The source of this uncorrected OCR text may be viewed as a digital facsimile at: 
http://fax.libs.uga.edu/ 


THE 
CIVILIZATION ; 

BABYLONIA 

AND 
ASSYRIA 

• 

JASTROW 

PS7I 

LIPPINCOT-T 

 THE 

CIVILIZATION OF 
BABYLONIA AND 
ASSYRIA 

MORRIS JASTROW, JR. 

 HC 

THE LIBRARIES 
THE UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA 

Presented by 

The Estate of 
Mrs. Walter McElreath 

 THE CIVILIZATION 

OF 

BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA 

LECTURES DELIVERED 

CHDEBTHC 

BICHARD B. WESTBROOK LECTURESHIP FOUNDATION 

AT TBC 

WAGNER FREE INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE 
PHILADELPHIA 

THIRD IMPRESSION 

 PLATE I 

Sir Austen Henry Layard Ernest de Sarzec Georg Friedrich Grotefend 

Sir Henry C. Rawlinaon Rev. Edward Hincks 

Jules Oppert 

George Smith John Henry Haynes 
EXPLORERS AND DECIPHERERS 

 THE CIVILIZATION 

OF 

BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA 

ITS REMAINS, LANGUAGE, HISTORY, RELIGION, 
COMMERCE, LAW, ART, AND LITERATURE 

BY 

MORRIS JASTROW, JR., PH.D., LL.D. 

* 

PBOFXMOB iii ram umrcuiTT 

WITH HAP AND 164 ILLVBTRAT1ON8 

PHILADELPHIA AND LONDON 
J. B. LIPPINCOTT COMPANY 

 COPYRIGHT. 1915. BY J. B. LIPPINCOTT COMPANY 

PRINTED IN UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

 To 
JOSEPH GEORGE ROSENGARTEN. A.M.. LL.D. 

SCHOLAR AND FBIEND OF BCBOLAB8 

 PREFACE 

To my knowledge this is the first time that the 
attempt has been made on a somewhat large scale to 
cover the entire subject of Babylonian-Assyrian civili 
zation for English readers. 

The aim of this work is to present a survey of the 
remarkable civilization which arose in the Euphrates 
Valley thousands of years ago and which, spreading 
northwards, continued to flourish till close to the thresh 
old of the Christian era. As a result of the combined 
activities of explorers, decipherers and investigators 
of many lands during the past seventy years, we can 
follow the unfolding of the growth of the centres of 
settlement in the south which led ultimately to the 
formation of the Babylonian Empire, and of the off 
shoot of Babylonian civilization which resulted in the 
rise of a rival empire to the north, known as Assyria. 
While much still remains to be done before we can be 
said to have solved the problems—historical, linguistic, 
archaeological and ethnological—raised by the discov 
eries made beneath the mounds which concealed the 
remains of forgotten Babylonian and Assyrian cities 
for so many centuries, we have learned to know the 
customs and manners, the religion, the law, the com 
merce and art of both Babylonia and Assyria quite 
intimately. We know how these peoples lived and how 
they died, the arrangement of their houses, palaces and 
temples, as well as of their tombs; their daily life and 
their religious aspirations. The various occupations 
of the people are revealed in thousands upon thousands 

vii 

 viii PREFACE 

of clay documents, found in the mounds, which tell of 
business activities, of commercial intercourse, of legal 
disputes, of the growing complications of social life, and 
of judicial decisions affecting all classes of the popu 
lation. The beliefs and practises prevailing in Baby 
lonia and Assyria are illustrated by abundant literary 
material, dating from the oldest period down to the fall 
of Babylonia and beyond that into the era of Persian 
and Greek control. A considerable amount of liter 
ature in the stricter sense of the term has also come 
down to us on the clay tablets; and finally monuments, 
the remains of temples and palaces, with wall sculpt 
ures, statues, votive offerings, cult objects and orna 
ments enable us to trace the course of art development 
along the centuries that span the existence of the Baby 
lonian and Assyrian Empires. 

The moment seems, therefore, opportune for group 
ing together the large amount of material at our dis 
posal, with a view of presenting a general picture of 
Babylonian-Assyrian civilization. In this endeavor I 
have utilized the results of the researches of many 
others, besides embodying those of my own, for the 
field of investigation embracing Babylonia and Assyria 
is now too large to be cultivated in its entirety by any 
single investigator. It has been my aim throughout 
to present only such results as may safely be regarded 
as definite, and to abstain from mere haphazard and 
conjectural views. Naturally, in a work of a general 
character and intended for the larger public, some 
details had to be passed over for fear of crowding 
the picture. In such a selection personal judgment 
must inevitably be the guiding factor, but I trust that 
I have, on the whole, succeeded in picking out what is 

 PREFACE ix 

most important for a general view of the civilization 
and also most characteristic. 

I hope that the liberal use which has been made 
of illustrations will be looked upon as contributing to 
the clearer setting forth of the results. Here, too, a 
selection was called for, and I have had in mind to 
place at the disposal of the reader reproductions of 
all the more important monuments, as well as of many 
less known objects, so as to furnish a series that may 
form a tolerably complete companion to the text. I 
have included specimens also of cuneiform documents 
so as to show the kind of material from which Assyri- 
ologists obtain their results. Special attention may 
also be called to the attempt to illustrate the course 
of decipherment of the cuneiform inscriptions with 
the aid of reproduction and selection of cuneiform 
signs and combinations of such signs into words. The 
decipherment of an unknown script is a fascinating 
theme even to the layman, and I feel that I owe no 
apology for taking the space necessary to make clear 
to the general reader how it was possible to find a 
key to the reading of the puzzling combinations of 
wedges that became the medium of written expression 
in the Euphrates Valley. Equally interesting is the 
story of the way in which the ancient cities of Baby 
lonia and Assyria were dug up by explorers, undaunted 
by difficulties that at times seemed insurmountable. I 
have tried to tell the story without belaboring the gen 
eral reader with too many details, but with due regard 
to setting forth the merits of each one of the pioneers 
to whom the world owes a lasting debt. To emphasize 
this debt I have united in one plate the portraits of 
JJayard, Rawlinson, Grotefend, Hincks, Oppert, George 

 x PREFACE 

Smith, de Sarzec, and Haynes, whose names are indis- 
solubly linked with the recovery of our knowledge of 
the long-forgotten civilization of Babylonia and As 
syria. Three of these men, George Smith, Ernest de 
Sarzec and John Henry Haynes, went to premature 
graves as the result of their arduous labors in the inter 
est of science, which claims its martyrs no less than re 
ligion. But for circumstances beyond my control, I 
would have included the portrait of P. E. Botta,1 the 
pioneer among the explorers of Assyrian mounds, as well 
as those of two scholars still with us, of Robert Koldewey, 
the leader of the German expedition which has con 
ducted excavations in Babylonia for upwards of four 
teen years, and of Friedrich Delitzsch, the distinguished 
Professor of Assyriology at the University of Berlin, 
who has done more than any other living scholar to 
stimulate the study of Assyriology through the training 
of scholars, now scattered in various parts of the world, 
and through his own contributions in advancing our 
knowledge of the Babylonian and Assyrian language 
and literature. Besides these, there is a long honor roll 
among living scholars, who, in this country, in England, 
France, Germany, Italy, Austria, Russia, Holland and 
the Scandinavian countries, are devoting their careers 
to the further elucidation of the subject, and through 
whom contributions to the sum of human knowledge are 
being constantly made. To all of these, from whose re 
searches I have derived help, I wish to make a hearty 
acknowledgment 

In the closing chapter I have added specimens from 
the various branches of the literature of Babylonia and 

1 There is a portrait of Botta in the Louvre Museum, but un 
fortunately, on account of the war, no photograph of it could be 
taken. 

 PREFACE xi 

Assyria, which are intended to serve in part as amplify 
ing the references to such literary products in the body 
of the book, and partly to give the reader a view at 
closer range of literary composition as developed in 
the Euphrates Valley, and as further carried on in 
Assyria. The translations, it may be added, aim at 
being literal, with due regard, however, to reproducing 
in English the effect of the original. 

A sense of deepest gratitude leads me to express, 
as on former occasions, my indebtedness to my dear 
wife for her aid in preparing this work, an aid ever 
generously and lovingly given. In addition to other 
services she has read a proof of the entire work and if, 
as a result, the pages are comparatively free from 
those slips which are so difficult to avoid, and which one 
likes to ascribe to the pranks of devilish imps by whom 
in proof-reading one is surrounded, it is due to the care 
which she has bestowed on her task. 

The index is the work of my pupil and colleague, 
Dr. B. B. Charles, Instructor in Semitic Languages at 
the University of Pennsylvania, whose co-operation 
has, as on former occasions, been most cheerfully given. 
To the publishers my thanks are due for the interest 
that they have displayed in the progress of the work, 
for their patience in waiting for the completion of the 
manuscript, prepared under many inevitable interrup 
tions, and for the handsome form that they have given 
to the text and to the illustrations. 

My thanks are due also to the authorities of the 
British Museum, of the Musee de Louvre, of the Berlin 
Museum, to Dr. G. B. Gordon, the director of the Uni 
versity of Pennsylvania Archaeological Museum, to Mr. 
J. Pierpont Morgan Jr. and to Miss Belle Da Costa 

 xii PREFACE 

Greene, the efi&cient Librarian and custodian of the 
Morgan collection, and to the Deutsche Orient Gesell- 
schaft, for permission to use illustrations from publica 
tions, and reproductions from antiquities and monu 
ments in their possession; likewise, for similar permis 
sion, most generously given, to a number of publishers in 
this country and abroad, namely, Behrend & Co. Berlin; 
Chapman and Hall, London; Chatto & Windus, Lon 
don ; J. C. Hinrichs, Leipzig; Curts and Jennings, Cin 
cinnati ; Ernest Leroux, Paris; Luzac & Company, Lon 
don ; Macmillan & Company, New York; W. A. Mansell 
and Co., London; John Murray, London; Martinus 
Nijhoff, The Hague; G. P. Putnam's Sons, New York; 
Georg Reimer, Berlin; The Society of Biblical Archaeol 
ogy, London; W. Speman, Berlin; Sunday School 
Times, Philadelphia; Alfred Toepelmann, Giessen; and 
thirdly to a large number of colleagues, who either 
placed photographs at my disposal or have allowed me to 
reproduce illustrations from books published by them. 
It gives me particular pleasure to acknowledge in this 
way the kindness of such friends of many years' stand 
ing as Prof. Paul Haupt of Johns Hopkins University; 
Dr. W. Hayes Ward; Prof. A. T. Clay of Yale Univer 
sity, Prof. A. V. Williams Jackson of Columbia Uni 
versity ; Prof. Carl Bezold of the University of Heidel 
berg; Mr. L. W. King of the British Museum, Mr. R. C. 
Thompson, M. Salomon Reinach of Paris; Dr. T. G. 
Pinches of London; Prof. R. W. Rogers of Drew Theo 
logical Seminary; Rev. Dr. John P. Peters of New 
York; Dr. E. J. Banks; Prof. Priedrich Delitzsch of the 
University of Berlin; Prof. Eduard Meyer of the Uni 
versity of Berlin, and M. Frangois Thureau-Dangin of 
Paris. 

 PREFACE xiii 

Lastly, I wish to record here the debt of gratitude 
that I owe to the friend of so many years to whom it 
is a pleasure and a great privilege to be permitted to 
dedicate this work. What I owe to the friendship of 
Joseph George Rosengarten and to my association with 
him cannot be adequately expressed in words. Him 
self a scholar, active and fruitful in many fields, he has 
been the guide and friend of many scholars connected 
with the institution in whose service I have now spent 
thirty years. Keenly appreciative of scholarly efforts 
in every field, he has done much to promote by his ex 
ample and by his aid researches among the members 
of the faculty of the University of Pennsylvania, which 
more than anything else redound to the honor and glory 
lof an institution of learning. In dedicating this book 
to him I feel that I am also acknowledging, though in 
poor coin, the debt of my colleagues as well as my own. 

MORRIS JASTBOW, JB. 

UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA 
SEPTEMBER, 1015 

 CONTENTS 

CMAFTU HOB 

I. EXCAVATIONS AT BABYLONIAN AND ASSYRIAN SITES ..... 1 

II. THE DECIPHERMENT OP THE CUNEIFORM SCRIPT ........ 63 

III. SURVEY OP BABYLONIAN AND ASSYRIAN HISTORY ........ 120 

IV. THE GODS OP BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA ................ 187 

V. THE CULTS AND THE TEMPLES OP BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA. 237 

VI. LAW AND COMMERCE ............................... 283 

VII. THE ART OP BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA ................. 367 

VIII. SPECIMENS OP BABYLONIAN AND ASSYRIAN LITERATURE .. 427 
INDEX ....................^....................... 497 

 ILLUSTRATIONS 

FLATS PACT 
I. GROUP OF EXPLORERS OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA, AND OF 
EARLY DECIPHERERS OF CUNEIFORM INSCRIPTIONS: SIR 
AUSTEN HENRY LA YARD, (1817-1894) SIR HENRY C. RAW- 
IJNSON (1810-1895), GEORQ FRIEDRICH GHOTEFEND (1775- 
1853), REV. EDWARD HINCKS (1792-1866), JULES OPFERT 
(1825-1905), GEORGE SMITH (1840-1876), ERNEST DE SARZEC 
(1837-1901), JOHN HENRY HAYNES (1849-1910) Frontispiece 

n. MAP OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA. ......................... 5 

From Jastrow, Aspects of Religious Belief and Practice in Baby 
lonia and Assyria, N. Y., 1910, by kind permission of the pub 
lishers, G. P. Putnam's Sons 

III. FIG. 1. MOUND AND VILLAGE OF KHORSABAD, THE SITE OF THE 

FIRST EXCAVATIONS IN ASSYRIA ......................... 14 

Botta et Flandin, Monument de Ninive, Paris, 1849-50, PI. 3 
FIG. 2. Bras NIMRUD, THE SITE OF THE ANCIENT CITY OF 
BORSIPPA. THE RUINED EDIMCE is THE REMAINS OF THE 
SEVEN-BTORIED STAGE-TOWER. ........................... 14 

Peters, Nippur, Putnam's, N. Y., 1897, facing page 214 

IV. FIG. 1. HUNTING SCENE IN A FOREST (KHORSABAD) .......... 16 

FIG. 2. PROCESSION OF CAPTIVES, BEARING TRIBUTE (KHOR 
SABAD) ................................................ 16 

Botta et Flandin, Monument de Ninive, Paris, 1867, PI. 127 and 
108 

V. FIG. 1. WINGED BULL WITH HUMAN FACE FROM THE PALACE 
OF SAHGON AT KHORSABAD, GUARDING THE ENTRANCE TO 
ONE OF THE LARGE HALLS. .............................. 18 

Botta et Flandin, Monument de Ninive, PI. 45 

FIG. 2. ATTEMPTED RESTORATION OF SAHGON'S PALACE. ..... 18 

Place, Ninive et I'Assyrie, Paris, 1867-70, PI. 18bis 

VI. OBELISK OF SHALMANESER III, KING OF ASSYRIA (858-824 B.C.), 
ILLUSTRATING His TRIUMPHANT WARS. THE SECOND Row 
SHOWS THE KING RECEIVING THE TRIRUTE OF JEHU, THE 
KING OF ISRAEL. ....................................... 20 

Layard, Monuments of Nineveh, 1st Series, John Murray, London, 

1849, PL 53 

VII. FIG. 1. KING SENNACHERIB OF ASSYRIA (705-681 B.C.) IN His 

CHARIOT (KOUYUNJIK). ................................. 22 

FIG. 2. CARRYING MATERIAL ACROSS A STREAM—PALACE OF 
SENNACHERIB AT KOUYUNJIK (NINEVEH) ................. 22 

Paterson, Assyrian Sculptures, Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, 

1912, PI. 42 and 26 

VIII. HUNTING SCENES FROM THE PALACE OF ABHURBANAFAL, KING 

OF ASSYRIA (668-626 B.C.) ............................. 24 

FIG. 1. LION HUNT 
FIG. 2. HUNTING WILD HORSES 

W. A. Mansell & Co., London. Photographs of Assyrian Antiqui 
ties in the British Museum, Part III, Nos. 477 and 485 

xrii 

 xviii ILLUSTRATIONS 

EX. TABLETS mow ASHTJRBANAPAL'S LIBRART .................. 26 

Fio. 1. OMEN TABLET, WITH COLOPHON AT THE BOTTOM OF 

THE LEFT-HAND COLUMN 
Fio. 2. SYLLABARY, FURNISHING EXPLANATIONS OF CUNEIFORM 

SIGNS 

Bezold, Catalogue of the Cuneiform Tablets in the Kouyunjik Col 
lection of the British Museum, London, 1889-1899, vol. v, PI. X 
and XII 

Reproduced by permission of the Trustees of the British Museum 
X. SHAM_A8H, THE SuN-GOD, SEATED IN HlS SHRINE AT SlPPAR. ... 37 

Rawlinson, The Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western Asia, London, 
1884, VOL. v. PI. 60 

Reproduced by permission of the Trustees of the British Museum 

XI. Fio. 1. SPECIMEN OF BABYLONIAN BOUNDARY STONE, CONTAIN 
ING RECORD OF GRANT OF LAND, WITH NUMEROUS DESIGNS 
REPRESENTING SYMBOLS OF THE GODS; FOUND AT ABU HABBA 39 

King, Babylonian Boundary Stone and Memorial-Tablets in the 

British Museum, London, 1912, PI. 83 

Reproduced by permission of the Trustees of the British Museum 

FIG. 2. STONE PEDESTAL (STEATITE) WITH CROUCHING FIGURES, 
FROM TELLOH. .......................................... 39 

De Sarzec et Heuzey, Decouverlea en Chaldee, Ernest Leroux, 
Paris, 1884-1912, PL 21, No. 5 

XII. FIGS. 1 AND 2. EXCAVATIONS OF PALACE OF GUDEA, RULER 
OF LAGASH (c. 2450 B.C.) AND OF LATER EDIFICE ERECTED 
ON THE SAME SITE. .................................... 41 

FIG. 3. TERRA-COTTA CYLINDER, CONTAINING DETAILED RECORD 
OF GUDEA'B BUILDING ACHIEVEMENTS AND OF His DEVO 
TION TO THE GODS..................................... 41 

Decouvertes en Chaldee, PI. 53bis and 36 

XIII. Fio. 1. DIORITE SEATED STATUE OF GUDEA, RULER OF 

LAGASH (c. 2450B.C.).................................. 43 

Decouvertes en Chaldee, PI. 20 

FIG. 2. STANDING STATUE OF GUDEA ...................... 43 

Cros, Heuzey et Thureau-Dangin, Ncntvelles FouiUes de Tetto, 
Leroux, Paris, 1010, PI. 1 

XIV. FIG. 1. SPECIMENS OF TABLETS AND INSCRIBED CONES FOUND 

AT TELLOH. ............................................ 45 

Decouvertes en Chaldee, PI. 41 

FIG. 2. NECROPOLIS AT TELLOH, SHOWING METHODS OF BURIAL 45 
Cros, Heuzey and Thureau-Dangin, Nouvelles FouiUes de Tetto, 
Leroux, Paris, 1910, p. 126 

XV. FIG. 1. SLIPPER-SHAPED COFFINS (PERSIAN PERIOD) FOUND 

AT NIPPUR ............................................. 48 

FIG. 2. INCANTATION BOWLS WITH ARAMAIC INSCRIPTIONS 
FOUND AT NIPPUR. ..................................... 48 

Babylonian Expedition of the University of Pennsylvania, Series 
A, vol. ix, PL 16, and Series D, vol. i, p. 447 

XVI. Fia. 1. WHITE STONE STATUE OF THE GODDESS NINLIL (BiBMYA) S3 
FIG. 2. DESIGN ON AN INSCRIBED BOAT-SHAPED VASE (BIBUYA) 53 
FIG. 3. DESIGN ON AN INLAID VASE (BISMYA). .............. 53 

Banks, Bismya or the Lost City of Adah. Putnam's, New York, 
1912, pp. 258, 139 and 268 

 ILLUSTRATIONS xix 

XVII. FIG. 1. EXCAVATIONS AT KALEH-SHERGAT, THE SITE OF ASHUB, 

THB ANCIENT CAPITOL OF ASSYRIA. ........................57 

Andrae, Die Festungswerke van Assur, Hinrichs, Leipzig, 1913, 
PI. LXXIV 

FIQ. 2. MEMORIAL STEINS ERECTED AT ASHUR IN HONOR OF 
RULERS AND HIGH OFFICIALS. .......................... 57 

Andrae, Die Stelenreihen in Assur, Hinrichs, Leipzig, 1913, PI. IX 

XVIII. FIG. 1. THE LION OF BABYLON. GLAZED TILE WORK OF THE 
DAYS OF NEBUCHADNEZZAR II., KING OF BABYLONIA, (604- 
561 B.C. ).............................................. 60 

Koldewey, Das Wieder Erstehende Babylon, Hinrichs, Leipzig, 
1913, Fig. 16 

FIG. 2. ARCHWAY OF COLORED, GLAZED TILES (KHOBSABAD) .. 60 
Place, Ninive et I'Assyrie, PI. 15 

XIX. FIG. 1. RUINS AT PERSEPOLIS. ............................ 64 

Jackson, Persia, Past and Present, Macmillan & Co., New York, 
1906, facing p. 311 

FIQ. 2. REMAINS OF THE PROPYLEA OF THE PALACE OF XERXES 
I (486-465 B.C.) AT PERSEPOLIS. ......................... 64 

Perrot and Chipiez, History of Art in Persia, Chapman and Hall, 
London, 1892, facing p. 292 

XX. SPECIMENS OF THE THREE CLASSES OF CUNEIFORM CHARACTERS 
ON THE MONUMENTS AT PERSEPOLIS. B AND G (THROUGH 
WHICH GHOTEFEND DISCOVERED His KEY) REPRESENT 
CLASS I, i.e., OLD PERSIAN; C REPRESENTS CLASS III, i.e., 
BABYLONIAN-ASSYRIAN; D REPRESENTS CLASS II, i. e., NBO- 
ELAHITIC .............................................. 70 

Careten Niebuhr, Reisebeschreibung nach Ardbien und andern 
umliegenden Landern, Copenhagen 1776-1778 vol. ii, PL XXIV. 

XXI. FIG. 1. PORTION OF THE GREAT ROCK SCULPTURE AND INSCRIP 
TION OF DARIUS I (522-486 B. c.) SHOWING DARIUS RECEIV 
ING THB NINE REBELS AND PRETENDERS TO THE THRONB ... 83 
King and Thompson, The Sculptures and Inscriptions of Darius 
the Great on the Rock of Behistun in Persia, British Museum 
Publication London, 1907, PI. Ill 

Reproduced by permission of the Trustees of the British Museum 

Fig. 2. VABK OF XERXES I (486-465 B. c.), CONTAINING THB 
NAME OF THE KING IN THE THREE CLASSES OF CUNEIFORM 
CHARACTERS (Ou> PERSIAN, NEO-ELAMITIC AND BABY 
LONIAN-ASSYRIAN) AND IN EGYPTIAN HIEROGLYPHICS. ....... 83 

A. de Caylus, Recueti d'Antiyuites Egyptiennes etc., Paris, 1762, 

vol. v, PI. XXX 

XXII. Fig. 1. SUMBBIAN TYPE. ................................ 121 

Decouvertes en Chaldee, PI. 6bis No. la 

Fig. 2. LIMESTONE HEAD (BIBUYA), SHOWING EARLY SEMITE 
TTPB IN BABYLONIA. ................................... 121 

Banks, Bismya, Putnam's, New York, 1912, p. 256 

XXIII. Fig. 1. OBELISK OP MANISHTUSTJ, KING OF KISH (c.2600 

B. c.).................................................. 134 

Fig. 2. BUST OF MANISHTUSU. ............................ 134 

Both found at Susa, whither they were carried by an Elamite 
conqueror in the 12th century B.C. Delegation en Perse, 
Mlmoires, vol. ii, (Ernest Leroux, Paris, 1900,) PI. IX, and vol. z, 
(Paris, 1908,) PI. I 

 xx ILLUSTRATIONS 

XXTV. Fig. 1. LTTGAL-DAUDTT, KlNG OP AoAB, AS TYPE OP StTVERIAN 143 

Banks, Bismya, p. 191 

Fig. 2. MAHDDK-NADIN-AKHI, KINO OP BABYLONIA (c. 1140- 
1086 B.C.) FROM A BOUNDARY STONE OP THE KINO'S REIGN, AS 
TYPE OP SEMITE....................................... 143 

King, Babylonian Boundary Stones and Memorial-Tablets in the 

British Museum, London, 1912, PI. LIV 

Reproduced by permission of the Trustees of the British Museum 

XXV. Fig. 1. PRISM CONTAINING IN TEN COLUMNS THE ANNALS OP 

ASHURBANAPAL, KINO op ASSYRIA (668-626 B.C.) ......... 174 

Fio. 2. CLAY CLYINDER, CONTAINING THE ACCOUNT OP CYRUS' 
CAPTURE OP BABYLON (539 B.C.). ....................... 174 

Rassam, Asshur and the Land of Nimrod, Curbs and Jennings, 

Cincinnati, 1897, facing pages 218 and 268 

XXVI. Fio. 1. STELE OP ASHURNASIRPAL III, KINO OP ASSYRIA (883- 

859 B.C.). .............................................. 178 

Layard, Monuments of Nineveh, 2d Series, Murray, London, 

1853, PI. 4 

Fio. 2. STELE OP ESAKHADDON, KINO OP ASSYRIA (680-669 
B.C.) WITH Two ROYAL PRISONERS, TIRHAKA, KINO OP 
ETHIOPIA, AND BA'ALD, KINO OP TYRE. ................. 178 

Ausgrabungen in Sendschirli, W. Speman, Berlin, 1893, vol. i, 

PI. I 

XXVII. TERRA-COTTA VOTIVE IMAOES OP THE GOD ENLII* AND OP His 

CONSORT NINLIL (NIPPUR). ............................. 188 

Clay, Light on the Old Testament from Babel, Sunday School 
Times Co., Philadelphia, 1907, p. 194 

XXVIII. Fio. 1. THE GOD MABDUK IN CONFLICT WITH THE MONSTER 

TlAMAT, THE SYMBOL OP PRIMEVAL CHAOS................. 211 

Layard, Monuments of Nineveh, 2d Series, PI. 5 
Fio. 2. PROCESSION OP GODS, MOUNTED ON ANIMALS WITH 
WHICH THEY WERE SYMBOLICALLY ASSOCIATED; ROCK 
SCULPTURE AT MALTHIYEH IN THE MOUNTAINS OP KUB- 
DISTAN, Two DAYS NORTH OP MOSUL. .................. 211 

Place, Ninive et I'Assyrie, PI. 45 

XXIX. Fio. 1. NABU, THE CHIEP DEITY OP BOBSIPPA. ............. 218 

Budge and King, A Guide to the Babylonian and Assyrian Antiq 
uities of the British Museum, (2d ed.) London, 1908. p. 31 

Reproduced by permission of the Trustees of the British Museum 
FlO. 2. ISHTAB AS THE MOTHER GODDESS. ................. 218 

Koldewey, Die Tempel van Babylon und Borsippa, Hinrichs, 
Leipzig, 1911, Fig. 13 

FlO. 3. ISHTAR AS THE GODDESS OP WAR. ROCK SCULPTURE 
IN THE ZAOROS MOUNTAINS, WITH VOTIVE INSCRIPTION OP 
ANUBANINI, KINO OP THE LULUBI (c. 2400 B.C.), TO WHOM 
THE GODDESS is BRINGING PRISONERS OP WAB. .......... 218 

de Morgan, Mission Scientifiqve en Perse, Leroux, Paris (1894- 
1904) vol. iv, PI. IX, and Jastrow, Bildermappe zur Religion 
Babyloniens und Assyriens, Topelmann, Giessen, 1912, No. 24 

XXX. FIG. 1. MABDUK, THE CHIEP DEITY OP BABYLON. .......... 223 

Fio. 2. ADAD, THE GOD OP STORMS. ....................... 223 

Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orientgesellschaft, No. 5, pp. 12-15 

XXXI. Fio. 1. ASHUR (?), THE CHIEP DEITY OP ASSYRIA.. ......... 229 

Meyer, Sumerier und Semiten in Babylonien, Berlin, 1906, PI. VI 
FlOS. 2 AND 3. WlNOED DlSCS AS SYMBOLS OP THE GOD ASHUB, 
ORIGINALLY A SUN DEITY, BUT AS THE HEAD OP THE 
ASSYRIAN PANTHEON, ALSO A GOD OP'WAR. .............. 229 

Jaatrow, Bildermappe zur Religion Bdbyloniens und Assyriena, 
Topelmann, Giessen 1912, No. 49 and 50a 

 ILLUSTRATIONS xxi 

XXXII. Fio. 1. TYPES OF DEMONS. ............................... 241 

FIG. 2. HUMAN-HEADED LION, A TTPE or MONSTROUS BEING 
AKIN TO THE DEMONS. ................................. 241 

W. A. Mansell & Co., London, Photographs of Assyrian Anliqui- 
tiet in the British Museum, Part III, No. 461 

XXXIII. ASSYBIAN KING WORSHIPPING THE TREE OF LIFE, ACCOM 
PANIED BY WINGED, SEMI-DIVINE BEINGS AS GUARDIANS AND 
FERTILIZERS OF THE TREE. THE SCENE is SYMMETRICALLY 
REPEATED. ABOVE THE TREE IB THE WINGED Disc AS THE 
SYMBOL OF THE GOD ASHUR. ........................... 265 

Layard, Monuments of Nineveh, 1st Series, Murray, London 
1849, PL 25 

XXXIV. DIOIMTE STELE, CONTAINING THE CODE OF HAMMURAPI (c. 2123- 
2081 B.C.), WITH PICTURE OF THE KING IN ATTITUDE OF 
ADORATION BEFORE SHAMASH, THE SUN-GOD, WHO is THE 
GOD OF LAW AND JUSTICE. .............................. 284 

DelegationenPerse,M emoires,\o\.\\, (Leroux, Paris, 1902) PL4-5 

XXXV. THE FIRST EIGHT COLUMNS OF THE CODE OF HAMMURAPI ..... 287 
Delegation en Perse, Memoires, vol. iv, Leroux, Paris, 1902, PI. 4-5 

XXXVI. FIG. 1. LEGAL TABLET WITH SEAL, RECORDING SALE OF A 
PORTION OF A HOUSE AND DATED IN THE 13ra YEAR OF KING 
SAMSU-ILUNA OF BABYLONIA (c. 2080-2043 B.C.).. ........... 334 

