The Religion of Babylonia and Assyria

M >> Morris Jastrow >> The Religion of Babylonia and Assyria

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61

Reserving further details regarding the several classes of demons and
spirits enumerated, it will suffice to say a few words about one
particular group of spirits whose role was peculiarly prominent in both
historical, liturgical, and general religious texts. The tendency to
systematize the beliefs in spirits manifests itself in Babylonia,
equally with the grouping of the gods into certain classes. In
consequence of this general tendency, the conception arose of a group of
spirits that comprised the associated secondary powers of earth and
heaven, somewhat as Anu, Bel, and Ea summed up the quintessence of the
higher powers or gods. This group was known as the

Anunnaki and Igigi.

Regarding these names it may be said that the former has not yet been
satisfactorily interpreted. On the assumption that the union of the
syllables A-nun-na-ki[216] represents a compound ideograph, the middle
syllable _nun_ signifies 'strength,' whereas the first is the ordinary
ideograph for 'water.' Hommel[217] proposed to interpret the name
therefore as 'gods of the watery habitation.' The artificiality of this
manner of writing points, as in several instances noted, to a mere
'play' upon the real name. _Anunna_ reminds one forcibly of the god
_Anu_ and of the goddess _Anunit_, and the element _ak_ is quite a
common afformative in Babylonian substantives, conveying a certain
emphatic meaning to the word. If therefore we may compare Anun with the
name of the god of heaven, the name _Anunnak_ embodying, as it does in
this case, the idea of power, would be an appropriate designation for
the spirits, or a group of spirits collectively. Be it understood that
this explanation is offered merely as a conjecture, which, however,
finds support in the meaning attached to the term 'Igigi.' This, as
Halevy and Guyard have recognized, is a formation of a well-known stem
occurring in Babylonian, as well as in other Semitic languages, that has
the meaning 'strong.' The ideographic form of writing the name likewise
designates the spirits as 'the great chiefs.' The 'Igigi,' therefore,
are 'the strong ones,' and strength being the attribute most commonly
assigned to the Semitic deities,[218] there is a presumption, at least,
in favor of interpreting Anunnak, or Anunnaki,[219] in the same way. The
'Igigi' are at times designated as the seven gods, but this number is
simply an indication of their constituting a large group. Seven is a
round number which marked a large quantity. At an earlier period five
represented a numerical magnitude, and hence the Anunnaki are at times
regarded as a group of five.[220] The Anunnaki and Igigi appear for the
first time in an historical text in the inscription of the Assyrian king
Ramman-nirari I., who includes them in his appeal to the great gods. He
designates the Igigi as belonging to heaven, the Anunnaki as belonging
to the earth. The manner in which he uses the names shows conclusively
that, at this early period, the two groups comprehended the entire
domain over which spirits, and for that matter also the gods, exercised
their power. Indeed, it would appear that at one time the two names were
used to include the gods as well as the spirits. At least this appears
to be the case in Assyria, and the conclusion may be drawn, from the
somewhat vague use of the terms, that the names belong to a very early
period of the religion, when the distinction between gods and spirits
was not yet clearly marked. However that may be, in Babylonian hymns and
incantations the Igigi and Anunnaki play a very prominent part. Anu is
represented as the father of both groups. But they are also at the
service of other gods, notably of Bel, who is spoken of as their 'lord,'
of Ninib, of Marduk, of Ishtar, and of Nergal. They prostrate themselves
before these superior masters, and the latter at times manifest their
anger against the Igigi. They are sent out by the gods to do service.
Their character is, on the whole, severe and cruel. They are not
favorable to man, but rather hostile to him. Their brilliancy consumes
the land. Their power is feared, and Assyrian kings more particularly
are fond of adding the Igigi and Anunnaki to the higher powers--the gods
proper--when they wish to inspire a fear of their own majesty. At times
the Igigi alone are mentioned, but generally the Igigi and Anunnaki
appear in combination. To the latest period of Babylonian history these
two groups continue to receive official recognition. Nebuchadnezzar
II.[221] dedicates an altar, which he erects at the wall of the city of
Babylon, to the Igigi and Anunnaki. The altar is called a structure of
'joy and rejoicing,' and on the festival of Marduk, who is the 'lord of
the Anunnaki and Igigi,' sacrifices were offered at this altar. In the
great temple of Marduk there was a fountain in which the gods and the
Anunnaki, according to a Babylonian hymn, 'bathe their countenance'; and
when to this notice it be added that another hymn praises them as the
'shining chiefs' of the ancient city of Eridu, it will be apparent that
the conceptions attached to this group span the entire period of
Babylonian-Assyrian history.

