Produced by Paul Murray and the Online Distributed
Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net. (This file was
produced from images generously made available by the
Bibliotheque nationale de France (BnF/Gallica) at
http://gallica.bnf.fr)
[Transcriber's Note: This file was produced from images generously made
available by the Bibliotheque nationale de France (BnF/Gallica)
at http://gallica.bnf.fr.]
HANDBOOKS
ON THE
HISTORY OF RELIGIONS
EDITED BY
MORRIS JASTROW, Jr., PH.D.
_Professor of Semitic Languages in the University of Pennsylvania_
VOLUME II
THE RELIGION
OF
BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA
BY
MORRIS JASTROW, Jr., PH.D.
(LEIPZIG)
PROFESSOR OF SEMITIC LANGUAGES IN THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA
GINN & COMPANY
BOSTON . NEW YORK . CHICAGO . LONDON
COPYRIGHT, 1893
By MORRIS JASTROW, Jr.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
35.11
The Athenaeum Press
GINN & COMPANY . PROPRIETORS
BOSTON . USA
TO
H. B. J.
MY FAITHFUL COLLABORATOR
PREFACE.
It requires no profound knowledge to reach the conclusion that the time
has not yet come for an exhaustive treatise on the religion of Babylonia
and Assyria. But even if our knowledge of this religion were more
advanced than it is, the utility of an exhaustive treatment might still
be questioned. Exhaustive treatises are apt to be exhausting to both
reader and author; and however exhaustive (or exhausting) such a
treatise may be, it cannot be final except in the fond imagination of
the writer. For as long as activity prevails in any branch of science,
all results are provisional. Increasing knowledge leads necessarily to a
change of perspective and to a readjustment of views. The chief reason
for writing a book is to prepare the way for the next one on the same
subject.
In accordance with the general plan of this Series[1] of Handbooks, it
has been my chief aim to gather together in convenient arrangement and
readable form what is at present known about the religion of the
Babylonians and Assyrians. The investigations of scholars are scattered
through a large variety of periodicals and monographs. The time has come
for focusing the results reached, for sifting the certain from the
uncertain, and the uncertain from the false. This work of gathering the
_disjecta membra_ of Assyriological science is essential to future
progress. If I have succeeded in my chief aim, I shall feel amply repaid
for the labor involved.
In order that the book may serve as a guide to students, the names of
those to whose researches our present knowledge of the subject is due
have frequently been introduced, and it will be found, I trust, that I
have been fair to all.[2] At the same time, I have naturally not
hesitated to indicate my dissent from views advanced by this or that
scholar, and it will also be found, I trust, that in the course of my
studies I have advanced the interpretation of the general theme or of
specific facts at various points. While, therefore, the book is only in
a secondary degree sent forth as an original contribution, the
discussion of mooted points will enhance its value, I hope, for the
specialist, as well as for the general reader and student for whom, in
the first place, the volumes of this series are intended.
The disposition of the subject requires a word of explanation. After the
two introductory chapters (common to all the volumes of the series) I
have taken up the pantheon as the natural means to a survey of the
field. The pantheon is treated, on the basis of the historical texts, in
four sections: (1) the old Babylonian period, (2) the middle period, or
the pantheon in the days of Hammurabi, (3) the Assyrian pantheon, and
(4) the latest or neo-Babylonian period. The most difficult phase has
naturally been the old Babylonian pantheon. Much is uncertain here. Not
to speak of the chronology which is still to a large extent guesswork,
the identification of many of the gods occurring in the oldest
inscriptions, with their later equivalents, must be postponed till
future discoveries shall have cleared away the many obstacles which
beset the path of the scholar. The discoveries at Telloh and Nippur have
occasioned a recasting of our views, but new problems have arisen as
rapidly as old ones have been solved. I have been especially careful in
this section not to pass beyond the range of what is definitely _known_,
or, at the most, what may be regarded as tolerably certain. Throughout
the chapters on the pantheon, I have endeavored to preserve the attitude
of being 'open to conviction'--an attitude on which at present too much
stress can hardly be laid.
The second division of the subject is represented by the religious
literature. With this literature as a guide, the views held by the
Babylonians and Assyrians regarding magic and oracles, regarding the
relationship to the gods, the creation of the world, and the views of
life after death have been illustrated by copious translations, together
with discussions of the specimens chosen. The translations, I may add,
have been made direct from the original texts, and aim to be as literal
as is consonant with presentation in idiomatic English.
The religious architecture, the history of the temples, and the cult
form the subject of the third division. Here again there is much which
is still uncertain, and this uncertainty accounts for the unequal
subdivisions of the theme which will not escape the reader.
Following the general plan of the series, the last chapter of the book
is devoted to a general estimate and to a consideration of the influence
exerted by the religion of Babylonia and Assyria.
In the transliteration of proper names, I have followed conventional
methods for well-known names (like Nebuchadnezzar), and the general
usage of scholars in the case of others. In some cases I have furnished
a transliteration of my own; and for the famous Assyrian king, to whom
we owe so much of the material for the study of the Babylonian and
Assyrian religion, Ashurbanabal, I have retained the older usage of
writing it with a _b_, following in this respect Lehman, whose
arguments[3] in favor of this pronunciation for the last element in the
name I regard as on the whole acceptable.
I have reasons to regret the proportions to which the work has grown.
These proportions were entirely unforeseen when I began the book, and
have been occasioned mainly by the large amount of material that has
been made available by numerous important publications that appeared
after the actual writing of the book had begun. This constant increase
of material necessitated constant revision of chapters; and such
revision was inseparable from enlargement. I may conscientiously say
that I have studied these recent publications thoroughly as they
appeared, and have embodied at the proper place the results reached by
others and which appeared to me acceptable. The work, therefore, as now
given to the public may fairly be said to represent the state of present
knowledge.