FIGS. 2 AND 3. SPECIMENS OF SEAL IMPRESSIONS ON LEGAL 
AND COMMERCIAL TABLETS. ............................. 334 

FIG. 4. NAIL MAEKS ON LEGAL TABLET, AS SUBSTITUTE FOR 
SEAL.. ................................................ 334 

Babylonian Expedition of the University of Pennsylvania, vol. vi, 

2, PI. VII; vol. vi, 1, PI. IV; vol. viii, 1, PI. IV; vol. viii, 1, PI. V 

XXXVII. FIG. 1. DRAGON AS SYMBOL OF THE GOD MARDUK; COLORED, 

GLAZED TILES ON THE GATE OF ISHTAR IN BABYLON. ..... 370 

FIG. 2. BULL AS SYMBOL OF THE GOD ADAD (?); COLORED, 
GLAZED TILES ON THE GATE OF ISHTAH IN BABYLON ......... 370 

Koldewey, Das Wieder Erstehende Babylon, Hinrichs, Leipzig, 
1913, Fig. 30 and 31 

XXXVIII. FIG. 1. RESTORATION OF THE TEMPLE OF THE GOD NINIB IN 

BABYLON. ............................................. 372 

FIG. 2. PLAN OF THE TEMPLE OF THE GODDESS NIN-MAKH 
("THE GREAT LADY"), i. e., ISHTAR OF BABYLON. ......... 372 

Koldewey, Die Tempel van Babylon und Borsippa, Hinricha, 

Leipzig, 1911, Fig. 25 and PL III 

XXXIX. FIG. 1. RESTORATION OF ZIKKURATS OR STAGE-TOWERS OF 

THE ANTJ-ADAD TEMPLE AT ASHUR. . .................... 376 

Andrae, Der Anu-Adad Tempel, Hinrichs, Leipzig 1909, PI. VIII 
FIG. 2. MOHAMMEDAN TOWER AT SAMARRA ON THE TIGRIS 
(9rH CENTURY A.D.) .................................... 376 

Herzfeld, Samarra, Behrend & Co., Berlin, 1907, PI. 3 

XL. FIG. 1. SHAPES OF BABYLONIAN COFFINS OF THE OLDER 

PERIODS............................................... 379 

Jastrow, Bildermappe zur Religion Babyloniens und Assyriens, 

Topelmann, Giessen 1912, No. 115 

FIG. 2. ASSYRIAN GRAVE VAULT. .......................... 379 

Mitteihtngen der Deutschen Orientgesettschaft, No. 27, p. 29 

XU. FIG. 1. SPECIMENS OF BABYLONIAN POTTERY. ............... 381 

Decouvertes en Chaldee, PI. 42 

FIG. 2. SHAPES OF POTTERY FROM BISMYA ................. 381 

Banks, Bismya, Putnam'n, New York, 1912, p. 349 

 xxii ILLUSTRATIONS 

XLII. FIGS. 1 AND 2. VOTIVE STATUETTES OF CLAT. .............. 382 

Cros, Heuzey and Thureau-Dangin, Nowiettes Fouiliet de Tcllo, 

Leroux, Paris, 1910, PI. VII, Nos. 7 and 8 

FIG. 3. THE GOD NINGIRSU AND HIB CONBOBT BAU. ........ 382 

Decouvertes en Chaldee, PI. 25, No. 5 

XLIII. FIG. 1. BABYLONIAN GODDESS WITH UPLIFTED HANDS ....... 383 

Decouvertes en Chaldee, PI. 40, No. 2 

FIG. 2. VOTIVE TABLET OF UR-ENLIL (c. 3000 B.C.), FOUND 
AT NIPPUR. ........................................... 383 

Babylonian Expedition of the University of Pennsylvania, I. 2. 
PI. XVI 

XLIV. FIG. 1. GODDESS SEATED ON BIRD ......................... 384 

Babylonian Expedition of the University of Pennsylvania, Series 

D, vol. i, p. 474 

FIG. 2. SUMERIAN CHIEF. ................................. 384 

Decouvertes en Chaldee, PI. 1, No. 1 

XLV. FIG. 1. PROCESSION OF WARRIORS. ........................ 385 

FIG. 2. LIMESTONE BAS-RELIEF, REPRESENTING A RELIGIOUS 
CEREMONY. ............................................ 385 

Decouvertes en Chaldee, PI. 47, No. 1 and PI. 23 

XLVI. FIG. 1. UR-NINA, KING OF LAGASH (c. 3000 B.C.), AND His 

FAMILY. ............................................... 386 

Decouvertes en Chaldee, PL 2bis, No. 1 

FIG. 2. THE GODDESS NINSUN. ........................ ... 386 

Jastrow, BUdermappe zur Religion Babyloniens und Assyrian*, 
Topelmann, Giessen, 1912, No. 21 

XLVII. FRAGMENTS OF THE " STELE OF VULTURES "................ 387 

FIG. 1. MARCHING ARMY OF EANNATUM, RULER OF LAOABH 

(c. 2920 B.C.). 
FIG. 2. THE GOD NINGIRSU, CAPTURING THE ENEMIES or 

LAGASH IN HIS NET. 
Decouvertes en Chaldee, PI. 3bis and 4bis 

XLVIII. FRAGMENTS OF THE "STELE OF VULTURES". ............... 388 

FIG. 1. HEADS OF ENEMIES BEING CARRIED OFF BT VULTURBS 
FIG. 2. BURIAL OF SOLDIERS OF EANNATUM, RULER OF LAGASH 

(c. 2920 B.C.) 

FIG. 3. THE CONFLICT BETWEEN LAGASH AND UMMA. 
Decouvertes en Chaldee, PL 3 

XLIX. FIG. 1. HERALDIC DESIGN OF LAGASH; VOTIVE PLAQUE. ..... 390 

Fondation Eugene Piot, Monuments et Memoires, Leroux, Paris, 
1894, vol. i, PL II; also Decouvertes en Chaldee, PL 5 bis No. 2 
FIG. 2. FRAGMENT OF A STELE DEPICTING A CONFLICT WITH 
AN ENEMY. ............................................ 390 

Dicouvertes en Chaldee, PL Sbis, No. 3a 

L. FIG. 1. STELE OF NARAM-SIN, KING OF AGADE (c. 2550 B.C.). . . 393 
Delegation en Perse, Memoires, (Leroux, Paris 1898) vol. i, PL IX 
FIG. 2. BAS-RELIEF OF NARAM-SIN, KING OF AGADE. ....... 393 

Babylonian Expedition of the University of Pennsylvania, I, 2, 
PL XVI 

LI. FIG. 1. DIORTTE STATUE OF A WOMAN. .................... 395 

Decouvertes en Chaldee, PL 24bis, No. 2a 

FIG. 2. DOG WITH ATTACHMENT OF LATER DATE (?) ; VOTIVB 
OFFERING OF KINO SUMDLAILU (r. 2211-2176 B.C.) ....... 395 

Cros, Heuzey ct Thureau-Dnngin, Nouvelles FowUe* de Tetto, 
Leroux, Paris 1910, PL V 

 ILLUSTRATIONS xxiii 

LIT. Fine. 1, 2 AND 3. HEADS or LIONS. ....................... 396 

Deeouvertes en Chaldee, PL 25bis, NOB. la, 4 and 5 
LIII. Fine. 1 AND 2. HUMAN-HEADED BULLS, ONE WITH INLAID 

SHELLS TO INDICATE STREAKS. .......................... 398 

Fondation Engine Piot, Monuments el Memaires, Leroux, Paris, 
1899, vol. vi, PL XI, and vol. vii, (Paris, 1900.) PI. I 

LIV. Fia. 1. SPHINXES IN HITTITE ART, SHOWING BABYLONIAN- 
ASSYRIAN INFLUENCE IN PORTRAYAL or FANTASTIC HYBRID 
FIGURES, AND RELATIONSHIP TO WINGED CREATURES IN 
ASSYRIAN ART. ........................................ 400 

AusgrabungeninSendschirli, Reimer, Berlin, 1911, vol. iv, PI. LVI 
FIG. 2. ASSYRIAN ARMY ATTACKING A FORT, FROM THE PALACE 
or SARGON, KING OF ASSYRIA (721-706 B.C.) .............. 400 

Botta et Flandin, Monument de Ninive, PL 68bis 

LV. FIG. 1. ASHURNASIRPAL III, KING or ASSYRIA (883-859 B.C.) 

HUNTING LIONS. ....................................... 402 

FlG. 2. ASHURNASIRPAL POURING LlBATION OvEB WlLD BULL 

KILLED IN THE CHASE. ................................. 402 

Layard, Monuments of Nineveh, 1st Series, Murray, London 
1849, PL 10 and 12 

LVI. FIG. 1. ATTENDANTS CARRYING THRONE (KHORSABAD)....... 403 

FIG. 2. TRANSPORTING WOOD ACROSS A STREAM (KHORSABAD) 403 
Botta et Flandin, Monument de Ninive, PL 17 and 34 

LVII. GlLGAMESH, THE HERO OF THE BABYLONIAN EPIC............. 404 

Botta et Flandin, Monument de Ninive, PI. 41 

LVIII. KING SENNACHERIB or ASSYRIA (705-681 B.C.) RECEIVING 

CAPTIVES AT LACHISH (PALESTINE) ...................... 405 

Layard, Monuments of Nineveh, 2d Series, Murray, London 1853, 
PL 23 

IIX. TRANSPORTING COLOSSAL FIGURE or A WINGED BULL, PALACE 

or SENNACHERIB AT NINEVEH. .......................... 406 

Layard, Monuments of Nineveh, 2d Series, PI. 13 

LX. FIG. 1. DYING LIONESS. .................................. 407 

FIG. 2. ATTENDANTS CARRYING NETS FOB THE CHASE, AND 
LEADING DOGS. ........................................ 407 

W. A. Mansell & Co., London, Photographs of Assyrian Antiq 
uities irtthe British Museum, Part III, Nos. 462 and 504 

LXJ. FIG. 1. BATTLE SCENE, CONFLICT BETWEEN ASSYRIA AND 

ELAM IN THE REIGN or KING ASHURBANAPAL. ........... 408 

Layard, Monuments of Nineveh, 2d Series, PL 45 

FIG. 2. ASSYRIAN ABUT AND CAPTIVES. .................... 408 

Layard, Monuments of Nineveh, 2d Series, PL 48 

LXII. KING ASHURBANAPAL or ASSYRIA (668-626 B.C.) WITH His 

QUEEN. ............................................... 409 

W. A. Mansell & Co., London, Photographs of Assyrian Antiq 
uities in the British Museum, Part III, No. 5226 and 522e 

LXIII. VOTIVE OFFERINGS (COPPER) FROM TELLOH (LAGASH). ....... 410 

Dfeowertes en Chaldee, PL 28 

LXJV. FIG. 1. VOTIVE STATUETTES (COPPER). .....................f410 

FIG. 2. STATUETTE, •WITH FLAT RING ATTACHMENT. ........ 410 

Dtcouvertt* en Chaldee, PL Ibis, Nos. 3 to 7, and PL 2bia, No. 3 

 xxiv ILLUSTRATIONS 

LXV. Fio. 1. BRONZE Ecu..................................... 411 

Fondation Eugene Piot, Monuments et Memoires, Leroux, Paris, 

1900, vol. vii, PI. 1 

FIG. 2. GOAT WITH CRUMPLED HORNS (COPPER) ............ 411 

Babylonian Expedition of the University of Pennsylvania, Series 
D, vol. i, p. 540 

LXVI. FIGS. 1 AND 2. BRONZE PLAQUE (OBVERSE AND REVERSE), 

SHOWING EXORCISING CEREMONY. ......................... 412 

Revue Archeologique 1879, p. 337 

LXVII. Fio. 1. BABYLONIAN BRONZE BELL (BERLIN MUSEUM)....... 413 

FIG. 2. DEMONS ON BRONZE BELL. ........................ 413 

Jastrow, BUdermappe zur Religion Babyloniens und Assyriens, 
Topelmann Giessen, 1912, NOB. 70 and 70a 

LXVIII. FIGS. 1 AND 2. BRONZE COVERINGS OP GATES OP AN ASSYR 
IAN PALACE AT BALAWAT, DEPICTING SCENES IN THE CAM 
PAIGNS OP SHALMANESER III, KING ON ASSYRIA (858-824 B.C.) 414 
Birch and Pinches, The Bronze Ornaments of the Palace Gates of 
Balawat, Society of Biblical Archaeology, London, 1880, PI. A. 1 
and C. 3 

LXIX. FIGS. 1 AND 2. BRONZE COVERINGS OP GATES OP AN ASSYRIAN 
PALACE AT BALAWAT, SHOWING KING SHALMANESEH III 
RECEIVING PRISONERS; CAVALRY AND INPANTRY OP THE ASSYR 
IAN ARMY, CHARIOTEERS, AND BARBAROUS TREATMENT OF 
THE CAPTURED ENEMY. ................................. 415 

Birch and Pinches, The Bronze Ornaments of the Palace Gates of 

Balawat, PI. D 3 and D 4 

LXX. FIGS. 1 AND 2. ASSYRIAN BRONZE BOWLS OF THE STH CEN 
TURY B.C. .............................................. 416 

Layard, Monuments of Nineveh, 1st Series, Murray, London, 1849 
PI. 60 and 63 

LXXI. FIG. 1. SILVER VASE OF ENTEMENA, RULER OP LAOASH (c. 

2850 B.C.). ........................................... 417 

Decouvertes en Chaldee, PI. 43bis 

FIG. 2. LIBATION VASE OP GREEN STONE. ................. 417 

Dfcouvertes en Chaldee, PI. 44, No. 2a-c and Heuzey, Catalogue 
des Antiquites Chaldeennes du Musee National du Louvre, Paris 
1902, No. 125 

LXXII. FIGS. 1 AND 2. SYMBOLS OF THE GODS ON BABYLONIAN BOUN 
DARY STONES ... ...................................... 419 

King, Babylonian Boundary Stones and Memorial-Tablets in the 
British Museum, London, 1912, PI. LXXVI and LXXVII 
Reproduced by permiasion of the Trustees of the British Museum 

LXXIII. FIGS. 1 AND 2. WINGED AND NON-WINGED HIPPOCENTAUBS 

ON BABYLONIAN BOUNDARY STONES. ..................... 419 

L. W. King, Babylonian Boundary Stones and Memorial-TableU 
in the British Museum, London, 1912, PI. XXIX 

Reproduced by permission of the Trustees of the British Museum 

LXXIV. FIGS. 1, 2 AND 3. ENGRAVING ON BONK AND "SHELLS ........ 420 

Decoueertes en Chaldee, PI. 46, Nos. 2, 3, and 5 

 ILLUSTRATIONS xxv 

LXXV. BABYLONIAN AND ASSYRIAN SEAL CYLINDERS. .............. 423 

FIG. 1. MAN AND WOMAN DRINKING THROUGH TUBES, PROB 
ABLY A SACRIFICIAL SCENE. 

Jastrow, Bildermappe zur Religion Babyloniens und Assyrians, 

Topelmann, Giessen, 1912, No. 125 

FIG. 2. MONSTROUS BEING (WITH HEAD OF ENKIDU, THE 
COMPANION OF GILGAMEBU), FIGHTING A LION—SYMMETRI 
CALLY REPEATED. 

W. H. Ward, Cylinders and Other Ancient Seals in the Library of 

J. Pierjxmt Morgan, N. Y., 1909, No. 44 

FIG. 3. THE SUN-GOD SHAMASH, WITH DIVINE ATTENDANTS. 

Morgan Collection, No. 60 

FIG. 4. GILQAMESH, FIGHTING LION—SYMMETRICALLY RE 
PEATED. 

King, History of Sumer and Akkad, Chatto & Windus, London, 

1910, facing p. 76 

LXXVI. FIG. 1. CONTESTS WITH WILD BEASTS ..................... 425 

King, History of Sumer and Akkad, facing p. 76 

FIG. 2. WINGED SEMI-DIVINE BEING BEFORE THE TREE OF 

LIFE—SYMMETRICALLY REPEATED ........................ 425 

Morgan Collection, No. 159 

FIG. 3. WINGED BEING, PLUCKING THE FRUIT OF THE TREE 

OF LIFE ............................................... 425 

Morgan Collection, No. 160 

FIG. 4. CONFLICT WITH THE DRAGON TIAMAT. ............. 425 

Morgan Collection, No. 154 

LXXVII. FIG. 1. SHAMASH, THE SUN-GOD, STEPPING FORTH OVER THE 
MOUNTAIN TO PASS THROUGH THE GATB OF SUNRISE— 
SYMMETRICALLY REPEATED. ............................. 426 

Morgan Collection, No. 70 

FIG. 2. SIN, THE MOON-GOD, RECEIVING A WORSHIPPER LED 
BY A GODDESS, PROBABLY THE CONSORT OF SIN. INSCRIP 
TION OF THE DAYS OF UR-ENGUH, KING OF UH (c. 2450 B.C.) 426 

Clay, Light on the Old Testament from Babel, Sunday School 

Times, Philadelphia, 1907, p. 199 

FIG. 3. SEAL OF A BABYLONIAN PHYSICIAN. ................ 426 

Decouvertes en Chaldee, PI. 30bis 

FIG. 4. DIVINE BEINGS, SEATED BEFORE THE TREE OF LIFE, 
WITH SERPENT BEHIND THE FEMALE FIGURE ............. 426 

Clay, Light on the Old Testament from Babel, p. 83 

LXXVIII. FIG. 1. THIRD TABLET OF THE BABYLONIAN STORY OF CREATION 430 
King, Seven Tablets of Creation, Luzac & Co., London, 1902, vol. 
ii, frontispiece 
FIG. 2. PORTION OF THE BABYLONIAN STORY OF THE DELUGE, 

FORMING THE ELEVENTH TABLET OF THE GILGAMESH EPIC.. 430 
Rassam, Asshur and the Land of Nimrod, Curta and Jennings, 
Cincinnati, 1897, facing p. 34 

 THE CIVILIZATION OF 
BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA 

CHAPTER I 

EXCAVATIONS AT BABYLONIAN AND ASSYRIAN SITES 

THE land to which we are led in the exposition of this 
subject lies thousands of miles away and the time with 
which we are concerned lies thousands of years behind 
us. The question may, therefore, properly be asked, 
what is our interest in the civilization that flourished in 
the Euphrates Valley as early, at least, as 3500 years be 
fore our era, and that spread northwards into the region 
lying along the banks of the Tigris as early as 2500 B.C., 
if not earlier.1 

In the case of Babylonia and Assyria, the very re 
moteness of the thenie, of the place, and of the time con 
stitute three reasons why its history, culture, and re 
ligion should be of real interest to us, for the past, and 

1 See the accompanying map. Babylonia is the name given to 
the southern portion, Assyria to the northern portion. For the 
oldest period, Sumer and Akkad may be used as designations of the 
southern and northern sections of the Euphrates Valley, while Chal 
dea represents an early name for a part of the southern section 
which, owing to the accidental circumstance that the latest dynasty 
of Babylonia—'the so-called neo-BabyIonian period (625 to the 
advent of Cyrus in 539 B.C.)—came from Chaldea, led Roman writers 
to use this term for the whole region, i.e., for Babylonia and Assyria. 
Mesopotamia, the land "between the rivers," properly applies only 
to the section included between the Euphrates and Tigris from their 
junction northwards. It is, therefore, an inaccurate designation for 
Babylonia and Assyria, since it does not include the Euphrates 
Valley. 

 2 BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA 

more particularly the remote past, exercises an intense 
fascination upon us—a fascination due to the conviction, 
deep-seated within us, that whereas we belong to the 
present, the past belongs to us. The history of mankind 
is a continuous series of links, forming, as Herder 
phrased it, the "golden chain of culture." Each civili 
zation as it arises is the heir of the ages that have gone 
before, every phase of human culture stands in some con 
nection with the preceding phase. Our American civili 
zation is an offshoot of European culture to which we 
have made some contributions. The culture of Western 
and Northern Europe represents the extension of Ro 
man civilization. Rome owes its intellectual stimulus to 
Greece, whose heir she became, and Greek culture, as we 
know, rests on a substratum of Asiatic influence and em 
bodies elements derived from Egypt and Babylonia as 
well as from Asia Minor; and even when we pass to the 
distant East, the chain is not broken. Persia looks back 
to India, as Japan to China. Through Buddhism the 
connection is established between Chinese and Hindu 
civilization, and there are good reasons for believing 
that a direct cultural influence came to China from 
India at a period even earlier than the introduction of 
Buddhism, while the evidence, though not yet complete, 
is increasing which indicates that both the Chinese 
and Hindu civilizations lie within the sphere of influ 
ences emanating from such far older cultural centres as 
the Valley of the Euphrates and the Valley of the Nile. 

In studying the past we are, therefore, in reality 
studying ourselves, we are concerned with something 
that is not remote, but on the contrary with something 
that is quite close to us—with flesh of our flesh and bone 
of our bone. It is this direct interest in the past as a part 
of ourselves that underlies the remarkable activity un 
folded in Europe and in our own country in the task of 
recovering the remains of the past, so long hidden under 
the soil. Everywhere—in Greece and Italy, in Asia 
Minor and India, in Palestine and Syria, in Egypt and 

 EXCAVATIONS AND EXPLOEATIONS 3 

Babylonia the spade of the explorer has been busy2 re 
vealing the vestiges of ancient civilizations—revealing 
in many cases the entirely forgotten annals of mankind 
and enabling us to replace dimmed traditions by clearly 
ascertained facts, to sift legend and myths from actual 
historical occurrence, to reconstruct, in short, the 
earlier periods of that endeavor of mankind to rise 
superior to its surroundings which we call intellectual, 
social and religious progress. 

But apart from the antiquity of Babylonia and 
Assyria, there are certain circumstances which invest 
the region of the Euphrates and Tigris with a special 
kind of interest. Time-honored tradition places here not 
only the beginnings of civilization but also the cradle of 
the human race. The Garden of Eden is a section of 
Babylonia, as is sufficiently attested by the express men 
tion of the Tigris and Euphrates as two of the rivers 
which flowed through the primeval habitation of man 
kind; and though the story of Adam and Eve is devoid 
of any historical value, yet the tradition which assigns 
the first human pair to Babylonia is of great significance 
for the prominence which Babylonia must have acquired 
in the minds of the Hebrews, whose religious traditions 
are thus indissolubly bound up with Babylonia. Again, 
even when driven out of the mythical paradise, man does 
not leave Babylonia. The Valley of Shinar in which all 
of mankind is represented as being settled at the time 
of the building of the great tower that should reach to 
heaven, is merely a designation for the southern portion 
of the Euphrates Valley,3 while the tower itself was sug 
gested by the zikkurats or stage-towers, which were a 

2 See Michaelis, A Century of Archeological Discoveries (Trans 
lated by Bettina Kahnweiler, N. Y., 1908). 

8 Shinar is identical with Sumer—the original force of which 
appears to have been " the land " par excellence. It came in time 
to be the specific designation of the southern part of the Valley in 
contrast to Akkad as the designation of the northern portion. See 
King, History of Sumer and Akkad, pp. 13-15. 

 4 BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA 

characteristic feature of the religious architecture of 
Babylonia.4 In this story, or rather in the two stories in 
tertwined in the llth chapter of Genesis,—one the build 
ing of the city which is given the name of Babylon, and 
the other the building of the tower8—the significant feat 
ure is the tradition which thus ascribed to the Euphrates 
Valley the distinction of once harboring all mankind in 
addition to being the cradle of the human race. Where 
the cradle of the human race stood is still a problem of 
Ethnology in our days, and is perhaps incapable of 
solution by scientific methods, but the fact that even to 
the ancient Hebrews, the region of the Euphrates and 
Tigris appeared as the one which had been settled from 
time immemorial favors the hypothesis for which we 
have other evidence, albeit not conclusive, that a high 
order of civilization first developed in that region. Its 
only possible rival is Egypt, and the indications at pres 
ent are that while the actual beginnings of Egyptian 
civilization may lie further back than the Euphratean 
culture, yet Babylonia takes precedence in the unfold 
ing of an advanced form of cultural achievements. 

Leaving this question aside for the present and re 
turning to Biblical traditions, it is also of moment to 
note that the Hebrews traced their wanderings prior to 
their entrance into Palestine to Babylonia, for Ur of the 
Chaldees, whence Terah the father of Abram sets out, is 
a well-known city in Babylonia, and Harran where he 
sojourned is another city farther to the north. There 
is no reason to question the correctness of the tradition 
•which traces the Hebrews, or at least one of the groups 
that afterwards formed the combination known by this 
designation, back to Babylonia. As a matter of fact we 
come across traces of the Euphratean civilization at al 
most every period of Hebrew history. We encounter it 

*See Jastrow, Aspects of Religious Belief and Practice in 
Babylonia and Assyria, p. 289 seq. 

•See an article by the writer on "The Tower of Babel" in 
theIndependent,\ol. 57 (1905), pp. 822-826. 

 PLATE II 

SKETCH MAP OF 

BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA 

SHOWING 

SITES OF PRINCIPAL CITIES 

Mussayy/ 
Kerbela 

BABYL 

-••• 
Y 

SHURUPPAK I>MMA 

Mukoyyar _ if es-i 
ERIDU TellLahm 
AbQ Shahrain 

From " Aspects of Reli8ioua Belief and Practice in Babylonia and Assyria" by Morris Jastrow, Jr., by courtesy of G. P. Putnam's Sons, New York and London, 1910 

MAP OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA 

 EXCAVATIONS AND EXPLOEATIONS 5 

in the language of the Hebrews, in the codes that grew 
up among them, in their art and architecture, in their 
social life, in their political organization, and to a very 
considerable extent in their religious rites and earlier be 
liefs.8 The Old Testament is fairly saturated with Baby 
lonian culture, and even when we reach the time and 
days of the New Testament we have not yet passed be 
yond the sphere of Babylonian influence. 

II 

A glance at the map will show some of the reasons 
why civilization developed at so early a period in the Eu 
phrates Valley. The main feature of the region is formed 
by the two streams that water it—the Euphrates and 
Tigris—and bring about the high degree of fertility 
which Herodotus emphasizes.7 Of these rivers, the Eu 
phrates—the correct form of which is Purattu and de 
scribed in texts as "the great river"—is the stream that 
properly belongs to the southern district or Babylonia, 
while the Tigris or more properly Idiklat, pictured 
as " the rapid " stream, is the river of the northern dis 
trict or Assyria. Both rivers start in the mountain re 
gions of Armenia,8 but they are quite diverse in charac 
ter. The Euphrates is on the whole a quiet and, in parts, 
a sluggish stream. It flows along in majestic dignity, 
and receiving many tributaries on its way while still in 
the mountains, proceeds first in a westerly direction as 
though making directly for the Mediterranean Sea but 
veers suddenly to the southeast, after which it receives 
only a few tributaries until it is joined by the Tigris in 
the extreme south. Of its entire length of 1780 miles it 

8 This subject is fully set forth in the writer's Hebrew and 
Babylonian Traditions (New York, 1914). 

7 Book I, § 193. 

8 See Lehmann-Haupt, Die historischc Semiramis und ihr» Zeit., 
(Tubingen 1910), p. 1C seq. 

 G BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA 

is navigable for a short distance only, cataracts forming 
a hinderance in the north and, owing to the increasing 
sluggishness of the stream, sand banks in the south. 
As a consequence, it never became at any time an impor 
tant avenue for commerce, rafts and wicker baskets, 
coated within and without with bitumen, being the only 
method of transportation which was possible under such 
circumstances. 

The Tigris, though only 1146 miles long, is quite a 
different stream. After leaving its source in the moun 
tains, it gains steadily in power, forcing its way through 
rugged clefts. It is joined by numerous tributaries be 
fore it reaches the plain, its volume being continually 
increased so that even when it reaches the alluvial soil of 
the south, its rapid course is not checked. It flows in 
a slightly fluctuating southerly direction, advances 
towards the Euphrates and recedes from it again until 
at last the two rivers join at Kurna and together pour 
their waters as the Shatt el-Arab or "Arabic River" 
into the Persian Gulf. The Tigris is navigable from 
Diarbekr in the north to its junction with the Euphrates. 
Large rafts can be floated down to Baghdad and small 
steamers can ascend almost up to Mosul. The Tigris is, 
therefore, the avenue of commerce for Mesopotamia—to 
use the conventional designation for the country—and 
forms the link that connects Babylonia and Assyria 
through the Persian Gulf with India on the one hand, 
and Egypt and the Red Sea and the Mediterranean dis 
tricts on the other. The contrast presented by the two 
streams is paralleled by the diverse features distin 
guishing Assyria, the northern section, from Babylonia, 
the southern section. Assyria, with a length of about 
350 miles and a width ranging from 190 to 300 miles," 
is shut off to the north, northeast, and northwest 
by mountain ranges and retains for a considerable por- 
tion of its extent, and particularly towards the east, a 

9 A total area of some 75,000 square miles, or somewhat smaller 
than the state of Nebraska. 

 EXCAVATIONS AND EXPLORATIONS 7 

rugged aspect. The Kurdish Mountains run close to the 
Tigris for some distance below Mosul, though after that 
the region changes its character. Plains without any 
break succeed the hills, the soil becomes alluvial and the 
Tigris and its tributaries, swollen by the rains of winter, 
regularly overflow their banks and submerge entire 
districts. As a consequence of this overflow, to which 
also the united rivers were subject, and which until a 
canal system was perfected was also a source of danger 
to life and brought about much destruction, the 
southern region or Babylonia, with a length of about 
300 miles and a maximum breadth of almost 125 miles,10 
developed an astounding fertility. According to the 
statement of Herodotus,11 grain yielded a return of 
"two hundred fold and even up to three hundred fold," 
while "the blade of the wheat plant and the barley 
plant is often four fingers in breadth, and the stalks of 
the millet and sesame are surprisingly tall." It would 
appear, indeed, that Babylonia was the home of 
cultivated cereals whence wheat and barley were dis 
seminated throughout the ancient world. 

The richness of the soil in Babylonia is due to its 
being a deposit made by the rivers after the overflowing 
waters during the rainy season have receded. This 
deposit which is still going on at the average rate of 90 
feet per year may in ancient times have proceeded 
more rapidly, but, at all events, in this increase we 
have a fairly definite standard by means of which 
to determine the age of Babylonian settlements through 
the distance at present separating cities from the 
Persian Gulf that once lay on or near that great body 
of water. So, e.g., a city, Eridu, which we know once 
lay on the Persian Gulf, is now some 130 miles away. 
Taking 90 feet as the average yearly increase, this 
would take us back some 7000 years for the period 

10 A total area of about 23,000 square miles, or about the size of 
West Virginia. 

11 Book I, § 193. 

 8 BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA 

when Eridu still lay on the Persian Gulf. Since it 
is also known that at one time the Euphrates and Tigris 
entered the Persian Gulf independently, it follows that 
the entire district below their present juncture at 
Kurna is land made during the historical period. The 
natural conditions, therefore, such as the presence of 
two rivers that bring about unusual fertility, the fact 
that one of them is an avenue of commerce from the 
extreme north to the Persian Gulf, and that this gulf 
again constitutes a means of access to distant lands, 
explain why this region should have been at so early a 
period the seat of a population which took up agricul 
ture as a pursuit and under conditions which with a 
minimum of effort yielded a maximum of sustenance. 

