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

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.