In a science that grows so rapidly as Assyriology, to which more than to
many others the adage of _dies diem docet_ is applicable, there is great
danger of producing a piece of work that is antiquated before it leaves
the press. At times a publication appeared too late to be utilized. So
Delitzsch's important contribution to the origin of cuneiform writing[4]
was published long after the introductory chapters had been printed. In
this book he practically abandons his position on the Sumerian question
(as set forth on p. 22 of this volume) and once more joins the opposite
camp. As far as my own position is concerned, I do not feel called upon
to make any changes from the statements found in chapter i., even after
reading Weissbach's _Die Sumerische Frage_ (Leipzig, 1898),--the latest
contribution to the subject, which is valuable as a history of the
controversy, but offers little that is new. Delitzsch's name must now be
removed from the list of those who accept Halevy's thesis; but, on the
other hand, Halevy has gained a strong ally in F. Thureau-Dangin, whose
_special_ studies in the old Babylonian inscriptions lend great weight
to his utterances on the origin of the cuneiform script. Dr. Alfred
Jeremias, of Leipzig, is likewise to be added to the adherents of
Halevy. The Sumero-Akkadian controversy is not yet settled, and
meanwhile it is well to bear in mind that not _every_ Assyriologist is
qualified to pronounce an opinion on the subject. A special study is
required, and but few Assyriologists have made such a study. Accepting a
view or a tradition from one's teacher does not constitute a person an
authority, and one may be a very good Assyriologist without having views
on the controversy that are of any particular value.
Lastly, I desire to call attention to the Bibliography, on which much
time has been spent, and which will, I trust, be found satisfactory. In
a list of addenda at the end of the book, I have noted some errors that
slipped into the book, and I have also embodied a few additions. The
copious index is the work of my student, Dr. S. Koppe, and it gives me
pleasure to express my deep obligations to him for the able and
painstaking manner in which he has carried out the work so kindly
undertaken by him. The drawing for the map was made by Mr. J. Horace
Frank of Philadelphia.
* * * * *
To my wife more thanks are due than I can convey in words for her share
in the work. She copied almost all of the manuscript, and in doing so
made many valuable suggestions. Without her constant aid and
encouragement I would have shrunk from a task which at times seemed too
formidable to be carried to a successful issue. As I lay down my pen
after several years of devotion to this book, my last thought is one of
gratitude to the beloved partner of my joys and sorrows.
MORRIS JASTROW, Jr.
University of Pennsylvania,
_June, 1898._
FOOTNOTES:
[1] Set forth in the announcement of the series at the back of the book
and in the Editor's Prefatory Note to Volume I.
[2] In the Index, however, names of scholars have only been introduced
where absolutely necessary to the subject.
[3] In his work, _Shamassum-ukin Koenig von Babylonien_, pp. 16-21.
Hence, I also write Ashurnasirbal.
[4] _Die Entstehung des aeltesten Schriftsystems_ (Leipzig, 1897).
CORRECTIONS AND ADDITIONS.
[Transcriber's Note: These changes and additions are printed only here;
the main text is as it was in the original.]
Page, Line.
22. See Preface.
35, 10. Isin or Nisin, see Lehmann's _Shamash-shumukin_, I. 77;
Meissner's _Beitraege zum altbabylonischen Privatrecht_, p. 122.
61. Bau also appears as Nin-din-dug, _i.e._, 'the lady who restores
life.' See Hilprecht, _Old Babylonian Inscriptions_, I. 2, Nos. 95, 106,
111.
74. On A, see Hommel, _Journal of Transactions of Victoria Institute_,
XXVIII. 35-36.
99, 24. Ur-shul-pa-uddu is a ruler of Kish.
102, 13. For Ku-anna, see IIIR. 67, 32 c-d.
102, 24. For another U-mu as a title of Adad, see Delitzsch, _Das
Babylonische Weltschoepfungsepos_, p. 125, note.
111, 2. Nisaba is mentioned in company with the great gods by
Nebopolassar (Hilprecht, _Old Babylonian Inscriptions_, I. 1. Pl. 32,
col. II. 15).
165. Note 2. On these proper names, see Delitzsch's "Assyriologische
Miscellen" (_Berichte der phil.-hist. Classe der kgl. saechs. Gesell. d.
Wiss._, 1893, pp. 183 seq.).
488. Note 1. See now Scheil's article "Recueil de Travaux," etc., XX.
55-59.
529. The form Di-ib-ba-ra has now been found. See Scheil's "Recueil de
Travaux," etc., XX. 57.
589. Note 3. See now Hommel, _Expository Times_, VIII. 472, and
Baudissin, _ib._ IX. 40-45.
CONTENTS.
CHAPTER PAGE
I. Introduction 1
II. The Land and the People 26
III. General Traits of the Old Babylonian Pantheon 48
IV. Babylonian Gods Prior to the Days of Hammurabi 51
V. The Consorts of the Gods 104
VI. Gudea's Pantheon 106
VII. Summary 112
VIII. The Pantheon in the Days of Hammurabi 116
IX. The Gods in the Temple Lists and in the Legal and Commercial
Documents 165
X. The Minor Gods in the Period of Hammurabi 171
XI. Survivals of Animism in the Babylonian Religion 180
XII. The Assyrian Pantheon 188
XIII. The Triad and the Combined Invocation of Deities 235
XIV. The Neo-babylonian Period 239
XV. The Religious Literature of Babylonia 245
XVI. The Magical Texts 253
XVII. The Prayers and Hymns 294
XVIII. Penitential Psalms 312
XIX. Oracles and Omens 328
XX. Various Classes of Omens 352
XXI. The Cosmology of the Babylonians 407
XXII. The Zodiacal System of the Babylonians 454
XXIII. The Gilgamesh Epic 467
XXIV. Myths and Legends 518
XXV. The Views of Life After Death 556
XXVI. The Temples and the Cult 612
XXVII. Conclusion 690
[Illustration: MAP OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA.
(From a drawing by Mr. J. HORACE FRANK.)]
THE RELIGION OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA.
CHAPTER I.--INTRODUCTION.
SOURCES AND METHODS OF STUDY.
I.
Until about the middle of the 19th century, our knowledge of the
religion of the Babylonians and Assyrians was exceedingly scant. No
records existed that were contemporaneous with the period covered by
Babylonian-Assyrian history; no monuments of the past were preserved
that might, in default of records, throw light upon the religious ideas
and customs that once prevailed in Mesopotamia. The only sources at
command were the incidental notices--insufficient and fragmentary in
character--that occurred in the Old Testament, in Herodotus, in
Eusebius, Syncellus, and Diodorus. Of these, again, only the two
first-named, the Old Testament and Herodotus, can be termed direct
sources; the rest simply reproduce extracts from other works, notably
from Ctesias, the contemporary of Xenophon, from Berosus, a priest of
the temple of Bel in Babylonia, who lived about the time of Alexander
the Great, or shortly after, and from Apollodorus, Abydenus, Alexander
Polyhistor, and Nicolas of Damascus, all of whom being subsequent to
Berosus, either quote the latter or are dependent upon him.
