GUDEA'S PANTHEON.
Gudea manifests a fondness for giving to his pantheon as large a compass
as possible. In this respect, he follows earlier examples, and also sets
an example which is followed by many of the rulers of Babylonia and
Assyria, who felt that the larger the number of gods invoked by them,
the more impressive would their own position appear in the eyes of their
subjects. Moreover, by incorporating in their pantheon the gods
associated with districts that they controlled, they would not only
secure the protection of these deities, but would emphasize their own
claim to an extended sovereignty. The beginning and the close of
dedicatory and commemorative inscriptions were the favorite
opportunities, seized upon by the kings, for parading the list of the
powers under whose patronage they wished to appear. These lists are both
interesting and valuable, as furnishing in a convenient form a summary
of the chief gods included in the Babylonian pantheon at the various
historical periods. At the close of one of his inscriptions,[110] Gudea
furnishes a list of no less than eighteen deities. In rapid succession
he enumerates Anu, En-lil (Bel), Nin-khar-sag, En-ki (Ea), En-zu (Sin),
Nin-girsu, Nina, Nin-si-a, Ga-tum-dug, Bau, Ninni, Utu (Shamash),
Pa-sag, Gal-alim, Dun-shagga, Nin-Mar, Dumuzi-zuaba, Nin-gish-zida.
These deities may be taken as indicative of the territorial extent of
Gudea's jurisdiction. They are called upon to punish him who attempts to
alter the decrees of the ruler, or to efface the memory of his deeds.
Again, at the beginning of one of his inscriptions, he appeals to
Nin-girsu, En-lil, Nina, Bau, Ga-tum-dug, Gal-alim, and Dun-shagga. He
recounts what he has done to promote the cults of these deities, and
upon his conduct he grounds his hope that they will aid him in his
undertakings. The lists, as will be observed, vary in the number and in
the order of the gods enumerated. In the second list, the position of
Nin-girsu at the head is due to the fact that the inscription
commemorates the dedication of a sanctuary to that god. But Nin-girsu,
despite his rank as the chief god of Lagash, belongs to a second class
of deities. Standing far above him is the triad, Anu, Bel, and Ea, the
gods that personify, as we have seen, the great divisions of the
universe,--heaven, earth, and water. These gods, accordingly, take
precedence of Nin-girsu in the first list. In a succeeding chapter, the
significance of this triad for the Babylonian religion will be fully set
forth. For the present, it is sufficient to note that the
systematization of popular beliefs, involved in the distinctions thus
emphasized in the groupings of deities into classes, begins at so early
a period. This systematization, however, has not yet assumed final
shape. True, the moon-god has already been given the place, immediately
following upon the triad, that he will hold in the developed form of
Babylonian theology; but while, as we have seen, Sin properly takes
precedence of the sun-god, the latter should follow in the wake of his
associate. Not only, however, does Nin-girsu precede, but two other
deities who are closely related in general character to the 'warrior
deity' of Gudea's dominion. Then, the two great goddesses, Bau and
Ninni, are introduced, and it is not until they are disposed of that the
sun-god, together again with Pa-sag as a kind of lieutenant,[111] is
invoked. In the arrangement of the five remaining deities, no special
principle can be recognized. They, evidently, occupy a minor rank. It is
possible, then, to distinguish no less than four classes in the old
Babylonian pantheon: (1) the great triad, Anu, Bel, and Ea; (2) a second
group, as yet incomplete, but which will eventually include Sin,
Shamash, and Ramman, representing the great powers of nature--moon, sun,
and storm; (3) the great gods, the patron deities of the more important
political centers of the country; and (4) the minor ones, representing
the local cults of less important places. Naturally, the dividing line
between the two last-named classes is not sharply marked, and in
accordance with the ever-varying political kaleidoscope, local deities
will rise from the rank of minor gods to a higher place in the pantheon;
while such as once enjoyed high esteem will, through decline in the
political fortunes of their worshippers, be brought down from the higher
to an inferior rank.[112] It is this constant interaction between the
political situation and the relationship of the gods to one another,
that constitutes one of the most striking features of the religion of
Babylonia and Assyria. In the course of time, as an organized pantheon
leads to greater stability in the domain of theological speculation, the
influence of the politics of the country on the religion becomes less
marked, without, however, disappearing altogether. The various classes
into which the gods are divided, are definitely fixed by the schools of
theology that, as we shall see, take their rise in the Euphrates Valley.
