf. _Comptes Rendus_, p. 418, Fig. C.

[167] Cf. Sayce, _Archæology of Cuneiform Inscriptions_, pp. 65, 66.

[168] Cf. Botta, II, Pl. 155.