Of all these sources it may be said, that what information they furnish
of Babylonia and Assyria bears largely upon the political history, and
only to a very small degree upon the religion. In the Old Testament, the
two empires appear only as they enter into relations with the Hebrews,
and since Hebrew history is not traced back beyond the appearance of the
clans of Terah in Palestine, there is found previous to this period,
barring the account of the migrations of the Terahites in Mesopotamia,
only the mention of the Tigris and Euphrates among the streams watering
the legendary Garden of Eden, the incidental reference to Nimrod and his
empire, which is made to include the capitol cities of the Northern and
Southern Mesopotamian districts, and the story of the founding of the
city of Babylon, followed by the dispersion of mankind from their
central habitation in the Euphrates Valley. The followers of Abram,
becoming involved in the attempts of Palestinian chieftains to throw off
the yoke of Babylonian supremacy, an occasion is found for introducing
Mesopotamia again, and so the family history of the Hebrew tribes
superinduces at odd times a reference to the old settlements on the
Euphrates, but it is not until the political struggles of the two Hebrew
kingdoms against the inevitable subjection to the superior force of
Assyrian arms, and upon the fall of Assyria, to the Babylonian power,
that Assyria and Babylonia engage the frequent attention of the
chronicler's pen and of the prophet's word. Here, too, the political
situation is always the chief factor, and it is only incidentally that
the religion comes into play,--as when it is said that Sennacherib, the
king of Assyria, was murdered while worshipping in the temple dedicated
to a deity, Nisroch; or when a prophet, to intensify the picture of the
degradation to which the proud king of Babylon is to be reduced,
introduces Babylonian conceptions of the nether world into his
discourse.[5] Little, too, is furnished by the Book of Daniel, despite
the fact that Babylon is the center of action, and what little there is
bearing on the religious status, such as the significance attached to
dreams, and the implied contrast between the religion of Daniel and his
companions, and that of Nebuchadnezzar and the Babylonians, loses some
of its force by the late origin of the book. The same applies, only in a
still stronger degree, to the Book of Judith, in which Nineveh is the
center of the incidents described.
The rabbinical literature produced in Palestine and Babylonia is far
richer in notices bearing on the religious practices of Mesopotamia,
than is the Old Testament. The large settlements of Jews in Babylonia,
which, beginning in the sixth century B.C., were constantly being
increased by fresh accessions from Palestine, brought the professors of
Judaism face to face with religious conditions abhorrent to their souls.
In the regulations of the Rabbis to guard their followers from the
influences surrounding them, there is frequent reference, open or
implied, to Babylonish practices, to the festivals of the Babylonians,
to the images of their gods, to their forms of incantations, and other
things besides; but these notices are rendered obscure by their indirect
character, and require a commentary that can only be furnished by that
knowledge of the times which they take for granted. To this difficulty,
there must be added the comparatively late date of the notices, which
demands an exercise of care before applying them to the very early
period to which the religion of the Babylonians may be traced.
Coming to Herodotus, it is a matter of great regret that the history of
Assyria, which he declares it was his intention to write,[6] was either
never produced, or if produced, lost. In accordance with the general
usage of his times, Herodotus included under Assyria the whole of
Mesopotamia, both Assyria proper in the north and Southern Mesopotamia.
His history would therefore have been of extraordinary value, and since
nothing escaped his observant eye and well-trained mind, the religious
customs of the country would have come in for their full share of
attention. As it is, we have only a few notices about Babylonia and
Assyria, incidental to his history of Persia.[7] Of these, the majority
are purely historical, chief among which is an epitome of the country's
past--a curious medley of fact and legend--and the famous account of the
capture of Babylon by Cyrus. Fortunately, however, there are four
notices that treat of the religion of the inhabitants: the first, a
description of an eight-storied tower, surmounted by a temple sacred to
the god Bel; a second furnishing a rather detailed account of another
temple, also sacred to Bel, and situated in the same precinct of the
city of Babylon; a third notice speaks, though with provoking brevity,
of the funeral customs of the Babylonians; while in a fourth he
describes the rites connected with the worship of the chief goddess of
the Babylonians, which impress Herodotus, who failed to appreciate their
mystic significance, as shameful. We have no reason to believe that
Ctesias' account of the Assyrian monarchy, under which he, like
Herodotus, included Babylonia, contained any reference to the religion
at all. What he says about Babylonia and Assyria served merely as an
introduction to Persian history--the real purpose of his work--and the
few fragments known chiefly through Diodorus and Eusebius, deal
altogether with the succession of dynasties. As is well known, the lists
of Ctesias have fallen into utter discredit by the side of the
ever-growing confidence in the native traditions as reported by Berosus.
The loss of the latter's history of Babylon is deplorable indeed; its
value would have been greater than the history of Herodotus, because it
was based, as we know, on the records and documents preserved in
Babylonian temples. How much of the history dealt with the religion of
the people, it is difficult to determine, but the extracts of it found
in various writers show that starting, like the Old Testament, with the
beginning of things, Berosus gave a full account of the cosmogony of the
Babylonians. Moreover, the early history of Babylonia being largely
legendary, as that of every other nation, tales of the relations
existing between the gods and mankind--relations that are always close
in the earlier stages of a nation's history--must have abounded in the
pages of Berosus, even if he did not include in his work a special
section devoted to an account of the religion that still was practiced
in his days. The quotations from Berosus in the works of Josephus are
all of a historical character; those in Eusebius and Syncellus, on the
contrary, deal with the religion and embrace the cosmogony of the
Babylonians, the account of a deluge brought on by the gods, and the
building of a tower. It is to be noted, moreover, that the quotations we
have from Berosus are not direct, for while it is possible, though not
at all certain, that Josephus was still able to consult the works of
Berosus, Eusebius and Syncellus refer to Apollodorus, Abydenus, and
Alexander Polyhistor as their authorities for the statements of Berosus.
Passing in this way through several hands, the authoritative value of
the comparatively paltry extracts preserved, is diminished, and a
certain amount of inaccuracy, especially in details and in the reading
of proper names,[8] becomes almost inevitable. Lastly, it is to be noted
that the list of Babylonian kings found in the famous astronomical work
of Claudius Ptolemaeus, valuable as it is for historical purposes, has
no connection with the religion of the Babylonians.
II.
