THE TEMPLES AND THE CULT.
The religious architecture of Babylonia and Assyria is of interest
chiefly as an expression of the religious earnestness of rulers and
people, and only in a minor degree as a manifestation of artistic
instincts. The lack of a picturesque building material in the Euphrates
Valley was sufficient to check the development of such instincts.
Important as the adaptation of the clay soil of Babylonia for simple
construction was for the growth of Babylonian culture, the limitations
to the employment of bricks as a building material are no less
significant. Ihering has endeavored to show[1311] by an argument that is
certainly brilliant and almost convincing, that the settlement of
Semites in a district, the soil of which could be so readily used to
replace the primitive habitations of man by solid structures, made the
Semites the teachers of the Aryans in almost everything that pertains to
civilization. House-building produced the art of measuring, led to more
elaborate furnishings of the habitation, created various trades,
introduced social distinctions, necessitated divisions of time, and gave
the stimulus to commercial intercourse. But, on the other hand, the
artistic possibilities of brick structures were soon exhausted. The
house could be indefinitely extended in length and even height, but such
an extension only added to the monotonous effect. With clay as a
building material, so readily moulded into any desired shape, and that
could be baked, if need be, by the action of the sun without the use of
fire, it was almost as easy to build a large house as a small one. But
the addition of rooms and wings and stories which differentiated the
house from the palace and the palace from the temple, served to make
hugeness the index of grandeur. The best specimens of the religious
architecture of Babylonia and Assyria are characterized by such
hugeness. A proportionate increase of external beauty could only be
secured by a modification of architectural style; but the conservative
instincts of the people discouraged any deviation from the conventional
shapes of the temples, which appear indeed to have been firmly
established long before the days of Hammurabi. The influence of
conventionality finds a striking illustration in the manner in which the
temples of Assyria follow Babylonian models. Soft and hard stone
suitable for permanent structures was easily procured in the mountainous
district adjacent to Assyria. The Assyrians used this material for
statues, altars, and for the slabs with which they decorated the
exterior and interior walls of their great edifices. Had they also
employed it as a building material, we should have had the development
of new architectural styles; but the Assyrians, so dependent in
everything pertaining to culture upon the south, could not cut
themselves loose from ancient traditions, and continued to erect huge
piles of brick, as the homage most pleasing in the eyes of their gods.
The Book of Genesis characterized the central idea of the Babylonian and
Assyrian temples when it represented the people gathered in the valley
of Shinar--that is, Babylonia--as saying: 'Come, let us build a city and
a tower that shall reach up to heaven.'[1312] The Babylonian and
Assyrian kings pride themselves upon the height of their temples.
Employing, indeed, almost the very same phrase that we find in the Old
Testament, they boast of having made the tops of their sacred edifices
as high as 'heaven.'[1313] The temple was to be in the literal sense of
the word a 'high place.' But, apart from the factor of natural growth,
there was a special reason why the Babylonians aimed to make their
sacred edifices high. The oldest temple of Babylonia at the present time
known to us, the temple of Bel at Nippur, bears the characteristic name
of E-Kur, 'mountain house.' The name is more than a metaphor. The sacred
edifices of Babylonia were intended as a matter of fact to be imitations
of mountains. It is Jensen's merit to have suggested the explanation for
this rather surprising ideal of the Babylonian temple.[1314] According
to Babylonian notions, it will be recalled, the earth is pictured as a
huge mountain. Among other names, the earth is called E-Kur, 'mountain
house.' The popular and early theology conceived the gods as sprung from
the earth. They are born in Kharsag-kurkura,[1315] 'the mountain of all
lands,' which is again naught but a designation for the earth, though at
a later period some particular part of the earth, some mountain peak,
may have been pictured as the birthplace of the gods, much as among the
Indians, Persians, and Greeks we find a particular mountain singled out
as the one on which the gods dwell. The transfer of the gods or of some
of them to places in the heavens was, as we saw,[1316] a scholastic
theory, and not a popular belief. It was a natural association of ideas,
accordingly, that led the Babylonians to give to their temples the form
of the dwelling which they ascribed to their gods. The temple, in so far
as it was erected to serve as a habitation for the god and an homage to
him, was to be the reproduction of the cosmic E-Kur,--'a mountain house'
on a small scale, a miniature Kharsag-kurkura. In confirmation of this
view, it is sufficient to point out that E-Kur is not merely the name of
the temple to Bel at Nippur, but is frequently used as a designation for
temple in general; and, moreover, a plural is formed of the word which
is used for divinities.[1317] In Assyria we find one of the oldest
temples bearing the name E-kharsag-kurkura,[1318] that stamps the
edifice as the reproduction of the 'mountain of all lands'; and there
are other temples that likewise bear names[1319] in which the idea of a
mountain is introduced.
To produce the mountain effect, a mound of earth was piled up and on
this mound a terrace was formed that served as the foundation plane for
the temple proper, but it was perfectly natural also that instead of
making the edifice consist of one story, a second was superimposed on
the first so as to heighten the resemblance to a mountain. The outcome
of this ideal was the so-called staged tower, known as the _zikkurat_.
The name signifies simply a 'high' edifice, and embodies the same idea
that led the Canaanites and Hebrews to call their temples 'high
places.'[1320]
The oldest zikkurat as yet found is the one excavated by Drs. Peters and
Haynes at Nippur,[1321] the age of which can be traced back to the
second dynasty of Ur--about 2700 B.C. This appears to have consisted of
three stages, one superimposed on the other. There is a reference to a
zikkurat in the inscriptions of Gudea that may be several centuries
older; but since beneath the zikkurat at Nippur remains of an earlier
building were found, it is a question whether the staged tower
represents the oldest type of a Babylonian temple. At no time does any
special stress appear to have been laid upon the number of stories of
which the zikkurat was to consist. It is not until a comparatively late
period that rivalry among the rulers and natural ambition led to the
increase of the superimposed stages until the number seven was reached.
The older zikkurats were imposing chiefly because of the elevation of
the terrace on which they were erected, and inasmuch as the ideal of the
temple is realized to all practical purposes by the erection of a high
edifice on an elevated mound, the chief stress was laid upon the height
of the terrace. The terrace, in a certain sense, is the original
zikkurat--the real 'high place'--and the temple of one story naturally
precedes the staged tower, and may have remained the type for some time
before the more elaborate structure was evolved. However this may be, we
are justified in associating the mountain _motif_ with the beginnings of
religious architecture in the Euphrates Valley, precisely as the
underlying cosmic notions belong to the earliest period of which we have
any knowledge. That the staged tower when once evolved was regarded as
the most satisfactory expression of the religious ideas follows from the
fact that all the large centers of Babylonia had a zikkurat of some kind
dedicated to the patron deity, and probably many of the smaller places
likewise. A list of zikkurats[1322] furnishes the names of no less than
twenty; and while all of the important places are included, there are
others which do not appear to have played an important part in either
the religious or political history of the country, and which
nevertheless had their zikkurat. To judge from the fact that in this
list several names of zikkurat are connected with one and the same
place, more than one zikkurat, indeed, could be found in a large
religious center.[1323]
The Construction and Character of the Zikkurats.
The zikkurat was quadrangular in shape. The orientation of the four
corners towards the four cardinal points was only approximate.[1324]
Inasmuch as the rulers of Babylonia from a very early period call
themselves 'king of the four regions,'[1325] it has been supposed that
the quadrangular shape was chosen designedly; but there is no proof that
any stress was laid upon symbolism of this kind, or upon the orientation
of the corners of the sacred edifices. More attention was bestowed upon
making the brick structure huge and massive.
The height of the zikkurats varied. Those at Nippur and Ur[1326] appear
to have been about 90 feet high, while the tower at Borsippa which Sir
Henry Rawlinson carefully examined[1327] attained a height of 140 feet.
The base of this zikkurat, which may be regarded as a specimen of the
tower in its most elaborate form, was a quadrangular mass 272 feet
square and 26 feet high. The second and third stories were of equal
height, but the square mass diminished with each story by 42 feet. The
height of the four upper stories was 15 feet each. At the same time, the
mass diminished steadily at the rate of 42 feet, so that the seventh
story consisted of a mass of only 20 feet square. Sargon's zikkurat at
Khorsabad (the suburb of Nineveh) was about the same height.
The average number of stages of the zikkurat appears to have been three,
as at Nippur and Ur, or four, as at Larsa.[1328] In the pictorial
representations of the towers,[1329] we similarly find either three or
four. In these smaller zikkurats, the height of each tower, as in the
first three stories of the tower at Borsippa, appears to have been
alike; but the mass diminished in proportion in order to secure a space
for a staircase leading from one story to the other. This method of
ascent was older than the winding balustrade, which was better adapted
to the more elaborate structures of later times. No doubt, as the towers
increased in height, other variations were introduced--as, _e.g._, in
the proportions of the stories--without interfering with the essential
principle of the zikkurat.
The ungainly appearance presented by the huge towers was somewhat
relieved by decorations of the friezes and by the judicious use of
color. Enameled bricks of bright hues, such as yellow and blue,[1330]
became common, and in the case of some of the towers it would appear
that a different color was chosen for each story. Whether all the bricks
in each story were colored or only those at the edge, or, perhaps, some
rows, it is impossible to say. From Herodotus' description of the seven
concentric walls of Ecbatana,[1331] in which each wall was distinguished
by a certain color, the conclusion has been drawn that the same
colors--white, black, scarlet, blue, orange, silver, and gold--were
employed by the Babylonians for the stages of their towers; but there is
no satisfactory evidence that this was the case. That these colors were
brought into connection with the planets, as some scholars have
supposed, is highly improbable.
