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

The pantheon of Aralu thus assumes considerable dimensions. At the same
time, we observe the same tendency towards concentration of power in
this pantheon as we have seen was the case in the pantheon of the upper
world[1250]. As in Babylonia there are practically only a few
gods,--Marduk, Nabu, Ishtar, Shamash, and Sin,--who exercised
considerable control; and, as in Assyria we find this tendency still
more accentuated in the supreme rank accorded to Ashur, so in the lower
world Nergal and Allatu are the real rulers. The other gods, and,
naturally, also the demons, occupy inferior positions. As messengers,
guardians, spies, or attendants, they group themselves around the throne
of the two rulers. A noticeable feature, however, in the pantheon of the
lower world consists in the high position held by the consort of the
head of the pantheon. Allatu does not sink to the insignificant rank of
being merely a pale reflection of Nergal, as do the consorts of Marduk,
Shamash, Ashur, and the like[1251]. As a trace of the earlier supreme
control exercised by her, she continues to reign with her husband. In
the popular mind, indeed, despite the influence of theological
doctrines, Allatu continues to be more prominent than Nergal. Nergal is
obliged to abide by the compact he made with Allatu. He rules _with_
her, but not over her. The theology of the schools did not venture to
set Allatu aside altogether; and this limitation in the development of
the doctrine that elsewhere gave the male principle the supremacy over
the female, may be taken as a valuable indication of the
counter-influence, exercised by deeply rooted popular beliefs, over the
theoretical elaboration of the religion at the hands of the religious
guides.

The Tombs and the Burial Customs.

Our knowledge of the customs observed by the Babylonians and Assyrians
in disposing of their dead leaves much to be desired. Most of the graves
discovered in the ruins of Babylonian cities belong to the Persian or to
the Greek period. In some cases,[1252] where we have reason to believe
that older graves have been found, it is almost impossible to estimate
their age. Recently, the expedition of the University of Pennsylvania to
Nippur has unearthed remains that appear to belong to an older period,
though nothing can be dated with any degree of certainty earlier than
2500 B.C.[1253] Still, with proper caution, even the material belonging
to a later period may be used for the older periods. Burial customs, as
has already been emphasized, constitute the most conservative elements
in a religion. Such rites are much less liable to change than the cult
of the gods. Foreign invasion would not affect the funeral rites, even
where other religious customs are altered. Even so violent a change as
that produced by the introduction of Mohammedanism into Mesopotamia has
not removed traces of the old Babylonian religion. Dr. Peters has shown
that the district in the Euphrates Valley selected by the modern Arabs
and Persians for the interment of their dead[1254] derives its sanctity
from the days of the old Babylonian kingdom, and many of the customs
observed by the modern Moslems tally with the funeral rites of ancient
Babylonia.[1255] That the dead were always buried, and that cremation
was practically unknown, may now be regarded as certain. The conception
of Aralu, which, we have seen, belongs to the most ancient period of
religion, is only intelligible upon the assumption that burial was the
prevailing custom. On one of the oldest monuments of Babylonian
art,--the stele of vultures,--earth-burial is represented.[1256] A few
years ago, some German scholars[1257] claimed to have furnished the
proof that the Babylonians cremated their dead. But, in the first place,
the age of the tombs found by them was not clearly established; and,
secondly, it was not certain whether the charred remains of human bodies
were due to intentional burning or accidental destruction by fire, at
the time that the city explored by the German scholars was destroyed.
The fact that, as the explorers themselves observed, the bodies were not
completely burned argues in favor of the latter supposition. The
explanation offered by Koldewey[1258] for this peculiar condition of the
remains--that the burning was symbolical, and, therefore, not
complete--is unsatisfactory in every particular. There can be no doubt
that some, at least, of the tombs discovered at Warka by Loftus[1259]
belong to the period before the conquest of the country by Cyrus, and
this is certainly the case with many of the tombs discovered at Nippur.
Nowhere do we find traces of burning of bodies.[1260] If it should turn
out that cremation prevailed for a certain period, the fashion, we may
feel certain, was due to foreign influences, but it is more than
questionable whether it was ever introduced at all. Certainly,
earth-burial is the characteristically Babylonian (and general Semitic)
method of disposing of the dead.