The sum total of the information thus to be gleaned from ancient sources
for an elucidation of the Babylonian-Assyrian religion is exceedingly
meagre, sufficing scarcely for determining its most general traits.
Moreover, what there is, requires for the most part a control through
confirmatory evidence which we seek for in vain, in biblical or
classical literature.
This control has now been furnished by the remarkable discoveries made
beneath the soil of Mesopotamia since the year 1842. In that year the
French consul at Mosul, P. E. Botta, aided by a government grant, began
a series of excavations in the mounds that line the banks of the Tigris
opposite Mosul. The artificial character of these mounds had for some
time been recognized. Botta's first finds of a pronounced character were
made at a village known as Khorsabad, which stood on one of the mounds
in question. Here, at a short distance below the surface, he came across
the remains of what proved to be a palace of enormous extent. The
sculptures that were found in this palace--enormous bulls and lions
resting on backgrounds of limestone, and guarding the approaches to the
palace chambers, or long rows of carvings in high relief lining the
palace walls, and depicting war scenes, building operations, and
religious processions--left no doubt as to their belonging to an ancient
period of history. The written characters found on these monuments
substantiated the view that Botta had come across an edifice of the
Assyrian empire, while subsequent researches furnished the important
detail that the excavated edifice lay in a suburb of the ancient capitol
of Assyria, Nineveh, the exact site of which was directly opposite
Mosul. Botta's labors extended over a period of two years; by the end of
which time, having laid bare the greater part of the palace, he had
gathered a large mass of material including many smaller
objects--pottery, furniture, jewelry, and ornaments--that might serve
for the study of Assyrian art and of Assyrian antiquities, while the
written records accompanying the monuments placed for the first time an
equally considerable quantity of original material at the disposal of
scholars for the history of Assyria. All that could be transported was
sent to the Louvre, and this material was subsequently published. Botta
was followed by Austen Henry Layard, who, acting as the agent of the
British Museum, conducted excavations during the years 1845-52, first at
a mound Nimrud, some fifteen miles to the south of Khorsabad, and
afterwards on the site of Nineveh proper, the mound Koyunjik, opposite
Mosul, besides visiting and examining other mounds still further to the
south within the district of Babylonia proper.
The scope of Layard's excavations exceeded, therefore, those of Botta;
and to the one palace at Khorsabad, he added three at Nimrud and two at
Koyunjik, besides finding traces of a temple and other buildings. The
construction of these edifices was of the same order as the one
unearthed by Botta; and as at the latter, there was a large yield of
sculptures, inscriptions, and miscellaneous objects. A new feature,
however, of Layard's excavations was the finding of several rooms filled
with fragments of small and large clay tablets closely inscribed on both
sides in the cuneiform characters. These tablets, about 30,000 of which
found their way to the British Museum, proved to be the remains of a
royal library. Their contents ranged over all departments of
thought,--hymns, incantations, prayers, epics, history, legends,
mythology, mathematics, astronomy constituting some of the chief
divisions. In the corners of the palaces, the foundation records were
also found, containing in each case more or less extended annals of the
events that occurred during the reign of the monarch whose official
residence was thus brought to light. Through Layard, the foundations
were laid for the Assyrian and Babylonian collections of the British
Museum, the parts of which exhibited to the public now fill six large
halls. Fresh sources of a direct character were thus added for the
study, not only of the historical unfolding of the Assyrian empire, but
through the tablets of the royal library, for the religion of ancient
Mesopotamia as well.
The stimulus given by Botta and Layard to the recovery of the records
and monuments of antiquity that had been hidden from view for more than
two thousand years, led to a refreshing rivalry between England and
France in continuing a work that gave promise of still richer returns by
further efforts. Victor Place, a French architect of note, who succeeded
Botta as the French consul at Mosul, devoted his term of service, from
1851 to 1855, towards completing the excavations at Khorsabad. A large
aftermath rewarded his efforts. Thanks, too, to his technical knowledge
and that of his assistant, Felix Thomas, M. Place was enabled more
accurately to determine the architectural construction of the temples
and palaces of ancient Assyria. Within this same period (1852-1854)
another exploring expedition was sent out to Mesopotamia by the French
government, under the leadership of Fulgence Fresnel, in whose party
were the above-mentioned Thomas and the distinguished scholar Jules
Oppert. The objective point this time was Southern Mesopotamia, the
mounds of which had hitherto not been touched, many not even identified
as covering the remains of ancient cities. Much valuable work was done
by this expedition in its careful study of the site of the ancient
Babylon,--in the neighborhood of the modern village Hillah, some forty
miles south of Baghdad. Unfortunately, the antiquities recovered at this
place, and elsewhere, were lost through the sinking of the rafts as they
carried their precious burden down the Tigris. In the south again, the
English followed close upon the heels of the French. J. E. Taylor, in
1854, visited many of the huge mounds that were scattered throughout
Southern Mesopotamia in much larger numbers than in the north, while his
compatriot, William K. Loftus, a few years previous had begun
excavations, though on a small scale, at Warka, the site of the ancient
city of Erech. He also conducted some investigations at a mound Mugheir,
which acquired special interest as the supposed site of the famous
Ur,--the home of some of the Terahites before the migration to
Palestine. Of still greater significance were the examinations made by
Sir Henry Rawlinson, in 1854, of the only considerable ruins of ancient
Babylonia that remained above the surface,--the tower of Birs Nimrud,
which proved to be the famous seven-staged temple as described by
Herodotus. This temple was completed, as the foundation records showed,
by Nebuchadnezzar II., in the sixth century before this era; but the
beginnings of the structure belong to a much earlier period. Another
sanctuary erected by this same king was found near the tower. Subsequent
researches by Hormuzd Rassam made it certain that Borsippa, the ancient
name of the place where the tower and sanctuaries stood, was a suburb of
the great city of Babylon itself, which lay directly opposite on the
east side of the Euphrates. The scope of the excavations continued to
grow almost from year to year, and while new mounds were being attacked
in the south, those in the north, especially Koujunjik, continued to be
the subject of attention.