To these conditions there is to be added as a third 
factor the climate, which, although according to our 
views intolerable, is not unhealthy and is precisely of the 
kind suitable for a population that cannot adequately 
protect itself against cold and inclemency. There are 
two seasons in Babylonia—a rainy season, which sets 
in in November and lasts until March or April, when 
the overflow of the rivers begins, which reaches its 
height in May and ceases about the middle of June, 
and a dry season, which lasts from March to November. 
The heat during this season becomes excessive accord 
ing to European ideas, but it is regarded as pleasant 
by the natives, to whom even the moderate cold of the 
rainy season is decidedly more vexatious. The greater 
part of the year one can thus live in the open air—an 
important item to a people in a primitive state of 
culture. 

Ill 

Next to the antiquity of the civilization of the 
Euphrates Valley, perhaps the most astonishing fact 
about it is the disappearance of practically all material 
traces of this civilization and the loss of detailed knowl 
edge of a period of history extending over a stretch of 

 EXCAVATIONS AND EXPLORATIONS 9 

several thousand years. Until a few generations ago 
our knowledge of the history and culture of Babylonia 
and Assyria was limited to references in the Old Testa 
ment, and to the accounts in Herodotus, to statements 
in Josephus and to Ctesias, and to scattered notices 
in the writings of various Greek and Latin writers. 
Comparatively extensive as this material was,12 it was 
yet entirely inadequate for forming an estimate of the 
civilization and for furnishing a historical survey. 
In contrast to Egypt, no picturesque remains sur 
vived to recall to the wanderer the glory of the past. 
To be sure, the profound impression made upon 
the ancient world by the achievements of Babylonian 
and Assyrian rulers, the great military power that they 
developed, their extensive and remarkable building 
operations—their temples, palaces and gardens—as well 
as the wisdom for which the priests became famous—all 
this never faded out of the memory of the people, but it 
remained to a large extent an impression unsupported 
by sufficient details to enable us to do more than draw a 
very general picture, vague in its outlines and deficient 
in details, of the civilization unfolded thousands of 
years ago. Fanciful exaggerations and uncertain tradi 
tions took the place of accurate knowledge. 

A country that is favorably situated for the early 
development of culture is also apt to show features that 
lead to rapid decline—when the decline has once set in. 
The overflow of the two rivers as it conditioned and pro 
moted the remarkable fertility of the region was also, as 
has already been intimated, an annual menace and until 
the introduction of an elaborate canal system, loss of 
property and life accompanied the overflow, which sub 
merged entire districts for weeks and even months. The 

12 Put together by Niebuhr, Geschichte Assur's und Babel's 
(Berlin, 1857). See also Cory, Ancient Fragments (London, 1832), 
for a collection of accounts of Babylonia and Assyria from Greek 
and Latin writers, in part based on a lost work of a "Chaldean" 
priest Beroeus—a contemporary of Alexander the Great. 

 10 BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA 

picture unfolded in the first chapter of Genesis, which' 
represents the primeval chaos before the appearance of 
dry land as a state in which the waters covered every 
thing, was suggested by the phenomenon which was an 
nually witnessed throughout a considerable portion of 
Babylonia; and similarly, the thought that all mankind 
was once annihilated in consequence of a deluge lay near 
to the minds of a people who witnessed such a destruc 
tive event on a small scale every spring. 

The neglect into which the canal system naturally 
fell after the downfall of Assyria and Babylonia 
brought about an even more lamentable state of affairs 
than that which existed before its institution, for in a 
short time the work which generations had been busy in 
constructing was doomed to destruction. The cities of 
Babylonia and Assyria fell into decay, the process being 
hastened by the material that was used in the construc 
tion of the buildings. Here again, the existence of so 
admirable a building material as the clay soil of Baby 
lonia, enabling even untrained workmen to rear huge 
constructions of burnt and unburnt bricks, facilitated on 
the one hand the unfolding of culture in the Euphrates 
Valley, but on the other hand also conduced to the rapid 
destruction of the buildings. The clay structures had to 
be constantly repaired and we learn from the cuneiform 
records of Nebuchadnezzar II, that 45 years of neglect 
sufficed to reduce a temple to a condition bordering on 
complete decay. Clay being the only building material 
for houses, palaces and temples in the south, and the pre 
vailing one in the north (though here stone was also 
employed in the case of large constructions), it is easy to 
imagine what must have happened during the two thou 
sand years that elapsed between the desertion of the 
Babylonian and Assyrian cities and the effort to recover 
their remains. The buildings tumbled into shapeless 
ruins, and the winds sweeping the sands across the 
plains completed the destruction, and hid even the 
debris from view. Of the once flourishing cities, one saw 

 EXCAVATIONS AND EXPLORATIONS 11 

only huge shapeless mounds13—and yet nature, in thus 
covering up the work of man, proved to be a merciful 
destroyer. But for the mounds which formed over the 
sites of ancient cities, the records of the past would have 
been entirely swept away or ruthlessly destroyed. Be 
neath these mounds were safely preserved, as after 
wards turned out—priceless documents, inscribed clay 
tablets and C3rlinders, monuments and sculptures, by 
means of which we are now enabled to rewrite the his 
tory of Babylonia and Assyria. Monuments and records 
without number that would long ago have fallen a prey 
to marauding Arabs who infested the deserted districts 
were thus kept from certain destruction by the protect 
ing mounds. 

The recovery of those remains and the reconstruc 
tion of the history, art, the religion and social life, of 
ancient Babylonia and Assyria, through the study and 
interpretation of this material was the work largely of 
the 19th century, which will always be known as the 
golden age of epochal discoveries in many directions— 
discoveries that have on the one hand profoundly altered 
our views of the universe and modified present condi 
tions of life, and that have on the other hand enlarged 
our knowledge of the past by the recovery of so many 
pages of the lost annals of mankind. 

IV 

That the mounds scattered along the Tigris and in 
the valley of the Euphrates contained ancient remains 

18 Only two ruins in all the district that suggested outlines of 
buildings peered out above these mounds—one at a place called Birs 
Nimrud, and which proved to be the site of the city of Borsippa, 
near Babylon; the other, still further to the south at Akerkuf— 
both representing the remains of a stage tower. Both towers were 
associated by native tradition with the " Tower of Babel," which 
story, it will be recalled (see p. 4), was suggested by the high 
stage-towers that formed a characteristic feature of the sacred ar 
chitecture of Babylonia and Assyria. 

 12 BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA 

could be concluded from the potsherds and fragments 
of bricks and stones with which the surface was in many 
cases strewn, or which came to view on penetrating a 
short distance beneath the surface, but the question as 
to the identification of the settlements that once flour 
ished on the site of those vast rubbish heaps could not 
be answered by such surface examinations. Tradition 
that invariably survives after accurate knowledge has 
disappeared had connected a series of mounds opposite 
Mosul with the site of Nineveh. One of these mounds 
bore the name of Nebbi Yunus, i.e., " the prophet 
Jonah," and a little chapel surmounting it is revered by 
the natives as the tomb of the prophet who announced 
the destruction of Nineveh. The tomb is fictitious, but 
the association of Jonah with Nineveh embodies the 
recollection of the fact—as was established by excava 
tions—that Nebbi Yunus indeed concealed a portion of 
the great capital of Assyria. In the south, some 40 
miles from Baghdad, there was another series of 
mounds, one of which bore the name of Babil—a recol 
lection of the fact that the great capital of the southern 
empire once stood there. Such were the clues on which 
the early travellers and explorers had to work. 

In the 16th and 17th centuries these and other 
mounds in the region began to attract the attention of 
numerous travellers. Indeed, several centuries previ 
ous a famous traveller, Rabbi Benjamin of Tudela 
(1160 A.D.) made a brief reference in his itinerary14 to 
the ruins of both Babylon and Nineveh. Passing by 
a number of English travellers, who visited the region 
during the latter part of the 16th century, we come 
to the Italian Pietro della Valle who early in the 17th 
century made extensive travels in the east, and besides 
furnishing a detailed account of the famous ruins 
at Persepolis and copying a specimen of the cuneiform 

14 First published in 1543 in Constantinople. See M. N. Adler, 
"The Itinerary of Benjamin of Tudela" (Jewish Quarterly Review, 
voL xviii.) 

 EXCAVATIONS AND EXPLORATIONS 13 

inscriptions there, examined the mounds of Babylon and 
Mugheir—the site of Ur—in the Euphrates Valley. He 
was the first to bring back to Europe a few of the in 
scribed bricks.15 Among the travellers of the following 
century whose curiosity was aroused by the mounds 
along the Tigris, and in the Euphrates Valley, it is suffi 
cient for our purposes to mention two, (1) the famous 
Danish scholar Carsten Niebuhr,16 to whom we owe the 
definite identification of the site of ancient Babylon at 
the mounds near Hillah, and (2) the Abbe de Beau- 
champ, who at the close of the 18th century specified in 
a more detailed fashion than any of his predecessors had 
done, the large extent of the mounds covering the re 
mains of the city of Babylon. He also speaks of finding 
within the rubbish heaps enamelled bricks, pieces of 
cylinders covered with writing, and bits of statuettes. 

The desire to put a spade into these mounds after it 
had been definitely ascertained that they contained re 
mains of antiquity must have burned strong in the breast 
of the traveller who allowed his fancy to speculate on 
the nature of the treasures hidden for two millenniums. 

Attempts on a very small scale were made by an Eng 
lishman, Claudius James Rich, who utilized a residence 
of about thirteen years in the region as the resident 
agentof the East India Company, with his head-quarters 
at Baghdad, to make a thorough study of the mounds of 
Babylon and Nineveh as well as of the topography of the 
entire region from Baghdad to Mosul. This investiga 
tion far surpassed in its results anything that had pre 
viously been done. Rich's death in 1821 at the early age 
of thirty-four cut short an activity that included the col 
lection of such specimens as he was able to secure from 

15 In his "Viaggi" (Rome, 1650), Pietro della Valle reproduces 
some of these inscriptions and gives his reasons why they should 
be read from left to right, in which supposition he was correct. 

16 Niebuhr gave a detailed account of his travels in his Reisebe- 
schreibung nach Arabien und andern wnligenden Liindern(Copen 
hagen, 1774-1837), 3 vols. 

 14 BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA 

scratchings in the mounds and through purchase from 
natives who had rummaged them more successfully. 
Eich's collections of Babylonian and Assyrian antiqui 
ties, though not large in comparison with what was soon 
to be secured, were valuable by virtue of their variety— 
revealing the various kinds of objects buried beneath 
the mounds. He published accounts of his researches,17 
and after his untimely death, the antiquities gathered 
by him, as well as a large collection of oriental 
manuscripts and coins, were purchased by the British 
Museum. In 1827-28 another Englishman, Robert 
Magnan, also in the employ of the East India Company, 
in the course of a careful study of many of the mounds 
in the south, cut trenches into a number of them, chiefly 
with a view of ascertaining their age and character. 
Quite a number of antiquities were discovered, but such 
sporadic attempts counted for little. In 1835-37 an im 
portant survey of the region of the Euphrates and Tigris 
was undertaken by the English government, but the 
credit of having organized the first excavating expe 
dition belongs to France. 

The story of how the palaces and temples of Assyria 
and Babylonia with their rich and varied contents were 
brought to view through the untiring energy of a long 
series of explorers, is a most fascinating one. Begin 
ning in 1842 with the work of P. E. Botta at the mounds 
opposite Mosul and continuing to our own days the great 
museums of Europe and this country—more particu 
larly the British Museum, the Louvre, the Berlin 
Museum, and the Archaeological Museum of the Uni 
versity of Pennsylvania, bear witness to the vast mate- 

17 His two Memoirs on the Ruins of Bdbylon(London, 1816-1818) 
were republished in 1839 by his widow, together with Rich's diaries 
and an account of a journey to Persepolis a few years previous 
under the title Narrative of a Residence in Koordistan and on the 
Site of Ancient Nineveh (London, 1836), 2 vols. 

 PLATE III 

FIO. I, MOUND AND VILLAGE OP KHOBSABAD 

FIG. 2, BIRS NIMRUD, THE SITE OP BOBSIPPA 

 EXCAVATIONS AND EXPLOKATIONS 15 

rial that has been brought together in the space of sev 
enty years and of which so large a part has now, through 
publications, been placed at the disposal of students.18 
Botta, appointed consular agent of France at Mosul, 
in 1842, began work late that year on a large mound 
Kouyunjik on the Tigris opposite Mosul, and which, like 
the neighboring heap, Nebbi Yunus, covered a portion 
of the ancient city of Nineveh. In'beginning excavations 
at these large mounds it was at first largely guesswork 
where to dig the first trenches, and it depended upon 
chance whether one's efforts were rewarded with tangible 
results. Botta worked at Kouyunjik for some months 
with only moderate success. Inscriptions and bas- 
reliefs were found, but in a fragmentary condition and 
nothing that appeared to be particularly striking. He 
accordingly, in March, 1843, transferred the scene of his 
operations to a mound Khorsabad, a short distance to 
the north of Kouyunjik, where he was almost immedi 
ately successful in coming upon two mutilated walls cov 
ered with sculptured bas-reliefs, accompanied by in 
scriptions in the ordinary cuneiform character. There 
could be no question that he had actually come across a 
portion of an Assyrian building and ere long a whole 
series of rooms had been unearthed filled with monu 
ments of the past. The announcement of these discov 
eries created tremendous excitement, and soon suffi 
cient funds were placed at Botta's disposal to enable him 
to carry on his work on a large scale. An artist, E. 
Flandin, was dispatched to sketch the monuments that 
could not be removed and to draw plans of the excava 
tions. By October, 1844, a large portion of the palace— 
for such the edifice turned out to be—had been excavated, 
revealing an almost endless succession of rooms, the 

18 For detailed accounts of excavations at Babylonia and Assy 
rian mounds, the reader is referred to Rogers' History of Babylonia 
and Assyria (New York, 1900), vol. i, pp. 1-174; to Hilprecht, Ex 
ploration in Bible Lands, (Phila., 1903), pp. 1-577; and to Fossey, 
Manuel d'Assyriologie, vol. i (Paris, 1904). 

 16 

BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA 

walls of which were covered with sculptured bas-reliefs. 
These sculptures were of the most various character. 
Long processions of marching soldiers alternated with 
scenes illustrative of life in military camps—showing 
the horses, chariots and tents and the method of attack 
upon the enemy—the approach to the walls, the actual 
conflict, the capture of a town, and the carrying away of 
captives. Hunting scenes were represented in equally 
elaborate fashion, showing the king in his chariot, sur 
rounded by his attendants. 

Lions were depicted in the act of being let out of 
their enclosures, or attacked by the royal hunter. There 
followed a procession of servants carrying the dead 
lions, as well as game of a smaller character. A notable 
feature of the excavations were the huge winged bulls 
with human heads that were found at the entrances 
leading to the great halls. The bodies of these bulls 
were covered with cuneiform inscriptions which when 
they came to be deciphered told in general outlines of 
the achievements of the monarch who had erected this 
large palace for himself, namely, Sargon II, who ruled 
over Assyria from 725 to 706 B.C. As much of the vast 
material as possible was placed on rafts and floated 
down the Tigris to Basra whence it was safely carried 
by a French man-of-war to Havre. The antiquities 
were brought to the Louvre, while the detailed results of 
the expedition were set forth in five large folio volumes 
containing the drawings of Flandin, no less than 400 
plates, with detailed descriptions by Botta.19 

The great value of the remarkable discoveries stimu 
lated further interest in France; in 1851 a second 
expedition was fitted out by a vote of the French As 
sembly. This expedition, which extended its labors to 
mounds in the south, was placed under the leadership 
of Victor Place, a trained architect, who had been ap- 
pointed Botta's successor as consular agent in Mosul. 

18 P. E. Botta et E. Flandin, Monument de Ninive (Paris, 1849- 
1850), 5 vola. 

 PLATE IV 

PIG. I, HUNTING SCENE (KHORSABAD) 

..-g*r~*ngi»» ii -*-5tOT 

FIG. 2, PROCESSION OF CAPTIVES, BEARING TRIBUTE (KHORSABAD) 

 EXCAVATIONS AND EXPLORATIONS 17 

Place's architectural skill enabled him to carry on 
the work more systematically, and demonstrated the 
advantage of having an architect to conduct excavations 
of ancient buildings. He unearthed many more rooms 
of the palace, and passing beyond this building, came 
across a number of large gates, decorated with enam 
elled tiles in brilliant colors forming ornamental de 
signs, and pictures of fantastic animals. The large 
courts of the palace were laid bare and several smaller 
buildings which, as was subsequently ascertained, 
represented temples. Large quantities of pottery and 
objects of stone, of glass and metals were found, as 
well as iron implements in an excellent state of preser 
vation, and even the magazine in which the colored tiles 
were stored. In an elaborate publication,20 Place em 
bodied the results of his successful labors, on the basis 
of which he attempted to reconstruct the greater por 
tion of the edifices he had unearthed. The mounds at 
Khorsabad, it thus resulted, represented a fortified 
town erected by Sargon II, and which was known as 
Dur-Sharrukin, i.e., "Fort Sargon," as we may render 
the term. Surrounded by walls with eight gates, the 
site covered an area of some 750 acres. The central 
building was the royal residence, erected on a high 
terrace and surrounded by a number of smaller build 
ings for the use of the royal court. The building ma 
terial was stone for the exterior walls, and in part for 
the floors, but for the greater part of the structure 
baked and unbaked bricks, which constituted the 
ordinary material used in the buildings of Babylonia 
and Assyria, were employed. 

Place also extended his excavations to other mounds 
not far from Mosul, such as Kaleh-Shergat (the site 
of the ancient city of Ashur) and Nimrud (the site 
of Calah) besides carefully 'examining many other 
mounds, but without the same success that attended his 

20 Victor Place, Ninive et I'Assyrie, avec des Essais de Bestaura- 
tion par Felix Thomas (Paris, 1867-1870), 3 vols. 
2 

 18 BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA 

and Botta's efforts at Khorsabad. Unfortunately the 
antiquities selected by Place for shipment to Paris were 
lost through the sinking of the two boats on which they 
were placed. Drawings and copies had, however, been 
made of all of them, so that the loss to science was not 
as great as it might have been. At the same time 
another French expedition under the leadership of 
Fresnel was busy conducting excavations in the south 
on one of the mounds that covered the city of Babylon, 
and which lasted until 1855. Before, however, taking up 
an account of the excavations on mounds in Babylonia, 
we must consider work done simultaneously with 
Place's excavations at Khorsabad by an English ex 
plorer who was destined-to acquire even greater renown 
than either Botta, Flandm, or Place. 

VI 

TMs was Sir Austen Henry Layard, who was 
knighted for his services to archaeology and to diplo 
macy.21 During a prolonged series of travels in the 
east, Layard had, as early as 1840, visited the mounds 
near Mosul and indulged the hope of some day carrying 
on excavations in that region. It was not, however, 
until the autumn of 1845 that, with the help of a small 
fund placed at his disposal by Sir Stratford Canning, 
the British ambassador at Constantinople, he was 
enabled to begin excavations on a small scale at the 
mound Nimrud, which he selected because it was 
sufficiently removed from Mosul to enable him to carry 
on his work without attracting too much attention. All 
that he had hoped to do with the small sum at his dis 
posal was to furnish the proof of the existence of 
buildings and antiquities beneath the mound, and then 
to rely upon the interest aroused to secure further 
grants as well as an official firman from the Turkish 

ai See his autobiographical narrative, Early Adventures in Persia, 
Stisiana and Babylonia (2d ed., London, 1894), 2 vols. 

 PLATE V 

FIG. I, WINGED BULL WITH HITMAN FACE FROM SARGON's PALACE (KHORSABAD) 

FIG. 2, ATTEMPTED RESTORATION OF SARGON'S PAL.ACE 

 EXCAVATIONS AND EXPLORATIONS 19 

Government. On the very first day of the excavations 
a fortunate chance revealed two rooms lined with lime 
stone slabs, one in the southwest corner of the mound, 
the other near the middle of the west side. The rooms, 
therefore, belonged to two different buildings, both, as 
it subsequently turned out, royal palaces. Gradually 
increasing his force of laborers, he carried on his work 
amidst many difficulties, owing to the opposition of 
the pasha of Mosul and lack of sufficient financial sup 
port. Through funds granted him by the authorities 
of the British Museum, he was, however, enabled to 
carry on his work energetically until the summer of 
1847. By that time he had not only unearthed many 
of the rooms in no less than five palaces at Ninirud, 
but he had been equally successful in the extensive 
mound Kouyunjik, opposite Mosul, where he unearthed 
a palace of enormous dimensions, erected by Bang 
Sennacherib (705-681 B.C.). 

At Nimrud the chief work was done on the so-called 
north-west palace which was the joint work of Ashur- 
nasirpal III (883-859 B.C.) and of Sargon II (721-706 
B.C.). As at Khorsabad, so the palaces at Nimrud and 
subsequently at Kouyunjik yielded an astonishingly 
large number of rooms covered with bas-reliefs, be 
sides the huge winged bulls or winged lions with human 
heads that stood at the entrances to the halls. The bas- 
reliefs showed the same large variety of scenes as those 
found at Khorsabad. In the palace of King Ashur- 
nasirpal -at Nimrud, or to give the ancient name Calah, 
the monarch had hie artists picture his military expedi 
tions in detail. Most vividly the army is portrayed 
crossing a river, or in the midst of the fray and on the 
victorious return march. The hunting expeditions of 
the monarch were likewise represented in a long series 
of sculptures. In a palace occupying the central part 
of the mound, erected by Shalmaneser III (858-824 
B.C.) and Tiglathpileser IV (745-727 B.C.) a particu 
larly striking monument was discovered, which still 

 20 BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA 

forms one of the show pieces of the British Museum. 
This was a completely preserved obelisk of hard, black 
stone, covered with five rows of sculptures, running 
around the four sides of the stone, while the balance 
of the monument was covered with closely written 
cuneiform inscriptions. The monument was set up by 
King Shalmaneser III in commemoration of his ex 
ploits during thirty-one years of his reign—prepared, 
therefore by the king himself a few years before his 
death, and perhaps in realization of the fact that his 
reign was approaching its close. The scenes portrayed 
represent the king receiving tribute from the nations 
conquered by him. Each of the five sections represents 
a different people as indicated by the inscription over 
the heads of the groups. 

It can well be imagined how deeply the general 
interest in Assyrian discoveries was aroused when a 
large selection of the monuments, including two of the 
colossal winged figures, arrived at the British Museum. 
This interest was still further increased by the publica 
tion of Layard's fascinating narrative22 in which, 
despite the fact that he was unable to read the inscrip 
tions discovered by him, he succeeded, by virtue of his 
ingenuity, in piecing together an interpretation of the 
bas-reliefs, and aided by Sir Henry Rawlinson's read 
ings, of the names of the royal builders of the palaces, 
could convey some idea of the historical facts revealed 
by the monuments. Though obliged to cover up again 
many of the monuments and inscriptions which he could 
not transport, he made drawings of the sculptures M as 
best he could and copied the inscriptions,24 and in this 

22 Nineveh and its Remains (London, 1849). 

23 He published, in 1849, a first series of Monuments of Nineveh 
from Drawings Made on the Spot (100 plates). 

24 In 1851 there appeared a volume by him of Inscriptions in the 
Cuneiform Character from Assyrian Monuments, consisting of 98 
plates. Considering that he was unable to read the inscriptions, his 
copies are remarkably good—a monument to his skill and patience. 

 PLATE VI 

OBELISK OF KINO SHALMANESER HI OF ASSYRIA (858-824 B. C.) 

 EXCAVATIONS AND EXPLORATIONS 21 

way placed a large amount of valuable material, which 
would otherwise have been hopelessly lost, at the dis 
posal of students. The direct result of the great interest 
awakened by Layard's marvellous discoveries was the 
organization of a far better equipped second expedition, 
enabling him to spend the years 1849-1851 at Nimrud 
and Kouyunjik. Already in his first expedition he had 
chosen a native Christian, Hormuzd Rassam, whose 
brother was the English vice-consul at Mosul, as his 
companion. Rassam, who was destined to win consider 
able renown by his own work as an explorer, accom 
panied Layard, on his second expedition likewise, and 
on Layard's departure in 1852, continued the excava 
tions till 1854. A skilful artist, F. Cooper, was also ap 
pointed a member of the party, for the purpose of 
making careful drawings of everything that could not 
be removed. Work was undertaken simultaneously at 
the two mounds, Kouyunjik and Nimrud. The more 
important discoveries this time were made at the former 
site. The palace of Sennacherib was thoroughly, ex 
plored, revealing some hundreds of sculptured bas- 
reliefs, illustrating the campaigns and hunting expedi 
tions of this ruler. A still more extensive palace, built 
by the greatest of all Assyrian rulers, Ashurbanapal 
(668-626 B.C.), whose name was distorted by Greek 
writers to Sardanapalus and who appears in the Old 
Testament as Asnapper (Ezra 4,10). Apart from the 
usual bas-reliefs and huge winged bulls and a large 
number of inscriptions, including cylinders furnishing 
the details of his many campaigns, Layard found in 
this palace two rooms filled with many thousand frag 
ments of clay tablets which proved to be a royal library 
collected by the king with the avowed purpose of stor 
ing in his palace the literary productions of Babylonia, 
as well as the official archives—letters and reports—of 
the Assyrian empire. Subsequent supplementary ex 
cavations increased the number of tablets to about 
30,000, which now constitute one of the most valuable 

 22 BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA 

treasures of the British Museum. These clay tablets 
form our main source of Babylonian literature, since a 
large proportion of the texts represent copies made by 
Ashurbanapal's scribes of originals from the temple 
archives of the great centres in the south, notably 
Babylon and Borsippa. The most extensive branch of 
literature represented in the collection was formed by 
the divination compends of the Babylonian priests— 
covering handbooks of divination in connection with 
the examination of livers of sacrificial sheep as a means 
of forecasting the future, astrological handbooks, col 
lections of birth-omens, of animal omens, of dreams, 
and of miscellaneous divination texts based on phenom 
ena observed in rivers, occurrences in houses, streets 
and cities. Another large division of the collection is 
formed by the incantation texts, detailing the formulae, 
the symbolical rites and medicinal prescriptions to 
drive the demons of disease out of the bodies of victims 
or to counteract the influence of witches and sorcerers. 
Incantations lead on the one hand to medical texts of a 
purer type, more or less divorced from sacred formulse, 
and on the other hand to prayers, hymns, and peni 
tential rituals. Myths and legends are represented, in 
cluding creation stories, as well as an extensive epic re 
counting the achievements of a national hero, Gilga- 
mesh, whose exploits are brought into connection 
with all kinds of tales that had an independent origin. 
Partly of Babylonian origin, and partly representing 
additions made by Assyrian scribes is the text-book 
literature,25 consisting of elaborate sign lists of various 
kinds, compiled as a means of instruction for the young 
aspirants to the priesthood, grammatical paradigms, 
exercises in the legal formula used in commercial and 
legal documents, commentaries to texts, and school 
editions of literary productions. Though the great im 
portance of this find was immediately recognized by 

*B See Jastrow,'' The Textbook Literature of Babylonia'' (Biblical 
World, vol. ix, pp. 248-268). 

 PLATE VII 

FIG. I, KING SENNACHERIB (705-68! B. C.) IN HIS CHARIOT (KOUYDNJIK) 

FIG. 2, CARRYING MATERIAL ACROSS A STREAM (KOUYUNJIK) 

 EXCAVATIONS AND EXPLORATIONS 23 

Layard, it was only when Sir Henry Rawlinson, Edwin 
Norris, and George Smith, the latter an assistant in 
the British Museum, began to classify, edit and study 
the texts of the library that its real character was 
determined. To-day, some sixty years after the 
finding of the library, its study is still far from being 
exhausted.26 

At Nimrud, Layard's chief discoveries consisted in 
unearthing the remains of a stage tower and of two 
small temples erected by Ashurnasirpal III (883-859 
B.C.) built of sun-dried bricks, covered with plaster. In 
both temples, clay images of deities, bas-reliefs and in 
scribed slabs, were found. One of these slabs measured 
almost twenty-two feet, and was covered with closely 
written cuneiform characters. Through this inscrip 
tion and through a large monolith of Ashurnasirpal 
found in the second temple, we have an almost exhaust 
ive record of the exploits of this ruler—which means a 
history of the times in which he lived. A large statue 
of the king was also found in one of the temples. Con 
tinuing the excavations in the palace of this king at 
Nimrud, Layard was fortunate enough, in the course 
of the second expedition, to come across a large number 
of objects in copper and bronze, shields, helmets, 
swords, daggers, twelve large cauldrons filled with 
smaller vessels and miscellaneous objects, a variety of 
iron instruments, hammers, saws, spears, a number of 
beautifully embossed bronze plates, and more the like. 
The epigraphical material was also considerably en 
riched by the accompanying inscriptions on the sculp 
tured bas-reliefs, on slabs, cylinders and on tablets 
which, when they came to be deciphered, added largely 
to our knowledge of the events of the last three centuries 

28 A most valuable publication is Bezold's monumental Catalogue 
of the Cuneiform Tablets in the Kouyunjik Collection of the British 
Museum (London, 1889-1899) in five large volumes, the introduction 
to which furnishes an excellent general account of the royal library. 

 24 BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA 

before the fall of Nineveh in 606 B.C., and which were 
the most glorious in the eventful history of Assyria. 

Over one hundred boxes of antiquities were snipped, 
in 1851, to England, and arrived safely at the British 
Museum. In a second popular volume,27 Layard gave a 
fascinating account of his discoveries, and to the first 
series of illustrations from the monuments he added a 
second set of drawings which were made by F. Cooper.28 
The decipherment of cuneiform inscriptions had by this 
time made sufficient progress to enable Layard, by 
utilizing the results obtained, chiefly through Sir Henry 
Rawlinson and Edward Hincks, to give some account 
of the historical data to be gleaned from the monu 
ments. He could also, as a result of his more thorough 
study of the numerous buildings unearthed by him at 
Nimrud and Kouyunjik, illustrate the relationship of 
the various royal builders to one another, showing how 
portions of one edifice were restored or enlarged by 
some successor, and how, in some cases, material used 
in the construction of one palace was transferred and 
made to do service in building the walls or forming 
supports for another. 

The amount of work achieved by Layard during his 
second expedition, which lasted only two years, was 
enormous. Numerous other mounds, both in the north 
and south, were superficially searched for antiquities 
which definitely established the ancient origin of the 
cities buried beneath them. At some places, indeed, 
such as Kaleh-Shergat—the site of the ancient city of 
Ashur—Arban and Sherif Khan, most striking an 
tiquities and inscribed monuments were discovered, 
while the work done by him at Niffer, in the south— 
the site of ancient Nippur—yielded sufficient results to 
furnish a clue to the American explorers who were to 

" Discoveries among the Buins of Nineveh and Babylon (London, 
1853). 

