An altar would have no meaning unless sacrifices were offered at it. If,
therefore, the boundary threshold of an empire were an altar for that
empire, sacrifices would surely be offered there; and the records of
history, and the customs of old times and later, show this to have been
the case.
Sacrifices were offered at the new boundary of an empire, by ancient
Assyrian and Egyptian kings, when they set up a pillar, or stele, at the
freshly acquired threshold in that direction. Thus, for example,
Ashurnâsirapli (king of Assyria, 885–860 B.C.), telling of his
far-reaching conquests, says that he marched with his armies to the
slopes of the Lebanon, and to the great sea of the Westland, and that at
the mountains of Ammanus he made and set up a stele of victory, and
offered sacrifices unto his gods.[507]
At the Egyptian boundary line in the Sinaitic Peninsula, there was a
temple with its sacrifices to “the sublime Hathor, queen of heaven and
earth and the dark depths below, whom the Egyptians worshiped as the
protectress of the land of Mafkat.” There were other temples with their
sacrifices at that point.[508] On the southern boundary of Egypt, in the
gold district of Nubia, there was “the temple of Amon in the holy
mountain,” where threshold sacrifices were offered.[509]
One of the most ancient of Chinese classics is the Shih King. Its age is
not known, but it is certain that it was a classic in the days of
Confucius, five centuries before the Christian era. This work contains
frequent references to sacrifices at the border altars, or the altars of
the boundary. There were public sacrifices at the “border altar” in the
beginning of every new year; and again when a ruler crossed his border
line on a warlike mission.[510]
When, in ancient times, a Chinese emperor passed over the outer
threshold of his empire, he offered a sacrifice of a dog, by running
over it with the wheels of his chariot. This is supposed to have
been a propitiatory offering to the dog-shaped guardians of the
roadway threshold, known also among the Indo-Aryans and the
Assyro-Babylonians.[511]
From what is known of modern customs in this line, and from occasional
historical references to the matter, it would seem that where there were
no gateways, or double columns to stand for door-posts, or doorway
stele, it was the practice to divide or separate the animals offered in
sacrifice, so as to make a passage-way between them, as through a door
or gate, and to pour out the blood of the victims on the earth between
the two portions, so that the offerer, or the one welcomed, might pass
over, or step across, that blood, as in a threshold covenant.
It has already been noted that when General Grant came to the border
line of Assioot, in Upper Egypt, as he landed from his Nile boat, a
bullock was sacrificed in covenant welcome, its head being put on one
side of the gang-plank, and its body on the other; while its blood was
between the two, so that it should be stepped over in the act of
landing.[512] And every year, when the great Hajj procession returns
from Meccah to Syria, it is welcomed, as it approaches Damascus, by just
such sacrifices as this. Sheep and oxen are sacrificed before the
caravan, their blood being poured out in the middle of the road, and
their bodies being divided and placed on either side of the way. Then
those who approach by this “new and living way,”[513] on the boundary
line of their country, renew their covenant with those within, by
passing over the blood.[514]
There seems to be a reference to such a mode of boundary sacrifices, in
the description of the Lord’s covenant welcome to Abraham, on the border
of the land promised to him for a possession.[515] Abraham was near the
southern boundary of Canaan. He had the promise of the Lord, that he and
his seed should possess that land; but as yet he was childless, and he
had no control over any portion of the land. He naturally desired some
tangible assurance, in accordance with the customs of mankind, that the
Lord’s promises to him would be made good. Therefore when the Lord said
to him, “I am the Lord that brought thee out of Ur of the Chaldees, to
give thee this land to inherit it,” Abraham replied with the question,
“O Lord God, whereby shall I know that I shall inherit it?”
Then the Lord responded with these directions, apparently in accordance
with a well-known mode of covenanting among men: “Take me an heifer of
three years old, and a she-goat of three years old, and a ram of three
years old, and a turtledove, and a young pigeon.” Abraham seems to have
understood what was to be done with these victims for sacrifice. “And he
took him all these, and divided them in the midst, and laid each half
over against the other: but the birds divided he not.” The blood of the
victims was doubtless poured out on the earth where they were
sacrificed, midway between the places of the divided portions, as is the
present custom.
“And it came to pass, that, when the sun went down, and it was dark,
behold a smoking furnace [or brazier, or censer], and a flaming torch [a
fire and a light as a symbol of the Divine presence] that passed
[covenant-crossed the blood on the threshold] between these pieces.” And
the record adds: “In that day the Lord made a covenant [a border-altar
covenant] with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from
the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates: the
Kenite, and the Kenizzite, and the Kadmonite, and the Hittite, and the
Perizzite, and the Rephaim, and the Amorite, and the Canaanite, and the
Girgashite, and the Jebusite.”