Rassam, who has just been mentioned, was in a favorable position,
through his long residence as English consul at Mosul, for extracting
new finds from the mounds in this vicinity. Besides adding more than a
thousand tablets from the royal library discovered by Layard, his most
noteworthy discoveries were the unearthing of a magnificent temple at
Nimrud, and the finding of a large bronze gate at Balawat, a few miles
to the northeast of Nimrud. Rassam and Rawlinson were afterwards joined
by George Smith of the British Museum, who, instituting a further search
through the ruins of Koujunjik, Nimrud, Kalah-Shergat, and elsewhere,
made many valuable additions to the English collections, until his
unfortunate death in 1876, during his third visit to the mounds, cut him
off in the prime of a brilliant and most useful career. The English
explorers extended their labors to the mounds in the south. Here it was,
principally at Abu-Habba, that they set their forces to work. The
finding of another temple dedicated to the sun-god rewarded their
efforts. The foundation records showed that the edifice was one of great
antiquity, which was permitted to fall into decay and was then restored
by a ruler whose date can be fixed at the middle of the ninth century
B.C. The ancient name of the place was shown to be Sippar, and the fame
of the temple was such, that subsequent monarchs vied with one another
in adding to its grandeur. It is estimated that the temple contained no
less than three hundred chambers and halls for the archives and for the
accommodation of the large body of priests attached to this temple. In
the archives many thousands of little clay tablets were again found,
not, however, of a literary, but of a legal character, containing
records of commercial transactions conducted in ancient Sippar, such as
sales of houses, of fields, of produce, of stuffs, money loans,
receipts, contracts for work, marriage settlements, and the like. The
execution of the laws being in the hands of priests in ancient
Mesopotamia, the temples were the natural depositories for the official
documents of the law courts. Similar collections to those of Sippar have
been found in almost every mound of Southern Mesopotamia that has been
opened since the days of Rassam. So at Djumdjuma, situated near the site
of the ancient city of Babylon, some three thousand were unearthed that
were added to the fast growing collections of the British Museum. At
Borsippa, likewise, Rawlinson and Rassam recovered a large number of
clay tablets, most of them legal but some of them of a literary
character, which proved to be in part duplicates of those in the royal
library of Ashurbanabal. In this way, the latter's statement, that he
sent his scribes to the large cities of the south for the purpose of
collecting and copying the literature that had its rise there, met with
a striking confirmation. Still further to the south, at a mound known as
Telloh, a representative of the French government, Ernest de Sarzec,
began a series of excavations in 1877, which, continued to the present
day, have brought to light remains of temples and palaces exceeding in
antiquity those hitherto discovered. Colossal statues of diorite,
covered with inscriptions, the pottery, tablets and ornaments, showed
that at a period as early as 3500 B.C. civilization in this region had
already reached a very advanced stage. The systematic and thorough
manner in which De Sarzec, with inexhaustible patience, explored the
ancient city, has resulted in largely extending our knowledge of the
most ancient period of Babylonian history as yet known to us. The Telloh
finds were forwarded to the Louvre, which in this way secured a
collection from the south that formed a worthy complement to the
Khorsabad antiquities.
Lastly, it is gratifying to note the share that our own country has
recently taken in the great work that has furnished the material needed
for following the history of the Mesopotamian states. In 1887, an
expedition was sent out under the auspices of the University of
Pennsylvania, to conduct excavations at Niffer,--a mound to the
southeast of Babylon, situated on a branch of the Euphrates, and which
was known to be the site of one of the most famous cities in this
region. The Rev. John P. Peters (now in New York), who was largely
instrumental in raising the funds for the purpose, was appointed
director of the expedition. Excavations were continued for two years
under Dr. Peters' personal supervision, and since then by Mr. John H.
Haynes, with most satisfactory success. A great temple dedicated to the
god Bel was discovered, and work has hitherto been confined chiefly to
laying bare the various parts of the edifice. The foundation of the
building goes back to an earlier period than the ruins of Telloh. It
survived the varying fortunes of the city in which it stood, and each
period of Babylonian history left its traces at Niffer through the
records of the many rulers who sought the favor of the god by enlarging
or beautifying his place of worship. The temple became a favorite spot
to which pilgrims came from all sides on the great festivals, to offer
homage at the sacred shrines. Votive offerings, in the shape of
inscribed clay cones, and little clay images of Bel and of his female
consort, were left in the temple as witnesses to the piety of the
visitors. The archives were found to be well stocked with the official
legal documents dating chiefly from the period of 1700 to 1200 B.C.,
when the city appears to have reached the climax of its glory. Other
parts of the mound were opened at different depths, and various layers
which followed the chronological development of the place were
determined.[9] After its destruction, the sanctity of the city was in a
measure continued by its becoming a burial-place. The fortunes of the
place can thus be followed down to the ninth or the tenth century of our
era, a period of more than four thousand years. Already more than 20,000
tablets have been received at the University of Pennsylvania, besides
many specimens of pottery, bowls, jars, cones, and images, as well as
gold, copper, and alabaster work.
From this survey of the work done in the last decades in exploring the
long lost and almost forgotten cities of the Tigris and of the Euphrates
Valley, it will be apparent that a large amount of material has been
made accessible for tracing the course of civilization in this region.
Restricting ourselves to that portion of it that bears on the religion
of ancient Mesopotamia, it may be grouped under two heads, (1) literary,
and (2) archaeological. The religious texts of Ashurbanabal's library
occupy the first place in the literary group. The incantations, the
prayers and hymns, lists of temples, of gods and their attributes,
traditions of the creation of the world, legends of the deities and of
their relations to men, are sources of the most direct character; and it
is fortunate that among the recovered portions of the library, such
texts are largely represented. Equally direct are the dedicatory
inscriptions set up by the kings in the temples erected to the honor of
some god, and of great importance are the references to the various
gods, their attributes, their powers, and their deeds, which are found
at every turn in the historical records which the kings left behind
them. Many of these records open or close with a long prayer to some
deity; in others, prayers are found interspersed, according to the
occasion on which they were offered up. Attributing the success of their
undertakings--whether it be a military campaign, or the construction of
some edifice, or a successful hunt--to the protection offered by the
gods, the kings do not tire of singing the praises of the deity or
deities as whose favorites they regarded themselves. The gods are
constantly at the monarch's side. Now we are told of a dream sent to
encourage the army on the approach of a battle, and again of some
portent which bade the king be of good cheer. To the gods, the appeal is
constantly made, and to them all good things are ascribed. From the
legal documents, likewise, much may be gathered bearing on the religion.
The protection of the gods is invoked or their curses called down; the
oath is taken in their name; while the manner in which the temples are
involved in the commercial life of ancient Babylonia renders these
tablets, which are chiefly valuable as affording us a remarkable insight
into the people's daily life, of importance also in illustrating certain
phases of the religious organization of the country. Most significant
for the position occupied by the priests, is the fact that the latter
are invariably the scribes who draw up the documents.