Besides the Igigi and Anunnaki there is still a third group of seven
spirits, generally designated as the 'evil demons,' who represent the
embodiment of all physical suffering to which man is subject. They
appear, however, only in the incantation texts, and we may, therefore,
postpone their consideration until that subject is reached. The point to
be borne in mind, and which I have attempted to emphasize in this place,
is the close relationship existing in the _popular_ forms of the
Babylonian religion between the gods and the spirits. The latter belong
to the pantheon as much as the former. Primitive animism continues to
enchain the minds of the people, despite the differentiation established
between the higher and the secondary powers, and despite the high point
of development reached by the schoolmen in their attempts to systematize
and, in a measure, to purify the ancient beliefs.

FOOTNOTES:

[213] The technical name for this class of monuments was _Kudurru_,
_i.e._, mark, and then used like the German word _Mark_ both for
boundary and for the territory included within the bounds. A notable
contribution to the interpretation of the Kudurru monuments was made by
Belser, in the _Beitraege zur Assyriologie_, ii. 111-203.

[214] The question has been raised (see Belser, _ib._ p. 111) by Pinches
whether these representations are not the symbols of the zodiac, but, as
Belser justly remarks, the attempt to interpret the pictures in this way
has not been successful. It still seems most plausible to regard the
pictures as symbols of spirits or demons. Such an interpretation is in
accord with the Babylonian and general Semitic view of land ownership.
At the same time it must be confessed that we are still in the dark as
to the motives underlying the choice of the animals portrayed. There may
be some ultimate connection with _some_ of the signs of the zodiac,--so
Hommel believes,--but such connection would have to be judged from the
earlier forms that animism takes on, and not in the light of an advanced
theology such as appears in the zodiacal system of the Babylonians.

[215] See Perrot and Chiplez, _History of Art in Chaldaea and Assyria_,
I. 351.

[216] The element _ki_ is sometimes omitted. The force of _na_ is not
clear, unless it be a phonetic complement merely.

[217] _Semitische Voelker_, p. 369.

[218] Very many of the names of the Semitic gods and heroes signify
strong, _e.g._, _El_, _Adon_, _Baal_, _Etana_, _Kemosh_, etc.

[219] The final vowel _i_ would, on the basis of the explanation
offered, be paralleled by the _i_ of Igigi--an indication of the plural.
See Delitzsch, _Assyr. Gram._ Sec. 67, 1.

[220] The Igigi are designated ideographically as v plus ii, and Hommel
(_Semitische Voelker_, p. 491) properly suggests that this peculiar
writing points to an earlier use of five as constituting the group.
Hommel, however, does not see that neither five nor seven are to be
interpreted literally, but that both represent a large round number,
and, therefore, also a holy one.

[221] IR. 55, col. iv. ll. 7-13.

CHAPTER XII.

THE ASSYRIAN PANTHEON.

We have now reached a point where it will be proper to set forth the
phases that the Babylonian religion assumed during the days of Assyrian
supremacy.

An enumeration of the gods occurring in the inscriptions of the rulers
of Assyria from the earliest days to the close of the empire, so far as
published, will show better than any argument the points of similarity
between the Babylonian and the Assyrian pantheon. These gods are in
alphabetical order:[222] Anu, Ashur, Bel, Belit, Gaga, Gibil, Gamlat,
Gula, Dibbarra, Dagan, Damkina, Ea, Ishtar, Kadi, Khani, Marduk, Nabu,
Nana, Nin-gal, Nergal, Ninib, Nusku, Ramman, Sin, Shala, Shalman,
Shamash, Shanitka(?), Tashmitum. Of these quite a number are only
mentioned incidentally, and in a manner that indicates that they do not
belong to the pantheon in the strict sense. Others, like Khani[223] and
Gamlat,--_i.e._, 'the merciful one,'[224]--may turn out to be mere
epithets of deities otherwise known; and it would hardly be legitimate
to extend the list by including deities that have not yet been
identified,[225] and which may similarly be only variant forms,
descriptive of such as are already included. But however much this list
may be extended and modified by further publications and researches, the
historical material at hand for the Assyrian period of the religion is
sufficient to warrant us in setting up two classes of the pantheon,--one
class constituting the active pantheon, the other, deities introduced by
the kings merely for purposes of self-glorification, or to give greater
solemnity to the invocations and warnings that formed a feature of all
commemorative and dedicatory inscriptions, as well as of the annals
proper. The future additions to the list, it is safe to assert, will
increase the second class and only slightly modify, if at all, the first
class. Bearing in mind this distinction we may put down as active forces
in Assyria the following: Anu, Ashur, Bel, Belit, Gula, Dagan, Ea,
Khani, Ishtar, Marduk, Nabu, Nergal, Ninib, Nusku, Ramman, Sin, Shala,
Shamash, Tashmitum.