As already pointed out, no special stress seems to have been laid upon
the number of stories of which the zikkurat consisted, but the natural
result of ambition and rivalry among builders tended towards an increase
of the height, and this end could be most readily attained by adding to
the number of stories. Still, there may have been some symbolism which
led to the choice of three, four, or seven stories, inasmuch as these
numbers have a sacred import among so many nations.[1332] For the number
seven, the influence of cosmological associations is quite clear. The
two most famous of the zikkurats of seven stages were those in Babylon
and in Borsippa, opposite Babylon. The latter bears the significant name
E-ur-imin-an-ki,[1333] _i.e._, 'the house of the seven directions of
heaven and earth.' The 'seven directions' were interpreted by the
Babylonian theologians as a reference to the seven great celestial
bodies,--the sun and moon and the five planets Ishtar, Marduk, Ninib,
Nergal, and Nabu.[1334] To each of these gods one story was supposed to
be dedicated, and the tower thus became a cosmological symbol,
elaborating in theological fashion the fundamental idea of the zikkurat
as a reproduction of the dwelling-place of the gods. The identification
of the five gods with the planets is a proof of the scholastic character
of the interpretation, and hence of its comparatively late origin. This
interpretation of the number seven, however, was not the only one
proposed in the Babylonian schools. Two much older towers than those of
Babylon and Borsippa bear names in which 'seven' is introduced. One of
these is the zikkurat to Nin-girsu at Lagash, which Gudea[1335]
describes as 'the house of seven divisions of the world'; the other, the
tower at Uruk,[1336] which bore the name 'house of seven zones.' The
reference in both cases is, as Jensen has shown,[1337] to the seven
concentric zones into which the earth was divided by the Babylonians. It
is a conception that we encounter in India and Persia, and that survives
in the seven 'climates' into which the world was divided by Greek and
Arabic geographers. It seems clear that this interpretation of the
number seven is older than the one which identified each story with one
of the planets.[1338] Both interpretations have a scholastic aspect,
however, and the very fact that there are two interpretations, justifies
the suspicion that neither furnishes the _real_ explanation why the
number seven was chosen.
It by no means follows from the names borne by the zikkurats at Lagash
and Uruk that they actually consisted of seven stories. The 'seven
divisions' and the 'seven zones' are merely terms equivalent to
'universe.' The names given to the towers would have been equally
appropriate if they consisted--as they probably did--of fewer stories
than seven. But, on the other hand, the introduction of the number seven
into the names may be regarded as a factor which influenced ambitious
builders to make the number of stories seven. Over and above this,
however, seven was chosen, primarily, because it was a large number,
and, secondly, because it was a sacred number,--sacred in part because
large, since 'largeness' and 'sacredness' are correlated ideas in the
popular phases of early religious thought. In the same way, it is
because seven was popularly sacred that the world was divided into seven
zones and that the planets were fixed at seven, not _vice versa_.
The opinion of some scholars[1339] that the zikkurats were used for
astronomical observations remains a pure conjecture, of which it cannot
even be said that it has probability in its favor. It is certain that
the astronomical observations, since they were conducted by the priests,
were made in the temple precincts; but a small room at the top of a
pyramid difficult of access seems hardly a spot adapted for the purpose.
Moreover, the sacred character of the zikkurat speaks against the
supposition that it should have been put to such constant use, and for
purposes not directly connected with the cult. In the numerous
astronomical reports that we have, there is not a single reference from
which one could conclude that the observations reported were made from
the top of a zikkurat.
But, on the other hand, it would appear that as the zikkurat developed
from a one-story edifice into a tower, and as the number of the stages
increased, the zikkurat assumed more of an ornamental character. While
the ascent of the tower continued to be regarded to the latest days as a
sacred duty, pleasing in the eyes of the deity, for the ordinary and
more practical purposes of the cult, other buildings were erected near
the tower. Within the temple area and bordering on it there were smaller
shrines, while in front of the zikkurat there was a large open place,
where the pilgrims who flocked to the sacred city, congregated. The
sacrifices which formed the essential feature of worship were brought,
not at the top of the zikkurat, but on altars that were erected at the
base.
The ideographic designation of the zikkurat as a 'conspicuous
house,'[1340] which accords admirably with the motive ascribed in the
eleventh chapter of Genesis to the builders of a zikkurat to erect an
edifice that "could be seen," supports the view here taken of the more
decorative position which the staged tower came to occupy,--an homage to
the gods rather than a place where they were to be worshipped, something
that suggested the dwelling-place of a god, to be visited only
occasionally by the worshipper--in short, a monument forming part of a
religious sanctuary, but not coextensive with the sanctuary. The
differentiation that thus arose between the dwelling-place of the god
and the place where he was to be worshipped is a perfectly natural one.
To emphasize the fact that the zikkurat was the temple for the god, a
small room was built at the top of the zikkurat,[1341] and it was a
direct consequence of this same distinction between a temple for the
gods and a temple for actual worship that led to assigning to zikkurats
special names, and such as differed from the designation of the sacred
quarter of which the zikkurat formed the most conspicuous feature.
Thus the name E-Kur, 'mountain house,' though evidently an appropriate
designation for the zikkurat, becomes the term for the sacred area which
included in time a large series of buildings used for the cult, whereas
the zikkurat itself receives the special name of 'house of
oracle';[1342] and similarly in the case of the various other religious
centers of Babylonia, the name of the zikkurat is distinct from that of
the sacred quarter--the temple in the broader sense.
The special position which the zikkurat thus came to occupy is, of
course, merely an outcome of the growth of the religious centers of the
country, and involves no departure from the religious ideals of earlier
days. The distinction is much of the same order as we find in the case
of the Hebrew temple at Jerusalem, where the court in which the
worshippers gathered was distinct from the 'holy of holies,' which was
originally regarded as the dwelling of Yahwe, and in later times was
viewed as the spot where he manifested himself. The name 'house of
oracle' given to the zikkurat at Nippur is a valuable indication of the
special sanctity that continued to be attached to the staged tower.
The Temple and the Sacred Quarter.
But the zikkurat, while the most characteristic expression of the
religious spirit of Babylonia, was by no means the only kind of sacred
edifice that prevailed.
The excavations at Nippur have afforded us for the first time a general
view of a sacred quarter in an ancient Babylonian city. The extent of
the quarter was considerable. Dr. Peters' estimate is eight areas for
the zikkurat and surrounding structures, and to this we may add several
acres more, since beyond the limits of the great terrace there were
buildings to the southeast and southwest, used for religious purposes.
It is likely that the extent of E-Sagila at Babylon was even greater.
Outside of the temple area at Nippur, Peters[1343] and Haynes unearthed
a court of considerable size, lined with brick columns. The court was
open to the sky, but the columns supported a roof which was apparently
of wood. Similar courts have been found elsewhere, so that we are
justified in regarding the Nippur structure as characteristic of the
architecture of Babylonia. The court was attached to an edifice of
considerable size, which contained among other things rooms in which the
temple records were kept. The entrance to the court was by a large
gateway, supported on each side by a brick column, double the diameter
of those that surrounded the court. While the nature of the building is
not perfectly clear, still the presence of the temple archives and the
gateway make it probable that the structure was used in connection with
the cult of some deity worshipped at Nippur. Lending weight to this
supposition are the points of resemblance between this structure and the
sacred edifices of the ancient Hebrews and Arabs. A court of sixty
columns--made of wood, quadrangular in shape, with the supports and tops
of metal--was the characteristic feature of the tabernacle.[1344] Within
this court, open to the sky, the people gathered for worship. The altar
and the basin for ablutions stood in the court, while the holy tent
containing the ark was set up near the eastern end of the place.
Similarly at Mecca,[1345] the Kaaba, the pulpit, and the sacred fountain
are grouped within a space enclosed on all sides by colonnades. Again,
surrounding the Solomonic temple on three sides was a spacious court.
This court was enclosed with colonnades.[1346] It may well be,
therefore, that the edifice around or near the fine court of columns at
Nippur was a sacred structure, erected in honor of some deity. The two
large brick columns at the entrance to the Nippur court are paralleled
in the case of the Solomonic temple by the two large columns, known as
Yakhin and Boaz, that stood at the gateway. These names are as yet
unexplained. Their symbolic character, apart from other evidence, may be
concluded from the circumstance that, as Schick has shown,[1347] the
columns stood free, and did not serve as a support for any part of the
gateway.[1348] There is no need, therefore, for any hesitation in
comparing these two columns, whose presence in the Solomonic structure
is certainly due to foreign influence, to those found at Nippur.[1349]
That the columns at Nippur were erected in accordance with recognized
custom follows from De Sarzec's discovery of two enormous round columns
within the sacred quarter of Lagash.[1350] In the light of Peters'
excavations, the significance of the columns at Lagash becomes clear.
Unfortunately, De Sarzec's excavations at Lagash at the point of the
mound in question were interrupted, but he gives reasons for believing
that other columns existed near the two large ones found by him.[1351]
There is, therefore, every reason to conclude that at Lagash, as at
Nippur and no doubt elsewhere, the two columns belonged to a great
gateway leading into a large court of columns. That these columns served
a symbolic purpose in the Babylonian temple as they did at Jerusalem,
cannot be maintained with certainty, but is eminently likely.