The archaeological material furnished by the excavations consists of the
temples of the gods, their interior arrangement, and provisions for the
various religious functions; secondly, the statues of the gods,
demigods, and the demons, the altars and the vessels; and thirdly, the
religious scenes,--the worship of some deity, the carrying of the gods
in procession, the pouring of libations, the performance of rites, or
the representation of some religious symbols sculptured on the palace
wall or on the foundation stone of a sacred building, or cut out on the
seal cylinders, used as signatures[10] and talismans.
Large as the material is, it is far from being exhausted, and, indeed,
far from sufficient for illustrating all the details of the religious
life. This will not appear surprising, if it be remembered that of the
more than one hundred mounds that have been identified in the region of
the Tigris and Euphrates as containing remains of buried cities, only a
small proportion have been explored, and of these scarcely more than a
half dozen with an approach to completeness. The soil of Mesopotamia
unquestionably holds still greater treasures than those which it has
already yielded. The links uniting the most ancient period--at present,
_c._ 4000 B.C.--to the final destruction of the Babylonian empire by
Cyrus, in the middle of the sixth century B.C., are far from being
complete. For entire centuries we are wholly in the dark, and for others
only a few skeleton facts are known; and until these gaps shall have
been filled, our knowledge of the religion of the Babylonians and
Assyrians must necessarily remain incomplete. Not as incomplete, indeed,
as their history, for religious rites are not subject to many changes,
and the progress of religious ideas does not keep pace with the constant
changes in the political kaleidoscope of a country; but, it is evident
that no exhaustive treatment of the religion can be given until the
material shall have become adequate to the subject.
III.
Before proceeding to the division of the subject in hand, some
explanation is called for of the method by which the literary material
found beneath the soil has been made intelligible.
The characters on the clay tablets and cylinders, on the limestone
slabs, on statues, on altars, on stone monuments, are generally known as
cuneiform, because of their wedge-shaped appearance, though it may be
noted at once that in their oldest form the characters are linear rather
than wedge-shaped, presenting the more or less clearly defined outlines
of objects from which they appear to be derived. At the time when these
cuneiform inscriptions began to be found in Mesopotamia, the language
which these characters expressed was still totally unknown. Long
previous to the beginning of Botta's labors, inscriptions also showing
the cuneiform characters had been found at Persepolis on various
monuments of the ruins and tombs still existing at that place. The first
notice of these inscriptions was brought to Europe by a famous Italian
traveler, Pietro della Valle, in the beginning of the seventeenth
century. For a long time it was doubted whether the characters
represented anything more than mere ornamentation, and it was not until
the close of the 18th century, after more accurate copies of the
Persepolitan characters had been furnished through Carsten Niebuhr, that
scholars began to apply themselves to their decipherment. Through the
efforts chiefly of Gerhard Tychsen, professor at Rostock, Frederick
Muenter, a Danish scholar, and the distinguished Silvestre de Sacy of
Paris, the beginnings were made which finally led to the discovery of
the key to the mysterious writings, in 1802, by Georg Friedrich
Grotefend, a teacher at a public school in Goettingen. The observation
was made previous to the days of Grotefend that the inscriptions at
Persepolis invariably showed three styles of writing. While in all three
the characters were composed of wedges, yet the combination of wedges,
as well as their shape, differed sufficiently to make it evident, even
to the superficial observer, that there was as much difference between
them as, say, between the English and the German script. The conclusion
was drawn that the three styles represented three languages, and this
conclusion was strikingly confirmed when, upon the arrival of Botta's
finds in Europe, it was seen that one of the styles corresponded to the
inscriptions found at Khorsabad; and so in all subsequent discoveries in
Mesopotamia, this was found to be the case. One of the languages,
therefore, on the monuments of Persepolis was presumably identical with
the speech of ancient Mesopotamia. Grotefend's key to the reading of
that style of cuneiform writing which invariably occupied the first
place when the three styles were ranged one under the other, or occupied
the most prominent place when a different arrangement was adopted, met
with universal acceptance. He determined that the language of the style
which, for the sake of convenience, we may designate as No. 1, was Old
Persian,--the language spoken by the rulers, who, it was known through
tradition and notices in classical writers, had erected the series of
edifices at Persepolis, one of the capitols of the Old Persian or, as it
is also called, the Achaemenian empire. By the year 1840 the
decipherment of these Achaemenian inscriptions was practically complete,
the inscriptions had been read, the alphabet was definitely settled, and
the grammar, in all but minor points, known. It was possible, therefore,
in approaching the Mesopotamian style of cuneiform, which, as occupying
the third place, may be designated as No. 3, to use No. 1 as a guide,
since it was only legitimate to conclude that Nos. 2 and 3 represented
translations of No. 1 into two languages, which, by the side of Old
Persian, were spoken by the subjects of the Achaemenian kings. That one
of these languages should have been the current speech of Mesopotamia
was exactly what was to be expected, since Babylonia and Assyria formed
an essential part of the Persian empire.