The characteristic feature of the Babylonian tombs is their simplicity.
The dead body, which was often covered with palm woods, was placed
generally on the side--though occasionally on the back--on a board of
wood, or wrapped in a mat of reeds or palm fibers, and covered with a
tub-shaped clay dish. On the dish there was frequently an ornamental
design, but beyond this, there was no attempt at decoration. The body
was frequently pressed together in order to be brought within the
compass of the dish. Sometimes, the knees were pulled up or the body
placed in a semi-sitting posture, and there are indications that the
bodies were often divided into two or three parts prior to burial. On
the stele of vultures,[1261] representing the triumph of Eannatum over
his enemies, attendants are seen building a mound over the symmetrically
arranged bodies of the king's soldiers slain in battle. The monument
belongs to the most ancient period of Babylonian history, and we are
justified, therefore, in regarding this method of earth-burial as the
oldest in vogue. The dead, it would seem, are placed on the ground, or
near the surface, and covered with a mound. This custom would account
for the use of a dish to cover the body after it became customary to
place the dead in small houses or vaults built for the purpose. The
shape of the dish, or tub, recalls the earth-mound over the dead, and
the tenacity of conventional methods is apparent in the modern custom,
even among Western nations, of raising a mound over the grave, even
though the body is placed at a depth of six feet and more below the
surface. A modification of the form of coffin was the jar into which the
body was forced. To do this, still greater violence had to be employed.
Instead of one jar, two were also used, the body placed partly in one,
partly in the other, and the two were then joined with bitumen. In the
Persian period, a slipper-shaped coffin was used, into which the body
was inserted through an aperture at one end; but there is no evidence
that the Babylonians employed this method. With the bodies, various
objects were interred, many of which had a special significance. Except,
perhaps, at a very early period[1262] the dead were not buried naked,
but covered with a garment. The seal cylinder, which, as Herodotus tells
us,[1263] every person of position carried about his person, and which,
when impressed on a clay tablet, served as his signature, was buried
with the dead as an ornament that had a personal value. The staff which
the man was in the habit of carrying is found in the grave, and also
such weapons as arrowheads and spears. Various ornaments of copper,
iron, gold, and stone, rings, necklaces or bands of gold were probably
placed with the dead as a sign of affection, not because of any belief
that the deceased needed these objects. Toys, too, are found in the
graves, and we may assume that these were placed in the tombs of
children. The frequent presence of shells in the tombs is still
unexplained. On the other hand, remains of food, dates, grain, poultry,
and fish, that have been found in graves belonging to various periods,
may be regarded as a proof for the existence of the belief that the dead
could suffer pangs of hunger. The closing lines of the Gilgamesh
epic,[1264] where the fate of the neglected dead is portrayed, confirms
this view. But such remains are more frequent in the early graves than
in those of a later time. Animal sacrifices at the grave appear to be
very old.[1265] Offerings of food and water were made to the dead, not
only at the time of the burial, but afterwards by surviving relatives.
The son performs the office of pouring out water to the memory of his
father.[1266] The close of the legend of Ishtar's journey suggests that
the festival of Tammuz was selected as an 'All-Souls' day. The weeping
for the lost Tammuz served as an appropriate link for combining with the
mourning for the god the lament for the dead. The water jar is never
absent in the old Babylonian tombs, and by the side of the jar the bowl
of clay or bronze is found, and which probably served the same purpose
as a drinking utensil for the dead. How early it became customary to
bury the dead together we do not know. It may be that at one time they
were buried beneath the dwellings that they occupied when alive, under
the threshold or in the walls;[1267] but the conception of Aralu as a
great gathering-place of the dead would hardly have arisen, unless the
'city of the dead' by the side of the 'city of the living' had become an
established custom. We are, therefore, justified in assuming that as the
villages grew into towns, the huddling together of the living suggested
placing the dead together in a portion of the town set aside for the
purpose. In comparison with the elaborate constructions in the Egyptian
cities of the dead, the Babylonian necropolis was a shabby affair.
Vaults, rarely more than five feet high, served as the place where the
dead were deposited. These vaults were constructed of bricks, and an
extended series of them gave to the necropolis the appearance of little
houses, suggestive of primitive mud huts. This simplicity, due in the
first instance to the lack of stone as building material in Babylonia,
corresponded to the very simple character which the dwelling-house
retained. The one-story type of dwelling, with simple partitions,
prevailed to the latest period. It was only in the temples and palaces
that architectural skill was developed. In Assyria, although soft stone
was accessible, the example of Babylonia was slavishly followed. It is
due to this that so few traces of private houses have been found in the
Mesopotamian explorations,[1268] and the almost primitive character of
the graves--more primitive, by virtue of the strength of the
conservative instinct in everything connected with the dead, than the
dwellings of the living--readily accounts for their nearly complete
destruction. Simple as the houses of the dead were, they were yet
carefully guarded against the invasion of air and dust; and even after
centuries of neglect the contents are found to be perfectly dry.