The court of columns was surrounded by a series of rooms. If the view
taken of the building is correct, these rooms were used for the temple
administration. However this may be, there can be no doubt that the
structures of various size found around the zikkurat at Nippur served as
dwellings for the priests and the temple attendants, as stalls for the
temple cattle, as shops for the manufacture and sale of votive objects,
and the like. Within the temple area proper were the schools where young
priests were trained to be scribes, and received instructions in the
doctrines and rites. The astronomical observatories, too, were situated
near the temple. The schools served, as they still do in the orient, as
the gathering-place of the mature scholars. The systematized pantheon,
and the cosmological and astronomical systems represent the outcome of
the intellectual activity that manifested itself within the sacred
quarters of the cities of Babylonia. The execution of justice being in
the hands of the priests, the sacred area also contained the rooms where
the judges sat. It is interesting to note that Gudea mentions a hall of
judgment in the temple to Nin-girsu at Lagash. The number of such
buildings attached to the temple precinct varied, of course, according
to the needs and growth of each place. In Nippur, the numbers appear to
have been very large. We may assume, likewise, that at Sippar, Uruk, Ur,
and Larsa the zikkurat was the center of a considerable group of
buildings, while at Babylon in the days of her greatest power, the
temple area of E-Sagila must have presented the appearance of a little
city by itself, shut off from the rest of the town by a wall which
invariably enclosed the sacred quarter. Within this large wall there
were smaller ones, marking the several divisions of the temple
buildings. The construction of the smaller edifices does not appear to
have varied from the ordinary form chosen for the one-story
dwelling-houses in the city proper. The material used for all
structures--the large and the small ones--was brick. In earlier times
the bricks were merely dried in the sun. The buildings, as a
consequence, suffered much from the influence of the heat and rain, and
required frequent repairs. Often the tower would crumble away, and an
entirely new edifice would have to be erected. The later custom of
kiln-dried bricks was an improvement, and still more solidity was
insured when the exterior series of brick was glazed. In the older
buildings, the bricks were merely piled together, without cement.
Afterwards straw was mixed with the clay, but as early as Gudea's days
the bitumen, abounding in the valley, became the common cement employed
in all edifices of importance. Wood was used in the case of smaller
sanctuaries (as also in palaces) for the roof, and the kings often refer
with pride to the efforts they made to obtain the precious cedars of the
Lebanon forests for their building enterprises. The decoration was
confined largely to the facades, the doors, and the floors. A pleasing
effect also was produced by the judicious distribution of glazed and
enameled bricks in the walls. Colors were used with still greater
lavishness in the decorations of the interior. The brilliancy was
heightened by the use of precious stones and gold and silver for the
walls and floors and ceilings. The aim of the builders was, as they
constantly tell us, to make the buildings as brilliant as the sunlight.
The decorations of the brick walls and floors suggest textile patterns,
and to account for this, some scholars have supposed that prior to the
use of colored bricks, it was customary to cover the walls and floors of
temples and palaces with draperies and rugs. The suggestion lacks proof,
but has much in its favor. In exterior architecture no profound changes
were ever introduced, but within the prescribed limits, the builders did
their utmost to make their edifices testimonials of their zeal and
power. They imported gold, copper, and diorite from the Sinai peninsula
and Arabia, precious stones from Armenia and the Upper Euphrates, wood
from Bahrein and from various parts of the Amanus range, and so all
quarters of the ancient world of culture were ransacked for
contributions to add to the splendor of the Babylonian and Assyrian
cities. Much care was bestowed in the course of time upon the portals.
The wooden gates were covered with bronze, in which art of decoration
great skill was developed.[1352] The columns of stone appear only in
Assyrian edifices as decorations in the front of palaces, supporting a
portal or portico that projects from the temple proper.[1353] The
introduction appears to be due to foreign influence, perhaps
Hittite.[1354]
To determine the interior arrangement of a sacred structure, we have two
small Assyrian temples, excavated by Layard at Nimrod, to serve as our
guide.[1355] A long hall constituted the chief feature. At the extreme
end of this hall was a small room, in which stood a statue of the god to
whom the temple was dedicated. This room, known as the _papakhu_ or
_parakku_, was the most sacred part of the temple, and it is doubtful
whether any but the king or the highest officials had access to it.
Certainly, no one could approach the presence of the deity without the
mediation of a priest. Both terms for this room convey the idea of its
being "shut off"[1356] from the rest of the building, precisely as the
holy of holies in the temple of Jerusalem containing the ark, was
separated from the central hall. Gudea[1357] describes the papakhu as
the "dark" (or inner) chamber.
We are fortunate in having a pictorial representation of such a papakhu.
A stone tablet found at Sippar[1358] represents Shamash seated in the
"holy of holies" of the temple E-Babbara. The god sits on a low throne.
In front of him is an altar table on which rests a wheel with radiant
spokes,--a symbol of the sun-god. Into this sanctuary the worshipper,
who is none other than the king Nabubaliddin, is led by a priest. The
king is at pains to tell us in the inscription attached to the design,
that he was careful to restore the image of Shamash after an ancient
model, and his motive in adding an illustration to this tablet is that
future builders may have no excuse for not being equally careful. We
may, therefore, take the illustration as a sample of the general
character of the sacred chambers in the Babylonian and Assyrian temples
in the great centers. The papakhu was decorated with great lavishness.
The floors and walls and also the ceiling were studded with precious
stones. We may believe Herodotus[1359] when he tells us that the statue
of Marduk in his temple at Babylon and the table in front of it was of
gold. It was to the papakhu that the priests retired when they desired
to obtain an oracle direct from the god; and as in the course of time
the sanctity of the spot increased, we may well suppose that the
occasions when the deity was directly approached in his papakhu became
rarer. Through the influence of the schools attached to the Marduk cult
at Babylon, the New Year's Festival--the character of which we will have
occasion to explain later on--came to be regarded as the season most
appropriate for approaching the oracular chamber. During this festival,
Marduk was supposed to decide the fate of mankind for the whole year,
and the intercession of the priests on the occasion was fraught with
great importance.
A special significance, moreover, came to be attached to the sacred
chamber in the Marduk temple. Complementing in a measure, the
cosmological associations that have been noted in connection with the
zikkurat, the papakhu of Marduk was regarded as an imitation of a
cosmical 'sacred chamber.' As the zikkurat represented the mountain on
which the gods were born and where they were once supposed to dwell, so
the sacred room was regarded as the reproduction of a portion of the
great mountain where the gods assembled in solemn council. This council
chamber was situated at the eastern end of the great mountain, and was
known as Du-azagga, that is, 'brilliant chamber.' The chamber itself
constituted the innermost recess of the eastern limit of the mountain,
and the special part of the mountain in which it lay was known as
Ubshu-kenna, written with the ideographic equivalents to 'assembly
room.' It will be apparent that such a view of the papakhu is the result
of theological speculation, and is not due, as is the conception of the
zikkurat, to popular beliefs.
The assembly of the gods presupposes a systematization of the pantheon,
and the fact that it is only the papakhu in Marduk's temple which is
known as Du-azagga[1360] is a sufficient indication of the influences at
work which produced this conception. In the creation epic, there is a
reference to the Ubshu-kenna[1361] which shows the main purpose of a
divine assembly in the eyes of the priests of Babylon. The gods meet
there in order to do homage to Marduk. They gather around the victorious
vanquisher of Tiamat, as the princes gather round the throne of the
supreme ruler,--the king of Babylon and of Babylonia.
One can see, however, that, as is generally the case with theological
doctrines, there is a popular starting-point from which these views were
developed. The Du-azagga is older than the Ubshu-kenna. Situated in the
extreme east, the 'brilliant chamber' is evidently the place whence the
sun rises in the morning. A hymn to Shamash[1362] expressly speaks of
the sun rising out of the Du-azagga, and, since the sun also appears to
rise up out of the ocean, the Du-azagga is placed at a point close to
the great Apsu, which flows underneath the mountain. In confirmation of
this view, a syllabary[1363] identifies the Du-azagga with the Apsu.
Marduk, by virtue of his original quality as a solar deity, would
naturally be pictured as coming forth from Du-azagga. In this sense the
title Mar-Du-azaga,[1364] 'son of Du-azagga,' is applied to him, just as
he is called Mar-Apsi, the son of Apsu. But the same conception would
hold good of Shamash, of Ninib, and of some other solar deities, though
not of all. That Du-azagga came to be especially associated with Marduk
is due simply to the preeminent rank that he came to occupy. Whether
there was also a popular basis for the conception of an Ubshu-kenna, an
'assembly room' of the gods, is a question more difficult to answer.
Certainly, the view that the gods gathered together in one place belongs
to an age which attempted to fix, at least in some measure, the
relationship of the divine beings to one another. The popular phase of
the conception of a general assembly house could, in any case, hardly
have proceeded further than the assumption of some particular part of
the great mountain, where the gods were wont to come together. The
connection of this assembly place with the Du-azagga is distinctly the
work of the theologians of Babylon. In their desire to make Marduk the
central figure of the pantheon, they bring all the gods to his side. The
Ubshu-kenna is thus transferred to the region whence the sun issues on
his daily journey. The 'chamber' of Marduk becomes the most sacred spot
in this region, and the Ubshu-kenna the general name for the region
itself. As Marduk in Babylon was surrounded by his court, so in
Ubshu-kenna the gods assemble to pay homage to the one freely
acknowledged by them as the greatest, and who is pictured as sitting on
his throne in Du-azagga. The further speculation which brought the gods
together yearly on the occasion of the great Marduk festival belongs
likewise, and as a matter of course, to the period when Marduk's sway
was undisputed.
The ideas that were thus attached to the papakhu in E-Sagila are a
valuable indication of the sanctity attached to that part of the temple
where the god sat enthroned. In a general way, what holds good of
Marduk's papakhu applies to every sacred chamber in a temple, and no
doubt views were once current of the papakhu of Bel at Nippur and of the
'holy of holies' in E-Babbara[1365] and elsewhere that formed in some
measure, a parallel to what the Marduk priests told of their favorite
sanctuary.