The beginning was made with proper names, the sound of which would
necessarily be the same or very similar in both, or, for that matter, in
all the three languages of the Persepolitan inscriptions.[11] In this
way, by careful comparisons between the two styles, Nos. 1 and 3, it was
possible to pick out the signs in No. 3 that corresponded to those in
No. 1, and inasmuch as the same sign occurred in various names, it was,
furthermore, possible to assign, at least tentatively, certain values to
the signs in question. With the help of the signs thus determined, the
attempt was made to read other words in style No. 3, in which these
signs occurred, but it was some time before satisfactory results were
obtained. An important advance was made when it was once determined,
that the writing was a mixture of signs used both as words and as
syllables, and that the language on the Assyrian monuments belonged to
the group known as Semitic. The cognate languages--chiefly Hebrew and
Arabic--formed a help towards determining the meaning of the words read
and an explanation of the morphological features they presented. For all
that, the task was one of stupendous proportions, and many were the
obstacles that had to be overcome, before the principles underlying the
cuneiform writing were determined, and the decipherment placed on a firm
and scientific basis. This is not the place to enter upon a detailed
illustration of the method adopted by ingenious scholars,--notably
Edward Hincks, Isidor Loewenstern, Henry Rawlinson, Jules Oppert,--to
whose united efforts the solution of the great problems involved is
due;[12] and it would also take too much space, since in order to make
this method clear, it would be necessary to set forth the key discovered
by Grotefend for reading the Old Persian inscriptions. Suffice it to say
that the guarantee for the soundness of the conclusions reached by
scholars is furnished by the consideration, that it was from small and
most modest beginnings that the decipherment began. Step by step, the
problem was advanced by dint of a painstaking labor, the degree of which
cannot easily be exaggerated, until to-day the grammar of the
Babylonian-Assyrian language has been clearly set forth in all its
essential particulars: the substantive and verb formation is as
definitely known as that of any other Semitic language, the general
principles of the syntax, as well as many detailed points, have been
carefully investigated, and as for the reading of the cuneiform texts,
thanks to the various helps at our disposal, and the further elucidation
of the various principles that the Babylonians themselves adopted as a
guide, the instance is a rare one when scholars need to confess their
ignorance in this particular. At most there may be a halting between two
possibilities. The difficulties that still hinder the complete
understanding of passages in texts, arise in part from the mutilated
condition in which, unfortunately, so many of the tablets and cylinders
are found, and in part from a still imperfect knowledge of the
lexicography of the language. For many a word occurring only once or
twice, and for which neither text nor comparison with cognate languages
offers a satisfactory clue, ignorance must be confessed, or at best, a
conjecture hazarded, until its more frequent occurrence enables us to
settle the question at issue. Such settlements of disputed questions are
taking place all the time; and with the activity with which the study of
the language and antiquities of Mesopotamia is being pushed by scholars
in this country, in England, France, Austria, Germany, Italy, Norway,
and Holland, and with the constant accession of new material through
excavations and publications, there is no reason to despair of clearing
up the obscurities, still remaining in the precious texts that a
fortunate chance has preserved for us.
IV.
A question that still remains to be considered as to the origin of the
cuneiform writing of Mesopotamia, may properly be introduced in
connection with this account of the excavations and decipherment, though
it is needless to enter into it in detail.
The "Persian" style of wedge-writing is a direct derivative of the
Babylonian, introduced in the times of the Achaemenians, and it is
nothing but a simplification in form and principle of the more
cumbersome and complicated Babylonian. Instead of a combination of as
many as ten and fifteen wedges to make one sign, we have in the Persian
never more than five, and frequently only three; and instead of writing
words by syllables, sounds alone were employed, and the syllabary of
several hundred signs reduced to forty-two, while the ideographic style
was practically abolished.
The second style of cuneiform, generally known as Median or Susian,[13]
is again only a slight modification of the "Persian." Besides these
three, there is a fourth language (spoken in the northwestern district
of Mesopotamia between the Euphrates and the Orontes), known as
"Mitanni," the exact status of which has not been clearly ascertained,
but which has been adapted to cuneiform characters. A fifth variety,
found on tablets from Cappadocia, represents again a modification of the
ordinary writing met with in Babylonia. In the inscriptions of Mitanni,
the writing is a mixture of ideographs and syllables, just as in
Mesopotamia, while the so-called "Cappadocian" tablets are written in a
corrupt Babylonian, corresponding in degree to the "corrupt" forms that
the signs take on. In Mesopotamia itself, quite a number of styles
exist, some due to local influences, others the result of changes that
took place in the course of time. In the oldest period known, that is
from 4000 to 3000 B.C., the writing is linear rather than wedge-shaped.
The linear writing is the modification that the original pictures
underwent in being adapted for engraving on stone; the wedges are the
modification natural to the use of clay, though when once the wedges
became the standard method, the greater frequency with which clay as
against stone came to be used, led to an imitation of the wedges by
those who cut out the characters on stone. In consequence, there
developed two varieties of wedge-writing: the one that may be termed
lapidary, used for the stone inscriptions, the official historical
records, and such legal documents as were prepared with especial care;
the other cursive, occurring only on legal and commercial clay tablets,
and becoming more frequent as we approach the latest period of
Babylonian writing, which extends to within a few decades of our era. In
Assyria, finally, a special variety of cuneiform developed that is
easily distinguished from the Babylonian by its greater neatness and the
more vertical position of the wedges.
The origin of all the styles and varieties of cuneiform writing is,
therefore, to be sought in Mesopotamia; and within Mesopotamia, in that
part of it where culture begins--the extreme south; but beyond saying
that the writing is a direct development from picture writing, there is
little of any definite character that can be maintained. We do not know
when the writing originated, we only know that in the oldest
inscriptions it is already fully developed.
We do not know who originated it; nor can the question be as yet
definitely answered, whether those who originated it spoke the
Babylonian language, or whether they were Semites at all. Until about
fifteen years ago, it was generally supposed that the cuneiform writing
was without doubt the invention of a non-Semitic race inhabiting
Babylonia at an early age, from whom the Semitic Babylonians adopted it,
together with the culture that this non-Semitic race had produced. These
inventors, called Sumerians by some and Akkadians by others, and
Sumero-Akkadians by a third group of scholars, it was supposed, used the
"cuneiform" as a picture or 'ideographic' script exclusively; and the
language they spoke being agglutinative and largely monosyllabic in
character, it was possible for them to stop short at this point of
development. The Babylonians however, in order to adapt the writing to
their language, did not content themselves with the 'picture' method,
but using the non-Semitic equivalent for their own words, employed the
former as syllables, while retaining, at the same time, the sign as an
ideograph. To make this clearer by an example, the numeral '1' would
represent the word 'one' in their own language, while the non-Semitic
word for 'one,' which let us suppose was "_ash_," they used as the
phonetic value of the sign, in writing a word in which this sound
occurred, as _e.g._, _ash-es_. Since each sign, in Sumero-Akkadian as
well as in Babylonian, represented some general idea, it could stand for
an entire series of words, grouped about this idea and associated with
it, 'day,' for example, being used for 'light,' 'brilliancy,' 'pure,'
and so forth. The variety of syllabic and ideographic values which the
cuneiform characters show could thus be accounted for.