28 The Monuments of Nineveh, 2d series, 71 plates (London, 
1853) 

 PLATE VIII 

FIG. I, LION HUNT——FROM THE PALACE OF KINO ASHURBANAPAL (668-626 B.C.) 

FIG. 2, HUNTING WILD HORSES 

 EXCAVATIONS AND EXPLORATIONS 25 

undertake the more thorough excavation of the mounds 
at that place some thirty years later. 

The excavations so far had been conducted on 
Assyrian soil, and as a result the three chief cities of 
Assyria were partially unearthed, the old capital, Ashur 
(on the site of Kaleh-Shergat), Calah (on the site of 
Nimrud), originally founded by Shalmaneser I (c. 
1300 B.C.) and which Ashurnasirpal III (883-859 B.C.) 
again made the capital, and Nineveh (on the site of 
Kouyunjik), which had been made the capital in the 
reign of Ashur-bel-kala (c. 1100 B.C.), and again became 
the official seat of government when Shalmaneser III 
(858-824 B.C.) occupied the throne, and remained so 
until the fall of the Assyrian Empire in 606 B.C. To 
these there is to be added Dur Sharrukin (on the site 
of Khorsabad), a creation of Sargon II (721-706 B.C.), 
and which served as an outpost for Nineveh. In addi 
tion, a number of other Assyrian towns were definitely 
identified and shown to contain treasures which war 
ranted more systematic excavations. 

Turning now to the mounds of the south, the credit 
of having been the first to conduct excavations for a 
continuous period, albeit a short one, on a site of an 
ancient Babylonian city belongs to the Englishman 
William Kennett Loftus, who, in 1850, and again in 
1853-1854, spent some time in opening trenches in a 
series of extensive mounds at Warka, which proved 
to be the site of ancient Uruk (or Erech), one of the 
oldest as well as one of the most important political and 
religious centres in the Euphrates Valley. At first, as 
was to be expected, the latter period of the city was re 
vealed, the chief finds being a number of slipper-shaped 
coffins covered with an enamel glaze, which belonged 
to the Persian period,29 i.e., to the fifth and fourth 
centuries B.C. The city was still in existence though it 
had lost much of its importance, and through the odor 

™ See Plate XV for specimens of such coffins from Nippur, 
and Plate XL, Fi& 1, for coffins of older periods. 

 26 BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA 

of its time-honored sanctity had become a favorite place 
of burial. Loftus, however, succeeded in penetrating 
to the earlier layers which revealed the existence of a 
temple of large dimensions to which as at qther sites a 
stage-tower, or zikkurat, was, as was usual, attached. 
In another portion of one of the mounds an extensive 
edifice was found which had all the characteristic fea 
tures of a royal palace, with wall decorations of glazed 
tiles, pointing to a work of the neo-Babylonian period, 
while the inscriptions, chiefly business documents on 
small clay tablets, likewise indicated the continued 
existence of the city until the overthrow of the neo- 
Babylonian dynasty through Cyrus in 539 B.C. 

By a curious chance, this first Babylonian mound, 
or rather series of mounds, for there are several dis 
tinct ones, also happens to be the scene of the most 
recent excavations, for in November, 1912, the German 
Oriental Society, some sixty years after Loftus' arrival 
at Warka, began systematic excavations which have re 
vealed details of the great temple E-anna, " the heav 
enly house," in honor of the goddess Nana (or Ishtar) 
whose seat of worship was in ancient Uruk. 

Besides some surface scratchings at Babylon, Nif- 
fer, Tell Sifr and other mounds, Loftus also spent some 
time at a mound Senkereh, about fifteen miles to the 
south of Warka where he almost immediately came 
upon remains of a temple and of a stage-tower which 
belonged to a high antiquity, as was subsequently ascer 
tained from the inscriptions of various kinds,—barrel- 
shaped clay cylinders with historical data, inscribed 
bricks used in the construction of the edifices, and large 
numbers of clay tablets representing business and legal 
documents. Senkereh stands on the site of an ancient 
city, Larsa, identical with the Biblical Ellasar (Gen. 
14,1) and the seat of the worship of the sun-god, whose 
temple and stage-tower at the place were objects of 
veneration through all periods of Babylonian history. 

At Tell Sif r, still further to the south, although ex- 

 PLATE IX 

FIG. I, OMEN TABLET FROM ASHUBBANAPAL's 
LIBRARY 

FIG. 2, SYLLABARY FROM ASHURBANAPAL's 
LIBRARY 

 EXCAVATIONS AND EXPLORATIONS 27 

cavations were carried on by Loftus for a few days only, 
large quantities of inscribed tablets and a collection of 
miscellaneous bronze and copper utensils, such as dag 
gers, hatchets, knives, vases, cauldrons and mirrors 
were found and together with many other antiquities 
sent to England to still further enrich the British 
Museum.30 

At the same time that the second French expedition 
was engaged in continuing Botta's work at Khorsabad 
and Kouyunjik,31 Fulgence Fresnel was placed by the 
French government in charge of excavations to be 
carried on at the site of the ancient city of Babylon. 
Fresnel was accompanied by Jules Oppert, a young 
scholar destined soon to become one of the leading 
Assyriologists of his day, and Felix Thomas, an archi 
tect, who was to study the construction of the buildings 
and to make all the drawings in connection with the 
excavations. In the middle of July, 1852, work was 
begun at one of the large mounds, known as Kasr, 
which was afterwards extended to two other mounds, 
Babil and Amran Ibn'Ali, forming part of the complex 
beneath which Babylon lay buried.32 The results, owing 
to the enormous mass of rubbish of which these mounds 
consisted, were rather disappointing. Numerous brick 
stamps were found containing the name of Nebuchad 
nezzar II (604r-561 B.C.), and which showed that the 
large edifice beneath Kasr33 was the famous palace of 
that ruler. Quantities of fragments of glazed tiles with 
animals and decorative designs were also unearthed, 
but nothing that could compare in interest or sensa 
tional importance to what was being found at the same 

80 The results of his labors were embodied by Loftus in his Travels 
and Researches in Chaldaea and Susiana (London, 1857). 

81 Above p. 15, seq. 

** The fourth mound, Djumdjuma, was not touched by this 
expedition. 

13 The name signifies "castle," and thus embodies a tradition of 
the royal residence which stood there. 

 28 BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA 

time by Place and Layard at the mounds in the north. 
Nor were the results more striking at the other mounds, 
to which Fresnel and Oppert directed themselves. 
Some progress was made in our knowledge of the 
topography of Babylon, though some of the theories 
brought forward by Oppert34 turned out to be 
erroneous. Other mounds near Babylon, such as Birs 
Nimrud (the site of ancient Borsippa) and el-Ohemir 
(the site of Kish), were explored by this expedition 
which appears to have been pursued by ill luck, for 
even the antiquities gathered during the almost two 
years of continuous work were lost on the rafts that 
were to carry them to Basra. 

An Englishman, J. E. Taylor, who was the Vice- 
Consul at Basra was more successful in excavations 
conducted by him for a short period at Mugheir,35 con 
siderably to the south of Babylon and which proved to 
be the site of the famous Ur, whence, according to 
Biblical tradition, Abraham set out on his wanderings 
which brought him to Palestine. In contrast to the 
massive character of the mounds at Warka, where large 
portions of walls are still visible, and to Birs Nimrud 
and Akerkuf, where the ruins of the old stage-towers 
rise above the rubbish, those at Mugheir are compara 
tively low which made the work of excavation much 
easier. It was not long, therefore, before Taylor had 
penetrated into the interior of a massive building which 
proved to be the great temple to Sin, the moon-god, the 
centre of whose cult was at Ur. He could trace the 
character of the edifice and follow the course of its walls 
for a considerable portion. The most prominent feature 
was as usual the stage-tower of which two stories, one 

a* Expedition Scientifique en Hesopotamie (Paris, 1859-1863), 
2 vols. The first volume contains the reports of the journey and its 
results; the second, by Oppert, is devoted to setting forth the 
method of the decipherment of the cuneiform inscriptions. 

"More properly Mukayyar, meaning the mound "covered with 
bitumen." 

 EXCAVATIONS AND EXPLORATIONS 29 

placed above the other, could be traced. In a corner of 
the tower Taylor found a perfectly preserved clay 
cylinder of which duplicates were found in the other 
three corners, a plan that proved to have been commonly 
followed in the case of other edifices in Babylonia as 
well as Assyria. The construction of the temple could 
be traced back through the inscribed bricks found at 
various levels to the Ur dynasty, which flourished in 
the third millennium before this era. Taylor was also 
the first to come across graves of the early Babylonian 
period when the coffins were much smaller in shape 
than the slipper-shaped receptacles for the corpse in 
the Neo-Babylonian and Persian periods.36 The shapes 
varied from a narrow but deep bath-tub variety into 
which the body must have been forced in a semi- 
upright position, to large dish covers beneath which the 
body was placed, alternating again with two large jars, 
holding the body and cemented at the place of contact. 
Such discoveries threw a new and important light upon 
the customs of the people, as did also the many speci 
mens of pottery and all kinds of utensils which Taylor 
unearthed besides a considerable number of the usual 
business and legal documents belonging to both the 
earlier and the later periods of Babylonian history. 
Despite the comparatively short time spent at Mug- 
heir, Taylor largely enriched our knowledge of early 
Babylonian history; and he was equally successful in 
determining the great antiquity of the city buried under 
a mound, Abu Shahrain, still further to the south and in 
identifying the mounds that rise more abruptly from 
the plains than elsewhere as the site of the city of Eridu 
which, as is now known, once lay at or very near the 
head of the Persian Gulf. He was soon able to determine 
the location of the conventional stage-tower at the 
northern end of the mound and which still rose in parts 
to a height of about seventy feet. As at Mugheir, the 

S6 Above, p. 25, note 29. 

 30 BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA 

tower appeared to consist of only two stages, one super 
imposed on the other, with an inclined plane leading 
from one to the other; and he was furthermore able to 
conclude with tolerable certainty that the tower was 
crowned by a small chapel or chamber in which pre- 
Bumably the statue of the deity, Ea, the patron deity of 
Eridu, or some symbol of the god stood. This would be 
in accord with Herodotus,37 from whose description of 
the stage-tower at Babylon we may conclude that at the 
top of these towers there was a shrine with a symbol 
or image of the god or goddess to whom the tower was 
dedicated. In contrast to all other edifices discovered 
beneath the mounds of the south before and since 
Taylor's days, which are built of baked or unbaked 
bricks, the structures at Abu Shahrain showed the em 
ployment of a considerable amount of sandstone, 
granite and marble which, since the Euphrates Valley 
is entirely devoid of stone, must have been brought to 
Eridu by way of the Persian Gulf. Taylor also used 
his sojourn in this most southern district to examine 
other mounds and make tentative excavations there so 
that until the advent of the French explorer, de Sarzec, 
some twenty years later, it was to Taylor that we owed 
the most valuable part of our knowledge of the mounds 
in the south. 

Before taking up the account of de Sarzec's extra 
ordinary activity, a few words need to be said of Sir 
Henry Rawlinson's brief but successful investigations 
at Birs Nimrud, the site of the ancient city of Borsippa. 
The striking appearance of the ruin of a stage-tower 
rising high above the mounds at that place3ft was no 

37 Book i, § 181. 

38 See p. 23 and Plate XXXIX. The name of the stage-tower at 
Borsippa was E-ur-imin-an-ki, "House of the seven divisions of 
heaven and earth"; that at Babylon was E-temen-an-ki, "House of 
foundation of heaven and earth." In both names there is evidence 
of a close association of earth with heaven, implied also in the Bib 
lical tale that is intended as a protest against these religious "sky 
scrapers." 

 EXCAVATIONS AND EXPLORATIONS 31 

doubt a factor in giving rise to the current tradition 
in the region that this ruin was the Tower of Babel. 
The tradition was correct in so far as the Biblical legend 
was based on the general custom, as we have seen, of 
erecting high towers in connection with the temples of 
Babylonia and Assyria. Borsippa, moreover, lay close 
to Babylon, so close, indeed, that the two cities at times 
appeared to form a single complex. Bawlinson, whose 
many-sided activity as decipherer, explorer and editor 
of cuneiform texts makes him on the whole the most 
prominent figure in the history of Assyriology, was 
most anxious to try his luck at Birs Nimrud, especially 
after the rather negative results of the French expedi 
tion to Babylon and surrounding sites, and which had 
dampened the enthusiasm aroused by the discoveries 
of Botta, Place and Layard. While arranging as 
British resident and consul general at Baghdad for the 
expeditions of Loftus and Taylor and for the continua 
tion of the work in the north under Hormuzd Rassam, 
who, after Layard's departure in 1852, was placed in 
charge, Rawlinson himself was given the opportunity 
of spending two months, in the fall of 1854, at the 
mounds of Babylon and Borsippa. Profiting by the 
experience and knowledge gained through the course of 
the excavations, he first made a careful study of the 
exposed portions of the tower at Birs Nimrud with a 
view to determine its general construction and extent, 
the number of its stages and an estimate of the depth 
of the lowest layer. Assuming that at the four corners 
of the huge construction, foundation clay cylinders with 
dedicatory inscriptions would be found in situ, he on 
the basis of his measurements began to remove the 
bricks at one of the exposed angles of the third stage 
and within an hour a perfect cylinder was brought out 
by one of the workmen at the very spot where Rawlin 
son had told the workmen to search for it. A second 
one was found at another corner, and subsequently the 

 32 BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA 

fragments of a third.39 The inscription proved that 
Rawlinson had discovered the famous tower of Bor- 
sippa which bore the name of E-ur-imin-an-ki, 
"House of the seven divisions of heaven and earth," 
indicating that the tower symbolized the entire uni 
verse, connecting the earth, as it were, with the heavens. 
Rawlinson also determined that the tower at least in 
the form given to it by the restoration through 
Nebuchadnezzar II, at the beginning of the sixth 
century, B.C., consisted of seven stages, as symbolized 
in the name, one superimposed upon the other and 
receding in circumference as one proceeded from stage 
to stage. The lowest stage, according to Rawlinson's 
measurements, was 272 feet square and about 26 feet 
high. Many fragments of the bricks showed remains 
of glazing in different colors, black, blue and red being 
recognizable. The number of stages varies in the case 
of the towers so far excavated, from two to seven, the 
number in earliest days being usually four, with the 
tendency to increase the height as we pass down the 
centuries. The main purpose was to build a high 
mass in imitation of a mountain, with a winding 
balustrade as a means of reaching the top, where the 
shrine of the deity to whom the tower was dedicated, 
stood. 

It will be seen that as a result of the work done at 
the mounds in the north and south from the year 1842 
to 1855 by the splendid series of explorers, Botta, Place, 
Layard, Rassam, Fresnel, Oppert, Loftus, Taylor, and 
Rawlinson, an enormous mass of material had been 
unearthed, many edifices, chiefly temples, towers and 
palaces, had been discovered, and in some cases quite 
thoroughly excavated. The general character of these 
constructions had been determined and in the case of 

38 Rawlinson's account of his work will be found in an article On 
the Birs Nimrud or the Great Temple of Borsippa (Journal of the 
Royal Asiatic Society, vol. xviii (1861), pp. 1-34). 

 EXCAVATIONS AND EXPLORATIONS :33 

Assyrian palaces, many of the details had also beer 
ascertained. The art of the time was illustrated by 
numerous monuments, dating from various periods, 
valuable historical and votive inscriptions, clay tablets 
representing business and legal documents of various 
periods and, above all, the extensive library archives 
gathered in his palace by the greatest of Assyrian kings 
had been brought to light. 

VII 

For about twenty years after Rawlinson's departure 
from Baghdad, no excavations were carried on either 
in the north or the south, and it was perhaps just as well 
that a period elapsed before excavations were resumed 
so as to afford the scholars of Europe, devoting them 
selves to cuneiform research, opportunity to study the 
material which had been gathered and which both the 
British Museum and the Louvre, with commendable 
zeal, were planning to make accessible to scholars.40 
By the year 1870 a large amount of the material had 
been published, besides many detailed studies on the 
language of the inscriptions to which the name Assyrian 
was currently given. The decipherment was thus placed 
on a securer basis, and translations of some of the 
more important historical and dedicatory texts on 
cylinders and on inscribed slabs and monuments were 
made, which, however deficient in details, left no doubt 
in the minds of impartial judges that the main facts 
had been correctly determined. 

Interest in continuing the excavations was aroused 

40 See pp. 16, 17 and 28, for Botta's, Place's and Oppert's 
publications. In 1861 the British Museum began, under the editor 
ship of Sir Henry Rawlinson, the publication of the cuneiform texts 
in the British Museum. Five large folio volumes under the title The 
Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western Asia, were issued (1861-1880), 
and this series was followed by a second, Cuneiform Texts from 
Babylonian Tablets, etc., in the British Museum (1900 to date), of 
which, up to the present, 34 parts, each containing about 50 plates, 
have been issued. 
3 

 34 BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA 

anew through the discoveries made among the tablets 
of Ashurbanapal's library, by George Smith, first en 
gaged as an engraver in the British Museum, and then 
as an Assistant in the Department of Assyrian An 
tiquities. In the fall of 1872 he came across a large 
fragment on which, as he found by patient study, there 
was related the story of a great Deluge. Upon proceed 
ing further he ascertained that the cuneiform record 
bore striking points of resemblance with the Biblical 
account. At a meeting of the Society of Biblical Archse- 
ology, held on December third of that year, he presented 
the results of his studies which showed that the 
Assyrian account of the Deluge formed part of a large 
composition recounting the adventures of a hero whose 
name was provisionally read Izdubar, but who, as we 
now know, was called Gilgamesh. The resemblance 
between the Biblical and the cuneiform tale of a great 
catastrophe which destroyed all mankind was the chief 
reason for the profound sensation aroused by Smith's 
discoveries. The London "Daily Telegraph" at once 
came forward with an offer to defray the cost of an ex 
pedition to Kouyunjik to search for further portions 
of the royal library. The offer was accepted by the 
trustees of the British Museum, and early in 1873 
George Smith left for the mounds of Assyria and 
Babylonia, which he was to visit again in 1874 and 1876, 
only to meet his death at Aleppo on the occasion of his 
third trip, stricken down with a malarial fever that 
was sweeping through the region. His death, on the 
nineteenth of August, 1876, at the early age of forty- 
seven years, was a severe loss to science, for his past 
work had given promise of still greater usefulness in 
the future. As a result of his two sojourns at Kou- 
yunjik several hundred fragments of the library tablets 
were added to the collections of the British Museum, 
besides numerous inscribed cylinders, slabs and other 
objects which he obtained as a result of further search 
in the mounds at Nimrud, Kaleh-Shergat and else- 

 EXCAVATIONS AND EXPLORATIONS 35 

where. Previous to this Rassam, during his excava 
tions at Kouyunjik after Layard's departure, had also 
found many hundreds of fragments and a last gleaning 
was secured many years afterwards through a further 
search of the ruins of the palace made by E. A. "Wallis- 
Budge and by L. W. King of the British Museum. 

George Smith's sojourn at the mounds was too brief 
to allow him to undertake systematic or even extensive 
excavations. All that he could do was to rummage 
through the ruins uncovered by his predecessors, chiefly 
at Kouyunjik, Nimrud and Kaleh-Shergat, to open 
some further trenches and hunt in a more or less desul 
tory manner for further inscriptions and monuments. 
The same general remark holds good for the labors 
of Hormuzd Rassam at mounds both in the north and 
the south during the years following upon Smith's 
death. For a period of five years, 1878-1882, he spent 
several months each year at the mounds. His energy 
was indefatigable, and with added experience he was 
able frequently to achieve remarkable success in a com 
paratively short time. He gathered, during his pro 
longed sojourn, a large number of most important an 
tiquities, and definitely identified many mounds as cov 
ering ancient remains. Among his discoveries perhaps 
the most remarkable was the finding of a large number 
of strips of bronze embossed with ornaments, figures 
and inscriptions that proved to be parts of huge bronze 
plates covering the cedar gates of a palace of Shal- 
maneser III.41 This discovery was made at a site, 
Balawat, about fifteen miles to the east of Mosul, the 
ancient name of which was Imgur-Enlil. The scenes 
represented on the bronze panels were illustrative of 
the campaigns of Shalmaneser III. "With remarkable 

" See the superb publication, Bronze Ornaments of the Palace 
Gates of Balawat, by Samuel Birch and T. G. Pinches (London, 
1881), and Billerbeck and Delitzsch, die Palasttore Salmanassars II 
van Balawat (Bdtrdge zur Assyriologie, vi, 1). See Plates LXVIII 
and LXIX. 

 36 BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA 

attention to details, the camp scenes, the marching 
Assyrian armies, the attacks on the enemy, the capture 
of forts, the taking of booty and captives, as well as 
sacrificial rites in connection with the campaigns were 
depicted. Through such illustrations the costumes of 
the various divisions of the army, the trappings of the 
horses, the arrangement of the camps, the utensils and 
customs of daily life and many details of the ritual 
were revealed. These data were supplemented and 
further illustrated by the inscriptions accompanying 
the designs. Still greater success awaited Eassam in 
his excavations at a number of the southern mounds, 
which were also more systematically conducted. 
Attacking several of the mounds that cover the site 
of Babylon, he was far more successful than his 
predecessors in securing rich returns in epigraphical 
material. Significant among the historical records 
was a clay cylinder giving the account by Cyrus 
himself of his conquest of Babylonia in 539 B.C./2 that 
event of world-wide import which was destined to 
bring to an end the history of Babylonia and Assyria. 
A large collection of business documents covering 
the Neo-Babylonian period (625-539 B.C.)43 was also 
found which, together with several thousand similar 
tablets from the mounds at Babylon secured by 
George Smith shortly before his death, greatly in 
creased the material for studying the legal procedure 
and the many-sided business activity of Babylonia. 
Through these tablets we obtain an insight into the life, 
the occupations, the business methods and the com 
mercial activity of the people which supplemented the 
view of the intellectual life obtained through the 
literary documents and the picture of the political and 
military energies and ambitions resulting from a study 
of the historical records. The business documents cov 
ered every phase of every-day occurrences, sale and hire 

« See Plate XXV, Fig. 2. 

*s See Chapter VI for specimens of such documents. 

 PLATE X 

re. 

S-*-_A 

|~-y| 

Lw-4 |^fef JisS.|; 

8BAMASH, THE BDN-GOD, IN HIS SHRINE AT 8IPPAB 

 EXCAVATIONS AND EXPLORATIONS 37 

of fields, rent and sale of houses, loans and receipts, 
contracts for work, reports of business agents, marriage 
and divorce, last testaments and terms of adoption, 
suits of all kinds and the decisions of judges, and so on 
through the entire gamut of the records one might find 
in the legal archives of any municipality of the present 
day.44 Besides the archive of Babylon, Rassam also 
discovered an extensive business archive in the temple 
area of Abu Habba, a new site which Rassam's excava 
tions definitely identified as the ancient city Sippar, a 
centre of the cult of Shamash, the sun-god, which 
played a most notable part in Babylonian history. The 
mounds at Abu Habba cover an enormous extent, no 
less than 250 acres, according to recent calculations,46 
of which the temple area—including, as in all of the 
large cities of Babylonia, numerous edifices, smaller 
temples and chapels, besides houses for the temple ad 
ministration and for the housing of the priests—alone 
covered about 40 acres. He opened up a large number 
of rooms and was rewarded by finding no less than 
60,000 clay tablets in the temple archives, most of them 
business documents, but also quite a sprinkling of liter 
ary documents, such as those in AshurbanapaFs li 
brary,—hymns, reports, omen texts, grammatical exer 
cises, mathematical lists, etc. Numerous historical 
documents were also found at Abu Habba by Rassam, 
most valuable among these being a superb stone tablet 
containing at the head a design representing Shamash 
seated in his shrine, with his two attendants, holding 
ropes attached to a wheel as the symbol of the sun, while 
into the presence of the sun-god a king is being led pre 
ceded by a priest and followed by the goddess A, the 
consort of Shamash, in the attitude of interceding with 
her divine husband on behalf of the king. A long in 
scription covering both sides of the tablet recounts the 
history of the temple, relating how in consequence of 

44 See, for details. Chapter VI. 

46 Hilprecht, Explorations in Bible Lands, p. 268. 

 38 BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA 

disasters to Sippar, the cult of Sharaash had been neg 
lected, and the old image of the god had disappeared, 
but Nebopaliddin, the king of Babylonia (c. 888-854 
B.C.), determined on restoring the grandeur of the old 
temple, had been fortunate in finding a terra-cotta 
relief of the image, from which as a model a new 
image was made. The inscription, full of interest 
ing historical details and of regulations of the cult, 
closes with a list of gifts and offerings ordered by 
Nebopaliddin to be set aside regularly on six festive 
occasions during the year.46 He also found some re 
markable boundary-stones, recording grants of land to 
royal officials and decorated with symbols of the gods, 
who were invoked as witnesses to the transaction and 
whose curses are called down upon any one defacing or 
destroying the monument or altering any of its speci 
fications. Twelve years later, in 1894, supplemental 
excavations were carried on at Abu Habba by Prof. 
Vincent Scheil, of Paris, under the auspices of the 
Turkish government, which resulted in adding many 
hundreds of literary documents from the temple ar 
chives, terra-cotta figurines and bas-reliefs, some repre 
senting Shamash and his consort, others models of 
animals, deposited as votive offerings, utensils and 
weapons in bronze, numerous seal-cylinders with 
various designs and used to roll over the soft clay of the 
business documents as signatures of the parties inter 
ested, numerous inscribed bricks and pieces of pottery.47 
Scheil was also able, despite the shortness of his stay at 
Abu Habba, more accurately to determine the various 

46 For a summary of the inscription see Harper, Assyrian and 
Babylonian Literature, pp. 30-33; it is fully treated by Johannes 
Jeremias, "Die Cultustafel von Sippar" (Bdtrage zur Assyriologie 
I, pp. 268-292). 

47 A full account of Scheil's excavations will be found in his 
volume, Une Saison de Fouilles d Sippar (Memoires de 1'Institut 
Frangais d'Archeologie Orientale du Caire, (1902) vol. i., fax. 1). 

 PLATE XI 

FJO. I, BABYLONIAN BOUNDARY STONE 

FIG. 2, STONE PEDESTAL (STEATITE) FROM EXCAVATIONS AT TELLOH 

 EXCAVATIONS AND EXPLORATIONS 39 

divisions of the temple and something of its interior 
arrangement, including the site of the temple school. 

Rassam, during the five years covered by his fir 
man, searched many other mounds in the north and 
south, conducting hurried excavations at some of them 
with varying results. Notably at Birs Nimrud48 he 
laid bare no less than eighty rooms in the huge temple 
E-zida, "the legitimate house," dedicated to Nabu, the 
chief deity of Borsippa. Among the documents found 
here, special mention should be made of a terra-cotta 
cylinder containing in cuneiform an account of the 
restoration of the temple by the Greek governor of 
Babylonia, Antiochus Soter, in the year 270 B.C., a most 
interesting proof of the continued sanctity which the 
temple continued to enjoy almost three centuries after 
the fall of Babylon. The mounds at Tell Ibrahim, about 
fifteen miles to the north-east of Hillah, and those at 
Daillum, about ten miles to the south of Hillah, were 
among those included in his tours through the region 
with, however, indifferent results. In an interesting 
volume49 he gives an account of his entire career as an 
explorer which, beginning in the days of Layard, ex 
tended to the threshold of the latest epoch in Babyl 
onian and Assyrian excavations. With Rassam a 
second period in excavations on the Tigris and 
Euphrates closes. The third, which begins about the 
time that Rassam started on his last series of cam 
paigns, is marked by systematic excavations concen 
trated on a single series of mounds. 

VIII 

In 1877 the French Vice-consul at Basra, Ernest 
de Sarzec, began a series of excavations in a series of 
mounds at Telloh, in the extreme southern section of 
the Euphrates Valley, selected by him after a recon- 
noitering tour as a most promising locality. With 

48 See above, p. 31 seq. 

"Asshur and the Land of Nimrod (N. Y., 1897). 

 40 BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA 

short interruptions these excavations were continued 
by de Sarzec until his death, in 1901, and since that 
time under the guidance of Gaston Cros. 

Of the series of mounds at Telloh there were two 
which attracted particular attention, each rising about 
fifty to sixty feet above the plain. De Sarzec began his 
work at the smaller of the two and soon came upon the 
remains of an extensive palace which, however, turned 
out to be a late construction50 belonging to about the 
beginning of the third century B.C. Along with evi 
dence of a late construction, indications of a very early 
edifice were found, and the interesting problem thus 
raised was finally solved by the definite proof that the 
palace, dating from Parthian times, and following in 
its general construction the model of Assyrian palaces, 
was erected on the site of an ancient Babylonian temple, 
the material of which was partly used in the late con 
struction. The substratum was erected, in accordance 
with a practice that was thus shown to be a trait of the 
architecture of the region from the earliest to the 
latest period on an immense terrace, about forty feet 
high, while the expanse itself covered some 600 feet 
square. The older building, which alone interests us 
proves to be a temple of large proportions and dedicated 
to Ningirsu, the patron deity of Shirpurla (or Lagash), 
which was thus identified as the city covered by the 
mound Telloh.51 The foundation of the temple can be 
traced back to Urukagina (c. 2700 B.C.), and may be 
several centuries older even than this ruler. It was 
an object of veneration to all rulers of the city and 
acquired a significance that prompted rulers of other 
centres to leave traces of their devotion to Ningirsu, 
through enlarging the dimensions of the temple or 

60 Shown by inscribed bricks bearing the name of Hadad- 
nadin-akhe in Aramaean and Greek characters. 

61 Telloh means the "mound of tablets," and thus preserves the 
tradition of the temple archive which was discovered by dc Sarzec 
and which formed one of the features of the temple area. 

 PLATE XII 

FlliS. I AMI 2, EXCAVATIONS AT TELLOH 

FIG. 3, INSCRIBED TERRA-COTTA CYLINDER FROM 
TELLOH 

 EXCAVATIONS AND EXPLORATIONS 41 

through repairs of portions that had fallen into decay. 
Little was left, however, of the old temple beyond a wall 
at the east corner, which formed part of the work done 
by Ur-Bau (c. 2450 B.C.), and a tower and gate con 
structed by Gudea about a century later, and some 
layers of bricks in various sections. In the course of 
the excavations, however, a large number of remarkable 
monuments were found, and a truly astonishing array 
of miscellaneous objects, inscribed vases, seal cylinders, 
bas-reliefs, bronze votive offerings, pottery, iron 
utensils, terra-cotta cylinders, and inscribed cones. 
Chief among these were nine magnificent diorite statues 
of Gudea, in whose days Shirpurla, although no longer 
forming an independent state, enjoyed a second period 
of grandeur. These statues, representing the ruler in 
pitting posture or standing, were covered with inscrip 
tions indicating that they were set up as votive offer 
ings. Gudea in thus placing statues of himself in the 
sacred edifice followed the example of Ur-Bau, of whom 
likewise an inscribed statue was found. The stone, as 
Gudea tells us in his inscriptions, was brought from a 
distant land, as he brought copper and gold and 
precious woods from various parts of Arabia and cedars 
from northern Syria. Such intercourse with distant 
lands is an illustration of the commercial activity pre 
vailing at that early period. 