Coming back now to the large hall which led into the papakhu, the
absence of bas-reliefs in this hall in the case of the Assyrian temples
excavated by Layard, suggests that the walls of this hall were not lined
with sculptured slabs, as was the case in the large rooms of the
palaces; and we may conclude that in Babylonian temples, likewise, the
decoration of the walls was confined as a general thing to enameled
bricks, interspersed, perhaps, with metallic panels, and that
mythological scenes--such as the contest with Tiamat or Gilgamesh's
adventures--were only occasionally portrayed. An aim which, as the
rulers themselves tell us in their inscriptions, they always kept in
view was to make both the exterior and interior of the temples
resplendent with brilliant coloring--"brilliant as the sun." At the
entrances to the Assyrian temples stood lions, chiseled out of soft
limestone or the harder alabaster. At Telloh various fragments of large
lion heads were found,[1366] so that there is every reason not only to
trace this custom to Babylonia, but to carry it back to a very early
period. Besides the lion, a favorite religious symbol, as we have
seen,[1367] was the bull, and, since Nebuchadnezzar speaks of retaining
the "bull" statue of the old temple to Nana (or Ishtar) at Erech, we may
suppose that the representation of colossal bulls at the entrances to
the temples also belongs to the characteristic features of Babylonian
religious architecture. The lion, it will be recalled, is more
particularly the symbol of Nergal, but he appears originally, like the
bull, to have been a symbol of other gods as well--perhaps, indeed, of
the gods in general. Similarly, the eagle, which becomes the special
symbol of Ashur, appears prominently on the monuments of Entemena[1368]
and other ancient rulers, centuries before the Ashur cult comes into
prominence.
In the large court in front of the zikkurats there stood the jars used
in connection with the cult, and the presence of these jars furthermore
suggests that there was an altar in the great court, precisely as in the
case of the Solomonic temple.[1369] In the larger of the temples found
by Layard, there was a smaller hall in front of the large one. We may
assume that the same was the case with the larger temples of Babylonia,
and this three-fold division of the interior,--the vestibule, or
_pronaos_, the main hall, or _naos_, and the papakhu,--further warrants
the comparison of a Babylonian sacred edifice with the Solomonic
temple,[1370] where likewise we have the vestibule, the hall known as
the 'holy' part, and the 'holy of holies,' the one leading into the
other. As to the further disposition of the rooms in the main temple, we
must be content to wait for further excavations. What we know is
sufficient to warrant the supposition that there was practical
uniformity in the interior arrangement of the Babylonian and Assyrian
temples. What variation there existed was probably confined to the
decoration of the walls, doorways, and to the facades. Meanwhile, it is
something to have reached general results. The zikkurat was surrounded
by a varying number of shrines that were used as places of assembly for
worshippers. The latter gathered also in the large court in front of the
zikkurat, where the chief altar probably stood.[1371] In the large halls
of the shrines, there were in all probabilities likewise altars. It
seems natural to suppose that the hall of judgment, mentioned already in
Gudea's inscription,[1372] was attached to some shrine. Besides the
zikkurats and shrines, there were smaller structures used as dwellings
for the priests and temple officials, for storehouses, for the archives,
and as stalls for the animals to be used in the sacrifices. At Nippur a
smithy was found near the temple precinct. There were workshops near the
temple where the furnishings for the temple, such as the curtains and
the utensils, were made, and there were magazines where votive tablets
and offerings were manufactured and sold. The number of these structures
varied, naturally, in each religious center, and increased in proportion
to the growth of the center. The zikkurat, the great court, the shrines,
and the smaller structures formed a sacred precinct, and it was this
precinct as a whole that constituted the temple in the larger sense, and
received some appropriate name. Thus E-Kur at Nippur, E-Sagila at
Babylon, E-Zida at Borsippa are used to denote the entire sacred
precinct in these cities, and not merely the chief structure. The
zikkurat always had a special name of its own.
A factor that contributed largely to the growth of the sacred precinct
in the large centers was the circumstance that the political importance
of such centers as Nippur, Lagash, Ur, Babylon, and Nineveh led the
rulers to group around the worship of the chief deity, the cult of the
minor ones who constituted the family or the court of the chief god. The
kings measured their importance by the number of the gods upon whose
assistance they could rely. The priests came to the assistance of the
kings in connecting the gods of the royal pantheon in such a way, as to
satisfy the pride of both their royal and divine masters.[1373] The
ambition of the kings, more especially of the Assyrian empire, led also
to the addition of foreign deities to the pantheon. For these also
shrines were built within or near the sacred precinct.
Gudea sets the example for his successors by parading a large pantheon
at the close of his inscriptions,[1374] and a list of temples in Lagash,
recently published by Scheil,[1375] shows that most, if not all, of the
gods invoked by the ruler had a sanctuary erected in his or her honor.
There were, as we have seen, several quarters in Lagash, and therefore
several sacred precincts, so that we cannot be certain that all of these
sanctuaries stood in one and the same quarter. But, since the list in
question furnishes the name of no less than thirteen sacred edifices, we
are certain that as many as four or five smaller chapels surrounded the
precinct in which stood the great temple E-Ninnu, sacred to Gudea's
chief god Ningirsu-Ninib.
The list is headed by the sanctuary to Nin-girsu. There follow temples
to Bau, to Nin-gishzida, Nin-mar, Nina, Dumuzi-zu-aba, Nin-si-a,
Ga-tum-dug known to us from the inscriptions of Gudea, besides others,
like Shabra (?), Nin-sun, Nin-tu, that appear here for the first time.
In Nippur, we find traces of the worship of Belit (or Nin-lil), of
Ninib, and of Nusku, though with the exception of the first named, the
worship of these gods has not been traced back further than the days of
the Cassite dynasty. Subsequent excavations may, of course, change the
present aspect; but one gains the impression from the most ancient
inscriptions found at Nippur that at an early period Bel was a god much
like the Hebrew Yahwe, "jealous" of having others at his side. Such a
conception would help to account for the title 'lord' being applied to
him above all others, and also aids us in understanding the lasting
impression he made upon the people of Babylonia,--an impression so
profound that when the time came for En-lil to yield his supremacy to
Marduk, no better means could be found of emphasizing the latter's
authority, than by transferring to him the names and titles of the older
Bel.[1376] In this respect, however, Nippur was an exception, and in
later times the Bel cult was affected by the same influences that led
Gudea to group around the sanctuary to Nin-girsu, edifices sacred to
other gods and goddesses. Lugalzaggisi[1377] of Erech enumerates an
extensive pantheon,[1378] which contains most of the chief deities, and
from which we may conclude that the temple of Nana was similarly the
center of a large precinct in which the cult of other deities was
carried on. When we come to the cult of Marduk at Babylon and of Nabu at
Borsippa, the inscriptions, chiefly those of Nebuchadnezzar, come to our
aid in showing us the arrangement of the various chapels that were
comprised within the sacred precincts of E-Sagila and E-Zida,
respectively. In the first place, the close relationship between Marduk
and Nabu was emphasized by placing a papakhu to Nabu in the precinct of
E-Sagila, which--built in imitation of E-Zida at Borsippa--was called by
the same name.[1379] This papakhu, it would seem, was independent of a
special temple to Nabu known as E-Makh-tila, and which lay in Borsippa.
The consort of Marduk, Sarpanitum, likewise had her temple in Babylon,
and naturally close to the chief sanctuary of Marduk.[1380] Ea, the
father of Marduk, had a small sanctuary known as E-kar-zaginna in the
sacred precinct.[1381] It does not follow, of course, that all the
temples in a center like Babylon or Borsippa were concentrated in one
place. Indeed, when Nebuchadnezzar speaks of three temples to Gula being
erected in Borsippa,[1382] it is certain that they could not have been
within the precinct of E-Zida, and so the temples to Shamash and Ramman,
Sin and Ishtar, as well as to Nabu in Babylon, had an independent
position; but we are at least warranted in concluding that they were not
far removed from E-Sagila, and so, likewise, the numerous temples
enumerated by Nebuchadnezzar as erected or improved by him in Borsippa
were not far distant from Nabu's sanctuary,--the famous E-Zida. The
palaces of the kings were also erected near the temples. In Babylon, we
know that before Nebuchadnezzar's days, the palace stood so close to
E-Sagila that an enlargement of it was impossible without encroaching on
the sacred quarter.[1383] The tendency to combine with the worship of
the chief god, the cult of others is as characteristic of Assyrian
rulers as of their Babylonian predecessors. We are fortunate in
possessing an extensive list,[1384] enumerating the various deities
worshipped in the temples of Assyria, and the occasions on which they
are to be invoked. The information to be gained from this list is all
the more welcome since the Assyrian kings are chiefly interested in
transmitting an account of their military expeditions, and tell us
comparatively little of the religious edifices in their capitols. From
this list we learn that in the old temple sacred to Anu and
Ramman,[1385] in the city of Ashur--the oldest Assyrian temple known to
us,[1386]--some twenty deities were worshipped. Images at least of these
deities must have stood in the temple;[1387] but, since there is a
distinct reference _zikkurats_[1388] in the list, for some of them
special sanctuaries of some kind must have been erected within the
precinct. From the same list we learn that there was a temple to
Marduk[1389] in Ashur in which the cult of the Shamash, Sarpanitum,
Ramman, Ninib, Anunit was also carried on; similarly, in the temples of
Ashur, of Gula, and of Ninib, other gods were worshipped. Provisions of
some kind for the cult of these deities must have been made, and one
cannot escape the conclusion that in the Assyrian capitols, the sacred
precincts likewise covered considerable territory, and that the tendency
existed towards a steady increase of the structures erected in
connection with the cult of the patron deity. Sennacherib proudly
describes Nineveh as the city which contained the shrines of all gods
and goddesses.[1390]
The Names of the Zikkurats and Temples.