This theory, however, tempting as it is by its simplicity, cannot be
accepted in this unqualified form. Advancing knowledge has made it
certain that the ancient civilization, including the religion, is
Semitic in character. The assumption therefore of a purely non-Semitic
culture for southern Babylonia is untenable. Secondly, even in the
oldest inscriptions found, there occur Semitic words and Semitic
constructions which prove that the inscriptions were composed by
Semites. As long, therefore, as no traces of purely non-Semitic
inscription are found, we cannot go beyond the Semites in seeking for
the origin of the culture in this region. In view of this, the theory
first advanced by Prof. Joseph Halevy of Paris, and now supported by the
most eminent of German Assyriologists, Prof. Friedrich Delitzsch, which
claims that the cuneiform writing is Semitic in origin, needs to be most
carefully considered. There is much that speaks in favor of this theory,
much that may more easily be accounted for by it, than by the opposite
one, which was originally proposed by the distinguished Nestor of
cuneiform studies, Jules Oppert, and which is with some modifications
still held by the majority of scholars.[14] The question is one which
cannot be answered by an appeal to philology alone. This is the
fundamental error of the advocates of the Sumero-Akkadian theory, who
appear to overlook the fact that the testimony of archaeological and
anthropological research must be confirmatory of a philological
hypothesis before it can be accepted as an indisputable fact.[15] The
time however has not yet come for these two sciences to pronounce their
verdict definitely, though it may be added that the supposition of a
variety of races once inhabiting Southern Mesopotamia finds support in
what we know from the pre-historic researches of anthropologists.
Again, it is not to be denied that the theory of the Semitic origin of
the cuneiform writing encounters obstacles that cannot easily be set
aside. While it seeks to explain the syllabic values of the signs on the
general principle that they represent elements of Babylonian words,
truncated in this fashion in order to answer to the growing need for
phonetic writing of words for which no ideographs existed, it is
difficult to imagine, as Halevy's theory demands, that the "ideographic"
style, as found chiefly in religious texts, is the deliberate invention
of priests in their desire to produce a method of conveying their ideas
that would be regarded as a mystery by the laity, and be successfully
concealed from the latter. Here again the theory borders on the domain
of archaeology, and philology alone will not help us out of the
difficulty. An impartial verdict of the present state of the problem
might be summed up as follows:
1. It is generally admitted that all the literature of Babylonia,
including the oldest and even that written in the "ideographic" style,
whether we term it "Sumero-Akkadian" or "hieratic," is the work of the
Semitic settlers of Mesopotamia.
2. The culture, including the religion of Babylonia, is likewise a
Semitic production, and since Assyria received its culture from
Babylonia, the same remark holds good for entire Mesopotamia.
3. The cuneiform syllabary is largely Semitic in character. The ideas
expressed by the ideographic values of the signs give no evidence of
having been produced in non-Semitic surroundings; and, whatever the
origin of the system may be, it has been so shaped by the Babylonians,
so thoroughly adapted to their purposes, that it is to all practical
purposes Semitic.
4. Approached from the theoretical side, there remains, after making
full allowance for the Semitic elements in the system, a residuum that
has not yet found a satisfactory explanation, either by those who favor
the non-Semitic theory or by those who hold the opposite view.
5. Pending further light to be thrown upon this question, through the
expected additions to our knowledge of the archaeology and of the
anthropological conditions of ancient prehistoric Mesopotamia,
philological research must content itself with an acknowledgment of its
inability to reach a conclusion that will appeal so forcibly to all
minds, as to place the solution of the problem beyond dispute.
6. There is a presumption in favor of assuming a mixture of races in
Southern Mesopotamia at an early day, and a possibility, therefore, that
the earliest form of picture writing in this region, from which the
Babylonian cuneiform is derived, may have been _used_ by a non-Semitic
population, and that traces of this are still apparent in the developed
system after the important step had been taken, marked by the advance
from picture to phonetic writing.
The important consideration for our purpose is, that the religious
conceptions and practices as they are reflected in the literary sources
now at our command, are distinctly Babylonian. With this we may rest
content, and, leaving theories aside, there will be no necessity in an
exposition of the religion of the Babylonians and Assyrians to
differentiate or to attempt to differentiate between Semitic and
so-called non-Semitic elements. Local conditions and the long period
covered by the development and history of the religion in question, are
the factors that suffice to account for the mixed and in many respects
complicated phenomena which this religion presents.
Having set forth the sources at our command for the study of the
Babylonian-Assyrian religion, and having indicated the manner in which
these sources have been made available for our purposes, we are prepared
to take the next step that will fit us for an understanding of the
religious practices that prevailed in Mesopotamia,--a consideration of
the land and of its people, together with a general account of the
history of the latter.
FOOTNOTES:
[5] Isaiah, xlv. For the Babylonian views contained in this chapter, see
Alfred Jeremias, _Die Babylonisch-Assyrischen Vorstellungen vom Leben
nach dem Tode_, pp. 112-116.
[6] Book i. sec. 184.
[7] Book I. ("Clio"), secs. 95, 102, 178-200.
[8] An instructive instance is furnished by the mention of a mystic
personage, "Homoroka," which now turns out to be--as Professor J. H.
Wright has shown--a corruption of Marduk. (See _Zeitschrift fuer
Assyriologie_, x. 71-74.)
[9] The excavations are still being continued, thanks to the generosity
of some public-spirited citizens of Philadelphia.
[10] The parties concerned rolled their cylinders over the clay tablet
recording a legal or commercial transaction.
[11] Besides those at Persepolis, a large tri-lingual inscription was
found at Behistun, near the city of Kirmenshah, in Persia, which,
containing some ninety proper names, enabled Sir Henry Rawlinson
definitely to establish a basis for the decipherment of the Mesopotamian
inscriptions.
[12] The best account is to be found in Hommel's _Geschichte Babyloniens
und Assyriens_, pp. 58-134. A briefer statement was furnished by
Professor Fr. Delitzsch in his supplements to the German translation of
George Smith's _Chaldaean Genesis_ (_Chaldaeische Genesis_, pp. 257-262).
A tolerably satisfactory account in English is furnished by B. T. A.
Evetts in his work, _New Light on the Bible and the Holy Land_, pp.
79-129. For a full account of the excavations and the decipherment,
together with a summary of results and specimens of the various branches
of the Babylonian-Assyrian literature, the reader may be referred to
Kaulen's _Assyrien und Babylonien nach den neuesten Entdeckungen_ (5th
edition).
[13] The most recent investigations show it to have been a 'Turanian'
language. See Weissbach, _Achaemeniden Inschriften sweiter Art_, Leipzig,
1893.
[14] Besides Delitzsch, however, there are others, as Pognon, Jaeger,
Guyard, McCurdy and Brinton, who side with Halevy.
[15] See now Dr. Brinton's paper, "The Protohistoric Ethnography of
Western Asia" (_Proceed. Amer. Philos. Soc._, 1895), especially pp.
18-22.