The interest aroused in France through the arrival 
of the statues at the Louvre was sufficient to ensure 
further grants from the French government to continue 
the excavations. The inscriptions proved to be couched 
in the old Sumerian language spoken by the non- 
Semitic inhabitants who in the earliest period were in 
control of the region. When they came to be deciphered, 
they threw a new light on early political conditions in 
the Euphrates Valley, and our knowledge of those con 
ditions was still further increased through the inter- 
containing about -2000 lines, which furnished us with 
pretation of the two large terra-cotta cylinders, each 

 42 BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA 

detailed information regarding Gudea's plans in the 
construction of E-ninnu, how he was prompted to 
undertake this work at the direct instance of Ningirsu, 
who appeared to him in a dream and gave him instruc 
tions how to proceed. The picture of the earliest cul 
ture in the south now grew more distinct and it became 
evident that Assyrian culture was only an extension of 
the civilization that arose in the south. It was there 
fore in the southern mounds that the origin of the civili 
zation of the region was to be sought, and as a conse 
quence the activity of exploring expeditions since 
de Sarzec's days was largely directed to the mounds 
in the south. The work at Telloh was by no means 
limited to the illustration of the days of Gudea. 
Monuments were found taking us back far beyond 
this period, as, e.g., the fragments of an elaborate sculp 
tured votive offering, showing on the one side the 
god Ningirsu with the double-headed eagle, the stand 
ard of Shirpurla, in one hand and a great net in the 
other, in which he has gathered the heads of the 
enemy.62 The accompanying inscription told the story 
of the conflict against the people of Umma, the triumph 
of Eannatum (c. 2900 B.C.) and the agreement made 
between the contesting parties.63 Another monument, 
likewise a votive offering, dating from the days of 
Eannatum's grandfather Ur-Nina, who placed a tablet 
of sandstone in the great temple of Ningirsu, inscribed 
with his name and titles and exhibiting a lion-headed 
eagle clutching a lion with each of its talons.64 Other 
votive offerings were of bronze and represented a kneel- 

62 See the comprehensive work by Ernest de Larzec et Leon 
Heuzey, Decouvertes en Chaldee (Paris, 1884-1912) followed by 
Gaston Cros, Leon Heuzey et Francois Thureau-Dangin, Nouvelles 
Fouilles de Tetto (Paris, 1910). 

63 See the recent publication of Leon Heuzey et F. Thureau- 
Dangin, Restitution Materiette de la Stele des Vautours (Paris, 
1909). See Plates XLVII and XLVIII. ' 

M See Plate XLIX, Fig. 1. 

 PLATE XIII 

FIG. I, DIOR1TE STATUE OF GUDEA (c. 2450 B. C.) KIG. 2, STANDING STATL'E OF GUDEA 

 EXCAVATIONS AND EXPLOEATIONS 43 

ing deity holding a pointed cone, others again crouch 
ing bulls surmounting a pointed cone, female or male 
figures bearing baskets on their heads and covered with 
dedicatory inscriptions, or statuettes terminating in a 
point. 

In the second of the two larger mounds de Sarzec 
was no less successful. Remains of buildings of various 
dates were unearthed, all of which seemed to have 
served some purpose connected with the great temple, 
such as smaller shrines for the deities worshipped at 
Lagash, forming the court around Ningirsu, store 
rooms, granaries and perhaps archive chambers, as well 
as dwellings for some of the many officials connected 
with the constantly growing temple administration. 
Many valuable monuments were likewise found in this 
mound. Prominent among these was a superb silver 
vase, delicately incised with representations, running 
around the vase, of lion-headed eagles clutching lions, 
ibexes and deers, while the upper portion depicts a 
series of crouching bulls. The accompanying inscrip 
tion tells us that the vase, which is one of the finest 
specimens of Babylonian art and reveals the high devel 
opment reached in very early days, was an offering 
made by Entemena, a ruler of Shirpurla, whose date 
is about 2850 B.C., and who was a son of Eannatum, to 
whom we owe the monument above described, which is 
commonly known among archaeologists as the "Stele 
of Vultures." A series of three limestone votive tablets 
showing Ur-Nina, a ruler of Shirpurla (c. 3000 B.C.), 
accompanied by his children, is of special interest in 
revealing to us an array of Sumerian types and further 
details of the Sumerian mode of dress.58 

Our knowledge of the remarkable art of the earliest 
period was further enriched through the discovery of 
such objects as an elaborately sculptured pedestal in 

"Plate XLVI, Fig. 1; Plates LXIII and LXIV for votive 
statuettes, above referred to; and Plate LXXI, Fig. 1, for the silver 
vase of Entemena. 

 44 BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA 

dark green steatite, forming the support to some large 
piece and showing seven small squatting figures dis 
tributed around the pedestal, a mace-head elaborately 
carved, dedicated by a King Mesilim of the city of Kish 
(c. 3100 B.C.), a large spear-head of copper about two 
and a half feet long and dedicated to Ningirsu by 
another ruler of Kish, superb lion heads carved in lime 
stone and serving a decorative purpose, libation bowls 
and sculptured placques of various kinds, round trays 
in veined onyx, furnishing additional names of rulers 
of Lagash, an unusually large bas-relief in limestone, 
over four feet high and representing priests and a 
musician playing a harp of eleven strings, the whole 
being again a votive offering for the ancient temple.56 
Through such objects as well as through the various 
designs on seal cylinders,57 of <a religious character or 
illustrating episodes in myths and popular tales, a 
further insight into the religious life and beliefs was 
afforded, the forms and features given to the various 
gods and goddesses, their symbols, the style of their 
altars, the kind of sacrifices offered to them, and the 
various phases of symbolism in the cult. Supplemental 
to the monuments, to the works of art, and to the votive 
and historical inscriptions, de Sarzec was fortunate 
enough to discover in another section of the mounds 
the extensive temple archive of clay tablets, dealing 
with the administration of the temple property and the 
commercial affairs of the temple officials. The tablets 
were arranged in layers, evidently according to some 
system so that any particular one could readily be 
picked out. In all, some 30,000 tablets were found, but 
the greater portion were stolen by the natives during 
de Sarzec's absence and falling into the hands of 
dealers are now scattered throughout the museums of 
Europe and this country, and in private hands. Many 
thousands have now been published, from which we 

66 See Plate XLV, Fig. 2, and Plate LIII for the lion heads. 
57 See at the close of Chapter VII, and Plate LXXV-LXXVII. 

 PLATE XIV 

FIG. I, SPECIMENS OF TABLETS AND INSCRIBED CONES FROM TELLOH 

 EXCAVATIONS AND EXPLORATIONS 45 

have secured a detailed view of the extent of temple 
activity and the methods of temple administration in 
early Babylonian days. The new series of excavations 
also resulted in discovering the section of the ancient 
city in which the dead were buried. A considerable 
portion of the necropolis has been laid bare, showing 
for the first time the arrangement of an ancient Babyl 
onian cemetery, and incidentally settling a hitherto dis 
puted point whether burial constituted the oldest form 
of disposing of the dead in the Euphrates Valley. No 
traces of cremation were found, but the methods of 
burial were not uniform. Some of the graves were 
square vaults into which the bodies were sunk, others 
were shaped somewhat like barrels, within which the 
bodies were placed. 

IX 

It is time, however, to turn to other excavations 
conducted during the past thirty years at southern 
mounds. Early in 1889, an expedition fitted out by the 
University of Pennsylvania, under the leadership of 
Dr. John P. Peters (now of New York), began work 
at a large series of mounds at Niffer, the site of ancient 
Nippur, at which Layard, it will be recalled,58 had made 
some tentative explorations. With some interruptions 
the excavations were continued till the summer of 1900, 
Dr. Peters being replaced, after 1888, by the late John 
H. Haynes, who was the first to demonstrate the pos 
sibility of continuing work at the mounds throughout 
the year and not merely during the dry season, though 
the hardships endured no doubt drained his vitality and 
hastened his early death. In 1889, the late Prof. R. F. 
Harper, of the University of Chicago, and Prof. H. V. 
Hilprecht, of the University of Pennsylvania, also 
accompanied the expedition as Assyriologists during 
the two and a half months of active work, and the 
latter paid another short visit to the mounds in 1900, 

08 Above, p. 24. The more accurate native form is Nuffar. 

 46 BABYLONIA AND ASSYEIA 

in his capacity as Scientific Director. The chief work 
was in a portion of the mounds that covered the ex 
tensive temple area of ancient Nippur. A sanctuary 
of large proportions dedicated to Enlil, the chief deity 
of Nippur, was unearthed together with remains of 
smaller temples, shrines, store-rooms and dwellings of 
the priests grouped around the central sanctuary. 
Attached to the temple was a large stage-tower which 
was thoroughly explored and yielded important results 
for the construction of these adjuncts to the temple 
proper. Dr. Peters was fortunate enough to come 
across remains of the temple archive during the period 
that he was in charge, but it was left for Haynes, in 
1900, to determine the extensive character of these 
archives, which have yielded upwards of 20,000 tablets. 
Unlike the archive at Telloh, however, that at Nippur 
also contained a considerable number of tablets other 
than mere temple documents and business records. It 
yielded hundreds of tablets forming part of the equip 
ment of the school attached to the temple for the edu 
cation of the young priests—just as was the case at 
Sippar.69 The publication of this portion of the archive 
has only recently begun,60 but from the specimens it is 
evident that the temple school contained besides sylla 
baries, grammatical paradigms and other divisions of the 
school paraphernalia, also the hymns, incantations, and 
ritual texts used in connection with the cult at Nippur. 
One should also expect to find many omen tablets in the 
collection. On the other hand, it is doubtful whether 
any ruler of Nippur conceived the idea of collecting for 

88 Several volumes of lists of proper names from the Temple 
School are in preparation by Dr. Edward Chiera, and a volume of 
Letters from the Archives by Prof. Arthur Ungnad. 

*°A volume of mathematical exercise tablets was published by 
Prof. Hilprecht in 1906, a number of hymns and prayers, by 
Dr. D. W. Myhnnan and by Dr. Hugo Badau, and three volumes 
of miscellaneous Orammatical and Historical Texts from Nippur, 
by Dr. Arno Poebel, in 1914. 

 EXCAVATIONS AND EXPLORATIONS 47 

the temple of Nippur the extant literature originating 
in the various centres of the Euphrates Valley and 
which would have expanded the temple archive into a 
real library, such as Ashurbanapal gathered in his 
palace at Nineveh. In addition to the discovery of 
tablets within the temple area, documents of a legal and 
business nature were found elsewhere in the mounds,— 
so in one section which appeared to have been the resi 
dential portion of the city in the later Neo-Babylonian 
and Persian periods and where among other things the 
private business archive of one of the banking concerns 
of the day was unearthed. Several hundred tablets of 
this archive have been published by Prof. A. T. Clay 
(now of Yale University), whose researches have shown 
that the Murashu family conducted business affairs of 
all kinds in Nippur during the fifth century. They 
loaned money and farmed out lands, they acted as 
agents in drawing up all kinds of contracts and dealt 
in various commodities. These documents showed that 
Nippur was still an important settlement after the fall 
of the Neo-Babylonian dynasty when thePersians came 
into control. This was also indicated by the discovery 
of numerous slipper-shaped coffins of the Persian 
period found in the upper layers, as by the remains 
of a Parthian fortress built on the site of the old zik~ 
Icurat of Enlil, just as at Telloh. It was with the great 
est difficulty and only after long and patient work done, 
chiefly by Haynes, that the extent and nature of the 
original stage-tower was determined, which had been 
frequently rebuilt and submitted to frequent alterations 
ever since its foundation at a period considerably 
earlier than Sargon of Akkad, whose stamped bricka 
were found in the ruins. Testimony to the large num 
ber of rulers who had left traces of their presence in 
Nippur was forthcoming in votive inscriptions which 
carry us down to the days of Ashurbanapal, the king 
of Assyria (668-626 B.C.), who was the last to under 
take building operations at the tower, which consisted 

 48 BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA 

at that time of four—possibly five—stages, rising to a 
height of over 150 feet. Within the temple area, cover 
ing a large extent and surrounded by two walls, an 
inner and an outer one, traces of numerous shrines be 
sides the main temple were discovered, and, in the case 
of some of these, the definite outlines could be deter 
mined. The main temple, known as E-kur, or " moun 
tain house," was the special sanctuary of Enlil, whom 
the Smnerians, as it would appear, brought with them 
from their mountain homes. Nippur became, as early 
at least as 3000 B.C., the chief religious centre of 
Sumerian settlements, which carried with it the undis 
puted position of Enlil as the head of the pantheon. 
We have seen that Nippur, like Telloh, continued to 
be a stronghold in Persian days. The coming of the 
Greeks made no change in its status, as Greek inscrip 
tions and Greek figurines attest; and when finally Nip 
pur was abandoned as a settlement of the living, its old- 
time sanctity made it a favorite place of burial. Hun 
dreds of clay bowls, containing magical inscriptions in 
Aramaic and Syriac as a protection of the dead against 
evil demons, and dating from about the sixth century 
of our era were found in graves61 of the uppermost 
layers in certain sections of the mound as a proof that 
Nippur continued to be a sacred necropolis for Jews 
and Christians many centuries after it had ceased to 
be occupied and at a time when all traces and even the 
recollection of its one-time grandeur had disappeared.62 

61 See Prof. J. A. Montgomery's valuable publication of the por 
tion of the collection that came to the University of Pennsylvania, 
under the title of Aramaic Incantation Texts from Nippur (Phila 
delphia, 1913). 

68 To this day southern Babylonia is a favorite burial place for 
Mohammedans who bring the bodies of their relatives from a long 
distance to lie in the sacred cities of Kerbela and Nedjef, associated 
with the deeds and martyrdom of the two sons of Ali. It is a 
question worth investigating, whether the sanctity of such places 
as Kerbela and Nedjef may not revert to the ancient Babylonian 

 PLATE XV 

FIG. I, COFFINS OF THE LATER PERIOD FOUND AT NIPPUR 

FIO. 2, INCANTATION BOWLS WITH ARAMAIC INSCRIPTIONS (NIPPUR.) 

 EXCAVATIONS AND EXPLORATIONS 49 

Through the work of Peters and Haynes,63 scholars 
were enabled for the first time to obtain a more definite 
view of the religious architecture of early Babylonia, 
which was closely followed in Assyria, though with some 
modifications. The temple proper was divided into two 
courts, an outer and an inner one. In the outer one 
stood the altar to which the sacrifices were brought.64 
It was here that the people assembled, while the inner 
court leading to the holy of holies, in which the statue 
of the deity stood, was accessible to the priests only. 
Attached to the temple, either behind it or to one side 
was the stage-tower, the stories of which, as already 
pointed out, varied from two to seven stages, one set 
upon the other, and each succeeding stage being some 
what smaller until the top was reached. 

Mention should be made of the large number of 
votive inscriptions found in the Nippur mounds, which, 
by nature of the historical data contained in them, 
added much to our knowledge of political events and 
conditions in the third millennium B.C., and revealed 
the names of rulers of whom nothing or little was known 
ere this.65 Thus many fragments of stone vases were 

period, in which case the Mohammedan traditions in regard to these 
places may simply be the adaptation of the pre-Islamic sanctity to 
later conditions. In a private communication, Prof. Noldeke (June 
13, 1913) calls my attention to the fact that a village by the name 
of Nineveh in southern Babylonia is frequently mentioned in Arabic 
literature (Yakut and Tabari)—an indication of the continuance of 
Babylonian and Assyrian traditions far into the Islamic period. 

ea Great credit is also due to Mr. C. S. Fisher, now associated 
with Harvard University and the Boston Museum of Fine Arts, 
who accompanied the expedition in 1899-1900 as architect and 
through whom many of the architectural problems suggested by the 
mounds were solved. In a large publication, Nippur, unfortunately 
not yet completed, Mr. Fisher has set forth the results of his careful 
and important investigations. 

84 See Chapter VII and the temple plan there given. 

65 Published by H. V. Hilprecht in Vol. I, Parts 1 and 2, of the 
Babylonian Expedition of the University of Pennsylvania and in 
Poebel's volumes above, p. 46, note 60, referred to. 
4 

 50 BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA 

found which, upon being pieced together, furnished a 
large inscription of Lugalzaggisi (c. 2675 B.C.), the king 
of Erech or Uruk, who extended his dominions until 
he could lay claim to the title also of King of Sumer, 
and who tells us in the inscription accompanying his 
votive offerings of his various campaigns and conquests. 
In the lowest strata of the mounds a large number 
of vases and jars—some of them of unusually large size 
—were found, and among other interesting discoveries, 
a series of drain pipes laid in vaulted tunnels showed 
that at an early period a system for drainage had been 
devised. The monuments unearthed up to the present 
at Nippur are not as numerous as those found by de 
Sarzec and Cros at Telloh, but include such interesting 
specimens as a large votive tablet of TJr-Enlil (c. 3000 
B.C.), showing the ruler in the act of offering a libation 
to Enlil. The great antiquity of the plaque, perforated 
in the centre so that it could be fastened to a wall, is 
proved not merely by the characters used in the in 
scription but by the representation of the ruler in a 
naked state before his god. The lower part of the tablet 
shows a goat and a sheep followed by two attendants 
who are presumably leading the animals, as sacrifices, 
into the presence of the god.66 

Another expedition fitted out by an American insti- 

66 A detailed account of the work during 1888-1890 was given 
by Dr. Peters in his work, Nippur (2 vols., New York, 1890), and 
an account of the entire series of excavations from 1888-1900 by 
Prof. H. V. Hilprecht in Explorations in Bible Lands, pp. 289-568, 
though this account is unfortunately marred by belittling of Peters' 
and Haynes' work, and by some statements which give one an 
erroneous impression, both of the conditions under which finds were 
made and of the finds themselves. The publication of texts found 
at Nippur has proceeded steadily since 1891. Apart from the 
volumes above (p. 46 and p. 49), instanced, Prof. Clay has issued 
seven volumes of business and legal documents from the Cassite, neo- 
Babylonian and Persian periods, Drs. H. Ranke, A. Poebel and 
D. W. Myhrman, similar documents of the First Dynasty of Babylon 
and of the Ur dynasty, and Dr. H. Eadau a selection of official 

 EXCAVATIONS AND EXPLORATIONS 51 

tution conducted excavations for some months in 1903- 
1904, at Bismya, with Dr. E. J. Banks as director, who 
was acting for the University of Chicago. In some 
respects this work of Dr. Banks was the most remark 
able of the many undertakings at the mounds, both be 
cause of the rich results obtained in a comparatively 
short time and because of the conditions under which 
these results were obtained. Bismya lies in the very 
heart of the desert region of southern Babylonia, diffi 
cult of access owing to the desperate character of the 
Arab tribes in the vicinity. 

Alone and unaided Banks proceeded to Bismya, 
organized his corps of workmen and began his excava 
tions on Christmas Day, 1903. He kept up the work 
until well into May of the following year, when the 
excessive heat and the wretched sanitary conditions 
forced an abandonment till fall. Proceeding as method 
ically as the difficult circumstances could allow, he 
soon determined that Bismya covered the remains of an 
ancient city that was abandoned long before the Babyl 
onian empire came to an end. A little below the surface, 
remains of ancient buildings came to view, and it soon 
became evident also that the city had been destroyed by 
an invasion. Banks traced the outlines of the royal 
palace, of the temple and its stage-tower, and uncov 
ered a large portion of the residential district. The 
palace fronting on the canal contained a large number 
of rooms grouped around a central court, and Banks 
ascertained that the same general plan was followed 
in the case of the private houses, only that the number 
of rooms was of course much smaller, and that the 
palace probably contained, besides the large court, a 
second one around which the apartments reserved for 
the harem were distributed. Vertical drains leading 

reports and administrative documents, and a monograph on frag 
ments of a Ninib myth found among the tablets of the literary section 
of the temple archive. See Plate XLIII, Fig. 2, for the native tablet 
of Ur-Enlil. 

 52 BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA 

down to the foundations were found in several rooms, 
suggesting their use as bath rooms and indicative of at 
least some attempts at sanitation in very early days. 
Pottery of various shapes, animals modelled in clay, 
suggesting their use as toys, statuettes of deities serv 
ing as household gods, and several hundred tablets were 
among the finds of the palace, but far richer were the 
objects discovered in the temple area. Chief among 
these were remains of various statues of stone, reveal 
ing a high order of work in the modelling of the face 
and in the arrangement of the garments. One of these 
statues, though found in several pieces, could be almost 
entirely restored, and constitutes one of the most valu 
able specimens of the art of early Babylonia. It proved 
to be that of an ancient ruler whose name is probably to 
be read Lugal-daudu (Plate XXIV, Fig. 1) and the in 
scription on the right arm of the statue also revealed the 
name of the temple as E-sar, and that of the city as Adab. 
Most of the heads found show the ordinary Sranerian 
type, with shaven head, but there was one with distinctly 
Semitic features with a full beard, proving that at an 
early period the population consisted of the two ele 
ments which we encounter everywhere in the remains 
of the ancient cities of the Euphrates region. Sinking 
a shaft some fifty feet through the mound down to the 
pure sand of the desert level, Banks was able to de 
termine that below the temple, erected on a platform of 
plano-convex bricks there was an older structure. In 
scribed bricks and vases found at the higher level 
furnished the names of Dungi and Ur-Engur, of the 
Ur dynasty (c. 2450 B.C.), and of Sargon and Naram- 
Sin, of Akkad, belonging to c. 2650 B.C. For the older 
temple we may thus go back to at least 3000 B.C. and 
perhaps to a still earlier date. On a fragment of a blue- 
stone vase found in the temple, a drawing occurs of a 
stage-tower which is of inestimable value in illustrating 
the ancient shape of these adjuncts to the temple 
proper. The drawing shows four stories or stages of 

 PLATE XVI 

FIG. 1, STATUE OF THE GODDESS NINL1L, (FOUND AT BISMVA) 

FIG. 2, DESIGN ON AN IN8CKIBED BOAT-SHAPED VASE (BISMYA) 

FIG. 3, DESIGN ON AN INLAID VASE (BISMYA) 

 EXCAVATIONS AND EXPLORATIONS 53 

receding size, one placed on the other, and we may con 
clude that four stories represented the number in the 
case of the zikkurnt in ancient Adab. 

Numerous inscribed vases, placed as votive offerings 
in the temple, confirmed E-sar as the name of the sacred 
edifice and that it was sacred to the goddess Nin- 
kharsag, " the lady of the mountain." Statuettes of the 
goddess seated on a throne were discovered, and also a 
statue of white stone, which enables us to see at closer 
range the features given by the Babylonians to the 
divine patron of the place, who seems to be identical 
with Ninlil, the consort of Enlil, of Nippur, and whose 
cult may have been transferred from the latter place. 
Banks was also fortunate enough to come across hun 
dreds of fragments of vases of almost every conceivable 
shape and of such various materials as onyx, porphyry, 
sandstone, limestone and alabaster. Many of them con 
tained inscriptions and curious designs, such as 
dragons, religious processions, deities in a boat, and 
so forth. Numerous objects of ivory and mother-of- 
pearl—fishes, cats, rosettes—partly to be regarded as 
votive offerings and partly merely ornaments alternated 
with inscribed copper tablets, copper spikes terminat 
ing in little lions, engraved marble slabs and fragments 
of splendidly moulded alabaster cows. 

In a portion of the mounds not far from the temple, 
several thousand clay tablets with inscriptions of the 
oldest period were unearthed which presumably formed 
part of the temple archives. Lastly, the excavations 
also threw further light on the ancient mode of burial 
in Babylonia. Vaulted brick tombs having the appear 
ance of small houses, on an average six feet long and 
three feet high, were built to receive the dead, who 
were placed on the floor, while along the back wall a 
series of clay pots of various sizes were arranged. 
Beads and copper rings and seal cylinders were also 
found in the graves, showing that the dead were buried 
with their ornaments, while some of the pots may have 

 54 BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA 

contained food. Banks remarks that these little houses 
of the dead dating, as tablets found in the mound 
proved, from the Hammurapi period, i.e., c. 2000 B.C., 
were not unlike the mounds built over graves in modern 
Mesopotamia. A large number of these vaulted tombs 
were found in close proximity to one another, indicat 
ing that a portion of the ancient city had been set aside 
as a cemetery. 

In his account67 he gives some specimens of the 
historical material unearthed by him. Even these few 
specimens furnish names of rulers hitherto unknown, 
and we may therefore look forward to a considerable 
enrichment of our knowledge of the earliest history 
of the Euphrates Valley with the more complete pub 
lication of the rich finds made by him. 

The last comer on the field of excavations is the 
German Orient Society, which, organized in 1900, has 
the distinction of having conducted its work more thor 
oughly and more systematically than any of its pre 
decessors, not even excepting de Sarzec's labors at 
Telloh. The organization of the Society was due largely 
to the distinguished Prof. Friedrich Delitzsch, who has 
done more than any other single individual in training 
a large body of Assyriologists and in arousing popular 
interest in the civilizations that once flourished in the 
Euphrates Valley. Among those whose interest he se 
cured was the German Emperor, who has been a gen 
erous supporter of excavations in Babylonia and 
Assyria. The German Orient Society 68 has not limited 

«7 Bismya or the Lost City of Addb (New York, 1912). 

98 Accounts of the work are published in the MitteUungen der 
Deutschen Orientgesellschaft, published at intervals of every two or 
three months, while texts and more detailed reports and investiga 
tions are given in an important series known as the Wissenschaft- 
liche Veroffentlichungen der Deutschen Orientgesellschaft, of which, 
up to the present, eighteen substantial volumes have been issued. 

 EXCAVATIONS AND EXPLORATIONS 55 

its activity to the region of the Euphrates. It has 
carried on work regularly in Egypt, notably at Abusir 
and at El-Amarna, and has also carried on some impor 
tant explorations in Galilee. Until recently the work 
in Mesopotamia was concentrated on two sites—Kaleh- 
Shergat in the north, representing Ashur, the earliest 
capital of Assyria, and the mounds in the south that 
cover the remains of ancient Babylon. Some work has, 
however, also been done at Fara and Abu Hatab, the 
sites of Shuruppak and Kisurra respectively, and late 
in 1912 work was begun on one of the most important 
ruins of the south, Warka, the name of which still 
preserves the recollection of the city of Erech or Uruk, 
the seat of the cult of the goddess Nana which once 
flourished there. 

The result of fourteen years of steady and uninter 
rupted excavations has been to reveal in the case of 
Ashur the history of the city from the earliest period, 
c. 2000 B.C., to which it can now be traced back, down to 
the time when it ceased to be the capital of the northern 
empire and even beyond this period, while in the case 
of Babylon the excavations have shown that King 
Sennacherib, of Assyria, did not exaggerate when, in 
his inscriptions, he told us that weary of the frequent 
uprisings in the south against Assyrian control, he 
decided to set an example by completely destroying 
the city of Babylon—razing its large structures to the 
ground and placing the city under water in order to 
make the work of destruction complete. This happened 
in the year 689 B.C. While some remains of the older 
Babylon, chiefly through the discovery of clay tablets 
belonging to earlier periods, have come to light, the 
city unearthed by the German Orient Society is the 
new city, the creation chiefly of Nebopolassar (625-604 
B.C.), the founder of the neo-Babylonian dynasty, and 
of his famous son, the great Nebuchadnezzar II (604- 
561 B.C.). 

At Ashur the walls, quays and fortifications of the 

 56 BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA 

ancient city have been most carefully and methodically 
excavated and traced on all sides. Already in the 
earliest days (c. 2000 B.C.) the rulers of the city made 
it their concern to strongly fortify their stronghold, 
and as time went on these fortifications grew in mas- 
siveness and in strength until, in the days of Shal- 
maneser III (858-824 B.C.), they reached their highest 
point of perfection through a series of double walls— 
an inner and an outer one—both solidly built with tur- 
reted tops and eight huge gates forming the entrances 
to the city.69 

Within the city, the remains of various palaces dat 
ing from earlier and later periods and of the chief 
temples of the place as well as considerable portions of 
the residential section of the city and many graves of 
the earliest period were thoroughly explored. The 
method employed by the German explorers, with Walter 
Andrae and Robert Koldewey as the leaders in the 
northern and southern fields of activity respectively, 
was to dig trenches at a distance of a few hundred feet 
apart, and in carrying them down to the lowest stratum, 
carefully to follow any leads furnished in doing so. 
Under such conditions it was hardly possible for any 
noteworthy contents of the mounds to escape detection. 
The moment an important structure was struck, work 
was carried on at that portion of the mound until all 
that remained of it had been thoroughly explored, after 
which the combined architectural, archaeological and 
engineering skill of the exploring party would be 
brought to bear on the study of the remains and in the 
efforts at reconstruction. 

The huge stage-tower attached to the oldest temple 
in Ashur, known as E-kharsag-gal-kurra, "great moun 
tain house of all lands," and sacred to the chief deity, 

69 See W. Andrae's magnificent work, Die Fcstungswerke van 
Assur (Leipzig, 1913), 2 vols., with several hundred illustrations 
and plates. 

 PLATE XVII 

FIG. I, EXCAVATIONS AT KALEH-SHERGAT, THE SITE OF ASHUK 

FIG. 2, ASSYRIAN MEMORIAL. STELES 

 EXCAVATIONS AND EXPLORATIONS 57 

Ashur, whose name is derived from that of the place,70 
was uncovered and the foundations of the temple itself 
traced back to a ruler, TIshpia, who still combined in 
his person priestly and civic functions. This temple 
stood near the royal palace, while at some distance away 
was another sanctuary hardly less famous, and which 
is constantly referred to in the annals of the Assyrian 
rulers. It bore a double name—"the temple of Ami 
and Adad" and proved to be a double construction with 
a common exterior court.71 

With the help of a large number of inscribed bricks 
and clay cylinders found within the temple enclosure, 
we can trace the work done on the structures by the 
many rulers anxious to show their devotion to Anu and 
Adad through additions to the temple or through re 
pairs. An interesting feature of the cult at Ashur in 
later days as revealed through the excavations,72 has 
been the finding of a "festival house" referred to in the 
inscriptions of Sennacherib to accommodate the mul 
titude that made a pilgrimage annually to the sacred 
city to celebrate the New Year's festival—occurring in 
the spring—under the shadow of the temples. 

Besides unearthing various temples and palaces, the 
German expedition has also uncovered a portion of the 
residential quarter of the city and has given us, for the 
first time, a closer view of the manner in which the 
people lived. Entire rows of private houses have been 
dug out; they were on the whole of a very simple brick 
construction, consisting of one story, and a series of 
rooms grouped around a central court, which was open 
to the sky. Ordinarily the houses were quite small, but 
larger ones have also been found consisting of a large 

70 He is the god of the city of Ashur and then becomes simply 
Ashur. See the writer's article, "The God Ashur," in the Journal 
of the Am. Or. Soc., 1903, pp. 283-311. 