We have seen that every sacred edifice had a special name by which it
was known. This custom belongs to the oldest period of Babylonian
history, and continues to the latest. Through these names, to which, no
doubt, considerable significance was attached, we obtain a valuable
insight into the religious spirit of the Babylonians; but it is
important to note that the custom does not appear to have been as
general[1391] in Assyria, where the temples are simply known as the
house of this or that god or goddess. Of special interest are those
names which were suggested by the original design of the temples. Such
are E-Kur, 'the mountain house' at Nippur, E-kharsag-kurkura, 'the house
of the mountain of all lands,' the name of several temples.[1392] The
same idea finds expression also in such names as E-kharsag-ella, or
'house of the glorious mountain,' the name of a temple to Gula in
Babylon; E-kharsag, 'the mountain house,' a temple in Ur;[1393]
E-khur-makh, 'the house of the great mountain,' which a text[1394]
declares to be equivalent to E-kharsag-kalama. Closely allied with these
names are those indicating in one way or the other, the height or
greatness of the buildings, as the general aim of the builders.
Prominent among such names are E-Sagila, 'the lofty house,' the famous
temple and temple area at Babylon; E-makh, 'the great house,' a chapel
to Nin-kharsag, situated perhaps within E-Sagila; E-gal-makh, 'the great
palace,' an old temple in Ur; E-anna, 'the heavenly house,' that is, the
house reaching up to heaven, which is the name of the temple of Ishtar
or Nana at Erech; E-lgi-e-nir-kidur-makh,[1395] 'the tower of the great
dwelling' sacred to Ninni at Kish. To the same class belong such
designations as E-dur-an-ki, 'the link of heaven and earth,'[1396] the
name of a zikkurat at Larsa; E-an-dadia, 'the house reaching to heaven,'
the zikkurat at Agade; E-pa, 'the summit house,' the zikkurat to
Nin-girsu at Lagash; E-gubba-an-ki, 'the point of heaven and earth,' one
of the names of the zikkurat in Dilbat; E-dim-anna, 'the house of
heavenly construction,' the chapel to Sin within the precinct of E-Zida
at Borsippa,--a name that again conveys the notion of an edifice
reaching up to heaven. The names of the zikkurats at Erech and Borsippa,
'the house of seven zones' and 'the house of the seven divisions of
heaven and earth,' respectively, while conveying, as we saw,[1397]
cosmological conceptions of a more specific character, may still be
reckoned in the class of names that embody the leading purpose of the
tower in Babylonia, as may also a name like E-temen-an-ki, 'the
foundation stone of heaven and earth,' assigned to the zikkurat to
Marduk in Babylonia.
The sacred edifice, as the dwelling of the god to whom it is dedicated,
leads to such names as E-Zida, 'the true house or fixed house,'[1398]
the famous temple to Nabu in Borsippa; E-dur-gina,[1399] 'the house of
the established seat,' a temple of Bel-sarbi[1400] in Baz;
E-ki-dur[1401]-garza, 'the sacred dwelling,' a temple to Nin-lil-anna in
Babylon; E-kua, 'the dwelling-house,' the name of the papakhu of Marduk
in E-Sagila; E-gi-umunna, 'the permanent dwelling'; E-esh[1402]-gi, a
shrine to Nin-girsu at Lagash with the same meaning, 'permanent house.'
Another class is formed by such names as are suggested by the attributes
of the deity to whom the edifices are dedicated. Such are E-babbara,
'the brilliant house,' which, as the name of the temples to Shamash at
Sippar and Larsa, recalls at once the character of the sun-god.
Similarly, E-gish-shir-gal, 'the house of the great luminary,' was an
appropriate name for the temple to the moon-god at Ur. The staff or
sceptre being the symbol of the god Nabu, suggests as the name of a
sanctuary to him in Babylonia, the name E-pad-kalama-suma, 'the house of
him who gives the sceptre of the world,' while the character of Shamash
as the god of justice finds an expression in the name E-ditar-kalama,
'the house of the universal judge,' given to his temple or chapel in
Babylon. The association of the number fifty with Ningirsu-Ninib leads
to the name E-ninnu, 'house of fifty,'[1403] for his temple in Lagash.
Again, the position of Anu in the pantheon accounts for the name E-adda,
'house of the father,' given to his temple, just as E-nin-makh, 'the
house of the great lady,' the name of a chapel in Babylon, at once
recalls a goddess like Ishtar. Other names that describe a temple by
epithets of the gods to whom they are sacred, are E-nun-makh, 'the house
of the great lord,' descriptive of Sin; E-me-te-ur-sagga, 'the house of
the glory of the warrior,' a temple sacred to Zamama-Ninib; E-U-gal,
'the house of the great lord,' a temple to En-lil. A name like E-edinna,
'house of the field,' a temple to the consort of Shamash at Sippar, may
also have been suggested by some attribute of the goddess.[1404]
Lastly, we have a class of names that might be described as purely
ornamental, or as embodying a pious wish. Of such we have a large
number. Examples of this class are E-tila, 'house of life.' Names
extolling the glory and splendor of the temples are common. In a list of
temples[1405] we find such designations as 'house of light,' 'house of
the brilliant precinct,' 'great place,' 'lofty and brilliant
wall,'[1406] 'house of great splendor,' 'the splendor of heaven and
earth,' 'house without a rival,' 'light of Shamash.' The seat of
Sarpanitum in E-Sagila, is known as 'the gate of widespread splendor';
E-salgisa, 'the treasury,' as the name of a temple in Girsu, may belong
here. A temple to Gula in Sippar was called E-ulla; that is, 'the
beautiful house.' The old temple to Sin at Harran bore the significant
name E-khulkhul, 'house of joys,' while the pious wish of the worshipper
is again expressed in the name 'threshold of long life,' given to the
zikkurat in Sippar.[1407] Among a series of names,[1408] illustrating
the religious sentiments of the people are the following: 'the heart of
Shamash,' 'the house of hearkening to prayers,'[1409] 'the house full of
joy,' 'the brilliant house,' 'the life of the world,' 'the place of
fates,' and the like.
These various classes of names are a valuable index of the varied and
often remarkable conceptions held of the gods. To call a temple, for
example, 'court of the world'[1410] may have been due originally to a
haughty presumption on the part of some one deeply attached to some god;
but such a name must also have led to regarding the god as not limited
in his affections to a particular district. Whatever tendencies existed
in Babylonia and Assyria towards universalistic conceptions of the
divine beings were brought out in the temple names, and in part may have
been advanced by these names. The custom still surviving in the Jewish
Church of giving names to synagogues may be traced back to a Babylonian
prototype.[1411]
The History of the Temples.
The history of the temples takes us back to the earliest period of
Babylonian history, and the temples of Assyria likewise date from the
small beginnings of the Assyrian power. The oldest inscriptions of
Mesopotamian rulers commemorate their services as builders of temples.
Naram-Sin and Sargon glory in the title 'builder of the temple of En-lil
in Nippur.' Of the rulers of the first period of Babylonian history, it
so happens that we know more of Gudea than of any other. We may feel
certain that he but follows the example of his predecessors, in devoting
so large a share of his energies to temple building. Hammurabi is an
active builder of sanctuaries, and so on, through the period of Assyrian
supremacy down to the closing days of the Babylonian monarchy, the
thoughts of the rulers were directed towards honoring the gods by
improving, restoring, rebuilding, or enlarging the sanctuaries, as well
as by endowing them with rich gifts and votive offerings. The Assyrian
kings, though perhaps more concerned with embellishing their palaces, do
not neglect the seats of the gods. Anxious to maintain the connection
between their kingdom and the old cities of the south, the Assyrian
monarchs were fond of paying homage to the time-honored sanctuaries of
Babylonia. This feeling, which is of course shared by the Babylonian
rulers, results in bringing about the continuity of the Babylonian and
Assyrian religion. If, despite the changes that the religious doctrines
underwent, despite the new interpretations given to old myths and
legends, despite the profound changes introduced into the relationship
of the gods to one another through the systematization of the pantheon,
if, despite all this, the Babylonians and Assyrians--leaders and
people--continued to feel that they were following the religion of their
forefathers, it was due to the maintenance of the old sanctuaries. We
can actually trace the history of some of these sanctuaries for a period
of over 3000 years. In their restorations, the later builders were
careful not to offend the memory of their predecessors. They sought out
the old dedicatory inscriptions, and took steps to preserve them. They
rejoiced when they came upon the old foundation stones. In their
restorations they were careful to follow original designs; and likewise
in the cult, so far from deviating from established custom, they
strongly emphasized their desire to restore the cult to its original
character, wherever an interruption for one reason or the other had
taken place. In all this, the rulers were acting in accord with the
popular instincts, for the masses clung tenaciously to the old
sanctuaries, as affording an unfailing means of protection against the
ills and accidents of life.
To enumerate all the temples of Babylonia and Assyria would be both an
impossible and a useless task. Besides those mentioned in the historical
texts and in the legal literature, we have long lists of temples
prepared by the pedagogues. Some of these lists have been
published;[1412] others are to be found among the unpublished material
in the British Museum collections.[1413] It is doubtful whether even
these catalogues were exhaustive, or aimed at being so; moreover, a
large number of gods are known to us only from the lists of the
pedagogues.[1414] So, to mention some, taken from a valuable list[1415]
which gives chiefly the names of foreign gods, together with the places
where they were worshipped, we learn of such gods as Lagamal, Magarida,
Lasimu, A-ishtu, Bulala, Katnu, Kannu, Kishshat, Kanishurra, Khiraitum.