Thus Abram was assured that the Lord had covenanted to protect his
boundaries; as Nebuchadrezzar long afterward desired that his god Nebo
would protect his empire boundary or threshold. As to the fact of
boundary sacrifices in these lands and elsewhere, in those days and
earlier, there would seem to be no room for question.
It is not to be expected that border sacrifices would at all times, and
in all places, be just alike; but a common primitive symbolism would be
likely to show itself in them all. In Persia, these sacrifices are still
common, when one is to be received with honors at the border of a new
territory or jurisdiction.[516] Morier, describing his journey through
Persia, in the early part of this century, speaks of the first entrance
of a new ruler into the territory he was to govern. “The khan, with all
his attendants, accompanied us about two miles. He was preparing to
enter Bushire, his new government, with all splendor. From the town to
the swamps [from the territorial border to the border of the capital]
were erected stages on which bullocks were to be sacrificed, and from
which their heads were to be thrown under his horse’s feet as he
advanced; a ceremony, indeed, appropriated to princes alone, and to them
only on particular occasions.”[517]
On another occasion, when the British envoy approached Kauzeroon, on a
visit of ceremony, he was welcomed at the threshold of the town by a
corresponding ceremony. “A bottle which contained sugar candy was broken
under the feet of the envoy’s horse, a ceremony never practiced in
Persia to any but to royal personages.”[518]
the gates “oxen and sheep in great numbers were sacrificed just as he
passed, and their heads thrown under his horse’s feet.” And “glass vases
filled with sugar were broken before him.” On this occasion the Shah
frequently looked at a watch, “anxious that he should enter the gates
exactly at the time prescribed by the astrologers” for his crossing the
threshold.[519]
More recently, Layard has testified to the prevalence of such customs.
Speaking of his reception among the Yezidis, he tells of his approach to
the village of Guzelder, and of his welcome there: “The head of the
village of Guzelder, with the principal inhabitants, had come to invite
me to eat bread in his house, and we followed him.... Before we reached
Guzelder, the procession had swollen to many hundreds.... As I
approached, sheep were brought into the road and slain before my horse’s
feet, and as we entered the yard of Akko’s house the women and men
joined in the loud and piercing ‘_tahlel_.’”[520]
Again, as Layard entered the village of Redwan, he was similarly
welcomed. “I alighted,” he says, “amidst the din of music and the
‘_tahlel_’ at the house of Nazi, the chief of the whole Yezidi district;
two sheep being slain before me as I took my feet from the
stirrups.”[521]
When, some twenty years ago, a European prince visited the Mt. Lebanon
region,[522] a generous host killed a valuable cow on the road by which
the prince must come into his region. Then the royal visitor and his
retinue were requested to step over, not upon, the blood of the
slaughtered cow, at the threshold of that host’s domain.
On the occasion of a caravan starting out from the boundary line of a
country in the East, there are border sacrifices offered, even in recent
times. Thus Burckhardt tells of this ceremony, when he went from Egypt
to Nubia.
The various traders going with this caravan assembled at the
starting-point, having their goods with them. “At noon the camels were
watered, and knelt down by the side of their respective loads. Just
before the lading commenced, the Ababde women appeared with earth
vessels in their hands, filled with burning coals. They set them before
the several loads, and threw salt upon them.” It has already been shown
that salt stands for blood, in the minds of primitive peoples. “At the
rising of the bluish flame produced by the burning of the salt, they
exclaimed, ‘May you be blessed in going and in coming!’”[523] And this
sacrifice was supposed to secure safety against evil spirits encountered
in crossing the boundary line.
Thus it would seem that, from the beginning, on the national threshold,
as on the threshold of the temple and of the home, sacrifices were
offered, and boundary marks were set up, in recognition of a peculiar
sacredness of the border line,–which is in itself a foundation and a
limit. These boundary marks were commonly a pillar or a tree, in
apparent symbolism of a fructifying or a fruit-bearing agency, of the
transmission or the continuance of life. And the establishment and
protection of these boundary marks was deemed well pleasing to God or to
the gods, and in the nature of a holy covenant service.
-----
Footnote 471:
See, for example, Rawlinson’s _Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western
Asia_, III., 41, 43; IV., 41; Hilprecht’s _Freibrief Nebukadnezar’s_,
I., col. II., 26–60; _Beitraege zur Assyriologie_, II., 165–203, 258
ff.
Footnote 472:
An unknown product of the field.