The rivalry, on the one hand, between the Babylonian empire united under
one head, and the Assyrian empire on the other, alone remains to bring
about an occasional exchange of places between the two gods who stand at
the head of the great gods of the Babylonian and Assyrian pantheon
respectively. The attempt has been made by Amiaud[113] to arrange the
pantheon of this oldest period in a genealogical order. In Gudea's long
list of deities, he detects three generations,--the three chief gods and
one goddess, as the progenitors of Sin, Shamash, Nin-girsu, Bau, and
others. The gods of this second division give rise to a third class,
viewed again as the offspring of the second. Professor Davis, taking up
this idea of Amiaud, has quite recently maintained[114] that the family
idea must form our starting-point for an understanding of the pantheon
of Lagash. The theory, however, does not admit of consistent
application. There are gods, as Amiaud recognized, who cannot be brought
under his scheme, so far at least as present testimony is concerned; and
others can only by an arbitrary assumption be forced into accord with
the theory. Moreover, we should expect to find traces of this family
idea in the later phases of the Assyro-Babylonian pantheon. Such,
however, is not the case. A more reasonable and natural explanation of
the relationship existing between many--not all--of the gods of Gudea's
pantheon has already been suggested. In part, we must look to the
development of a theological system of thought in the Euphrates Valley
to account for the superior position accorded to certain gods, and in
part, political conditions and political changes afford an explanation
for the union of certain deities into a family group. So far, indeed,
Amiaud is correct, that the relationship existing between the various
deities, was as a rule expressed in terms applicable to human society.
The secondary position occupied, _e.g._, by Sin when compared with a god
whose domain is the entire 'lower regions,' would be aptly expressed by
calling the moon-god the eldest son of En-lil or Bel; and, similarly, a
goddess like Bau would be called the daughter of Anu. It is a mistake,
however, to interpret the use of 'daughter' and 'son' literally. Such
terms are employed in all Semitic languages in a figurative sense, to
indicate a dependent position of some sort. Again, we have seen that the
union of a number of cities or states under one head would be followed
by a union of the deities proper to these cities or states. That union
would be expressed, according to circumstances, either by placing the
deities on a footing of equality--in which case they would be consorts,
or brothers and sisters, _offsprings_ therefore of one and the same
god--or, the superior rank of one patron god would be indicated by
assigning to the god of a conquered or subordinate territory the rank of
offspring or attendant.
In studying such a list as that presented by Gudea, we must, therefore,
make due allowance for what may be called local peculiarities and local
conditions. It is only by comparing his list with others that we can
differentiate between the general features of Babylonian cults and the
special features due to political and local associations. We are in a
position now to institute this comparison for a period which is
certainly some centuries earlier than Gudea. The date of the reign of
Lugal-zaggisi, king of Uruk, who has been several times referred to in a
previous chapter, is fixed by Hilprecht at _c._ 4500 B.C., but it is
doubtful whether so high an age will be accepted by scholars. The
chronology for the period beyond Gudea is still in a very uncertain
condition. Lugal-zaggisi, in a long list of deities at the beginning of
an important inscription, enumerates in succession Anu, the goddess
Nisaba, the gods En-lil (or Bel), En-ki (=Ea), En-zu (Sin), Utu (the
sun-god), the goddess Ninni (or Nana(?)), Nin-khar-sag, Umu, and
Nin-akha-kuddu. As for Anu, the king introduces the name, as Ur-Ningirsu
of Lagash does (see above, p. 90), in calling himself 'priest of Anu,'
and which, according to the explanation suggested, means simply 'divine
priest.'
Bel, Ea, Sin, and Shamash (or Utu) are common to Gudea and
Lugal-zaggisi. These constitute, then, the great gods whose worship is
no longer limited to any particular district. They have become common
property, in part through the sanctity attached to the places where the
gods were worshipped, in part through the antiquity of these places, and
in part, no doubt, as the result of a political development lying behind
the period under consideration. The prominence given by Lugal-zaggisi to
Nisaba is rather surprising. He calls himself and also his father,
'hero' of Nisaba. If, however, it be borne in mind that of the goddesses
at least two, Umu and Nin-akha-kuddu, are of a local character, the
conclusion appears justified that Nisaba was a goddess associated more
particularly with the district in which Uruk lay. The goddess Ninni
(written simply as 'the goddess') is no doubt identical with the great
Nana of Uruk, and Nin-khar-sag is introduced as the consort of En-lil.
As a result of this comparison, we may note the tendency towards a
general recognition of certain great gods, which is more fully developed
in the period of Hammurabi. At the same time, the loyalty of the rulers
to the gods, peculiar to their own district, is manifested by the
prominent place assigned in the several cases to gods who otherwise play
an insignificant role, and who eventually are absorbed by others; and
lastly, as between Lugal-zaggisi and Gudea, the observation may be made
of the disposition to emphasize local gods, less for their own sake,
than because of the eclat furnished by the enumeration of a large
pantheon, which shall be coequal in extent and dignity to the district
claimed by the rulers and to the rank assumed by them.
FOOTNOTES:
[110] Inscr. B, cols. viii. ix.
[111] See above, p. 101.
[112] See Winckler's excellent remarks on the relationship between the
city and the god in ancient Babylonia (_Altorientalische Forschungen_,
III. 232-235).
[113] _Records of the Past_, N.S., i. 57-59.
[114] In a paper on "The Gods of Shirpurla," read before the American
Oriental Society in April, 1895. (_Proceedings_, ccxiii-ccxviii.)