The explorations at Nippur show that the tub and bowl forms of the
coffin continued to be used during the period extending from Hammurabi
to Nabonnedos. In later times, it would appear, the custom of placing
food and drink with the dead fell into disuse.[1269] We may perhaps find
that, as was the case in Egypt, symbolical representations of food--a
clay plate with the food modeled in clay--took the place of the old
custom. Fewer utensils, too, are found in the graves of the later
period; but, on the other hand, ornaments increase, until, when we reach
the Persian and Greek periods, mirrors are quite common, and golden
veils are placed over the dead, while handsome earrings, breastpins, and
necklaces indicate the growth of this luxurious display. The clay
coffins, too, are beautifully glazed and ornamented with elaborate
designs. A trace of foreign--perhaps Graeco-Egyptian--influence may be
seen in the human head modeled on the coffin. Naturally, at all times
the different ranks occupied by the dead involved more or less
modifications of the prevailing customs. The rich were placed in more
carefully built vaults than the poor. The coverings and ornaments varied
with the station of the deceased; but in general it may be said that,
during the earlier periods of Babylonian-Assyrian history, simplicity
was the rule, and the objects placed in the tombs were more carefully
chosen with reference to the needs of the dead and the career that he
led while living, while the tendency in later times was away from the
religious beliefs that gave rise to the funeral customs, and in the
direction of luxury and display. This development, however, is
independent of _proper_ burial, upon which, as we have already had
occasion to see, great stress was at all times laid. The greatest
misfortune that could happen to a dead person was for his body to remain
overground, or to be removed from the tomb and exposed to the light of
day. In the early monument of Babylonian art,--the 'stele of
vultures,'[1270]--already referred to, the dead foes are punished by
being stripped of their clothing and exposed to the attack of vultures,
who are seen carrying off human heads, legs, and arms. To emphasize the
contrast, the king's soldiers are portrayed as being buried in
symmetrical rows, the head of each body being covered by the feet of the
body in the row above. When the Babylonian and Assyrian kings wish to
curse the one who might venture to destroy the monuments set up by them,
they know of nothing stronger than to express the hope

That his body may be cast aside,
No grave be his lot.[1271]

The kings punished their enemies by leaving their bodies to rot in the
sun, or they exposed them on poles as a warning to rebels. Ashurbanabal
on one occasion speaks of having scattered the corpses of the enemy's
host 'like thorns and thistles' over the battlefield.[1272] The corpses
of the Babylonians who had aided in the rebellion against the king were
given 'to dogs, swine, to the birds of heaven, to the fish of the sea'
as food.[1273] The same king takes pleasure in relating that he
destroyed the graves of Elamitic kings and dragged the bodies from their
resting-place[1274] to Assyria. Their shades, he adds, were thus
unprotected. No food could be tendered them and no sacrifices offered in
their honor. Sennacherib, after he has crushed a rebellion that broke
out in Babylonia, takes a terrible revenge upon the instigator of the
opposition, Mardukbaliddin, by removing the bodies of the latter's
ancestors from the vaults wherein they were deposited. The bones of an
enemy are enumerated by Ashurbanabal among the spoil secured by
him.[1275] The mutilation of the dead body was also a terrible
punishment to the dead,[1276] and we are told that the person who
disturbed a grave is not to be permitted to enter the temple. The
desecration of the grave affected not only the individual whose rest was
thus disturbed, and who, in consequence, suffered pangs of hunger and
other miseries, but reached the survivors as well. The unburied or
disentombed shade assumed the form of a demon,[1277] and afflicted the
living.

Of the ceremonies incidental to burial, the bronze tablet above
described affords us at least a glimpse. The dead were placed on a bier
and wrapped in some kind of a cover. Priests were called in to perform
rites of purification. One of the priests, it will be recalled,[1278] is
clad in a fish costume. The fish is the symbol of Ea, the god of the
deep, who becomes the chief deity appealed to in incantations involving
the use of water. The priest assumes the role of Ea, as it were, by the
symbolical dress that he puts on. The rites appear to consist of the
burning of incense and the sprinkling of water. It does not of course
follow that everywhere the same custom was observed, but we may at least
be certain that the priest played an important part in the last honors
paid to the dead. The purification was intended to protect the dead from
the evil spirits that infest the grave. The demons of disease, it is
true, could no longer trouble him. They had done their work as
messengers of Allatu. But there were other demons who were greedy for
the blood and flesh of the dead. Though the dead had passed out of the
control of the gods, the latter had at least the power to restrain the
demons from disturbing the peace of the grave.

In the earlier days, when the bodies were placed on the ground or only a
short distance below it, the building of the grave-mound was a ceremony
to which importance was attached. In the stele of vultures, attendants
are portrayed--perhaps priests--with baskets on their heads, containing
the earth to be placed over the fallen soldiers.[1279] These attendants
are bare to the waist. The removal of the garments is probably a sign of
mourning, just as among the Hebrews and other Semites it was customary
to put on the primitive loin-cloth[1280] as a sign of grief. In somewhat
later times, we find sorrowing relatives tearing their clothing[1281]--
originally tearing off their clothing--and cutting their hair as signs
of mourning.

The formal lament for the dead was another ceremony upon which stress
was laid. It lasted from three to seven days.[1282] The professional
wailers, male and female, can be traced back to the earliest days of
Babylonian history. Gudea speaks of them.[1283] It would appear that at
this early period persons were engaged, as is the case to this day in
the Orient, to sing dirges in memory of the dead.[1284] The function is
one that belongs naturally to priests and priestesses; and, while in the
course of time, the connection with the temple of those who acted as
wailers became less formal, it is doubtful whether that connection was
ever entirely cut off. The 'dirge singers, male and female,' referred to
in the story of Ishtar's journey[1285] were in the service of some
temple. The hymns to Nergal[1286] may be taken as samples of the
Babylonian dirges.

The praise of Nergal and Allatu was combined with the lament for the sad
fate of the dead. Gilgamesh weeping for his friend Eabani[1287]
furnishes an illustration. Gilgamesh is described as stretched out on
the ground. The same custom is referred to in the inscriptions of
Cyrus,[1288] and it is interesting to note that a similar mode of
manifesting grief still prevails in the modern Orient. In the Babylonian
dirges, it would seem, the references to the virtues of the deceased
(which are prominently introduced into the dirges of the present day)
were few. The refrain forms a regular feature of these dirges,--an
indication that, as is still the case in the Orient, there was a leader
who sang the dirge, while the chorus chimed in at the proper moment. The
principle of the stanza of two lines, one long and one short, that, as
Budde has shown,[1289] controls the wailing songs in the Old Testament
(including the Book of Lamentations, which is based upon this very
custom of lamenting the dead), may be detected in the Babylonian
compositions. The accompaniment of musical instruments to the dirges
also appears to be a very old custom in Babylonia. In the story of
Ishtar's journey the wailers are called upon to strike their
instruments. What kind of instruments were used in ancient times we do
not know. In the Assyrian period, the harp and flute appear to be the
most common.[1290]

At the time that food and drink were placed with the dead in the grave,
some arrangements must have been made for renewing the nourishment.
Entrances to tombs have been found,[1291] and Koldewey[1292] is of the
opinion that the clay drains found in quantities in the tombs, served as
well to secure a supply of fresh water for the dead. The wailing for the
dead took place not only immediately after death, but subsequently.
Ashurbanabal speaks of visiting the graves of his ancestors. He appears
at the tomb with rent garments, pours out a libation to the memory of
the dead, and offers up a prayer addressed to them. We have every reason
to believe that the graves were frequently visited by the survivors. The
festival of Tammuz became an occasion[1293] when the memory of those who
had entered Aralu was recalled.

While there are many details connected with the ceremonies for the dead
still to be determined, what has been ascertained illustrates how
closely and consistently these ceremonies followed the views held by the
Babylonians and Assyrians regarding the life after death. Everything
connected with death is gloomy. The grave is as dark as Aralu; the
funeral rites consist of dirges that lament not so much the loss
sustained by the living as the sad fate in store for the dead. Not a ray
of sunshine illumines the darkness that surrounds these rites. All that
is hoped for is to protect the dead against the attack of demons greedy
for human flesh, to secure rest for the body, and to guard the dead
against hunger and thirst.

It is almost startling to note, to what a degree the views embodied in
Old Testament writings regarding the fate of the dead, coincide with
Babylonian conceptions. The descriptions of Sheol found in Job, in the
Psalms, in Isaiah, Ezekiel, and elsewhere are hardly to be distinguished
from those that we have encountered in Babylonian literature. For
Job,[1294] Sheol is

The land of darkness and deep shadows.
The land of densest gloom and not of light.
Even where there is a gleam, there it is as dark night.[1295]

The description might serve as a paraphrase of the opening lines in the
story of Ishtar's journey. The Hebrew Sheol is situated, like the
Babylonian Aralu, deep down in the earth.[1296] It is pictured as a
cavern. The entrance to it is through gates that are provided with
bolts. Sheol is described as a land filled with dust. Silence reigns
supreme. It is the gathering-place of all the living, without exception.
He who sinks into Sheol does not rise up again.

He does not return to his house.
His place knows him no more.[1297]

It is, clearly, 'a land without return,' as the Babylonians conceived
it. The condition of the dead in Sheol is sad, precisely as the
Babylonians pictured the life in Aralu. The dead are designated by a
name[1298] that indicates their weak condition. They can only talk in
whispers or they chirp like birds. Their gait is unsteady. In general,
they are pictured as lying quiet, doomed to inactivity. Death is
lamented as an evil. The dead have passed out of the control of Yahwe,
whose concern is with the living. Yahwe's blessings are meted out in
this world, but not in Sheol. These blessings consist chiefly of long
life and plenty of offspring. The dead need not praise Yahwe.
Ecclesiastes--although a late composition--expresses the old popular
view in the summary of the fate of the dead,[1299] when it is said that
the dead know nothing of what is going on. Their memory is gone; they
neither love nor hate, and they are devoid of any ambition. There is no
planning, no wisdom, no judgment in Sheol.

Like the Babylonians, the Hebrews also believed that the condition of
the individual at the time of death was an index of the condition in
store for him in Sheol. He who goes to Sheol in sorrow is pursued by
sorrow after death. Jacob does not want to go down to Sheol in
sorrow,[1300] because he knows that in that case sorrow will be his fate
after death. To die neglected by one's family was fatal to one's
well-being in Sheol. Life in Sheol was a continuation, in a measure, of
the earthly existence. Hence, the warrior is buried with his weapons;
the prophet is recognized by his cloak; the kings wear their crowns; the
people of various lands are known by their dress.[1301] Even
deformities, as lameness, follow the individual into the grave. On the
other hand, while the dead were weak and generally inactive, although
capable of suffering, they were also regarded by the Hebrews as
possessing powers superior to those of the living. As among the
Babylonians, the dead stand so close to the higher powers as to be
themselves possessed of divine qualities. Schwally aptly characterizes
this apparent contradiction by saying 'that the dead are _Refa'im_
(weak), but, at the same time, _Elohim_, _i.e._ divine beings.'[1302]
Yahwe has no power over the dead, but they receive some of his
qualities. They are invoked by the living. The dead can furnish oracles,
precisely as Yahwe can. They not only appear to the living in dreams,
but their shades can be raised up from Sheol. A certain amount of
worship was certainly paid to the dead by the ancient Hebrews.

Naturally, these popular views were subjected to considerable
modification with the development of the religion of the Hebrews. While
many features remained, as is shown by the occurrence of the primitive
conception of Sheol in comparatively late productions, in one important
particular, more especially, did the spread of an advanced ethical
monotheism lead to a complete departure from the Babylonian conceptions.
While, in the popular mind, the belief that there was no escape from
Sheol continued for a long time, this belief was inconsistent with the
conception of a Divine Being, who, as creator and sole ruler of the
universe, had control of the dead as well as the living. As long as
Yahwe was merely one god among many, no exception was made of the rule
that the concern of the gods was with the living; but Yahwe as the one
and only god, could not be pictured as limited in his scope. He was a
god for the dead, as well as for the living. The so-called song of
Hannah[1303] expresses the new view when it praises Yahwe as the one
'who kills and restores to life, who leads to Sheol, and who can lead
out of it.' Such a description of Yahwe is totally different from the
Babylonians' praise of Ninib, Gula, or Marduk as the 'restorer of the
dead to life,' which simply meant that these gods could restrain Allatu.
The power to snatch the individual from the grasp of Sheol was also
ascribed to the national god, Yahwe. Elijah's restoration of the widow's
child[1304] to life is an instance of this power, and Jonah,[1305] who
praises Yahwe for having delivered him when the gates of Sheol already
seemed bolted, may not have had anything more in mind than what the
Babylonians meant; but when the Psalmist, to indicate the universal rule
of Yahwe, exclaims