Knowing, as we do, that at various periods foreign deities were
introduced into Babylonia and Assyria,[1416] it was necessary to make
some provision for their cult; and, while no doubt most of these minor
deities and foreign gods were represented only by statues placed in some
temple or temple precinct, it is equally certain that some had a shrine
or sanctuary of some kind specially erected in their honor. In hymns,
too, deities are mentioned that are otherwise unknown. So in a litany,
published by Craig,[1417] a long series of gods is introduced. Some are
identical with those included in the list just referred to,[1418] others
appear here for the first time, as Mishiru, Kilili Ishi-milku. Epithets
also occur in lists and hymns, that appear to belong to deities
otherwise unknown. We are safe, therefore, in estimating the number of
temples, zikkurats, and smaller shrines in Babylonia and Assyria to have
reached high into the hundreds. Sanctuaries must have covered the
Euphrates Valley like a network. By virtue of the older culture of the
south and the greater importance that Babylonia always enjoyed from a
religious point of view, the sanctuaries of the south were much more
numerous than those of the north. For our purposes, it is sufficient to
indicate some of the most important of the temples of the south and
north. The oldest known to us at present is the frequently mentioned
temple of E-Kur at Nippur, sacred to En-lil or the older Bel. Its
history can be carried back to a period beyond 4000 B.C.; how far beyond
cannot be determined until the early chronology is better known than at
present. We know, however, that from the time of Sargon[1419] and
probably even much earlier, the rulers who had control of Nippur devoted
themselves to the embellishment of the temple area. Climatic conditions
necessitated frequent repairs. The temple also suffered occasionally
through political tumults, but with each century the religious
importance of E-Kur was increased. Ur-Bau, we have seen, about 2700
B.C., erected a zikkurat in the temple area. Some centuries later we
find Bur-Sin repairing the zikkurat and adding a shrine near the main
structure. As the political fortunes of Nippur varied, so E-Kur had its
ups and downs. Under the Cassitic rule, an attempt was made to recover
for Nippur the position which it formerly occupied, but which had now
passed over to Babylon. It was of little avail. Bel had to yield to
Marduk, and yet, despite the means that the priests of Marduk took to
transfer Bel's prerogatives to the new head of the pantheon, the rulers
would not risk the anger of Bel by a neglect of E-Kur. Kurigalzu, a king
of the Cassite dynasty (_c._ 1400 B.C.) brings back from Elam[1420] a
votive object which, originally deposited by Dungi in the Ishtar temple
at Erech, was carried to Susa by an Elamitic conqueror about 900 years
before Kurigalzu. The latter deposits this object not in Marduk's temple
at Babylon, but in Bel's sanctuary at Nippur. During the entire Cassitic
period, the kings continued to build or make repairs in the temple
precinct, and almost every ruler is represented by more or less costly
votive offerings made to Bel's sanctuary. In this way, we can follow the
history of the temple down to the Assyrian period. In the twelfth
century the religious supremacy of E-Kur yields permanently to E-Sagila.
The temple is sacked, part of it is destroyed, and it was left to rulers
of the north like Esarhaddon and Ashurbanabal to once more restore E-Kur
and its dependencies to its former proportions. These kings, especially
the latter, devote much time and energy in rebuilding the zikkurat and
in erecting various buildings connected with the temple administration.
Under the new Babylonian dynasty, however, E-Kur was again destroyed,
and this time by the ruthless hands of southern rulers. Nebuchadnezzar,
so devoted to Marduk and Nabu, appears to have regarded E-Kur as a
serious rival to E-Sagila and E-Zida. Some traces of building operations
at E-Kur appear to date from the Persian period, but, practically, the
history of E-Kur comes to an end at the close of the seventh century.
The sanctity of the place, however, remained; a portion of the old city
becomes a favorite burial site, while other parts continue to be
inhabited till the twelfth century of our era. The city of Bel becomes
the seat of a Christian bishop, and Jewish schools take the place once
occupied by the "star-gazers of Chaldea."
The history of E-Kur, so intimately bound up with political events, may
be taken as an index of the fortunes that befell the other prominent
sanctuaries of Babylonia.
The foundation of the Shamash temple at Sippar, and known as E-Babbara,
'the brilliant house,' can likewise be traced as far back as the days of
Naram-Sin. At that time there was already a sanctuary to Anunit within
the precincts of E-Babbara. Members of the Cassite dynasty devote
themselves to the restoration of this sanctuary. Through a subsequent
invasion of the nomads, the cult was interrupted and the great statue of
Shamash destroyed. Several attempts are made to reorganize the cult, but
it was left for Nabubaliddin in the tenth century to restore E-Babbara
to its former prestige. Esarhaddon and Ashurbanabal, who pay homage to
the old Bel at Nippur, also devote themselves to Shamash at Sippar. They
restore such portions of it as had suffered from the lapse of time and
from other causes. Nebuchadnezzar is obliged to rebuild parts of
E-Babbara, and the last king of Babylonia, Nabonnedos, is so active in
his building operations at Sippar that he arouses the anger of the
priests of Babylon, who feel that their ruler is neglecting the
sanctuaries of Marduk and Nabu. It is through Nabonnedos[1421] and
Nabubaliddin,[1422] chiefly, that we learn many of the details of the
history of E-Babbara during this long period.
Of the other important temples that date from the early period of
Babylonian history, we must content ourselves with brief indications.
The temple to Shamash at Larsa, while not quite as old as that of
Sippar, was quite as famous. Its name was likewise E-Babbara. It is
first mentioned in the inscriptions of Ur-Bau (_c._ 2700 B.C.), and it
continues to enjoy the favor of the rulers till the Persian
conquest.[1423]
The two chief places for the moon-cult were Ur and Harran. The name of
Sin's temple[1424] at the former place was E-Gish-shir-gal, 'the house
of the great light'; at the latter, E-khulklul, 'the house of joys.'
Around both sanctuaries, but particularly around the former, cluster
sacred traditions. We have seen that the moon-cult at an early period
enjoyed greater importance than sun-worship. The temples of Sin were
centers of intellectual activity. It is in these places that we may
expect some day to find elaborate astronomical and astrological records.
Harran, indeed, does not appear at any time to have played any political
role[1425] (though it was overrun occasionally by nomads), so that the
significance of the place is due almost entirely to the presence of the
great temple at the place. It is Nabonnedos,[1426] again, who endeavors
to restore the ancient prestige of the sanctuary at Harran. E-anna, 'the
lofty house,' was the name of Ishtar's famous temple at Erech. The
mention of this temple in one of the creation narratives[1427] and the
part played by Ishtar of Erech in the Gilgamesh epic are sufficient
indications of the significance of this structure. Historical
inscriptions from the earliest period to the days of Ashurbanabal and
Nebuchadnezzar come to our further aid in illustrating the continued
popularity of the Ishtar cult in E-anna. The Ishtar who survives in
Babylonia and Assyria is practically the Ishtar of Erech,--that is,
Nana.[1428]
Passing by such sanctuaries as E-shid-lam, sacred to Nergal at Cuthah,
and coming to E-Sagila and E-Zida, the two great temples of Babylon and
Borsippa, respectively, it is of course evident from the close
connection between political development and religious supremacy, that
Marduk's seat of worship occupies a unique position from the days of
Hammurabi to the downfall of Babylonia. While the history of E-Sagila
and E-Zida cannot be traced back further than the reign of Hammurabi,
the temples themselves are considerably older. Previous to the rise of
the city of Babylon as the political center, the Nabu cult in E-Zida
must have been more prominent than the worship of Marduk in E-Sagila.
Marduk was merely one solar deity among several, and a minor one at
that, whereas the attributes of wisdom given to Nabu point to the
intellectual importance that Borsippa had acquired. The Nabu cult was
combined with the worship of Marduk simply because it could not be
suppressed. At various times, as we have seen,[1429] Nabu formed a
serious rival to Marduk, and it will be recalled that up to a late
period we find Nabu given the preference to Marduk in official
documents.[1430] The inseparable association of E-Sagila and E-Zida is a
tribute to Nabu which, we may feel certain, the priests of Marduk did
not offer willingly. But this association becomes the leading feature in
the history of the two temples. To pay homage to Marduk and Nabu meant
something quite different from making a pilgrimage to the seat of Bel or
presenting a gift to the Shamash sanctuary at Sippar. It was an
acknowledgment of Babylonia's prestige. The Assyrian rulers regarded it
as both a privilege and a solemn duty to come to Babylon and invoke the
protection of Marduk and Nabu. In E-Sagila the installation of the
rulers over Babylonia took place, and a visit to Marduk's temple was
incomplete without a pilgrimage across the river to E-Zida. The
influence exerted by these two temples upon the whole course of
Babylonian history from the third millennium on, can hardly be
overestimated. From the schools grouped around E-Sagila and E-Zida, went
forth the decrees that shaped the doctrinal development of the religion
of Babylonia and Assyria. In these schools, the ancient wisdom was
molded into the shape in which we find it in the literary remains of the
Euphrates Valley. Here the past was interpreted and the intellectual
future of the country projected. The thought of E-Sagila and E-Zida must
have stored up emotions in the breast of a Babylonian and Assyrian, that
can only be compared to a pious Mohammedan's enthusiasm for Mecca, or
the longing of an ardent Hebrew for Jerusalem. The hymns to Marduk and
Nabu voice this emotion. There is a fervency in the prayers of
Nebuchadnezzar which marks them off from the somewhat perfunctory
invocations of the Assyrian kings to Ashur and Ishtar. An appreciation
of the position of E-Sagila and E-Zida in Babylonian history is an
essential condition to an understanding of the Babylonian-Assyrian
religion. The priests of Marduk could view with equanimity the rise and
growth of Assyria's power. The influence of E-Sagila and E-Zida was not
affected by such a shifting of the political kaleidoscope. Babylon
remained the religious center of the country. When one day, a Persian
conqueror--Cyrus--entered the precincts of E-Sagila, his first step was
to acknowledge Marduk and Nabu as the supreme powers in the world; and
the successors of Alexander continue to glory in the title 'adorner of
E-Sagila and E-Zida.'[1431] With the same zeal that distinguishes a good
Babylonian, Antiochus Soter hastens to connect his reign with the two
temples by busying himself with their enlargement and beautification.