71 See the detailed account in Andrae's Der Anu-Adad Tempel 
(Leipzig, 1909), and see Plate XXXIX, Pig. 1. 

M See Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orientgesellschaft, Nr. 33. 

 58 BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA 

outer court, leading into a long room, at the end of 
which there was a passageway, giving access to an 
inner court around which a large series of rooms, vary 
ing in size, were grouped, while the back part of the 
house again consisted of a long room like the corre 
sponding one at the end of the outer court. 

A notable discovery made in the space between the 
outer and inner walls of the city and with which we 
must close our account was that of a large series of 
steles of various material—alabaster, basalt, limestone, 
sandstone and composite material—containing com 
memorative inscriptions of rulers and their consorts 
and of high officials.73 No less than 140 of such steles 
were found, many in a fragmentary condition, but 
enough in a sufficiently preserved state to enable us to 
say that these monuments varied in height from about 
six to seven feet. They were generally rounded at the 
top and some contained, in addition to the commemora 
tive inscription, a sculptured image of the individual in 
whose honor the monument was erected. The names 
of no less than twenty-five rulers of Assyria are re 
vealed through these steles. Besides these twenty-five 
rulers, we have steles of three "ladies of the palace," 
including the famous Semiramis, who turns out to be 
the "palace lady" of Shamshi-Adad IV (or V), who 
ruled from 823 to 811, and further designated in the 
accompanying inscription as the mother of King Adad- 
nirari IV (810-782) and the daughter-in-law of Shal- 
maneser III (858-824 B.C.). Of officials represented 
by monuments, the names of forty-four are preserved 
in whole or in part. The monuments of the kings and 
their consorts were found near the inner wall, those of 
the officials near the outer wall. The steles range from 
c. 1400 B.C. to the days of Ashurbanapal (668-626 B.C.), 
that is to say within twenty years of the fall of the 
Assyrian Empire. It is evident that these monuments 

72 See the publication of the German Orient Society, by Andrae, 
Die Stelenreihen in Assur (Leipzig, 1913)» 

 EXCAVATIONS AND EXPLORATIONS 59 

were erected by the rulers themselves and set up in a 
place of honor, and it is a reasonable conjecture that 
those of the officials were erected by their royal masters 
in recognition of their services to the state or to the 
royal house. There has thus been revealed the custom 
in ancient Assyria of erecting monuments in public 
places. 

In Babylon, where the work was conducted chiefly 
under the superintendence of Dr. Robert Koldewey7* 
for an equally long period as at Ashur, the chief efforts 
of the German explorers were directed to the mound 
Kasr, the name of which, viz.: "fortress," preserved 
the tradition of the royal palace built by Nebopolassar 
and considerably enlarged by Nebuchadnezzar, that 
once stood there, and to the mount Amran, the southern 
of the three mounds which covered the ancient city and 
which proved to be the site of the famous temple, 
E-sagila, "the lofty house," sacred to the chief god of 
Babylon and the head of the Babylonian pantheon after 
the days of Hammurapi, the supreme Marduk. The 
entire foundations of the palace were uncovered, the 
hundreds of rooms that it comprised, traced, and a most 
careful study made of every detail that was brought to 
light. Of great importance were the discoveries made 
in the space between the palace and the chief temple. 
A sacred procession street was laid bare, a via sacra 
built high above the low houses of the city and along 
which the images of the numerous gods and goddesses, 
who formed a court around Marduk, were carried in 
procession on festive occasions, and more particularly 
on the New Year's day, which was the most solemn 
occasion of the year. The walls along this street were 
lined with glazed tiles representing a series of lions, 
surmounted by rows of rosettes and other ornamental 

"See the summary of the results by Koldewey, Das Wieder- 
Erstehende Babylon (Leipzig, 1913). English translation by Agnes 
S. Johns, under the title, The Excavations at Babylon (London, 
1914). 

 60 BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA 

designs. The street was paved with large blocks of a 
composite material and contained at frequent intervals 
a dedicatory inscription indicating the name of the 
street as " Aibur-shabu," "may the enemy not wax 
strong," and the name of the builder as the great 
Nebuchadnezzar.75 A magnificent gateway, known as 
the Ishtar gate and consisting of an outer and inner 
gate, formed the approach to the street. The six square 
towers of the gateway contained on all sides a series of 
glazed tiles with alternate representations of horned 
dragons and unicorns, so arranged that a group of 
dragons running as a pattern around the four sides of 
the tower was succeeded by a group of unicorns 
similarly arranged. It was found that there were 
eighteen such alternate groups, one above another. The 
effect of these brilliantly illuminated high facings of 
the towers must have been superb (see Plate XXXVII). 
Surrounding the chief temple to Marduk that was 
uncovered beneath the mound Amran, stood numerous 
smaller temples and shrines in honor of the many gods 
and goddesses who were worshipped at Babylon and 
whose relationship to Marduk was that of members of 
the royal family, ministers and courtiers to the king, 
as the supreme chief. Nebuchadnezzar, in his inscrip 
tions, enumerates some forty such structures within 
the sacred precinct which, from the name of Marduk's 
temple, was known as E-sagila. Unfortunately the con 
dition in which these temples were found was most 
lamentable, so that little of their decoration and of their 
varied contents could be determined. Lastly, as at 
Ashur, a great part of the efforts of the expedition was 
directed to tracing the walls—the outer and inner walls 
—and the extensive fortifications of the city as begun 
by the founder of the Neo-Babylonian dynasty and con- 

75 See Koldewey, Die Pflastersteine van Aiburschabu (Leipzig, 
1901). 

 PLATE XVIII 

LI 

i • •* • 

• it 

FIG. I, THE LION OF BABYLON 

FIO. 2, ARCHWAY OF COLORED, GLAZED TILES (KHORSABAD) 

 EXCAVATIONS AND EXPLOEATIONS 61 

timied by his great son.76 Quite a number of inscrip 
tions have been found in connection with the temples, 
and also several hundred business documents, chiefly 
of the Persian period, but there is every reason to be 
lieve that the soil still holds quantities of literary treas 
ures from the archives of the great Marduk temple, 
which even in the neo-Babylonian period must have 
been extensive. 

Extending their activities to Borsippa—close to 
Babylon, but on the other side of the Euphrates—the 
German expedition has been successful in coming 
across the chief temple, E-zida, "the legitimate house," 
sacred to Nabu, the son of Marduk, and in tracing the 
outlines and interior arrangement of that edifice which 
played a part only second in importance to that of 
E-sagila, in Babylon. 

Here we may rest our survey of the work done at 
the mounds. The seventy years intervening between the 
first larger efforts inaugurated by Botta and the present 
date have been marked, as we have seen, by a truly 
astonishing activity on the part of English, French, 
American and German explorers, as a result of which 
many of the most important sites of Babylonia and 
Assyria have been laid bare, and a large number of 
others, though only partially excavated, have been 
identified. Palaces and temples, towers and archives, 
private houses and graves, walls and fortifications have 
been dug up from beneath the mounds so that we are 
in a position to reconstruct the appearance that the 
ancient cities of the south and north must have pre 
sented. An enormous amount of archaeological ma 
terial in the form of sculptured reliefs, statues, pottery 
of all kinds, jewelry, instruments, thousands of seal 
cylinders with designs representing adoration scenes, 
sacrificial scenes, illustrations from myths, etc., works 
of art of all kinds have been secured through which we 

76 See Koldewey, Die Tempel von Babylon und Borsippa (Leip 
zig, 1911). 

 62 BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA 

are enabled to fill out the picture of the civilization of 
the Euphrates and Tigris with innumerable details. We 
can follow their methods of warfare, their daily life, 
the construction of their public and private buildings, 
their ideals of art and their religious beliefs. Still 
more extensive and even more valuable as furnishing 
the key to an understanding and full appreciation of 
those ancient civilizations is the yield through the ex 
cavations of inscribed material—inscriptions on bas- 
reliefs, statues, votive offerings and other monuments 
—and of the tens of thousands of clay tablets of all 
periods from the earliest to the latest, forming the busi 
ness and legal records of the temple administration, 
and of private transactions of all kinds, and lastly the 
literary collection of some thirty thousand tablets or 
fragments of tablets, found in the royal palace at 
Nineveh, supplemented by thousands of tablets, like 
wise with literary contents, discovered among the re 
mains of archives of the temples of the south. These 
invaluable treasures scattered throughout the public 
and private museums of Europe and America have for 
the greater part been made accessible through publica 
tions, and as new material is found it is published as 
speedily as possible. Through the interpretation of 
this inscribed material—the oldest portion written in 
characters approaching the picture stage of writing, 
but soon yielding to a cursive style in which the original 
pictures assume the form of wedges—the work of re 
covering the lost story of Babylonia and Assyria has 
been supplemented and completed. 

 CHAPTER II 
THE DECIPHERMENT OF CUNEIFORM SCRIPTS 

I 

THE question may now be asked, how was it made 
possible to read the wedge-shaped characters found on 
the monuments, votive offerings and the tablets? When 
Pietro della Valle* brought specimens of the writing 
to Europe, it was the first time that such characters 
which did not resemble any known alphabet were seen 
by European scholars. They seemed so strange that it 
is scarcely surprising that some scholars2 questioned 
whether they stood for real writing or were not merely 
ornamental decorations. The excavations in the mounds 
of Babylonia and Assyria proved conclusively that 
cuneiform or wedge-shaped writing was the general and 
only script used in the region. The strange script, how 
ever, was not limited to Babylonia and Assyria. In 
fact, the first specimens to reach Europe, copied, as we 
have seen,3 by Pietro della Valle, came from a place that 
lay outside of the Euphrates Valley, and it was on 
cuneiform inscriptions of this type that the first 
attempts at decipherment were made. Delia Valle, as 
well as other travellers, had passed in their travels the 
chief sites of the old Persian Empire and were particu 
larly impressed by the tombs and the remains of great 
structures still standing at Persepolis, the name of 
which ("Persian city") preserved the tradition that it 
was one of the political centres in the days of the great 
Persian kings. Here at least there was a definite start 
ing-point. If cuneiform inscriptions were found on 

1 Above, p. 12, seq. 

2 Among them the famous Thomas Hyde, Historia Beligionis 
veterum Persarum, etc., (Oxford, 1700), p. 527, S. S. Witte, 
Professor at Rostock University as late as 1799. 

8 Above, p. 12. See Plate XIX, Fig. 1. 

63 

 64 BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA 

monuments erected by Persian rulers, the conclusion 
was obvious that the characters represented the ancient 
Persian language which was the official speech of the 
empire. At Persepolis it was not necessary to dig below 
the surface to come across remains of Persian days. 
The ruins of a great palace were still standing.4 A large 
number of high and beautiful columns were still in 
place, and by their help one could trace the general 
divisions of the structure of which they formed a part. 
Besides the columns and portions of walls, sculptured 
monuments of various kinds were scattered about, be 
sides magnificently decorated tombs cut in the rocks 
that surrounded the city. These well preserved monu 
ments were covered with the wedge-shaped characters. 
An English traveller, Herbert,5 was among the first, 
towards the close of the seventeenth century, to give an 
account of the strange writing which he (like della 
Valle) correctly conjectured was to be read from left 
to right, and he also concluded that the writing repre 
sented the language spoken by the Persians. He de 
spaired, however, of the hope of the writing ever being 
deciphered unless (as he says) by another Daniel who 
was able to read the mystic writing on the wall of 
Belshazzar's palace. 

In 1711 the first complete inscription from Persepolis 
was reproduced by a French traveller, the Chevalier 
Chardin,6 from which it should have been evident that 
although the characters always had the form of wedges, 
still the combinations (varied considerably and that 
there were in reality three quite distinct styles of cunei 
form writing on the rocks and monuments of Perse 
polis. Although a number of intrepid travellers and 

4 See the illustrations in Stolze, Persepolis (Berlin, 1882). 

' In his Same Years' Travels into Divers Parts of Africa and 
Asia the Great (London, 1677), p. 141, seq. 

8 Voyages de Monsieur le Chevalier Chardin, en Perse et autres 
Lieux de I'Orient (Amsterdam, 1711), 3 vols. 

 PLATE XIX 

>••!<;. I, HI INS AT PERSEPOLIS 

no. 

. 2, THE PROl'VL/BA OF THE i'ALACE OF XERXES 1 (486-465 B. C.) AT PERSEPOLIS 

 CUNEIFORM DECIPHERMENT 65 

careful observers like Engelbert Kaempfer7 and 
Cornells de Bruin8 examined the inscriptions, it was 
not, however, until the second half of the eighteenth 
century that Carsten Niebuhr, whom we have already 
come across9 and who copied more of the inscriptions 
than any of his predecessors, recognized the fact of 
three distinct varieties of the cuneiform characters at 
Persepolis, varying in the complexity of the combina 
tions of the wedges. Though distinguishing these three 
varieties as Classes I, II and III, Niebuhr did not draw 
the further conclusion that the varieties represented 
three distinct languages, but supposed all three to be 
the same language, written in a threefold form. He 
even correctly analyzed the characters in Class I as 
consisting of forty-two signs and concluded that this 
form represented an alphabetic method of writing.10 
On the basis of Niebuhr's work, two scholars who were 
trained philologists proceeded to make the first at 
tempts at decipherment. Tychsen " drew the correct 
conclusion that the three varieties represented three 
distinct languages. He furnished a tentative transla 
tion of one of the smaller inscriptions of Class I which, 

7 He embodied the results of his travels in a Latin work pub 
lished in 1712, with a long title, Anuenitatum exoticarum politico- 
physico-medicarum fasciculi quinti, (Lemgo). Kempfer was the 
first to apply the term cuneiform ("wedge-shaped") to the 
characters. 

8 Voyages de Corneille le Brun par la Moscovie, en Perse et aux 
Indes Orientales (Amsterdam, 1718), 2 vols. [French translation 
from the Dutch edition of 1714.] 

8 See above, p. 13. 

10 In Vol. II of Carsten Niebuhr's Reisebesckreibung nach Ara- 
bien und andern umliegenden Ldndern, completed after his death 
by his son (1774-1837, Copenhagen, 3 vols.), will be found his 
account of his investigations of the monuments of Persepolis. 

11 Olav Gerhard Tychsen, De cuneatis inscriptionibus Perse- 
politanis lucubratio (Rostock, 1798). 
5 

 66 BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA 

however, was pure guesswork, and turned out to be 
entirely erroneous, except for the fact that he correctly 
assumed a certain character to represent the vowel a. 
Tychsen proceeded on the erroneous assumption that 
the buildings and inscriptions at Persepolis dated from 
the late Persian dynasty, known as the Parthian, in the 
third century of our era. But for this error, he might 
have made further progress in the decipherment. The 
correct identification of the remains at Persepolis with 
the Achaemenian kings of Persia in the sixth and fifth 
centuries before our era was made by a contemporary 
of Tychsen, Prof. Friedrich Miinter of Copenhagen, 
who instituted a comparison between the monuments at 
Persepolis and those at Naksh-i-Rustam, which the re 
searches of a famous orientalist, Sylvestre de Sacy, had 
shown to be the tombs of kings of the Arsacidian 
dynasty. The result was to establish the identity of the 
art at Persepolis and Naksh-i-Rustam, further rein 
forced by the occurrence of the same fabulous animals 
or symbols on the monuments of both places. The art 
was distinctly Persian, as were the costumes and orna 
ments on the figures at Persepolis. Miinter made some 
further progress also in unraveling the mystery of the 
inscriptions. He recognized that a diagonal wedge 
occurring constantly in the inscriptions of Class I was 
a word separator, a clue that proved to be of the greatest 
possible value, since it enabled scholars to definitely 
fix the beginning and end of each word. Another sug 
gestion thrown out by Miinter, that a series of seven 
characters occurring in all inscriptions stood for the 
word king, was finally rejected by him, though the con 
jecture proved to be correct. 

Fortunately, not long before the time that Tychsen 
and Miinter were groping their way in the dark, a 
French scholar, Anquetil-Duperron, was busy in the 
East collecting manuscripts of the Avesta, the sacred 
writings of Zoroastrianisui, and through native Parsi 

 CUNEIFORM DECIPHERMENT 67 

priests was learning how to read the characters and to 
interpret the contents of the sacred books.12 

Through the publication of his material, scholars 
had before them specimens of the language employed 
in the days of the Persian rulers. The characters used 
in the Avestan manuscripts were, however, totally dif 
ferent from those found on the Persepolitan inscrip 
tions ; they represented a cursive alphabet that probably 
had its origin in India and was adapted to the old 
Persian language. To be sure it subsequently turned 
out that the Avestan books represented a compilation 
covering a long period of gradual growth and that even 
the oldest portion could not be earlier than the fourth 
century, while the introduction of the Avestan alphabet 
could not have taken place before the third century. 
We were, therefore, still some distance from the time 
of the earliest Achsemenian rulers, but close enough to 
warrant the assumption that the language of the Avesta 
was practically identical with that spoken by Cyrus and 
his successors. The task of scholars, therefore, lay in 
attempts to recognize in the wedge-shaped characters 
the consonants and vowels corresponding to the signs 
for these in the Avestan alphabet. There was, of 
course, no possible connection between the forms of 
the Avestan and the cuneiform alphabet, but the same 
sounds must be represented in both, and the words 
spelled out in the Persepolitan inscriptions must be 
close enough to such as were furnished by the Avestan 
writings to show that they were genuine Persian words. 
The problem, therefore, resolved itself into a species of 
rebus, somewhat as though one were to write English 
with Sanskrit characters and then to determine by pa 
tient endeavor the value of the Sanskrit characters so 
as to furnish good English words, and above all, a 
sequence of thought. Simple as this may sound, it 

18 See the account of the beginnings of the history of Avestan 
studies in Darmesteter's Introduction to his monumental work, 
Le Zend-Avesta (Paris, 1892-1893), 3 vols. 

 68 BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA 

involved great difficulties because of the imperfect 
knowledge, at the end of the eighteenth century, of the 
Avestan language, the study of which was still in its 
infancy, and because of the puzzling circumstance that 
Class I of the Persepolitan inscriptions showed forty- 
two characters—too many if each combination of 
wedges represented a single sound, too few if the 
method of writing was syllabic,13 and not alphabetical. 
Now in many of the inscriptions from Persepolis 
it was observed that certain words occurred frequently 
in all of them. It could furthermore be concluded on 
the assumption that Class I represented the Persian of 
the days of the Achsemenian kings -that the names of the 
rulers should be found on them, and with the names 
also the titles. The next step seemed simple enough— 
to try to fit the sounds composing the names of the 
Persian kings which were known to us from the Old 
Testament, from Herodotus and from other sources to 
the series of characters in the Persepolitan inscriptions 
that might represent proper names. Had Miinter not 
rejected his conjecture that a certain series of char 
acters stood for the word "king,"14 he might have been 
the one to take the next step and to become the de 
cipherer of the inscriptions. Miinter was led to seek for 
the word for king in the Persepolitan inscriptions by 
the analogy which they presented to those on the royal 
tombs at Naksh-i-Rustam. Greek inscriptions at this 
place by the side of those in the Pehlevi script furnished 
de Sacy, whom we have already mentioned,15 with the 
clue both to the historical character of the monuments 
and to the decipherment of the Pehlevi script, which 

18 By syllabic is meant the use of a sign to indicate an entire 
syllable; thus ra-shun-al would be syllabic writing, whereas 
r-a-t-i-o-n-a-l is alphabetic, while if some picture or a sign derived 
from a picture were used to convey the idea of rational, the writing 
would be ideographic. The sign for dollar is ideographic writing. 

14 See above, p. 66. 

18 Memoires sur diverges Antiquites de la Perse (Paris, 1793). 

 CUNEIFORM DECIPHERMENT 69 

turned out to be a variety introduced into Persia during 
the rule of the Sassanian kings (227-641 A.D.). The 
Greek inscriptions based on Pehlevi models, of which 
they were in fact translations, revealed a stereotyped 
order of phrases and titles on these monuments. The 
beginning was made with the name of a ruler followed 
by his titles, and these in turn by the name of his father 
with his titles. This gave a form as follows: 

N, great king, king of kings, king of Iran and 
Aniran, son of N, great king, king of kings, 
king of Iran and Aniran. 

With the help of several bilinguals—Greek and Pehlevi 

—de Sacy, through fitting the proper names on to the 
characters, the position of which could be determined 
by the place occupied by proper names in the Greek 
translation, succeeded in determining the characters 
of the Pehlevi alphabet, while as soon as he was able 
to read words, the practical identity with the older 
Persian, now revealed through the researches of 
Anquetil-Duperron, furnished an unfailing aid in 
recognizing the meaning of the words written in the 
Pehlevi script. Here then a rebus was correctly solved 

—the characters fitted on to the sounds which, since the 
words thus put together were Persian and gave a con 
nected sense, were shown to be the correct ones. 

Miinter availed himself of de Sacy's results as a 
support for his thesis that the Persepolitan inscrip 
tions were those of the early Persian kings, but he 
stopped short at this point. Had he clung to his guess 
regarding the combination of signs representing the 
word for king, it would no doubt have occurred to him 
to apply the stereotyped form of the Pehlevi inscrip 
tions also to the Persepolitan monuments. This step 
was taken by the man who was destined to achieve im 
mortal fame as the decipherer of the Persian cuneiform 
inscriptions—Georg Friedrich Grotefend (born 1775), 
a teacher of Greek in the gymnasium at Gb'ttingen, who, 

 70 BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA 

on the fourth of September, 1802, read a paper before 
the Gottingen Academy in which he claimed to have 
found the key to the reading of the inscriptions of 
Class I. The paper,16 consisting of three parts, began 
with a general consideration of the three varieties of 
script on the monuments of Persepolis. Grotefend 
showed the definite basis for assuming that the three 
varieties represented three different languages, that the 
variety which occupied the first place when the three 
scripts were written one under the other, or which was 
above the head of a figure—the most prominent place, 
—while the two others were grouped to either side, 
represented the old Persian language spoken in the 
days of the Achsemenian kings (539-331 B.C.). If, 
therefore, the first class could be deciphered, it would 
be possible to use the inscriptions of this class as a basis 
for deciphering the other two classes which must repre 
sent translations of the old Persian into two languages 
that were spoken by the subjects of the Persian Empire. 
A parallel to such a procedure exists to-day in the de 
crees of Austro-Hungary which are issued in German 
and Hungarian." Class I would serve as the key to 
Classes II and III, just as de Sacy used the Greek 
inscriptions at Naksh-i-Rustam to decipher the accom 
panying Pehlevi inscriptions—the Greek being a trans 
lation of the Pehlevi; and as in the decipherment of the 
Egyptian inscriptions, the Greek translation of the 
hieroglyphic inscription on the stone found at Rosetta 
served as a key to Francois ChampoUion.1* Grotefend 
also confirmed the results reached by his predecessors 
that the order of the writing in all three varieties was 

16 The title was Prcevia dc cuneatis quas vacant inscriptionibus 
Persepolitanis legendis et explicandis relatio. 

17 Some of the decrees of the Turkish Empire are similarly issued 
in two languages, Turkish and Arabic. 

18 See Steindorff in Hilprecht's Explorations in Bible Lands, 
p. 629 seq. The Rosetta stone also contained a version in the late 
demotic script of Egypt. 

 PLATE XX 

.\ j 

.4r. tr A .<K.«ST. ffi.iiirx.ir. T<. ?f . K- A . <- 

n . ^T'W . VW.fer^rW \.m.<Y . <frK Xx 

.-llK.Nt .M . < . £55(T . 1 

. V . 

-y ^•. 

SPECIMEN OF THE THREE CLASSES OF CUNEIFORM CHARACTERS. B AND G——OLD 

PERSIAN (CLASS i); C—BABYLONIAN-ASSYRIAN (CLASS HI); D—NEO-ELAMITIC (CLASS n) 

 CUNEIFORM DECIPHERMENT 71 

from left to right and that the lines followed horizon 
tally and not vertically,19 or in boustrophedon fashion,30 
as some scholars had maintained. In one deduction 
Grotefend erred, though fortunately it did not affect 
his key which he applied merely to Class I. He main 
tained that all three varieties of cuneiform writing 
represented an alphabetical script, not therefore ideo 
graphic like the Chinese, nor syllabic like the Japanese. 
He was right so far as Class I was concerned, but wrong 
as to the other two classes which turned out to be partly 
ideographic and partly syllabic. 

Coming in the second part of his paper to the in 
scriptions of Class I, he picked out of the forty-two 
characters comprising the script, eight which occurred 
with great frequency (and two or more of which ap 
peared in every word) and concluded that they were 
vowels. Availing himself at this point of the stereo 
typed form of the Pehlevi inscriptions of Naksh-i-Rus- 
tam and concluding that the Sassanian rulers followed 
in this respect the model of the old Persian kings whose 
realm they had taken over, he proceeded to pick out the 
proper names in the Persepolitan inscriptions of which 
one ought therefore to be found at the beginning and 
another somewhat further on—the name with which 
the inscription began being that of the one who is com 
memorated by the monument, and the other the name 
of the father. 

In the third part of his paper he took up two of 
the short inscriptions that had been copied and pub 
lished by Niebuhr and which, in his publication, were 
numbered B and G, the former consisting of six lines, 
the latter of four lines. The analogy with the Pehlevi 
inscriptions led him to look for the word king, which 
ought to follow the name at the beginning of the in 
scription, and should appear several times even in a 

19 Like the Chinese. 

20 One line from left to right, the next from right to left, and BO 
alternately, as in the case of Hittite inscriptions. 

 72 BABYLONIA AND ASSYEIA 

short inscription. The diagonal wedge which Munter 
had conjectured to be a word separator, made it easy 
to pick out a series of characters constituting a word, 
and it was not long before Grotefend hit upon seven 
characters occurring just where one would expect the 
word for king. These signs were 

From the dictionary which Anquetil-Duperron had 
compiled for his Avestan texts, the word for king was 
given as Khsheio.21 Now some of the seven characters 
composing the word for king occurred in the series of 
characters that constituted the first word in each of the 
two inscriptions, and which, on the analogy of the 
Pehlevi, ought to be a proper name. Grotefend's next 
task, therefore, was to study the characters composing 
these two names carefully. They must, of course, 
conceal the names of old Persian rulers, known to us, 
as has been indicated,22 from various sources. Grote 
fend observed that in the inscriptions of Persepolis at 
his disposal, there were only two varying series of char 
acters constituting the beginning of the inscriptions, 
which meant that all the inscriptions proceeded from 
two rulers or, at all events, from rulers whose names 
alternated between X and Y. Taking up now the two 
inscriptions — B and G — selected by him, he found the 
proper name in B to consist of seven characters as 
follows : 

and in G also of seven characters 

21 Be it noted once for all that kh and sh in the transliteration 
of oriental languages represent a single sound and in a scientific 
transliteration are given as h and a For the sake of convenience I 
retain kh and sh. 

** Above, p. 68. 

 CUNEIFORM DECIPHERMENT 73 

He further noted in G the occurrence of the same name 
with which B begins, forming, to wit, the second series 
of characters in the third line.23 The analogy with the 
Pehlevi inscriptions made it certain that the king rep 
resented by this series of characters was the father of 
the one whose name appeared at the beginning of G. 
In other words, if we designate the proper name with 
which inscription B begins as X, and the one with which 
G begins as Y, we would have the relationship 

Y is the son of X. 

Both X in inscription B, as well as Y and X in inscrip 
tion G, were followed by the same series of characters 
that had been conjectured to represent the word for 
king. Grotefend could therefore go a step further and 
read in G 

Y king............son of X king. 

The three characters following the group X king in the 
fourth line of G (after the word separator) Grotefend, 
after the analogy of the Pehlevi inscriptions, assumed 
to be the word for son. Searching for these signs in 
inscription B, he found them in line five immediately 
after the word separator, which closed the word run 
ning over from line four.24 Hence he concluded that 
the name of X's father should be found before these 
signs for son. It was at this juncture that Ms keen 
ingenuity showed itself. In G the name of X, the father 
of Y, was followed by the characters for king. He 
could not find these characters in line four of inscrip 
tion B and therefore concluded that the ten characters 

23 There was, to be sure, one character—the sixth—not found in 
the series at the beginning of B, but Grotefend at once concluded 
that this variation was due to the fact that the name in G stood in 
the genitive, whereas in B in the nominative. 

24 The Persian scribes, depending upon the diagonal wedge as 
the word separator, did not hesitate to allow a word to run over 
from one line to the other. 

 74 BABYLONIA AND ASSYKIA 

preceding the series "son" in B (beginning in line four 
and running over into line five) represented the name 
of X's father, and that this personage was not a king. 
This could only mean that X was the founder of a 
dynasty—not, therefore, himself of royal descent. If 
we call this group of ten characters Z, we would there 
fore have two series: 

In inscription B: X king.... son of Z. 

In inscription G: Y king... .son of X king, 

which gives us the order 

Z, X, Y = grandfather, father, son. 

Now in the lists of the rulers of Persia25 there were 
during the first period two dynasties, (1) the one 
founded by Cyrus who was succeeded by his son 
Cambyses (539-522 B.C.), (2) a second founded by 
Darius I, succeeded by his son Xerxes I and grandson 
Artaxerxes I (522-424 B.C.). Then came an usurper, 
Xerxes II, who ruled for forty-five days, followed by 
Darius II, whose son, grandson and great-grandson 
followed one another, Artaxerxes II, Artaxerxes III 
and Arses (424-336 B.C.) , after which came Darius III 
(336-331 B.C.), who succumbed in 331 B.C. to Alexander 
the Great. Grotefend thus had a choice for Z, X, Y 
between 

(a) the father of Cyrus, Cyrus himself and Cam 
byses, or (&) Hystaspes (the father of Darius), 
Darius himself and Xerxes, or (c) the father of 
Darius II, Darius II and Artaxerxes II. The first 
case was ruled out by the circumstance that the 
names of Cyrus and Cambyses began with the same 
letter, whereas X and Y began with different char 
acters. X and Y would therefore turn out to be either 
Darius and Xerxes, or Darius II and Artaxerxes II. 
The latter alternative, if correct, would involve that 

28 See the list in Jastrow, Aspects of Belief and Practice in 
Babylonia and Assyria, p. 448. 

 CUNEIFORM DECIPHERMENT 75 

the name Y as the son of X should be longer than X. 
Both X and Y, however, consisted of the same number 
of characters, namely seven. Grotefend was thus 
thrown back on the second of the three possibilities, 
Darius and Xerxes, as the one fitting the required con 
ditions. Taking up his three names once more, he 
observed that the first two characters of Y corresponded 
to the first two characters in the series that represented 
the word "king, " which being, as we have seen, Khsheio, 
showed that these two characters must stand for the 
sound kh and sh respectively. King Y therefore bore a 
name beginning with kh.sh. The fourth and the seventh 
character in this name was the one which, because of its 
frequency, Grotefend assumed to represent the vowel 
a or e, while the sixth sign was again the sign sh. He 
thus could read the name partially as 

KB. »H. . . B . . 8H. 