Comparing both the fuller and the restricted list with the Babylonian
pantheon during the two periods treated of in the preceding chapters, we
are struck by three facts: (1) the smaller compass of the Assyrian
pantheon; (2) the more restricted introduction of what, for want of a
better term, we may call minor deities; and (3) the small number of new
deities met with. To take up the latter point, the only gods in the
above list that are not found in Babylonian inscriptions are Ashur,
Gibil, Gamlat, Dibbarra, Kadi, Nusku, Shala, Shanitka. Of these it is
purely accidental that Gibil, Dibbarra, Nusku, and Shala are not
mentioned, for, except those that are foreign importations, they belong
to Babylonia as much as to Assyria and fall within the periods of the
Babylonian religion that have been treated of. Kadi is a foreign
deity.[226] Shanitka(?) may only be a title of some goddess, and Shalman
(or Shalmannu) occurs only in proper names, and may likewise be only a
title of some god.[227] There remains, as the only god peculiar to
Assyria, the god Ashur. But for this god, the Babylonian and the
Assyrian pantheon are identical. When we come, however, to the position
held by the gods in the pantheon, their relationship to one another, and
the traits which secured for them popular and royal favor, the
differences between the Babylonian and the Assyrian phases of the
religion will be found to be more accentuated.

As for the smaller compass of the Assyrian pantheon, we may recognize in
this a further advance of the tendency already noted in the second
period of the Babylonian religion. There, too, we found the minor local
cults yielding to the growing influence and favor of certain gods
associated with the great centers of Babylonian life, or possessing
attributes that accorded more with the new political order and the
general advance of culture. One of the chief factors in this tendency
towards centralization was, as we saw, the supremacy accorded to Marduk
in the new empire as the patron god of the capital, and that not only
led to his absorbing the role of other deities,[228] but resulted also
in strengthening the belief that there were only a limited number of
deities upon whose power and willingness to aid dependence could be
placed. This tendency was in a measure offset by the pride that the
rulers of the second Babylonian period still took in parading at times,
as large a number as possible of deities under whose protection they
claimed to stand. As we pass from one age to the other, the number of
minor deities thus invoked also tends to diminish, and the occasions
likewise when they are invoked become limited to the more solemn
invocations at the beginning and the close of inscriptions. Now, in
Assyria we have much the same political conditions as in Babylonia, only
intensified. Here, too, we have one god towering above the others, only
to a still greater degree even than Marduk in Babylonia. Marduk, while
absorbing the role of the old Bel, is still bound to acknowledge the
fathership of Ea. For a time he has to fear the rivalry of Nabu, and we
have seen that during the Cassitic rule, the glory of Marduk is somewhat
dimmed. The god who comes to stand at the head of the Assyrian
pantheon--Ashur--suffers from none of these restrictions. He is
independent of other gods and is under no obligations to any of his
fellows, and his rule once acknowledged remains supreme, with, perhaps,
one short period excepted,[229] throughout all the vicissitudes that the
empire undergoes. As a consequence of this unique position, Ashur is so
completely identified with Assyria, that with the fall of the empire he,
too, disappears,--whereas the Marduk cult survives the loss of
Babylonian independence, and is undisturbed even by the final absorption
of Babylonia into the empire of Cyrus. The tendency towards
centralization of the cult is even more pronounced, therefore, in
Assyria than in Babylonia. Marduk is a leader who has many gods as
followers, but all of whom have their distinct functions. Ashur is a
host in himself. He needs no attendants. His aid suffices for all
things, and such is the attachment of his subjects to him that it would
almost appear like an insult to his dignity to attach a long array of
minor gods to him. For the Assyrian kings the same motives did not exist
as for the Babylonians to emphasize their control over all parts of
their empire by adding the chief gods of these districts to the
pantheon. Assyria was never split up into independent states like
Babylonia before the days of Hammurabi. The capital, it is true, changed
with considerable frequency, but there was always only one great center
of political power. So far as Assyrian control over Babylonia was
concerned, it was sufficient for the purposes of the Assyrian rulers to
claim Marduk as their patron and protector, and, as we shall see, they
always made a point of emphasizing this claim. Hence we have only 'great
gods,'[230] and no minor deities, in the train of Ashur. These 'great
gods' could not be expunged from the pantheon without a complete
severance of the ties that bound the Assyrians to their past. Kings of
great empires seldom favor religious revolutions. But by the side of
Ashur these great gods pale, and in the course of time the tendency
becomes more marked to regard them merely as formal members of a little
court with few functions of their own, beyond that of adding by their
presence to the majesty and glory of Ashur. One receives the impression
that in Assyria only a few of the gods invoked by the kings at the side
of Ashur exert any real influence on the lives of the people; and such
as do, gain favor through possessing in some measure the chief attribute
that distinguished Ashur,--prowess in war. They are little Ashurs, as it
were, by the side of the great one. The position of Ashur in the
Assyrian pantheon accounts for the general tendencies manifested by the
religion of the northern empire, and upon a clear conception of the
character of Ashur depends our understanding of the special points that
distinguish the other gods from what we have learned of their character
and traits in the southern states. The beginning, therefore, of an
account of the Assyrian pantheon is properly to be made with Ashur.

Ashur.

The starting-point of the career of Ashur is the city of Ashur, situated
on the west bank of the Tigris, not far from the point where the lower
Zab flows into the Tigris. Ashur is therefore distinctly a local deity,
and so far as the testimony of the texts goes, he was never regarded in
early days in any other light than as the local patron of the city to
which he has given his name. He was never worshipped, so far as can be
ascertained, as a manifestation of any of the great powers of
nature,--the sun or the moon; though, if anything, he was originally a
solar deity.[231] Nor was he a symbol of any of the elements,--fire or
water. In this respect he differs from Sin, Shamash, Nusku,[232] and Ea,
whose worship was localized, without affecting the _quasi_-universal
character that these deities possessed. As a local deity his worship
must have been limited to the city over which he spread his protecting
arm; and if we find the god afterwards holding jurisdiction over a much
larger territory than the city of Ashur, it is because in the north, as
in the south, a distinct state or empire was simply regarded as the
extension of a city. Ashur became the god of Assyria as the rulers of
the city of Ashur grew in power,--in the same way that Marduk, upon the
union of the Babylonian states under the supremacy of the city of
Babylon, became the god of all Babylonia. But a difference between the
north and the south is to be noted. Whereas Marduk, although the god of
Babylonia, was worshipped only in the city of Babylon where he was
supposed to have his seat, temples to Ashur existed in various parts of
the Assyrian empire. The god accompanied the kings in their wars, and
wherever the rulers settled, there the god was worshipped. So in the
various changes of official residences that took place in the course of
Assyrian history from Ashur to Calah, and from Calah to Nineveh, and
from Nineveh to Khorsabad, the god took part, and his central seat of
worship depended upon the place that the kings chose for their official
residence. At the same time, while the cult in the various temples that
in the course of time were erected in his honor probably continued
without interruption, there was always one place--the official
residence--which formed the central spot of worship. There the god was
supposed to dwell for the time being. One factor, perhaps, that ought to
be taken into consideration in accounting for this movable disposition
of the god was that he was not symbolized exclusively by a statue, as
Marduk and the other great gods were. His chief symbol was a standard
that could be carried from place to place, and indeed was so made that
it could be carried into the thick of the fray, in order to assure the
army of the god's presence. The standard consisted of a pole surrounded
by a disc enclosed within two wings, while above the disc stood the
figure of a warrior in the act of shooting an arrow.[233] The statues of
the gods were deposited in shrines, and after being carried about, as
was done on festive days or other occasions, they would be replaced in
their shrines. The military standard, however, followed the camp
everywhere, and when the kings chose to fix upon a new place for their
military encampment--and such the official residences of the Assyrian
warrior-kings in large measure were--the standard would repose in the
place selected. How this standard came to be chosen, and when, is
another question, and one more difficult to answer. It may be that the
representation of the god by a standard was a consequence of the
fondness that the rulers of Ashur manifested for perpetual warfare; or,
in other words, that the god Ashur was represented by a standard so that
he might be carried into the battle and be moved from place to place. At
all events, the two things--the standard and the warlike character of
the subjects of Ashur--stood in close relationship to one another, and
the further conclusion is justified that when a military standard came
to be chosen as the symbol of Ashur, the god was recognized distinctly
as a god of war. The symbols accompanying the standard are of importance
as enabling us to determine something more regarding the character of
Ashur. In the first place, the fact that it contained a figure may be
taken as an indication that the god was at one time represented by a
statue,--as indeed we know from other evidence,[234]--and that the
change of his symbol from a statue to a standard is a result of the
military activity of the Assyrians. The winged disc is so general a
symbol of the sun in the religious system of various ancient
nations[235] that one cannot escape the conclusion that the symbol must
be similarly interpreted in the case before us. Is it possible,
therefore, that in a period lying beyond that revealed by the oldest
inscriptions at our disposal, Ashur was worshipped as a solar deity? One
is bound to confess that the evidence does not warrant us in regarding
Ashur as anything but the patron of the city of Ashur. Nowhere do we
find any allusion from which we are justified in concluding that he
originally represented some elemental power or phenomenon. Tiele[236] is
of the decided opinion that Ashur was at his origin a nature god of some
kind, and he goes so far as to suggest, though with due reserve, the
possible identification of Ashur with Sin. No doubt Tiele is prompted to
this view by the example of the great god of the south, Marduk, who is
originally a solar deity, and by all the other great gods who represent,
or represented, some power of nature. Analogy, however, is not a
sufficiently reliable guide to settle a question for the solution of
which historical material is lacking. So much, however, may be said,
that if we are to assume that Ashur personified originally some natural
power, the symbol of the winged disc lends a strong presumption in favor
of supposing him to have been some phase of the sun. So much, then, for
the general character of Ashur. Before passing on to a specification of
his role and his traits, as revealed by the historical texts, a word
remains to be said as to the etymology and form of the name. Ashur is
the only instance that we have of a god expressly giving his name to a
city, for the name of the city can only be derived from that of the god,
and not _vice versa_. The identification of the god with his favorite
town must have been so complete that the town, which probably had some
specific name of its own, became known simply as the 'city of the god
Ashur.' From such a designation it is but a small step to call the city
simply, Ashur. The difference between the god and the city would be
indicated by the determinative for deity, which was only attached to the
former, while the latter was written with the determinative attached to
towns. When this city of Ashur extended its bounds until it became
coequal with the domain of Assyria, the name of the god was transferred
to the entire northern district of Mesopotamia, which, as the country of
the god Ashur, was written with the determinative for country.[237] The
ideographs which the Assyrian scribes employed in writing the name of
the god reveal the meaning they attached to it. He is described
ideographically as the 'good god.' This interpretation accords admirably
with the general force of the verbal stem underlying the name. In both
Hebrew and Assyrian _a-sh-r_ signifies 'to be gracious, to grant
blessing, to cause to prosper.' Ashur, therefore, is the god that
blesses his subjects, and to the latter he would accordingly appear as
the 'good god' _par excellence_. If the tempting etymology of our own
word 'god,' which connects it with 'good,' be correct, 'god' would be
almost the perfect equivalent of Ashur. It is not necessary to conclude,
as Tiele does,[238] that Ashur, as the 'good one,' is an ethical
abstraction, but certainly a designation of a god as 'a good one' sounds
more like a descriptive epithet than like a name. The supposition that
Ashur was not, therefore, the original name of the god receives a
certain measure of force from this consideration. Moreover, there are
indications that there actually existed another form of his name,
namely, Anshar.[239] This form Anshar would, according to the phonetic
laws prevailing in Assyria, tend to become Ash-shar.[240] Ashur--the
'good one'--would thus turn out to be an epithet of the god, chosen as a
'play' suggested by Ash-shar, just as we found Gula called the lady of
_Ekalli_, and again _Kallat_ (bride).[241] The etymology of Anshar is as
obscure as that of most of the ancient gods of Babylonia,--as of Sin,
Marduk, Ishtar, and many more. But before leaving the subject, it will
be proper to call attention to the role that a god Anshar plays in the
Babylonian-Assyrian cosmological system. _Anshar_ and _Kishar_ are the
second pair of deities to be created, the first pair being _Lakhmu_ and
_Lakhamu_. In the great fight of the gods against the monster Tiamat, it
would appear that, according to one version at least, Anshar sends Anu,
Ea, and finally Bel-Marduk, in turn to destroy the monster. He appears,
therefore, to have exercised a kind of supremacy over the gods. Assuming
the correctness of the deductions, according to which Ashur is an
epithet arising by a play upon Ash-shar (from an original Anshar), it is
hardly open to doubt that this Anshar is the same as the one who appears
in the cosmology. On the other hand, it is difficult to suppose that
Anshar should have played so significant a part in Babylonian traditions
and yet find no mention in the text of the rulers of Babylonia. Bearing
in mind what has been said as to the manner in which ancient traditions
and myths were remodeled by the schoolmen to conform to later ideas,--we
have seen how in this process the popularity of Marduk led to his
assuming the role originally played by Bel,--may not the recognition
given to Anshar be a concession, made at the time that Assyria had begun
her glorious career (_c._ 1400 B.C.), to the chief god of the northern
empire?