There was no better way in which he could indicate, at the same time,
his political control over the country.
One more factor contributing to the general influence of the Babylonian
temples remains to be noted. In the course of time, all the great
temples in the large centers became large financial establishments. The
sources whence the temples derived their wealth were various. The kings
both of Babylonia and Assyria took frequent occasions to endow the
sanctuaries with lands or other gifts. At times, the endowment took the
form of certain quantities of wine, corn, oil, fruits, and the like, for
which annual provision is made; at times, the harvest derived from a
piece of property is set aside for the benefit of the temple. In other
ways, too, the temples acquired large holdings, through purchases of
land made from the income accruing to it, and from the tithes which it
became customary to collect. This property was either farmed through the
authorities of the temple for the direct benefit of the sanctuary, or
was rented out to private parties under favorable conditions. We learn
of large bodies of laborers indentured to temples, as well as of slaves
owned or controlled by the temples. These workmen were engaged for
various purposes,--for building operations, for service in the fields,
for working raw material, such as wool, into finished products, and much
more the like. But, more than this, the temples engaged directly in
commercial affairs, lending sums of money and receiving interest. In
some sanctuaries, a thriving business of barter and exchange was carried
on. Crops are sold, houses are rented by the temple agents, and there
was scarcely an avenue of commerce into which the temples did not enter.
An active business was also carried on in the manufacture and sale of
idols, votive offerings, amulets, and the like. A very large number of
the legal documents found in the Babylonian mounds deal with the
business affairs of the temples.[1432] Such a state of affairs naturally
contributed towards making the temples important establishments and
towards increasing the influence of the priests over the people.
The temples of Assyria play a minor part in the religious life of rulers
and people. True, grand structures were reared in Ashur, Calah, Nineveh,
and Arbela, and no important step was taken by the kings without
consulting Ashur, Ishtar, or Ramman through the mediation of the
priests. The great cities of Assyria also become intellectual centers.
The priests of Arbela created a school of theological thought, but all
these efforts were but weak imitations of the example furnished by the
temples of the south. Even Ashurbanabal, whose ambition was to make
Nineveh the center of religious and intellectual progress, failed of his
purpose. His empire soon fell to decay, and with that decay Nineveh
disappears from the stage of history. Babylon and Borsippa, however,
remain, and continue to hand down to succeeding generations, the wisdom
of the past.
The Sacred Objects in the Temples,--Altars, Vases, Images, Basins,
Ships.
The earliest altars were made of the same material as the zikkurats and
sanctuaries. One found at Nippur at an exceedingly low level was of
sun-dried bricks.[1433] How early this material was replaced by stone,
we are not in a position to say. Gudea, who imports diorite from the
Sinai Peninsula to make statues[1434] of himself, presumably uses a
similar material for the sacred furnishings of his temples, though
custom and conventionality may have maintained the use of the older clay
material for some time. In Assyria, altars of limestone and alabaster
became the prevailing types. The shape and size of the altars varied
considerably. The oldest known to us, the one found at Nippur, was about
twelve feet long and half as wide. The upper surface was surrounded by a
rim of bitumen.[1435] Assyrian altars now in the British museum are from
two to three feet high. The ornamentation of the corners of the rim of
the altar led to giving the altar the appearance of horns.[1436] The
base of the altar was either a solid piece with a circular or oblong
plate resting on it, or the table rested on a tripod.[1437] The latter
species was well adapted for being transported from place to place by
the Assyrian kings, who naturally were anxious to maintain the worship
of Ashur and of other gods while on their military expeditions. Much
care was spent upon the ornamentation of the altars, and, if we may
believe Herodotus, the great altars at Babylon were made of gold.[1438]
In front of the altars stood large vases or jars of terra cotta, used
for ablutions and other purposes in connection with the sacrifices. Two
such jars, one behind the other, were found at Nippur. They were
ornamented with rope patterns, and the depth at which they were found is
an indication of the antiquity and stability of the forms of worship in
the Babylonian temples. It may be proper to recall that in the Solomonic
temple, likewise, there were a series of jars that stood near the great
altar in the large court.[1439]
A piece of furniture to which great religious importance was attached
was a great basin known as 'apsu,'--the name, it will be recalled, for
'the deep.' The name indicates that it was a symbolical representation
of the domain of Ea. In Gudea's days the symbol is already known,[1440]
and it continues in use to the end of the Babylonian empire. The
zikkurat itself being, as we saw, an attempt to reproduce the shape of
the earth, the representation of the 'apsu' would suggest itself as a
natural accessory to the temple. The zikkurat and the basin together
would thus become living symbols of the current cosmological
conceptions. Gudea already regards the zikkurat as a symbol. To make the
ascent is a virtuous deed.[1441] The thought of adding a symbol of the
apsu belongs, accordingly, to the period when this view of the zikkurat
was generally recognized. The shape of the 'sea' was oblong or round. It
was cut of large blocks of stone and was elaborately decorated. One of
the oldest[1442] has a frieze of female figures on it, holding in their
outstretched hands flagons from which they pour water. In Marduk's
temple we learn that there were two basins,--a larger and a smaller one.
The comparison with the great 'sea' that stood in the court of Solomon's
temple naturally suggests itself, and there can be little doubt that the
latter is an imitation of a Babylonian model.
Another sacred object in the construction of which much care was taken
was the ship in which the deity was carried in solemn procession. It is
again in the inscriptions of Gudea[1443] that we come across the first
mention of this ship. This ruler tells us that he built the 'beloved
ship' for Nin-girsu, and gave it the name Kar-nuna-ta-uddua, the ship of
'the one that rises up out of the dam of the deep.' The ship of Nabu is
of considerable size, and is fitted out with a captain and crew, has
masts and compartments.[1444] The ship resembled a moon's crescent, not
differing much, therefore, from the ordinary flatbottomed Babylonian
boat with upturned edges. Through Nebuchadnezzar[1445] we learn that
these ships were brilliantly studded with precious stones, their
compartments handsomely fitted out, and that in them the gods were
carried in solemn procession on the festivals celebrated in their
honor.[1446] A long list[1447] of such ships shows that it was a symbol
that belonged to all the great gods. The ships of Nin-lil, Ea, Marduk,
Sin, Shamash, Nabu, Ninib, Bau, Nin-gal, and of others are specially
mentioned. A custom of this kind of carrying the gods in ships must have
originated, of course, among a maritime people. We may trace it back,
therefore, to the very early period when the sacred cities of Babylonia
lay on the Persian Gulf. The use of the ships also suggests, that the
solemn procession of the gods was originally on water and not on land,
and it is likely that this excursion of the gods symbolized some homage
to the chief water-deity, Ea. However this may be, the early
significance became lost, but the custom survived in Babylonia of
carrying the gods about in this way. In Assyria, less wedded to ancient
tradition, we find statues of the gods seated on thrones or standing
upright, carried directly on the shoulders of men.[1448] In Egypt sacred
ships are very common, and it is interesting to note as a survival of
the old Babylonian and Egyptian custom that an annual gift sent by the
khedive of Egypt to Mecca consists of a tabernacle, known as Mahmal,
that presents the outlines of a ship.[1449] The ark of the Hebrews
appears, similarly, to have been originally a ship of some kind.
The ships of the Babylonian gods had names given to them, just as the
towers and sanctuaries had their names. The name of Nin-girsu's ship has
already been mentioned. Marduk's ship was appropriately known as
Ma-ku-a, 'the ship of the dwelling.'[1450] Similarly, a ship of the god
Sin was called 'ship of light,' reminding one of the name of the great
temple to the moon-god at Ur, 'the house of the great luminary.' The
ship of Nin-gal, the consort of Sin, was called 'the lesser light.'
Bau's ship was described by an epithet of the goddess as 'the ship of
the brilliant offspring,' the reference being to the descent of the
goddess from father Anu.[1451] These illustrations will suffice to show
the dependence of the names of the ships upon the names of the temples,
with this important difference, however, that the names of the ships are
chosen from a closer association with the gods to whom they belong. So a
ship of En-lil was known simply as 'the ship of Bel,' and the ship of
Naru,[1452] the river-god, was called 'the ship of the Malku (or royal)
canal'[1453]--an indication, at the same time, of the place where the
cult of Naru was carried on.
The Priests and Priestesses.
At a certain stage in the religious development of a people, the
priesthood is closely linked to political leadership. The earliest form
of government in the Euphrates Valley is theocratic, and we can still
discern some of the steps in the process that led to the differentiation
of the priest from the secular ruler. To the latest times, the kings
retain among their titles some[1454] which have reference to the
religious functions once exercised by them. The king who continued to be
regarded as the representative of a god, nominated by some deity to a
lofty position of trust and power, stood nearer to the gods than his
subjects. In a certain sense, the king remained the priest _par
excellence_. Hence the prominent part played by the ruler in the
religious literature of the country. A large proportion of the hymns
were composed for royalty. The most elaborate ritual dealt with the
endeavor to secure oracles that might serve as a guide for the rulers.
Astronomical reports were made and long series of omen tablets prepared
for the use of the royal household. The calendars furnished regulations
for the conduct of the kings. A ceremonial error, an offence against the
gods on the part of the kings, was certain of being followed by
disastrous consequences for the whole country.