Completing the word for king in the series of seven 
characters, he assigned values tentatively as follows : 

ff! fe-.M.ff.*- 

KB. BB. B." B.1* I." O. H 

which was certainly close enough to the form Khsheio 
to justify Grotef end's confidence in his method. Pro 
ceeding to compare the signs composing the name of 
King X with those in the word for king, he could read 
three of the seven characters as follows: 

*• Grotefend, as occasion required, assigned -the value a or e to 
this sign. It turned out that the value was always a. 

*7 This was subsequently shown to be ya. 
2t Subsequently shown to be t. 

 76 BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA 

Now the Old Testament form of the name Darius (oc 
curring in the Book of Daniel), which would be nearer 
to the original pronunciation of it than the Grsecized 
form Dareios, was Daryawesh. It was, therefore, like 
fitting on a rebus to assign the value d to the first sign 
and r to the third, which gave him 

d.a.r.h. . . .sh 

All that was needed was to assume the value e and u for 
the fifth and sixth characters to obtain the full name 

The assigning of the value r to the third character was 
confirmed by the occurrence of the same character as 
the fifth in the name Y, while the value h occurring as 
the fourth character in the series for "king" and in the 
name X also fitted in with Y, though it ultimately 
proved to be erroneous. He thus could read Y as 

KB. BH. H. ».» B. BH. 

which could very well be the original form of a Persian 
name distorted by the Greeks to Xerxes.30 

Passing to the name of the father of Darius, his 
decipherment of Darius and Xerxes gave him the values 
of the third, fifth, ninth and tenth characters as 

BH. A. {. . H. •) 

The eighth because of its frequent occurrence he as- 

28 Or c. Note that in this name the third sign has an additional 
horizontal stroke and that the fifth sign lacks a third horizontal 
stroke — due to slight defects in Niebuhr's copies which were easily 
recognized as such by scholars. 

so In Babylonian inscriptions the name appears as Khishiarshi, 
which is quite close to the correct Persian form Khshayarsha. 

 CUNEIFORM DECIPHERMENT 77 

sumed to be also the vowel a.31 The Greek form of 
Darius' father was Hystaspis, but several other forma 
were known from various sources, including Goshtasp 
or Gushtasp and Vishtaspo. Grotefend assumed the 
original consonant to have been g 32 and, accordingly, 
he supplied the values for the remaining characters 
as g for the first, o for the second, t for the fourth, s for 
the sixth, p for the seventh, and thus obtained the 
reading 

.71? .T*.*t. 

O. O. BH. T. A. B. P. (A. H. B) 

He had thus succeeded in puzzling out three proper 
names and the word for king; he could feel tolerably 
certain that he had correctly identified the two kings, 
Darius and his son, Xerxes, as the authors of the two 
inscriptions. It was subsequently shown that he had 
erred in a number of the values assigned by him to the 
fourteen signs, but the way had been opened for further 
progress. 

Taking up the two inscriptions B and G for further 
comparison, he noticed that the third word in both was 
the same. The analogy with the stereotyped form of 
the Pehlevi inscriptions suggested that this word was 
an adjective like "great," descriptive of the preceding 
word king. The fourth and fifth words likewise agreed 
in both B and G. The former was again the word for 
king, while the latter was king, plus four signs, which 
indicated some form of this word. The stereotyped 
form of the Pehlevi inscriptions read: X king great, 
king of kings. Grotefend assumed the same model for 

" It turned out to be ft. 

32 It turned out to be v, the form Vishtaspo, found in Zend liter 
ature, being closer to the original than the late form Gushtasp or 
Goshtasp. The three additional signs (8, 9, 10) a, b, e, Grotefend 
regarded as an attached ending. 

 78 BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA 

the Persepolitan inscriptions, which enabled him to 
read B as 

Darius, great king, king of kings 
and G as 

Xerxes, great king, king of kings. 

Then followed in G the name Darius with the word 
king, and thirdly, the series of signs which, occurring 
in both inscriptions, he had assumed to be the word for 
son, with the preceding name in the genitive.33 He 
thus could read all of G except the last word, as 

Xerxes, great king, king of kings, 
son of Darius king,34..... 

In B there were five words which he could not deter 
mine by this process. 

Darius, great king, king of kings, 

king35...... son of Goshtaspa (i.e., Hystaspis) 

86 

As for the values of the word for son and the plural of 
the word for kings, some of the signs had already 
occurred in the proper names. So in the three signs 

which he had identified as son, the middle one was the 
character to which, in the name of Darius, he had given 
the value u. Prompted by the existence of a word 
"bun" in Pehlevi in the sense of offspring, his guess of 
b or p for the first sign of the word for son was cor 
rect,37 his conjecture for the third as n was far off, 

38 Indicated by the three additional signs a, h, e, as in the case 
of Goshtasp. 

14 Of the last word consisting of nine signs he could read a . kh . a 
. .o.sh.o.h. — i.e., all except the fourth and fifth. 

" G did not have the signs for king at this point. 

•e Four words of which the first was identical with the last word 
inG. 

87 The same as the seventh sign in Goshtasp. The correct 
reading of the word for son was putra, identical with the Zend word. 

 CUNEIFORM DECIPHERMENT 79 

since the correct reading was shown by Sir Henry Raw- 
linson, in 1847, to be tr. Similarly his supposition for 
the second and fourth signs of the ending added to king 
—indicating the plural—as s and o were both wrong. A 
Danish scholar, Rask, in 1826, correctly determined the 
values as n and m respectively. Nor did Grotef end have 
more success in his attempt to read the additional words 
in B or the last word in G. There was thus still much 
left to do before it could be said that a firm basis had 
been secured for the decipherment of the Persepolitan 
inscriptions. 

Grotef end's method had been successful in deter 
mining with tolerable certainty the reading of the 
three proper names, but when he attempted to read 
other words, he floundered about and generally went 
wrong. The errors made by Grotefend were seized 
upon as a basis of attack, and only scant acknowledg 
ment was made of his success in identifying the three 
proper names. The Gottingen Academy published 
merely an extract of his attempt at decipherment in 
1802,38 and it was not until three years later that a fuller 
account of his decipherment appeared as an appendix 
to Heeren's work on the "Politics, Intercourse and 
Trade of the Principal Nations of Antiquity,"39 
Meantime Grotefend had profited by some of the 
criticism passed on his efforts and had succeeded in 
reading the last word in inscription G, identical with 
the second in line five of B as Achaemenian, so that he 
could read this inscription completely as 

Xerxes, great king, king of kings, son of 
Darius, king, the Achsemenian. 

88 Ninety years later Grotef end's paper, because of its historic 
interest, was published in full by the Gottingen Academy, together 
with three others subsequently presented by him. See Nachrichten 
d. Kgl. Gesells. d. Wiss. 1893, No. 14, pp. 573-616. 

89 Ideen uber die Politik, den VerJcehr und den Handel der 
vornehmsten Volker der alien Welt, 2d ed. (Gottingen, 1805). [Eng 
lish translation, London, 1854.] 

 80 BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA 

To have thus determined the ancient designation of 
Achaemenian by which all the Persian rulers from 
Cyrus down were known was a considerable step in 
advance. 

A striking confirmation of Grotefend's identifica 
tion of the name of Xerxes was furnished by Saint- 
Martin, in 1823, who took up the fourfold inscription 
on an alabaster vase, published as far back as 1762,40 and 
which, as now was apparent, contained an inscription 
in the three classes of cuneiform script, besides an 
Egyptian inscription enclosed in a cartouche. The 
Egyptian name had been read by Champollion as 
"Xerxes, great king," and Saint-Martin showed that 
the cuneiform inscription in Class I tallied completely 
with the signs read in inscription G by Grotefend as 
Xerxes, followed by the words for "king" and "great." 
In this way there was established a mutual confirmation 
of the key to the reading of both the hieroglyphic and 
the old Persian inscriptions. Other Oriental philolo 
gists now took up the task. A Danish scholar, Rask, 
in a study on the Zend language,41 showed its affilia 
tion to Sanskrit, though a separate language and quite 
as old as Sanskrit, and that it was closely related to the 
language of the Persepolitan inscriptions, as Grotefend 
had indeed assumed. He was able to correct Grote 
fend's reading of the genitive plural attached to the 
word for "king," and thus at one stroke definitely de 
termined the correct value of two signs (m and n) that 
had not occurred in proper names. His philological 
training also enabled him to prove that each sign in 
Class I could have only a single value and not, as Grote 
fend supposed, more than one. The establishment of 
this principle marked a forward step in determining 

40 By A. de Caylus in his RecueU d'Antiquites Egyptiennes, etc., 
vol. v., (Paris, 1762), p. 79, seq., and Plate XXX. 

41 Observations sur les alphabets Zend et Pehlevi (Journal 
Asiatique, 1823, vol. ii, pp. 143-150), followed by a more elaborate 
work in 1826. 

 CUNEIFORM DECIPHERMENT 81 

the signs in this class that stood for vowels. Further 
progress in the study of old Persian, or Zend as it was 
at that time called, was made by the most eminent 
Persian scholar of his day, Eugene Bournouf, of Paris. 
As a result42 he could correct Grotefend's reading of 
the word for "great" following that of king and he 
determined the values of two more signs, k and z, while 
Saint-Martin, whose name has already been mentioned, 
correctly assumed that Vishtaspa was an older form 
than Goshtasp for Hystaspis, and correctly read the 
initial sign of the cuneiform form of the name as v 
instead of g. A further advance was signalled by the 
appearance of a comprehensive work, in 1836, on the 
old Persian inscriptions (as the monuments of Class I 
were henceforth to be called), by a German Orientalist, 
Christian Lassen.43 Examining anew the basis of the 
decipherment so far as it had proceeded, he confirmed 
the identification of the proper names as made by 
Grotefend, but showed that the word for "king" and 
for the plural, while correctly guessed by Grotefend, 
had been incorrectly read.4* In all, seven signs were 
correctly determined by Lassen's researches, so that 
next to Grotefend, of whose identifications eleven were 
definitely accepted, he has a larger share to his credit 
than any other of the early decipherers. 

A result, however, of Bournouf's and Lassen's ac 
curate studies was to show that, while it was true, as 
Rask had maintained, that each sign had only one value, 
the reverse of the proposition that a single letter was 
represented by one sign was not true. Thus, three 
signs having the value d had been found, two for g, 

41 Commentaire sur le Ya$na, (Paris, 1833) and Memoire sur 
deux Inscriptions Cuneiformes (Paris, 1836). 

"Die Altpersischen Keilinschriften van Persepolis (Bonn, 
1836). 

"Instead of Kh.sh.e.h.i.o.h, it should be read Kh.sh.a.ia. 
t.i.ia—the fifth sign being t and the sixth i, besides to instead of 
A for the fourth and seventh signs. 
6 

 82 BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA 

two for k, three for m and two for n, r and t. If the 
cuneiform script of Class I was an alphabetic form of 
writing, what could this mean? The solution of the 
problem was due to the combined efforts of three 
scholars, Edward Hincks, Sir Henry Rawlinson and 
Jules Oppert,45 who definitely established the fact that 
the use of signs having the same consonantal value 
differed according to the vowel that followed. So the 
one form of d, g, k, m, n occurred only in case the follow 
ing sign was the vowel a, whereas the other sign for d 
and m was used before the vowel i, the third sign for d 
and m and the alternate one for g, k, n, r before the 
vowel u, while in the case of the two signs for t, one was 
used before a or i and the other before u. 

Before leaving the subject a few words must be said 
of Sir Henry C. Rawlinson, who in many respects was 
the most remarkable of the early decipherers, not even 
excluding Grotefend. While in the service of the 
English army46 in Persia, his attention was directed 
to the cuneiform inscriptions scattered throughout the 
country.47 He copied some of them and began to study 
the strange looking characters. He prepared a list of 
the signs used and without even knowing of the work 
of Grotefend, de Sacy, Saint-Martin, Rask, Bournouf 
and Lassen, started in the year 1835 to decipher the 
proper names in the shorter inscriptions. Uncon 
sciously he followed exactly the same method as Grote- 

45 The papers of Hincks on the subject were published in the 
Transactions of the Royal Irish Academy for 1846-1847; those of 
Rawlinson in the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society for 1846- 
1851; while Oppert's work on Das Lautsystem des Altpcrsischen 
appeared in Berlin in 1847. 

46 See A Memoir of Major-General Sir Henry Creswicke Rawlin 
son, (London, 1898) by his brother, George Rawlinson. 

47 Besides Persepolis, trilingual inscriptions showing the same 
three classes of cuneiform script had been discovered at Elvend, 
Hamadan, Murgab, Mesdjid, Mader-i-Suleiman, Naksh-i-Rustam, 
in addition to the large one on the rock at Behistun. See page 83. 

 PLATE XXI 

FIG. I, ROCK SCULPTUKE AND INSCRIPTION OF DAKILS 1 ( £2J -466 B.C.) 

AT BEHI8TCN 

PIG. 2, VASE OF XERXES I (486- 
465 B.C.) 

 CUNEIFORM DECIPHERMENT 83 

fend, and by a strange coincidence the first three names 
read by him were Darius, Xerxes and Hystaspis. The 
key to the decipherment of Class I was thus actually 
found twice, though the credit as the pioneer belongs 
to Grotefend. Rawlinson realized that in order to de 
termine the full syllabary, that is to identify all of the 
forty-two characters used in Class I, a study of a large 
number of proper names was required. He, therefore, 
devoted his special attention to a long inscription cut 
into a rock at Behistun on the high road leading from 
Persepolis westwards into the Euphrates Valley. 
While the inscriptions found elsewhere were brief, con 
sisting of from 4 to 7 or 8 lines, this one contained some 
400 lines in each of the three varieties of the cuneiform 
script. The task of copying this remarkable document, 
on a rock that rose several hundred feet above the 
road, was in itself a testimony to Rawlinson's skill and 
endurance. The inscription proved to have been placed 
there by King Darius, who recorded on it in an im 
pressive manner his suppression of rebellions, his con 
quests of numerous peoples and other achievements of 
his reign.48 There were indications that the king had 
erected some kind of an ascent to the rock so that 
passers-by might mount to see it, but all traces of such 
an approach had disappeared. Rawlinson had to con 
struct a scaffold to reach the inscription and at certain 
portions of the rock was suspended by a rope so as to 
obtain as complete a copy as possible. 

Here he had an inscription with several hundred 

48 In 1907, Messrs. King and Thompson published the standard 
edition of Sculptures and Inscription of Darius the Great on the 
Sock of Behistun, in Persia, with the complete text of all three classes 
of the inscription, together with transliteration, translation and com 
mentary. At the head of the inscription, the king has portrayed 
himself, surmounted by the symbol of his god, Ahura Mazda, in the 
act of receiving as prisoners a series of nine usurpers to the throne, 
whom he had succeeded in overthrowing. 

 84 BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA 

names of places that could be picked out. By dint of 
great perseverance he managed to read and identify 
with the help of classical writers and mediaeval geog 
raphers a number of such names, which furnished him 
with the values of no less than 18 additional signs. By 
the year 1839 he was able to read 200 lines of the 
Persian text of the Behistun inscription. Rawlinson 
thus worked out for himself the entire syllabary of the 
old Persian cuneiform script through the identification 
of the proper names in the Behistun inscription.49 That 
his conclusions, independently reached and without his 
ever knowing of the work done by others, agreed in 
almost all particulars with the results obtained through 
the combined efforts of Grotefend, Saint-Martin, Rask, 
Bournouf, Lassen, Hincks and Oppert was a guarantee 
of their reasonableness and helped to inspire confidence 
in the method pursued. After the first steps had been 
taken by Rawlinson, and he learned of what the scholars 
of Europe were doing, he entered into correspondence 
with them, more particularly with Bournouf and 

48 To make the method pursued by Rawlinson clear, let me re 
mind the reader of the illustrations given above, p. 76, of names of 
persons which could be identified when a few of the letters com 
prising the name could be read. Similarly in the case of names of 
places. When, e.g., through having deciphered the names of Darius 
and Xerxes the signs for d, r, u and a had been ascertained, it was 
a comparatively simple matter to complete a name written with 
seven characters 

. .u.d.r.a.... 

by supplying m as the first letter and filling up the end of the line 
by ya and obtain mudraya which a Byzantine writer gave as the 
equivalent of Egypt and which, moreover, came close to the Arabic 
designation of Misr for Egypt. If, now, the same character to 
which Rawlinson had assigned the value m occurred in another 
proper name, he could readily decide whether the supposition was 
correct. In this way, as in working out a rebus, one conjecture was 
either confirmed or refuted by another. 

 CUNEIFORM DECIPHERMENT 85 

Lassen. Rawlinson availed himself of the results of 
Bournouf's researches which revealed the character of 
the Zend or old Persian language in such a manner as 
to be capable of being utilized in the decipherment of 
the Persian inscriptions. The comparison with San 
skrit was another aid that secured valuable results, for 
after the real relationship of Zend to Sanskrit had been 
determined50 the Sanskrit could be used to settle the 
meaning of words where Zend failed. By such methods 
the guesses and conjectures of the earlier decipher 
ments were subjected to reliable tests and were con 
firmed, rejected or modified as the case might be. The 
appearance of Rawlinson's papers in the Journal of 
the Royal Asiatic Society,51 therefore, placed the de 
cipherment on an absolutely sure foundation. The 
"rebus" stage had been definitely passed, and it merely 
remained for the successors of Rawlinson to modify 
some of his results in minor points. In 1862 Prof. 
Friedrich Spiegel's work on the old Persian inscrip 
tions,02 giving the text and translations of all the in 
scriptions of Class I and accompanied by a grammar of 
the language and a glossary, set the coping stone to the 
structure that had been so laboriously constructed 
through the combined efforts of some of the best 
scholars of the day._______ _________ 

60 Thus, e.g., it was found that s in Sanskrit consistently changed 
to h in Zend and old Persian, Sindhus becoming Hindu in Zend, 
and Hindus, i.e., India, in old Persian; dasyu, "people" in San 
skrit, was dahyu in Zend and old Persian, etc. It will easily be seen 
how important such a law of consonantal interchange was in inter 
preting endings to words, as well as words themselves in the Perse- 
politan inscriptions. 

91 Above, p. 82, note 45. 

*zDie Altpersischen Keilinschriften im Grundtexte mit Ueber- 
setzung, Grammatik und Glossar. A second edition appeared in 
1881. Spiegel also embodied in his work a history of the decipher 
ment. 

 86 BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA 

II 

It was by the roundabout way of the old Persian 
inscriptions that the approach to the decipherment of 
the cuneiform material, found in such abundance 
through the excavations conducted during the past 
seventy years in the mounds covering Babylonian and 
Assyrian cities, was made. Even before Botta's finds at 
Khorsabad arrived at the Louvre, it was apparent from 
the few specimens of cuneiform inscriptions from the 
Euphrates Valley brought to London by Rich early in 
the nineteenth century,53 that the script was of the same 
style as Class III on the trilingual inscriptions from 
Perseopolis and neighboring districts. It was some 
time, however, before the obvious conclusion was drawn 
that Class III represented the script and language used 
in Babylonia and Assyria. Grotefeud began, in 1814, 
to publish the results of his study of the writing of 
Class III on the few inscriptions that had come from 
Babylonia, but it was not until 1818 that he recognized 
the identity of the two and explained the variations as 
merely incidental—modifications of the same order as 
the differences in handwritings. He also recognized 
the much larger number of combinations of wedges 
forming the signs in Class III and in the inscrip 
tions from Babylonia. Indeed, by the year '1819 he 
had distinguished no less than 287 signs. -For all 
that, he assumed that the Babylonian cuneiform 
also represented, like the Persian variety, an al 
phabetic script, though with this modification, 
that the sign varied according to the vowel ac 
companying a consonant. In this way he hoped to 
account for the larger number of signs in Class III as 
against Class I. 

As more and more inscriptions were brought out of 
the mounds at Khorsabad, at Mmrud, at Kouyunjik and 
Kaleh-Shergat and subsequently from the mounds in 

30 Above, p. 14. 

 CUNEIFORM DECIPHERMENT 87 

the south, the identity of both the Assyrian and Baby 
lonian varieties of cuneiform characters with Class III 
of the Persepolitan inscriptions was confirmed, and at 
the same time the nature of the variations—entirely 
secondary in character—came to be better understood. 
There was no longer any doubt that Class III rep 
resented the variety of cuneiform writing used in 
Babylonia and Assyria and, therefore, also the 
language spoken in these countries. Because of the 
accident that the first large finds were made at north 
ern mounds, i.e., on the site of Assyrian cities, the 
language of Class III was designated as Assyrian, 
and the science that grew up out of the discoveries 
in the northern and southern mounds, Assyriology. 
Since, however, the north owes her civilization, her 
literature and art largely to the south, it is more 
proper to speak of the language ^as Babylonian or as 
Babylonian-Assyrian. 

That Persian kings should commemorate themselves 
and their deeds in the language of Babylonia and 
Assyria in addition to doing so in the official language 
of the kingdom was quite natural, seeing that the old 
realm of Babylonia and Assyria formed one of the most 
important of the lands conquered by Cyrus and re 
tained by his successors, just as the third variety of 
cuneiform script on the monuments of Persian rulers 

—Class II—proved to be54 the language of the large 
district of Elam within which the Persian kings had 
established their capital cities, Persepolis, Susa and 
Ecbatana. 

The Babylonian on all the trilingual inscriptions 
from ancient Persia was evidently a translation. The 
inscription in old Persian as the official language of the 
kingdom was the original—occupying, therefore, 
always the "first or most prominent position of the three 

—of which those in the two other varieties of script 

54 See below, p. 107 seq. 

 88 BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA 

were translations. The decipherment of Class I, there 
fore, served as a vantage point for attacking Class III, 
old Persian cuneiform furnishing the same aid in de 
ciphering Babylonian cuneiform script as the Greek 
translation on the Rosetta stone served in laying the 
foundation for the reading of the Egyptian hiero 
glyphics. In both cases, as indeed in the decipherment 
of any unknown script, the beginning was made with 
proper names, which could be picked out through a 
comparison of their relative position in inscriptions of 
Class I and Class III, or in the case of the Rosetta 
Stone, by a study of their relative position in the Greek 
and hieroglyphic texts. When proper names occurred 
more than once in any inscription or occurred in several 
inscriptions, as was the case in the old Persian monu 
ments, most of which dated from Darius and Xerxes, 
there could of course be no difficulty in picking out in 
Class III the series of signs corresponding to these 
names in Class I. The case was somewhat more difficult 
when a proper name occurred only once, since Class III 
did not have the very convenient diagonal wedge 
separating words from one another, but, on the other 
hand, with a large number of names, both of persons 
and places revealed through the large inscription at 
Behistun, the constant occurrence of the same signs 
in a variety of names that could be read in Class I 
furnished a control in picking out the series of signs in 
Class III, corresponding to any particular name in 
Class I. 

The early decipherers like Lowenstern,88 Long- 

BB Essai de dechiffrement de I'ecriture assyrienne pour servir 
a I'explication du monument de Ehorsdbad (Paris, 1845). Lowen- 
Btern attempted to explain the Khorsabad inscriptions without hav 
ing recourse to the Persian inscriptions, with results that were 
naturally disastrous. He did guess correctly that the Assyrians 
spoke a Semitic language, but this led him to make the absurd 
attempt to explain the cuneiform characters as modifications of 
Hebrew letters. 

 CUNEIFORM DECIPHERMENT 89 

perier66 and SaulcyB7 floundered about considerably. 
Botta, the successful explorer of Khorsabad, alone 
made a really valuable contribution by his careful study 
of the numerous inscriptions found by him and which 
showed a large number of words evidently identical and 
yet written in different ways. By making a list of 
these variants he paved the way for the discovery made 
by Hincks—that the Babylonian-Assyrian script was 
not alphabetical but syllabic and ideographic, that is to 
say, that words were written by means of signs, each 
having a syllabic value, or by means of a single sign 
standing for the word. This discovery was announced 
by Hincks, in 1847,88 and threw an entirely new light 
on the character of the third variety of cuneiform 
script. With signs expressing syllables or standing for 
entire words, it at once became clear why there should 
be so many signs in this variety of script. The variant 
ways of writing the same word, as shown by Botta, also 
became clear. Not only could a word be written by a 
single sign used ideographically or by a series of signs, 
each having a syllabic value, but since syllables were 
of three kinds, (a) consonant and vowel, (b) vowel and 
consonant, (c) consonant, vowel and consonant, it was 
possible to write a word syllabically in various ways. 
Thus the word for god, ilu, could be written by a single 
sign or it could be spelled out and written by two signs 
t and lu; and if, e.g., the syllable lab formed part of a 
word, it might be written by one sign having that value 

50 Several articles in the Revue Archeologique for 1847 in reply 
to Lowenstern's second work, Expose dcs elements constitutifs du 
systeme de la troisieme ecriture cuneifortne de Persepolis (Paris, 
1847). 

57 Becherches sur I'ecriture cuneiforme du systeme Assyrian 
(Paris, 1849). Both Longperier and Saulcy made some correct and 
ingenious guesses, by the side, however, of so many errors that their 
work did not mark any real progress. 

68 On the Third Persepolitan Writing, etc. (Transactions of 
the Royal Irish Academy, vol. xxi, Part II, pp. 249-256.) 

 90 BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA 

or further subdivided into la and db and written with" 
two signs. Until this discovery was made by Hincks 
there was no certainty even as to the reading of the 
proper names that could be picked out in Class III 
through comparison with Class I. The signs constitut 
ing the names could be chosen, but since the number of 
signs forming a name in Class III did not agree with 
the number in Class I, it was evidently impossible to 
determine the value of each sign. Guess followed upon 
guess, conjecture upon conjecture, until Hincks defi 
nitely demonstrated the general character of the script 
of Class III, which represented the same language as 
that found on the monuments of Assyria and Baby 
lonia. It was now possible by a comparison between 
proper names in Classes I and III of the Persepolitan 
inscriptions to read the syllabic equivalents in Class III 
for the alphabetical signs in Class I. Thus, e.g., the 
seven signs representing the name Xerxes in Class I 

Kh.sh(a).y.a.r.sh.a 
corresponded to six signs in Class III, to be read 

Khi-shi- 'i-ar-shi-i. 
Similarly the seven signs in Class I for the name Darius 

D.a.r.h.e.u.sh 

corresponded to five signs in Class III, the correct 
reading of which turned out to be 

Da-ri- 'i-a-mush 
but which might also be written with six signs 

Da-ri- 'i-a-a-mush. 

The word designating these rulers as Achsemenians ap 
peared in Class I as 

H(a) .kh.a.m(a) .n.i.sh.i.y(a). 
These nine signs were represented in Class III by seven 
signs to be read 

A-kha-ma-an-nish-shi- 'i 
or by eight signs 

A-kha-ma-an-ni-ish-shi- 'i 

 CUNEIFORM DECIPHERMENT 91 

since nisK could be written either by one sign or by two 
(ni and ish). An important result of Hincks' in 
vestigations, which greatly facilitated the picking out 
of proper names, both in Class III and in the unilingual 
inscriptions of Assyria and Babylonia, was the observa 
tion that names of persons were preceded by a vertical 
wedge, names of gods by a sign which signified 
"heaven," while names of countries and of cities also 
had special "determinatives," as they were called. It 
was thus possible to be quite certain as to the beginning 
of names at least, whether in the trilingual or in the 
unilingual inscriptions. A secure basis for determin 
ing the correct reading of signs occurring in proper 
names was obtained upon the recognition of the fact 
that the vowels alone represented the alphabetic ele 
ment in the Assyrian and Babylonian cuneiform script. 
It was now possible also to proceed with a greater feel 
ing of assurance to the reading of ordinary words in 
Class III, such as'' son," " king," " country," " father,'' 
"god," "heaven," "earth," which occurred with suffi 
cient frequency to enable scholars, by a comparison 
with Class I, to pick out the series of signs or the single 
sign with which they were written. At this juncture, 
in 1851,69 Henry Rawlinson again appeared on the 
scene with the publication of the Babylonian section 
(i.e., Class III) of the great Behistun inscription.60 
Accepting Hincks' principle of the syllabism of the 
Babylonian cuneiform, he was enabled through the 
comparison of the several hundred names of persons 
and places occurring in Class I with the corresponding 
manner of writing these names in Class III—now 
rendered comparatively simple through the observation 
of the determinatives preceding names of persons, cities 
and countries,—to settle the value of a very large 
number of the signs, in fact over 200 of them. This 

BB Analysis of the Babylonian Text at Behistun (Journal of the 
Royal Asiatic Society, vol. xiv, pp. i-civ). 
60 See above, p. 83. 

 92 BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA 

marked a great progress indeed. Rawlinson was also 
enabled to add to the number of ideographic writings 
that could be regarded as certain, including the signs 
designating son, father, great, lord and more the like. 
Hincks followed up his own researches by preparing 
lists of the Assyro-Babylonian characters and by 1855 
he had fixed the value of 252 combinations of wedges. 

The investigations of Hincks and Rawlinson had 
shown beyond possible doubt another fact which at first 
sight seemed very strange, that a single sign could have 
more than one syllabic value. To this feature the name 
"polyphony" was given; and though the proposition 
encountered opposition, it was not long before it re 
placed the supposed "homophony," proposed by 
Lb'wenstern, according to which different signs were 
supposed to have the same value; and that in this way 
the existence of so many signs was to be accounted 
for. Jules Oppert, who in 1855 gave a survey of the 
stage reached in the decipherment of Babylonian 
cuneiform, came to the support of Hincks and Rawlin 
son and showed that even a larger number of signs than 
Hincks had suspected had more than one sound, and it 
subsequently turned out that outside of the vowels the 
number that had only one syllabic value was very 
limited. 

We owe to Oppert also the utilization of an impor 
tant help for determining the various syllabic values 
for a sign and for proving that corresponding to "poly 
phony" we have also the phenomenon of "polyide- 
ography" in Babylonian cuneiform, that is to say, the 
circumstance that the same sign may also stand for 
several words, though usually in some logical connec 
tion with each other. Among the tablets of Ashur- 
banapal's library brought to the British Museum by 
Layard,61 were long lists of signs arranged in columns. 
Oppert went to the British Museum to study these lists 
and found that they formed part of a large text-book 

61 See above, p. 22, seq. 

 CUNEIFORM DECIPHERMENT 93 

literature prepared by Babylonian and Assyrian scribes 
to facilitate instruction in cuneiform writing. The 
lists were of various kinds, consisting usually of three 
columns with a single sign in the central column and a 
series of signs in each of the two other columns. Hincks 
had recognized that in some of these lists the signs in 
the right hand column were intended to indicate the 
syllabic value of the sign in the central column. Thus 
a certain sign ^IT was repeated three times in the central 
column, while the right hand column contained different 
signs, as follows : 

Hlf = 

The value of the signs of the right hand column having 
been determined from a comparison of proper names 
of Class III with those of Class I of the Persepolitan 
inscriptions, Hincks could interpret the lines as 
follows : 

The sign HTf has the syllabic value of li-ib 

« » " » » « « » da-an 

" " " " " " " " ka-al. 