Footnote 473:
From the Michaux Stone, columns II.-IV. in Rawlinson’s _Cuneiform
Inscriptions of Western Asia_, I., pl. 70; translated for this work by
Prof. Dr. H.V. Hilprecht. See illustrations in Maspero’s _Dawn of
Civilization_, pp. 762, 763. See Sayce’s _Religion of the Ancient
Babylonians_, p. 308.
Footnote 474:
Bühler’s “Laws of Manu,” in _Sacred Books of the East_, XXV., 298,
301.
Footnote 475:
Deut. 19 : 14.
Footnote 476:
Prov. 22 : 28; 23 : 10.
Footnote 477:
Job 24 : 2.
Footnote 478:
Deut. 27 : 17.
Footnote 479:
Gen. 21 : 22–33.
Footnote 480:
Gen. 31 : 43–53.
Footnote 481:
See Smith’s _Classical Dictionary_, and Keightley’s _Class. Dict._, s.
vv. “Hermes,” “Jupiter,” “Mercury,” “Silvanus,” “Terminus,” “Zeus.”
Comp. Stengel’s _Die griechischen Sacralalterthüm_. in Iwan v.
Müller’s _Handbuch der Klassischen Alterthumswissenschaft_, V., part
3, p. 13; K.F. Hermann’s _Lehrbuch der gottesdienstlichen Alterthümer
der Griechen_, pp. 73, 108, note 2.
Footnote 482:
“This god was represented by a stone or a stump, and not with human
features.” This would seem to have been a rude phallic form.
Footnote 483:
Ovid’s _Fasti_, Bk. II., vs. 641 ff.
Footnote 484:
Smith’s _Classical Dictionary_, s. vv. “Numa,” “Terminus.”
Footnote 485:
Smith’s _Dict. of Greek and Rom. Antiq._, s. v. “Terminalia.”
Footnote 486:
Stanley’s _Congo_, I., 315–317.
Footnote 487:
Turner’s _Samoa_, p. 45 f.
Footnote 488:
See “Beating the Bounds,” in Chambers’s _Edinburgh Journal_ for July
23, 1853, pp. 49–52; also _American Architect_, Vol. X., No. 293, p.
64 f.
Footnote 489:
Wallace’s _Russia_, p. 366 f.
Footnote 490:
Cited in Thompson’s _Elements of Political Economy_, p. 110.
Footnote 491:
Schrader’s _Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, I., 63, 69, 87, 99, 109,
131, 133, 135, 141, 143, 147, 155, 159, 161, 165, 167, 169, 181; II.,
19, 35, 54, 89.
Footnote 492:
See pp. 105–108, _supra_.
Footnote 493:
See, for example, Schrader’s _Keilinshriftliche Bibliothek_, I., 69.
Footnote 494:
Rawlinson’s _Inscriptions of Western Asia_, I., 17–26, col. 1, lines
63–69.
Footnote 495:
Brugsch’s _Egypt under the Pharaohs_, I., 8 f.; Villiers Stuart’s
_Nile Gleanings_, Pl. xlv., p. 276.
Footnote 496:
Brugsch’s _Egypt under the Pharaohs_, I., 182 f.
Footnote 497:
Brugsch’s _Egypt under the Pharaohs_, II., 81 f.
Footnote 498:
_Ibid._, II., 78 f.
Footnote 499:
Trumbull’s _Kadesh-barnea_, p. 341, note.
Footnote 500:
Plutarch’s _Lives_, Theseus, 25.
Footnote 501:
Psa. 24 : 2.
Footnote 502:
Justinian, _Inst._, Lib. I., 12, 5.
Footnote 503:
_Ibid._
Footnote 504:
Stanley’s _Congo_, I., 1–11.
Footnote 505:
See _Penn. Mag. of Hist. and Biog._, VI., 412–434.
Footnote 506:
Carlyle’s _History of Frederick_, II., I., 71–74.
Footnote 507:
Rawlinson’s _Inscriptions of Western Asia_, I., 17–26, Col. III., ll.
84–89.
Footnote 508:
Brugsch’s _Egypt under the Pharaohs_, I., 81.
Footnote 509:
Brugsch’s _Egypt under the Pharaohs_, II., 82.
Footnote 510:
“The Shih King,” in _Sacred Books of the East_, III., 343, 392, 399,
note, 420, 422 note.
Footnote 511:
Lacouperie’s _Western Origin of the Early Chinese Civilization_, pp.
79. 81.
Footnote 512:
See p. 7 f., _ante_.
Footnote 513:
Heb. 10 : 20.
Footnote 514: