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

We do not know who originated it; nor can the question be as yet
definitely answered, whether those who originated it spoke the
Babylonian language, or whether they were Semites at all. Until about
fifteen years ago, it was generally supposed that the cuneiform writing
was without doubt the invention of a non-Semitic race inhabiting
Babylonia at an early age, from whom the Semitic Babylonians adopted it,
together with the culture that this non-Semitic race had produced. These
inventors, called Sumerians by some and Akkadians by others, and
Sumero-Akkadians by a third group of scholars, it was supposed, used the
"cuneiform" as a picture or 'ideographic' script exclusively; and the
language they spoke being agglutinative and largely monosyllabic in
character, it was possible for them to stop short at this point of
development. The Babylonians however, in order to adapt the writing to
their language, did not content themselves with the 'picture' method,
but using the non-Semitic equivalent for their own words, employed the
former as syllables, while retaining, at the same time, the sign as an
ideograph. To make this clearer by an example, the numeral '1' would
represent the word 'one' in their own language, while the non-Semitic
word for 'one,' which let us suppose was "_ash_," they used as the
phonetic value of the sign, in writing a word in which this sound
occurred, as _e.g._, _ash-es_. Since each sign, in Sumero-Akkadian as
well as in Babylonian, represented some general idea, it could stand for
an entire series of words, grouped about this idea and associated with
it, 'day,' for example, being used for 'light,' 'brilliancy,' 'pure,'
and so forth. The variety of syllabic and ideographic values which the
cuneiform characters show could thus be accounted for.

This theory, however, tempting as it is by its simplicity, cannot be
accepted in this unqualified form. Advancing knowledge has made it
certain that the ancient civilization, including the religion, is
Semitic in character. The assumption therefore of a purely non-Semitic
culture for southern Babylonia is untenable. Secondly, even in the
oldest inscriptions found, there occur Semitic words and Semitic
constructions which prove that the inscriptions were composed by
Semites. As long, therefore, as no traces of purely non-Semitic
inscription are found, we cannot go beyond the Semites in seeking for
the origin of the culture in this region. In view of this, the theory
first advanced by Prof. Joseph Halevy of Paris, and now supported by the
most eminent of German Assyriologists, Prof. Friedrich Delitzsch, which
claims that the cuneiform writing is Semitic in origin, needs to be most
carefully considered. There is much that speaks in favor of this theory,
much that may more easily be accounted for by it, than by the opposite
one, which was originally proposed by the distinguished Nestor of
cuneiform studies, Jules Oppert, and which is with some modifications
still held by the majority of scholars.[14] The question is one which
cannot be answered by an appeal to philology alone. This is the
fundamental error of the advocates of the Sumero-Akkadian theory, who
appear to overlook the fact that the testimony of archaeological and
anthropological research must be confirmatory of a philological
hypothesis before it can be accepted as an indisputable fact.[15] The
time however has not yet come for these two sciences to pronounce their
verdict definitely, though it may be added that the supposition of a
variety of races once inhabiting Southern Mesopotamia finds support in
what we know from the pre-historic researches of anthropologists.

Again, it is not to be denied that the theory of the Semitic origin of
the cuneiform writing encounters obstacles that cannot easily be set
aside. While it seeks to explain the syllabic values of the signs on the
general principle that they represent elements of Babylonian words,
truncated in this fashion in order to answer to the growing need for
phonetic writing of words for which no ideographs existed, it is
difficult to imagine, as Halevy's theory demands, that the "ideographic"
style, as found chiefly in religious texts, is the deliberate invention
of priests in their desire to produce a method of conveying their ideas
that would be regarded as a mystery by the laity, and be successfully
concealed from the latter. Here again the theory borders on the domain
of archaeology, and philology alone will not help us out of the
difficulty. An impartial verdict of the present state of the problem
might be summed up as follows:

1. It is generally admitted that all the literature of Babylonia,
including the oldest and even that written in the "ideographic" style,
whether we term it "Sumero-Akkadian" or "hieratic," is the work of the
Semitic settlers of Mesopotamia.

2. The culture, including the religion of Babylonia, is likewise a
Semitic production, and since Assyria received its culture from
Babylonia, the same remark holds good for entire Mesopotamia.

3. The cuneiform syllabary is largely Semitic in character. The ideas
expressed by the ideographic values of the signs give no evidence of
having been produced in non-Semitic surroundings; and, whatever the
origin of the system may be, it has been so shaped by the Babylonians,
so thoroughly adapted to their purposes, that it is to all practical
purposes Semitic.

4. Approached from the theoretical side, there remains, after making
full allowance for the Semitic elements in the system, a residuum that
has not yet found a satisfactory explanation, either by those who favor
the non-Semitic theory or by those who hold the opposite view.

5. Pending further light to be thrown upon this question, through the
expected additions to our knowledge of the archaeology and of the
anthropological conditions of ancient prehistoric Mesopotamia,
philological research must content itself with an acknowledgment of its
inability to reach a conclusion that will appeal so forcibly to all
minds, as to place the solution of the problem beyond dispute.

6. There is a presumption in favor of assuming a mixture of races in
Southern Mesopotamia at an early day, and a possibility, therefore, that
the earliest form of picture writing in this region, from which the
Babylonian cuneiform is derived, may have been _used_ by a non-Semitic
population, and that traces of this are still apparent in the developed
system after the important step had been taken, marked by the advance
from picture to phonetic writing.

The important consideration for our purpose is, that the religious
conceptions and practices as they are reflected in the literary sources
now at our command, are distinctly Babylonian. With this we may rest
content, and, leaving theories aside, there will be no necessity in an
exposition of the religion of the Babylonians and Assyrians to
differentiate or to attempt to differentiate between Semitic and
so-called non-Semitic elements. Local conditions and the long period
covered by the development and history of the religion in question, are
the factors that suffice to account for the mixed and in many respects
complicated phenomena which this religion presents.

Having set forth the sources at our command for the study of the
Babylonian-Assyrian religion, and having indicated the manner in which
these sources have been made available for our purposes, we are prepared
to take the next step that will fit us for an understanding of the
religious practices that prevailed in Mesopotamia,--a consideration of
the land and of its people, together with a general account of the
history of the latter.

FOOTNOTES:

[5] Isaiah, xlv. For the Babylonian views contained in this chapter, see
Alfred Jeremias, _Die Babylonisch-Assyrischen Vorstellungen vom Leben
nach dem Tode_, pp. 112-116.

[6] Book i. sec. 184.

[7] Book I. ("Clio"), secs. 95, 102, 178-200.

[8] An instructive instance is furnished by the mention of a mystic
personage, "Homoroka," which now turns out to be--as Professor J. H.
Wright has shown--a corruption of Marduk. (See _Zeitschrift fuer
Assyriologie_, x. 71-74.)

[9] The excavations are still being continued, thanks to the generosity
of some public-spirited citizens of Philadelphia.

[10] The parties concerned rolled their cylinders over the clay tablet
recording a legal or commercial transaction.

[11] Besides those at Persepolis, a large tri-lingual inscription was
found at Behistun, near the city of Kirmenshah, in Persia, which,
containing some ninety proper names, enabled Sir Henry Rawlinson
definitely to establish a basis for the decipherment of the Mesopotamian
inscriptions.

[12] The best account is to be found in Hommel's _Geschichte Babyloniens
und Assyriens_, pp. 58-134. A briefer statement was furnished by
Professor Fr. Delitzsch in his supplements to the German translation of
George Smith's _Chaldaean Genesis_ (_Chaldaeische Genesis_, pp. 257-262).
A tolerably satisfactory account in English is furnished by B. T. A.
Evetts in his work, _New Light on the Bible and the Holy Land_, pp.
79-129. For a full account of the excavations and the decipherment,
together with a summary of results and specimens of the various branches
of the Babylonian-Assyrian literature, the reader may be referred to
Kaulen's _Assyrien und Babylonien nach den neuesten Entdeckungen_ (5th
edition).

[13] The most recent investigations show it to have been a 'Turanian'
language. See Weissbach, _Achaemeniden Inschriften sweiter Art_, Leipzig,
1893.

[14] Besides Delitzsch, however, there are others, as Pognon, Jaeger,
Guyard, McCurdy and Brinton, who side with Halevy.

[15] See now Dr. Brinton's paper, "The Protohistoric Ethnography of
Western Asia" (_Proceed. Amer. Philos. Soc._, 1895), especially pp.
18-22.

CHAPTER II.

THE LAND AND THE PEOPLE.

I.

The Babylonians and Assyrians with whom we are concerned in this volume
dwelt in the region embraced by the Euphrates and the Tigris,--the
Babylonians in the south, or the Euphrates Valley, the Assyrians to the
northeast, in the region extending from the Tigris into the Kurdish
Mountain districts; while the northwestern part of Mesopotamia--the
northern half of the Euphrates district--was the seat of various empires
that were alternately the rivals and the subjects of either Babylonia or
Assyria.

The entire length of Babylonia was about 300 miles; the greatest breadth
about 125 miles. The entire surface area was some 23,000 square miles,
or about the size of West Virginia. The area of Assyria, with a length
of 350 miles and a breadth varying from 170 to 300 miles, covered 75,000
square miles, which would make it somewhat smaller than the state of
Nebraska. In the strict sense, the term Mesopotamia should be limited to
the territory lying between the Euphrates and the Tigris above their
junction, in the neighborhood of Baghdad, and extending northwards to
the confines of the Taurus range; while the district to the south of
Baghdad, and reaching to the Persian Gulf, may more properly be spoken
of as the Euphrates Valley; and a third division is represented by the
territory to the east of the Tigris, from Baghdad, and up to the Kurdish
Mountains; but while this distinction is one that may be justly
maintained, in view of the different character that the southern valley
presents from the northern plain, it has become so customary, in popular
parlance, to think of the entire territory along and between the
Euphrates and Tigris as one country, that the term Mesopotamia in this
broad sense may be retained, with the division suggested by George
Rawlinson, into Upper and Lower Mesopotamia. The two streams, as they
form the salient traits of the region, are the factors that condition
the character of the inhabitants and the culture that once flourished
there. The Euphrates, or, to give the more correct pronunciation, Purat,
signifies the 'river' _par excellence_. It is a quiet stream, flowing
along in majestic dignity almost from its two sources, in the Armenian
mountains, not far from the town of Erzerum, until it is joined by the
Tigris in the extreme south. As the Shatt-el Arab, _i.e._, Arabic River,
the two reach the Persian Gulf. Receiving many tributaries as long as it
remains in the mountains, it flows first in a westerly direction, as
though making direct for the Mediterranean Sea, then, veering suddenly
to the southeast, it receives but few tributaries after it once passes
through the Taurus range into the plain,--on the right side, only the
Sadschur, on the left the Balichus and the Khabur. From this point on
for the remaining distance of 800 miles, so far from receiving fresh
accessions, it loses in quantity through the marsh beds that form on
both sides. When it reaches the alluvial soil of Babylonia proper, its
current and also its depth are considerably diminished through the
numerous canals that form an outlet for its waters. Of its entire
length, 1780 miles, it is navigable only for a small distance, cataracts
forming a hindrance in its northern course and sandbanks in the south.
In consequence, it never became at any time an important avenue for
commerce, and besides rafts, which could be floated down to a certain
distance, the only means of communication ever used were wicker baskets
coated within and without with bitumen, or some form of a primitive
ferry for passing from one shore to another.

An entirely different stream is the Tigris--a corrupted form of
'Idiklat.' It is only 1146 miles in length, and is marked, as the native
name indicates, by the 'swiftness' of its flow. Starting, like the
Euphrates, in the rugged regions of Armenia, it continues its course
through mountain clefts for a longer period, and joined at frequent
intervals by tributaries, both before it merges into the plain and after
doing so, the volume of its waters is steadily increased. Even when it
approaches the alluvial soil of the south, it does not lose its
character until well advanced in its course to the gulf. Advancing
towards the Euphrates and again receding from it, it at last joins the
latter at Korna, and together they pour their waters through the Persian
Gulf into the great ocean. It is navigable from Diabekr in the north,
for its entire length. Large rafts may be floated down from Mosul to
Baghdad and Basra, and even small steamers have ascended as far north as
Nimrud. The Tigris, then, in contrast to the Euphrates, is the avenue of
commerce for Mesopotamia, forming the connecting bond between it and the
rest of the ancient world,--Egypt, India, and the lands of the
Mediterranean. Owing, however, to the imperfect character of the means
of transportation in ancient and, for that matter, in modern times, the
voyage up the stream was impracticable. The rafts, resting on inflated
bags of goat or sheep skin, can make no headway against the rapid
stream, and so, upon reaching Baghdad or Basra, they are broken up, and
the bags sent back by the shore route to the north.

The contrast presented by the two rivers is paralleled by the traits
distinguishing Upper from Lower Mesopotamia. Shut off to the north and
northeast by the Armenian range, to the northwest by the Taurus, Upper
Mesopotamia retains, for a considerable extent, and especially on the
eastern side, a rugged aspect. The Kurdish mountains run close to the
Tigris' bed for some distance below Mosul, while between the Tigris and
the Euphrates proper, small ranges and promontories stretch as far as
the end of the Taurus chain, well on towards Mosul.

Below Mosul, the region begins to change its character. The mountains
cease, the plain begins, the soil becomes alluvial and through the
regular overflow of the two rivers in the rainy season, develops an
astounding fertility. This overflow begins, in the case of the Tigris,
early in March, reaches its height in May, and ceases about the middle
of June. The overflow of the Euphrates extends from the middle of March
till the beginning of June, but September is reached before the river
resumes its natural state. Not only does the overflow of the Euphrates
thus extend over a longer period, but it oversteps its banks with
greater violence than does the Tigris, so that as far north as the
juncture with the Khabur, and still more so in the south, the country to
both sides is flooded, until it assumes the appearance of a great sea.
Through the violence of these overflows, changes constantly occur in the
course that the river takes, so that places which in ancient times stood
on its banks are to-day removed from the main river-bed. Another
important change in Southern Babylonia is the constant accretion of
soil, due to the deposits from the Persian Gulf.

This increase proceeding on an average of about one mile in fifty years
has brought it about that the two rivers to-day, instead of passing
separately into the Gulf, unite at Korna--some distance still from the
entrance. The contrast of seasons is greater, as may be imagined, in
Upper Mesopotamia than in the south. The winters are cold, with
snowfalls that may last for several months, but with the beginning of
the dry season, in May, a tropical heat sets in which lasts until the
beginning of November, when the rain begins. Assyria proper, that is,
the eastern side of Mesopotamia, is more affected by the mountain ranges
than the west. In the Euphrates Valley, the heat during the dry season,
from about May till November, when for weeks, and even months, no cloud
is to be seen, beggars description; but strange enough, the Arabs who
dwell there at present, while enduring the heat without much discomfort,
are severely affected by a winter temperature that for Europeans and
Americans is exhilarating in its influence.

From what has been said, it will be clear that the Euphrates is, _par
excellence_, the river of Southern Mesopotamia or Babylonia, while the
Tigris may be regarded as the river of Assyria. It was the Euphrates
that made possible the high degree of culture, that was reached in the
south. Through the very intense heat of the dry season, the soil
developed a fertility that reduced human labor to a minimum. The return
for sowing of all kinds of grain, notably wheat, corn, barley, is
calculated, on an average, to be fifty to a hundred-fold, while the date
palm flourishes with scarcely any cultivation at all. Sustenance being
thus provided for with little effort, it needed only a certain care in
protecting oneself from damage through the too abundant overflow, to
enable the population to find that ease of existence, which is an
indispensable condition of culture. This was accomplished by the
erection of dikes, and by directing the waters through channels into the
fields.

Assyria, more rugged in character, did not enjoy the same advantages.
Its culture, therefore, not only arose at a later period than that of
Babylonia, but was a direct importation from the south. It was due to
the natural extension of the civilization that continued for the greater
part of the existence of the two empires to be central in the south. But
when once Assyria was included in the circle of Babylonian culture, the
greater effort required in forcing the natural resources of the soil,
produced a greater variety in the return. Besides corn, wheat and rice,
the olive, banana and fig tree, mulberry and vine were cultivated, while
the vicinity of the mountain ranges furnished an abundance of building
material--wood and limestone--that was lacking in the south. The
fertility of Assyria proper, again, not being dependent on the overflow
of the Tigris, proved to be of greater endurance. With the neglect of
the irrigation system, Babylonia became a mere waste, and the same river
that was the cause of its prosperity became the foe that, more
effectually than any human power, contributed to the ruin and the
general desolation that marks the greater part of the Euphrates Valley
at the present time. Assyria continued to play a part in history long
after its ancient glory had departed, and to this day enjoys a far
greater activity, and is of considerable more significance than the
south.

II.

In so far as natural surroundings affect the character of two peoples
belonging to the same race, the Assyrians present that contrast to the
Babylonians which one may expect from the differences, just set forth,
between the two districts. The former were rugged, more warlike, and
when they acquired power, used it in the perfection of their military
strength; the latter, while not lacking in the ambition to extend their
dominion, yet, on the whole, presented a more peaceful aspect that led
to the cultivation of commerce and industrial arts. Both, however, have
very many more traits in common than they have marks of distinction.
They both belong not only to the Semitic race, but to the same branch of
the race. Presenting the same physical features, the languages spoken by
them are identical, barring differences that do not always rise to the
degree of dialectical variations, and affect chiefly the pronunciation
of certain consonants. At what time the Babylonians and Assyrians
settled in the district in which we find them, whence they came, and
whether the Euphrates Valley or the northern Tigris district was the
first to be settled, are questions that cannot, in the present state of
knowledge, be answered. As to the time of their settlement, the high
degree of culture that the Euphrates Valley shows at the earliest period
known to us,--about 4000 B.C.,--and the indigenous character of this
culture, points to very old settlement, and makes it easier to err on
the side of not going back far enough, than on the side of going too
far. Again, while, as has been several times intimated, the culture in
the south is older than that of the north, it does not necessarily
follow that the settlement of Babylonia antedates that of Assyria. The
answer to this question would depend upon the answer to the question as
to the original home of the Semites.[16] The probabilities, however, are
in favor of assuming a movement of population, as of culture, from the
south to the north. At all events, the history of Babylonia and Assyria
begins with the former, and as a consequence we are justified also in
beginning with that phase of the religion for which we have the earliest
records--the Babylonian.

III.

At the very outset of a brief survey of the history of the Babylonians,
a problem confronts us of primary importance. Are there any traces of
other settlers besides the Semitic Babylonians in the earliest period of
the history of the Euphrates Valley? Those who cling to the theory of a
non-Semitic origin of the cuneiform syllabary will, of course, be ready
to answer in the affirmative. Sumerians and Akkadians are the names
given to these non-Semitic settlers who preceded the Babylonians in the
control of the Euphrates Valley. The names are derived from the terms
Sumer and Akkad, which are frequently found in Babylonian and Assyrian
inscriptions, in connection with the titles of the kings. Unfortunately,
scholars are not a unit in the exact location of the districts comprised
by these names, some declaring Sumer to be in the north and Akkad in the
south; others favoring the reverse position. The balance of proof rests
in favor of the former supposition; but however that may be, Sumer and
Akkad represent, from a certain period on, a general designation to
include the whole of Babylonia. Professor Hommel goes so far as to
declare that in the types found on statues and monuments of the oldest
period of Babylonian history--the monuments coming from the mound
Telloh--we have actual representations of these Sumerians, who are thus
made out to be a smooth-faced race with rather prominent cheek-bones,
round faces, and shaven heads.[17] He pronounces in favor of the
highlands lying to the east of Babylonia, as the home of the Sumerians,
whence they made their way into the Euphrates Valley. Unfortunately, the
noses on these old statues are mutilated, and with such an important
feature missing, anthropologists, at least, are unwilling to pronounce
definitely as to the type represented. Again, together with these
supposed non-Semitic types, other figures have been found which, as
Professor Hommel also admits, show the ordinary Semitic features. It
would seem, therefore, that even accepting the hypothesis of a
non-Semitic type existing in Babylonia at this time, the Semitic
settlers are just as old as the supposed Sumerians; and since it is
admitted that the language found on these statues and figures contains
Semitic constructions and Semitic words, it is, to say the least,
hazardous to give the Sumerians the preference over the Semites so far
as the period of settlement and origin of the Euphratean culture is
concerned. As a matter of fact, we are not warranted in going beyond the
statement that all evidence points in favor of a population of mixed
races in the Euphrates Valley from the earliest period known to us. No
positive proof is forthcoming that Sumer and Akkad were ever employed or
understood in any other sense than as geographical terms.