But even the smallest sanctuaries required some service, and it was not
long before the religious interests were entrusted into the hands of
those who devoted themselves to administering the affairs of the
temples. The guardians of the shrines became the priests in fact, long
before the priesthood of the rulers became little more than a theory;
and as the temples grew to larger proportions, the service was divided
up among various classes of priests.
The general name for priests was _shangu_, which, by a plausible
etymology suggested by Jensen,[1455] indicates the function of the
priest as the one who presides over the sacrifices. But this function
represents only one phase of the priestly office in Babylonia, and not
the most important one, by any means. For the people, the priest was
primarily the one who could drive evil demons out of the body of the
person smitten with disease, who could thwart the power of wizards and
witches, who could ward off the attacks of mischievous spirits, or who
could prognosticate the future and determine the intention or the will
of the gods. The offering of sacrifices was one of the means to
accomplish this end, but it is significant that many of the names used
to designate the priestly classes have reference to the priest's
position as the exorciser of evil spirits or his power to secure a
divine oracle or to foretell the future, and not to his function as
sacrificer. Such names are _mashmashu_, the general term for 'the
charmer'; _kalu_, so called, perhaps, as the 'restrainer' of the demons,
the one who keeps them in check; _lagaru_, a synonym of kalu; _makhkhu_,
'soothsayer'; _surru_, a term which is still obscure; _shailu_, the
'inquirer,' who obtains an oracle through the dead or through the gods;
_mushelu_, 'necromancer'; _ashipu_ or _ishippu_, 'sorcerer.'[1456] These
names probably do not exhaust the various kinds of 'magicians' that were
to be found among the Babylonian priests. In the eighteenth chapter of
Deuteronomy, no less than eleven classes of magic workers are
enumerated, and there can be little doubt but that the Pentateuchal
opposition against the necromancers, sorcerers, soothsayers, and the
like is aimed chiefly against Babylonish customs. We have seen in
previous chapters how largely the element of magic enters into the
religious rites and literature of the Babylonian-Assyrian religion and
how persistent an element it is. For the masses, the priest remained
essentially a _mashmashu_. But we have also names like _ramku_ and
_nisakku_, 'libation pourer,' which emphasize the sacrificial functions
of the priest; and in an interesting list of temple servitors,[1457]
'the dirge singers' are introduced as a special class, and appropriately
designated as _munambu_, 'wailer,' and _lallaru_, 'howler.' Of some
terms in this list, like _asinnu_, it is doubtful whether they indicate
a special class of priests or are terms for servitors in general,
attached to a temple; in the case of others, like _nash pilakki_, 'ax
carrier,' we do not know exactly of what nature the service was.[1458]
Lastly, priests in their capacity as scribes[1459] and as judges[1460]
formed another distinct class, though it should be noted that in Assyria
we meet with scribes occasionally who are not priests.[1461]
The range thus covered by the temple service,--magic, oracles,
sacrifices, the lament for the dead, and the judiciary,--is exceedingly
large. The subdivisions, no doubt, varied in each center. In the smaller
sanctuaries, those who offered the sacrifices may also have served as
soothsayers and dirge singers, and the judicial functions may likewise
have been in the same hands as those who performed other services. On
the other hand, in a temple like E-Sagila the classes and subclasses
must have been very numerous. Of the details of the organization we as
yet know very little. There was a high priest, known as the
_shangam-makhu_,[1462] and from the existence of a title like
_sur-makhu_,--that is, the chief _surru_,[1463]--we may conclude that
each class of priests had its chief likewise. With the natural tendency
in ancient civilizations for professions to become vested in families,
the priests in the course of time became a caste; but there is no reason
to believe that entrance into this caste was only possible through the
accident of birth. That instruction in the reading and writing of the
cuneiform characters, and hence the introduction into the literature,
was open to others than the scions of priests is shown by the presence
in the legal literature of formal contracts for instruction between
teachers and pupils who belong to the 'laity.' These pupils could become
scribes and judges, and their standing as 'priests' represented merely
the Babylonian equivalent to a modern university degree. For such
service as the bewailing of the dead and as musicians, persons were
initiated who were taken from various classes and likewise for the
menial duties of the temples, and it is only when we come to the more
distinctive priestly functions, like the exorcising of evil spirits,
securing an oracle, or performing sacrifices, that the rules limiting
these privileges to certain families were iron bound. As among the
Hebrews and other nations, stress was laid also upon freedom from
physical blemishes in the case of the priests. The leper, we learn, was
not fit for the priesthood.[1464] In the astronomical reports that were
spoken of in a previous chapter,[1465] there are references to the
'watches' kept by the astronomers. These watches, however, were probably
not observed for astronomical purposes alone, but represent the time
division, as among the Hebrews, for the temple service. There were three
night watches among the Babylonians,[1466] and, in all probability,
therefore, three day watches likewise. Relays of priests were appointed
in the large sanctuaries for service during the continuance of each
watch, and we may some day find that the Hebrews obtained their number
of twenty-four priests for each 'watch' from a custom prevailing in some
Babylonian temple.
An interesting feature of the Babylonian priesthood is the position
occupied by the woman. In the historical texts from the days of
Hammurabi onward, the references to women attached to the service of
temples are not infrequent. Gudea expressly mentions the 'wailing
women,' and there is every reason to believe that the female wailers,
like the male ones, belong to some priestly class. Again, examples of
women as exorcisers and as furnishing oracles[1467] may be instanced in
Babylonia as well as in Assyria, and we have also references to female
musicians as late as the days of Ashurbanabal. A specially significant
role was played by the priestesses in Ishtar's temple at Erech, and
probably at other places where the cult of the great mother goddess was
carried on. The Ishtar priestess was known by the general term of
Kadishtu,--that is, 'the holy one,'--or Ishtaritum, 'devoted to Ishtar';
but, from the various other names for the sacred harlot that we come
across,[1468] it would appear that the priestesses were divided into
various classes, precisely like the priests. That in the ceremonies of
initiation at Erech, and perhaps elsewhere, some rites were observed
that on the surface appeared obscene is eminently likely; but there is
no evidence that obscene rites, as instanced by Herodotus, formed part
of the _regular_ cult of the goddess. Except in the case of the Ishtar
worship, the general observation may be made that the position of the
priestess is more prominent in the early period of Babylonian history
than in the days when the culture and power of Babylonia and Assyria
reached its zenith.
Sacrifices and Votive Offerings.
The researches of Robertson Smith[1469] and of others have shown that
the oldest Semitic view of sacrifice was that of a meal, shared by the
worshipper with the deity to be honored or propitiated. Dependent as we
are in the case of the Babylonian-Assyrian religion for our knowledge of
sacrifices upon incidental references in historical or religious texts,
it is not possible to say how far the Semitic dwellers of the Euphrates
Valley were influenced by the primitive conception of sacrifice.
Historical and votive inscriptions and a religious literature
belong to a comparatively advanced stage of culture, and earlier views
of sacrifice that may have existed were necessarily modified in the
process of adaptation to later conditions. The organization of an
elaborate cult with priests and numerous temple servitors changes the
sacrifices into a means of income for the temple. The deity's
representatives receive the share originally intended for the deity
himself; and, instead of sanctifying the offering to a god by contact
with the sacred element fire, the temple accepts the offering for its
own use. It is likely, however, that among the Babylonians, as among the
Hebrews, certain parts of the animal which were not fit to eat[1470]
were burned as a symbolical homage to a god. No references have as yet
been found pointing to any special sanctity that was attached to the
blood; but it is eminently likely that the blood was regarded at all
times as the special property of the gods, and was poured on the altar.
The two kinds of sacrifice--animals and vegetable products--date from
the earliest period of the Babylonian religion of which we have any
knowledge. In a long list of offerings, Gudea[1471] includes oxen,
sheep, goats, lambs, fish, birds (as eagles, cranes,[1472] etc.), and
also such products as dates, milk, and greens. From other sources we may
add gazelles, date wine, butter, cream, honey, garlic, corn, herbs, oil,
spices, and incense. Stress is laid upon the quality of the
sacrifice.[1473] The animals must be without blemish, and if well
nurtured, they would be all the more pleasing in the sight of the gods.
The omission of dogs and swine is not accidental. Under that double
aspect of sanctity which we find among the Babylonians as among so many
nations, certain animals were too sacred to be offered, and, on the
other hand, they were regarded as unclean.[1474] In treating of the omen
texts we already had occasion to speak of the peculiar ideas attached to
the dog by the Babylonians,[1475] and there is sufficient evidence to
show that the boar likewise was viewed as a sacred animal, at least in
certain parts of Babylonia.[1476] No certain traces of human sacrifices
have been found, either in Babylonian literature or in artistic
representations.[1477] If the rite was ever practised among the
Babylonians or Assyrians it must have been at a very early
period--earlier than any of which we as yet have any knowledge. On the
other hand, a trace of some primitive form of tree worship may be
recognized in the representation, so frequent on seal cylinders and
monuments, of curious figures, in part human, in part animal, standing
in front of the palm tree.[1478] The symbol belongs to Assyria as well
as to Babylonia. In some of the designs the figures--human heads and
bodies but furnished with large wings--appear to be in the act of
artificially fertilizing the palm tree by scattering the male blossom
over the female palm. This plausible interpretation first suggested by
E. B. Tylor[1479] carries with it the conclusion that the importance of
palm culture in the Euphrates Valley not only gave the palm the
character of a sacred tree, but lent to the symbol a wider significance
to a more advanced age, as illustrating fertility and blessings in
general. The scene, reproduced in almost endless variations in which
both trees and figures become conventionalized, came to be regarded as a
symbol of adoration and worship in general. As such, it survived in
religious art and continued to be pictured on seal cylinders to a late
age.