TEat is to say the sign in question may be read in the 
composition of words as lib, dan or kdl, as the case may 
be. It will readily be seen how with long lists of such 
signs, the principle of syllabism and polyphony was not 
only definitely confirmed, but the syllabic values of the 
signs were ascertained with equal definiteness. It is 
one of the many merits of Oppert to have demonstrated 
the full significance of these syllabaries (as the lists 
were called) in the further progress of decipherment. 
The right hand column in some of these syllabaries con 
tained a series of signs which furnished in syllabic 
writing the words which a sign represented, or in other 

 94 BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA 

words the ideographic values, while the left hand 
column furnished the syllabic values. Thus in the case 
of a sign •$& we had a series as follows : 

ki-i 15& it-tu, "side" 

" " asli-ru, "place" 

" " ir-si-tu, "earth" 

which meant that the sign in question as an ideograph 
could be read ittu, asliru or irsitu with the meanings 
"side," "place" and "earth" respectively, while when 
used as a syllable entering in the composition, written 
syllabically it had the value ki, so that a word kirib 
meaning "within" could be written by the sign ^M 
(i.e., ki) and the sign j^TIT which, in addition to the 
syllabic values above e2 pointed out, has also the value 
rib. Again, a sign ^QJ appeared in a list as follows: 

shi-ti tfSI me-nu-tu, "number" 

ag " it-ku," strong" 

la-ag " kir-ba-an-nu, "offering" 

i.e., the sign in question as an ideograph could be read 
in one of the three fashions indicated, while correspond 
ing to the three ideographic values, there were also 
three syllabic values. An invaluable aid had thus been 
secured for the reading of the Assyrian and Babylonian 
inscriptions and an aid, moreover, whose authenticity 
could not be doubted, since we had before us the syllabic 
and ideographic values of the signs that the school 
masters of ancient Mesopotamia had themselves com 
piled as a help towards reading the inscriptions on the 
monuments and with a view of initiating their pupils 
into the method of writing cuneiform, as well as 
reading it. 

Now to be sure the existence of various syllabic and 
ideographic values for one and the same sign added to 
the difficulty of reading inscriptions of Class III, but it 

ez Page 93. 

 CUNEIFORM DECIPHERMENT 95 

was not long before, through the combined efforts again 
of Hincks, Rawlinson and Oppert, it was found that the 
Babylonian and Assyrian scribes used certain devices 
to simplify the cumbersomeness of their cuneiform 
script. In case of a sign X which could be read lib, dan, 
kal, rib, etc., the final consonant was frequently re 
peated by following up the sign in question with a sign 
beginning with that consonant. Thus, if after the sign 
in question, a sign Y was written which had the value 
bi, it was an indication that the preceding sign was lib; 
if the next sign, however, was li, it was an indication 
that in that particular instance the sign X was to be 
read kal; if the next sign was nin, it indicated that the 
sign was to be read dan. Besides, when once the char 
acter of the Babylonian language was ascertained, it 
was possible, in a large number of cases, to decide with 
out difficulty which of several values attached to a sign 
should be chosen in order to produce a word which could 
represent either a possible verbal form or a noun 
formation in the language. 

This brings us to the important question as to the 
language of Class III and of the Babylonian-Assyrian 
inscriptions, and how it was possible, after spelling out 
the words of an Assyrian or Babylonian inscription to 
determine to what class of languages the words be 
longed. At first, scholars were entirely at the mercy 
of their individual guesses. Grotefend, who was the 
first to call the language Assyrian, refrained from com 
mitting himself beyond expressing his opinion that he 
could find no indications that the language belonged to 
the Semitic class. Gesenius, one of the most eminent 
Semitic scholars of his day, declared that it belonged 
to the Medo-Persian group. Philoxenus Luzatto, the 
son of a distinguished Hebrew scholar, published two 
monographs in 1849,63 in which he proposed the thesis 
that the Assyrian was allied to Sanskrit. There were 
others, however, who, starting from the Biblical tra- 

•s Le Sanscriiisme de la Langue Assyrienne, etc. (Padua, 1849). 

 96 BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA 

dition,64 which placed Ashur (or the Assyrians) among 
the sons of Shem, conjectured that the language was 
Semitic. The question could not be definitely decided 
until it was possible to reach a degree of certainty as to 
the exact way in which proper names and the most 
common words of the Assyrian inscriptions could be 
read. With the recognition of the syllabism of the 
Babylonian-Assyrian cuneiform a beginning in this 
direction was made; and when, by following the method 
introduced by Hincks and his successors, such words as 
Orbu ("father"), ra-bn-u ("great"), shar-ru ("king"), 
a-na-ku ("I") and verbal forms like i-zan-nan ("he 
beautifies"), i-kash-shad ("he conquers"), were 
spelled out,—the meanings of which were settled by a 
comparison with the corresponding words in inscrip 
tions of Class I or through the context—the comparison 
with the common Semitic noun ab for "father," with 
the Semitic stem rob ("great"), with the Hebrew sar 
("prince"), with the Hebrew pronoun of the first per 
son andki and with the common Semitic verbs zananu 
and kashddu in the sense of "adorning "and "conquer," 
the indications pointed unmistakably towards Assyrian 
as one of the group of languages known as Semitic.65 

64 Gen. 10, 22. The grouping of nations in this chapter as sons 
of Shem, Ham and Japhet has of course no scientific value, though 
the list is remarkable as an indication of the knowledge of the day 
and because of the traditions that it embodies. The division ap 
pears to be into three zones. The peoples living in the northern 
zone are grouped as sons of Japhet, those in the middle as sons of 
Shem and those in the south as sons of Ham. Babylonia is placed in 
the southern zone, Assyria in the northern. The chapter is com 
posite in character and full of late insertions and glosses. The 
system is abandoned in the case of the Canaanites, who are placed 
among the sons of Ham because of the hostile feelings of the 
Hebrews towards them. 

*B It is now customary to range the Semitic languages into two 
groups: (1) Northern Semitic to which Hebrew, Phoenician and 
the various dialects of Aramaic and Syriac and Babylonian-Assyrian 
belong, and (2) Southern—Arabic, Himyaritic, Ethiopic with their 

 CUNEIFORM DECIPHERMENT 97 

The peculiarities of the Semitic languages are so 
marked that one cannot long be in doubt in the case of 
a new language discovered whether it belongs to the 
group or not. The forms or moods of the Semitic verb 
are also of a stereotyped character, and a Semitist can 
tell almost at a glance whether any given verbal form is 
a possible one in a Semitic language. Furthermore the 
agreement in vocabulary among the Semitic languages 
is also considerable, though this varies naturally among 
the subdivisions of the group. Step by step, little by 
little, the difficulties were overcome, one problem after 
the other was solved until, in 1857, a test was made 
which showed that the decipherment of Assyrian rested 
on a firm basis. At the suggestion of H. Fox Talbot, 
who was among the early students of Assyriology, an 
Assyrian historical text was chosen and four scholar's 
—Hincks, Rawlinsoii, Oppert and Talbot himself— 
agreed to send to the Royal Asiatic Society a transla 
tion independently made. No translation of the in 
scription had ever been published. The plan was car 
ried out, and the commission appointed to compare the 
four translations6e found the agreement to be so com 
plete in all essentials as to carry conviction even to 
those who had hitherto questioned the soundness of 
the method pursued. But the skeptics were not all 
silenced, and even when a few years later another re 
markable confirmation of the correctness of the de 
cipherment was quite accidentally furnished, many 
scholars—among them distinguished investigators like 
Ernest Renan in France and Alfred Gutschmid in 
Germany—continued to query the results reached. The 

various dialects. Other scholars prefer a division into eastern and 
western. See on these 'divisions Brockelmann's Grundriss der 
vergleichenden Grammatik der Semitischen Sprachen (Leipzig, 
1908-1913), I, p. 5, seq. 

••Published by the Royal Asiatic Society in 1857. The text 
chosen was an inscription of Tiglath-pileser I, King of Assyria, 
who ruled c. 1130-1100 B.C. 
7 

 98 BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA 

reason for the doubt still existing in the minds of such 
scholars as Renan and Gutschmid 6T was due largely to 
the difficulty of accounting for the polyphonic char 
acter of the signs and to the puzzling complications in 
the writing of native Assyrian and Babylonian names 
of persons and places, in consequence of their being 
written in part ideographically and in part syllabically. 
It was natural to raise the question, since writing is a 
medium of expressing facts and ideas, why a people 
should have developed a script so confusing that each 
sign might have one of several values, and furthermore 
how could one ever be sure in the case of signs used 
ideographically that any proposed reading was the 
correct one, since a sign could stand for a number of 
words, even though there was an association of ideas 
between the words so represented ? The answer to these 
questions could not be furnished until some light had 
been thrown on the origin of cuneiform writing. That 
the wedge-shaped signs represented originally pictures 
and were modifications of hieroglyphics was to be con 
cluded from the fact that a sign could stand for an 
entire word. In the case of some of the signs, the 
pictorial origin was, moreover, quite apparent. Thus, 
the sign for "god" and "heaven" which had ordinarily 
the form ȴ--, in older inscriptions, particularly in 
those found in mounds of the south, had a form like 4fc 
and it was an obvious conclusion that this represented 
a star. A sign >S signifying "hand" showed even in 
this late form its origin from a picture of the fingers 
of the hand; nor was it difficult to recognize in the form 
J^ffT, standing for "house", its development from the 
picture of some kind of construction, especially when 
one compared the late form with a more elaborate one 
B8, found in some inscriptions of an older period or 

87 Renan voiced his doubts in an elaborate criticism of Oppert's 
Expedition scientifique en Mesopotamia, published in the Journal 
des Savants for 1859, pp. 165-186; 244r-260; 360-68; Gutschmid in 
Neue Beitrage zur Geschichte des alten Orients (Leipzig, 1876). 

 CUNEIFORM DECIPHERMENT 99 

which imitated the older forms of the script. Oppert, 
as far back as 1856, had shown that the sign fK signi 
fying "fish" had been evolved from the picture of a 
fish, the outlines of which—head, body, tail and fins— 
could still be distinguished in a more archaic form $ , 
found on Babylonian monuments. As a means of 
facilitating the reading of signs used ideographically, 
Oppert and others had also pointed out the use of a sign 
intended to be read syllabically and placed after an 
ideograph to indicate the final syllable of the word 
designated. By means of this phonetic complement it 
was possible to feel certain, e.g., that the sign for "god" 
and "heaven" when followed by a sign having the value 
tu was to be read etitu, "upper"; a sign that could stand 
for umu (day), urru (light) and shamshu (sun) was to 
be read as urn if followed by mu, whereas if "sun" was 
intended, it was accompanied by a phonetic complement 
shu or shi or ash, which indicated that it was to be read 
shamshu^nominative case), sJiamsJii(gen.), or shamash 
(construct state). All this was of some help, but un 
certainty still existed in very many cases, and even 
the explanation of the hieroglyphic origin of the wedges 
did not account for the many values that a sign used 
phonetically might have, for there seemed to be no con 
nection between the syllabic and ideographic values. 

It was again the ingenuity of Hincks that suggested 
the solution. In a paper read before the British Asso 
ciation for the Advancement of Science, in 1850,68 
Hincks threw out the hint that while the oldest cunei 
form writing—that of Class III and the Assyrian- 
Babylonian inscriptions—was Semitic, the origin of the 
script was not Semitic. He based this view upon the 
insufficiency of the cuneiform syllabary for distinguish 
ing between softer and harder palatals and dentals 
that form an ingredient of the consonantal system in 

"On the Language and the Mode of Writing of the Ancient 
Assyrians (Transactions of the twentieth meeting of the British 
Association for the Advancement of Science, p. 140, seg.). 

 100 BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA 

the Semitic languages, and that in other respects it 
was not suitable for writing words belonging to a lan 
guage of the Semitic group. He drew the inference 
that the writing had been adopted by the Bab3Tlonians 
and Assyrians from some Indo-European people which 
had conquered the country; he expressed the further 
belief that this people had relations with Egypt from 
which the cuneiform script was ultimately drawn. 
Rawlinson at first also accepted the Egyptian origin 
of the cuneiform script, but afterwards advanced the 
view that the people who conquered Babylonia and im 
posed their script on the country were Scythians—a 
view that was modified by Oppert to the extent of desig 
nating the language of the inventors as Casdo-Scythian, 
and who compared it to some of the languages of the 
Turanian group of Russia. On the assumption of a 
foreign origin for the cuneiform script, it was possible 
to explain the circumstance that there was no agree 
ment between the ideographic and the syllabic values 
of a sign. The syllabic values represented the non- 
Semitic words which were the equivalents in the lan 
guage of the inventors to the ideographic values of the 
sign in the Semitic idiom of Babylonia. Thus, if in the 
class of three-columned syllabaries above referred to,09 
we find the sign >tf- in the middle column, explained as 
follows: 

an »}- ilu 

This meant that an was the equivalent in Casdo- 
Scythian for the Semitic ilu,t1 god.'' The Babylonians, 
when adopting the foreign script, conceived the idea 
of using the non-Semitic word an as a syllable with 
which to write words—particularly verbal forms and 
inflected nouns—which could not well be expressed 
ideographically. Thus the non-Semitic word an would 
be used syllabically to write a Semitic word ending in 
an like dan-an. The theory assumed that the inventors 

88 Above, p. 92, seq. 

 CUJXKLb'OKM DUJCJLPHJEltAlJENT 101 

of the script used it as an ideographic medium, and that 
the borrowers took the forward step of converting it 
into a mixed ideographic and syllabic script. In this 
way the various syllabic values of a sign admitted of a 
reasonable explanation, while the various ideographic 
values could in most cases be accounted for by asso 
ciation of ideas. The case would be analogous if the 
French had adopted a form of sign-writing from the 
English, and at the same time used the English sounds 
of the signs to spell words in their own language, while 
the same sign when standing for a word would of course 
be read as a French word. Thus the French word del 
would be written with the sign, which would be read 
"heaven" in English, or it would be written syllabically 
ci + el, in which case the sign which in English desig 
nated "sea" would be used because it had the same 
sound as the first syllable of the French word for 
heaven, while the second syllable would be written by 
the English sign for "ell," because the sound of the 
English word fitted the case. In the same way, the 
Babylonians wrote their words in non-Semitic form 
but pronounced them as Semitic. 

The designation Scj^thian or Casdo-Scj^thian was 
vehemently contested by various scholars. Rawlinson 
himself abandoned it in 1855 in favor of Akkadian, be 
cause of the frequency with which the name Akkadian— 
occurring as Akkad also in Gen. 10,10—was mentioned 
in the Babylonian and Assyrian inscriptions. In 1869,70 
Oppert, basing his arguments on the occurrence of the 
title, "king of Siimer71 and Akkad" in the inscriptions 
of very ancient rulers, proposed the term Sumerians 

70 Observations siir I'origine des Chaldeens, in the Comptes- 
Kendus de la Societe franchise de Numismatique et d'Areheologie. 
I, pp. 73-76. 

71 Suraer is represented in the Old Testament as Shinar, e.g., in 
Gen. 11, 2, where mankind is described as congregated in the "valley 
of Shinar"; in Gen. 14, 1, Amraphel, who is Hammurapi, is desig 
nated as "King of Shinar." See above, p. 4, note 3. 

 102 BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA 

for the non-Semitic settlers of the Euphrates Valley, 
and Akkadians for the Semitic population. This view, 
after a long controversy with many changes of front 
on the part of scholars, has been finally demonstrated 
to be the correct one. 

But who were these Sumerians? Where did they 
come from? And what was the nature of the language 
which they spoke? Before taking up this question a 
few words need to be said about a long and animated 
controversy regarding Sumerian and the Sumerians 
which began in 1874, and which has continued down 
to the present time. While the theory of the non- 
Semitic origin and character of the cuneiform script 
seemed to furnish an explanation for some of the prob 
lems involved in so complicated and comprehensive a 
form of writing as the Babylonians developed and 
passed on to the Assyrians, new difficulties arose as 
more material was brought out of the mounds, difficul 
ties that did not appear to be met by the Sumerian 
theory as we may briefly call it. In the first place it 
was observed that many of the syllabic values of the 
signs were portions of a Semitic word for which the 
sign stood. So a sign *s3\& which, both in syllabaries 
and in texts, stood for the word resliu, "head," has as 
its syllabic values sag and risk. The former was the 
non-Semitic word for head, according to the Sumerian 
theory, but the other value, risk, evidently stood in 
some relationship to the Semitic equivalent of the sign 
used as an ideograph. Again, if among the syllabic 
values of a sign which stands for the Semitic dannu, 
"strong," we find dan, it was evident that this value 
was an abbreviation of the Semitic word. Such in 
stances began to multiply and when it was found that 
at least one hundred syllabic values had all the appear 
ance of representing parts of Semitic words, the con 
clusion was forced upon scholars that the Babylonian- 
Assyrian syllabary was in part at least Semitic. To 
account for this the adherents of the Sumerian theory 

 CUNEIFORM DECIPHERMENT 103 

maintained that the Babylonians after adopting the 
non-Semitic mode of writing and taking the step of con 
verting it from an ideographic to a mixed ideographic 
and syllabic script, continued to develop cuneiform 
writing and added to the Sumerian words employed as 
syllabic values, parts of the Semitic words for which 
the signs stood, but used likewise as syllabic values. 
Meanwhile, cuneiform texts of the older period were 
coming to light from mounds in the south, from which 
it became clear that the Assyrian civilization was merely 
an offshoot of the culture that arose in the south, in 
the Euphrates Valley. It was therefore in the south 
that the solution of the problem as to the origin of the 
culture and the script was to be sought. Now, as one 
proceeded backwards, the texts appeared to be more 
and more ideographic in character. Ere long texts were 
found which seemed to be entirely ideographic, and 
such texts increased largely in numbers with the un 
earthing of the ancient city of Shirpurla (or Lagash) 
through de Sarzec.72 The inscriptions on the many 
statues and votive offerings of Gudea and of other 
rulers were written in the older style, which scholars 
now began to regard as Sumerian; and yet even on these 
monuments Semitic words appeared and again some of 
the oldest inscriptions of the south were clearly Semitic 
and not Sumerian. 

What did all this mean? If the Sumerians origi 
nated the Sumerian culture and were the inventors of 
the script, we should expect to find the oldest inscrip 
tions to be in Sumerian and, what is more, in pure 
Sumerian; and it ought also to be possible to recon 
struct the original language of the cuneiform script in 
such a way as to place the language in some definite 
group, as the Babylonian and the Persian cuneiform 
had been. Various attempts of this kind to find affilia 
tions between Sumerian and Turkish or between Su 
merian and some Ural-Altaic groups failed. It was 

72 Above, p. 39 seq. 

 104 BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA 

therefore natural that a doubt should have arisen 
whether the Sumerian represented a real language or 
whether the Sumerians, if they existed, were the origi 
nators of the culture and the inventors of the script. 
The Sumerian theory manifested at first such weak 
nesses that one of the most eminent Semitists of his day, 
Joseph Halevy, was led to put forward the thesis that 
what scholars regarded as the Sumerian language was 
nothing but an older ideographic method of writing the 
Semitic Akkadian or Babylonian, which, in the course 
of its evolution, had adopted many more or less arti 
ficial devices for expressing niceties of thought and 
grammatical complications. The thesis carried with it 
the Semitic origin of the Euphratean culture and prac 
tically eliminated the Sumerians altogether. Sumer 
and Akkad as they appeared on the tablets of early 
rulers in the Euphrates Valley were purely geograph 
ical designations of the southern and northern portions 
of the valley respectively.73 Even the opponents of 
Halevy were obliged to admit that he had revealed weak 
points in the Sumerian theory and it is due to him 
that Assyriology was deflected from the erroneous direc 
tion into which it had turned. It is now admitted that 
many of the hymns and incantations which scholars 
had been accustomed to regard as Sumerian are com 
paratively late compositions, or that they have come 
down to us in a late revised form betraying Semitic 
influences. It is also generally admitted to a larger 
extent than was formerly the case that the Semitic 
settlers of Babylonia had a large share in perfecting 

73 It is not possible to present more than a bare outline of 
Halevy's thesis, which has many ramifications. He has written 
voluminously and always with critical acumen on the subject. For 
details the reader is referred to Halevy's articles in the Revue 
Semitique edited by him. An epitome of his theory will be found 
in his recent work, Precis d'Allographie Assyro-Bdbylonienne 
(Paris, 1912). A summary of the controversy up to 1898 will be 
found in P. H. Weissbach's Die Sumerische Frage (Leipzig, 1898). 

 CUNEIFORM DECIPHERMENT 105 

the cuneiform syllabary, that many texts which are 
written ideographically are in reality Semitic com 
positions and are to be read as such, and that even in 
genuine Sumerian texts Semitic influence is apparent; 
but for all that, evidence sufficient in both quantity and 
-quality has been brought forward to show that the early 
population of the Euphrates Valley was mixed in char 
acter, that by the side of Semites we find a Turanian 
race clearly depicted on the monuments and demarcated 
by their physiognomies and by differences of costume 
from the Semitic population. 

We owe to Eduard Mover74 the definite establish 
ment of this thesis. On the linguistic side, evidence 
for the existence of a Sumerian language has recently 
been brought forward which does not rest upon guess- 
work or on pure conjecture, but is made conclusive by 
the study of the oldest texts of Babylonia. As long as 
Sumerian was simply to be deduced from the ideo 
graphic values of the signs, one was justified in doubt 
ing whether we were in the presence of a real language, 
for since ideographs could be read as Semitic as well 
as Sumerian, it was indeed possible to regard a "Su 
merian" inscription as merely another form of writing 
Babylonian—a very artificial form to be sure and yet, 
since all writing is a more or less artificial device, a 
possible form. When, however, the proof was fur 
nished from the texts that Sumerian words could be 
written phonetically as wrell as ideographically, that 
even in Sumerian the device existed of writing a word 
as in Babylonian either by a single sign representing 
the word or by signs representing the syllables of which 
it is composed, there could no longer be any question 
as to the genuine linguistic character of Sumerian. In 
addition to the evidence for phonetic writing, which 
became more and more abundant as scholars penetrated 
deeper into the study of the oldest texts from ancient 

74 Sumerier und Scmiten in Babylonien (Berlin, 1906). 

 106 BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA 

Babylonian centres,75 the proof of a fixed grammatical 
structure for nouns and verbal forms was furnished in 
a manner to carry conviction to the minds of those who 
had hitherto maintained a skeptical or non-committal 
attitude towards the linguistic evidence. 

Taking up now the question who these Sumerians 
were, an impartial verdict must confess that the prob 
lem still remains obscure. We know that they were not 
Semites; their features as depicted on the monuments 
reveal a Turanian type, but the term Turanian is too 
vague to furnish any definite clue. Various indications 
point to their having come from a mountainous region. 
They brought the worship of their native gods with 
them, and the nature of these deities suggests their 
having had their original seats on the tops of moun 
tains. It is to the Sumerians that we owe the construc 
tion of the stage-towers of which remains have been 
found in all the important centres of Babylonia and 
Assyria. Built in imitation of mountains with an imi 
tation of a mountain road leading to the sanctuary at 
the top, it is reasonable to conclude that the thought of 
housing the gods in this way arose in the minds of a 
people accustomed to the worship of gods whose seats 
were on mountain peaks. There is other evidence 
pointing in the same direction of an original mountain 
home whence the Sumerians came at a remote period to 
settle in the Euphrates Valley. Now there are moun 
tains to the east and north-east of Babylonia, and it is 

75 We owe largely to P. Thureau-Dangin the progress made 
during the past decade in the interpretation of these texts. See 
especially this author's Les Inscriptions de Sumer et d'Akkad(Pa,ris, 
1905); also in German translation, Die Sumerischen und Akkad- 
ischen K&nigsinschriften (Leipzig, 1907). See now, for an exposi 
tion of Sumerian grammar, Delitzsch's Grundzuge der Sumerischen 
Grammatik (Leipzig, 1914) and Dr. Arno Poebel's volume of 
Sumerian grammatical texts in the publication above referred to 
(page 46) and which represents a further advance on Delitzsch's 
investigations. 

 CUNEIFORM DECIPHERMENT 107 

therefore possible that the Sumerians entered the 
Valley from this side—perhaps under pressure of other 
mountain hordes coming from the north. But they 
may also have come, as has been recently maintained, 
from mountainous districts to the northwest of Meso 
potamia. Whether the Sumerians already found the 
Semites in possession of Babylonia and then conquered 
them, or whether the Sumerians were the earliest 
settlers and founded the culture in that district is 
another question that has not been definitely decided, 
with the evidence, however, in favor of the view that 
the Semites were the first on the ground and that they 
had already made some advance in culture when the 
Sumerians swept down on them and imposed their rule 
and such culture as they brought with them on the 
older settlers. 

Ill 

Here we may rest our survey of the decipherment 
of the Babylonian-Assyrian cuneiform writing, which 
we have followed from the successful unraveling of the 
old Persian inscriptions down to the time when a secure 
basis for the decipherment of Class III had been se 
cured. The appearance, in 1859, of the "Expedition 
scientifique en Mesopotamie executee de 1851 a 1854, "76 
the second volume of which contained Oppert's analysis 
of the principles of the decipherment, may be said to 
mark the termination of the second period of cuneiform 
research, as the publication, in 1849-51, of Rawlinson's 
researches in the old Persian inscriptions closed the 
first period. The third period, marked by continuous 
publications of Babylonian and Assyrian texts, chiefly 
by French and English Assyriologists, is one of steady 
progress in perfecting the details of the decipherment. 
New ideographic and syllabic values were constantly 
being discovered, improved readings took the place of 

™ The account of the French expedition above referred to 
(P- 28). 

 108 BABYLONIA AND ASSYKIA 

earlier imperfect ones, and the beginnings were made 
towards a systematic treatment of the grammatical 
features of the Babylonian language, or Assyrian as 
it continued to be called. Skepticism, however, still 
existed in some quarters and it was not until the ap 
pearance, in 1872, of Eberhard Schrader's Die As- 
syrisch-Babylonischen Keilinschriften" that what 
may be called the "trial" period came to an end.78 

The fourth period of cuneiform research is marked 
by the participation of German scholarship, which, since 
the pioneer work of Grotefend, had rather held aloof 
in the further struggle to unravel the mysteries of the 
various kinds of cuneiform script. 

Excepting Grotefend, the work in Assyriology was 
carried on by English and French scholars, unless we 
count Jules Oppert, who was born in Hamburg, but 
who, as a young man, came to Paris and settled there 
for the remainder of his life,79 among German scholars. 
Eberhard Schrader was the first among the students of 
Oriental languages in Germany to take up Assyriology 
and when, in 1875, the University of Berlin decided to 
introduce the subject, Schrader was called to fill the 
chair and continued active till within a few years of 
his death, in 1908. Schrader's thoroughness and sound 
ness of scholarship did much to gain the confidence of 
German scholars in general in the results of the de 
cipherment, and after Gutschmidt's attack in 1876, all 
opposition practically ceased. Schrader brought to his 

77 Published in the Zeits. d. Dcutsch. Morgenlandischen Gesell- 
schaft, vol. xxvi, pp. 1-392; and then as a separate volume. 

78 Giitschmid's answer to Schrader (above, p. 98) appeared in 
1876, but it failed to make any deep impression. 

79 See the sketch by W. Muss-Arnolt of Oppert's life, with a 
complete bibliography, in the Beitrdge zur Assyriologie, vol. ii, 
pp. 523-556. No adequate biography of Edward Hincks has to my 
knowledge as yet appeared. A brief sketch with a complete bibli 
ography, compiled by Dr. Cyrus Adler, will be found in the Journal 
of the American Oriental Society, vol. xiii and xiv. 

 CUNEIFORM DECIPHERMENT 109 

task that philological nicety for which German scholar 
ship has so long been distinguished, and of which at 
that time cuneiform research stood much in need. 
Schrader's enthusiasm for the study attracted a number 
of young scholars to him, among them Friedrich De- 
litzsch, the son of the distinguished theologian, Franz 
Delitzsch. Young Delitzsch became the founder of the 
present German school of Assyriology. First establish 
ing himself as Privat-Dozent for Assyriology at Leip 
zig, then called to Breslau to occupy the chair of 
Assyriology, and in 1906, to Berlin, he has in the course 
of his career trained the largest percentage of Assyri- 
ologists of Germany and a large proportion of those in 
other parts of the world, notably in the United States 
and Canada; and those of the present day who did not 
sit directly at his feet have imbibed inspiration from 
Delitzsch's fruitful researches or have been pupils of 
Delitzsch's pupils.80 

The activity at the present time in all branches of 
Assyriology is largely due to the stimulus given to the 
study by Delitzsch and his pupils. The museums of 
London, Berlin, Paris and Philadelphia are steadily 
issuing new texts. Specialization within Assyriology 
has set in. Some scholars are devoting themselves to 
the extensive business and commercial literature, 
others to the religious texts and the development of the 
religious ideas and the cult, others to the study of 
Babylonian-Assyrian history, some to the linguistic 
problems, some to the further elucidation of the 
Sumerian texts and so forth. 

Through the combined activity of scholars of many 
lands, supplementing the discoveries made by explor- 

80 We owe to Delitzsch the first Assyrian Chrestomathy (As 
syrische Lesestucke, 1st ed., Leipzig, 1876; 5th ed., 1912); the first 
substantial grammar (Assyrische Grammatik, 2d ed., Leipzig, 1906, 
also English translation, Leipzig, 1889); and the first Assyrian 
Dictionary (Assyrisches Handworterbuch, Leipzig, 1896) to which 
he is now adding a supplement. 

 110 BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA 

ing expeditions, and through the interpretation of the 
material unearthed, which has grown, as we have seen, 
to such huge proportions and which is still growing, the 
civilization of Babylonia and Assyria stands revealed 
before us in all its ramifications as one of the great 
forces in the ancient history of mankind, the direct or 
indirect influence of which is to be seen in many a phase 
of our own modern culture. 

IV 

While not strictly within the limits of our subject, 
it will nevertheless be considered proper to close this 
chapter with a brief account of the decipherment of 
Class II of the trilingual inscriptions of Persepolis and 
surrounding districts. Already in his first paper on 
the Persepolitan inscriptions, Grotefend added some 
remarks on the script of Class IP which he recognized 
as more complicated than Class I, but not so com 
plicated as Class III. He continued his researches in 
this second variety from time to time and in 183781 
was able to recognize the use of a vertical wedge (as 
in Class III), placed before proper names in order to 
distinguish them. 

It was not, however, until 1844 that any decided 
success in deciphering the script of Class II was 
achieved. In that year appeared a work82 by a Danish 
scholar, Westergaard, in which, through a comparison 
of the proper names in Class II and Class I, he suc 
ceeded in assigning correct values to 18 of the signs. 
This was only a small proportion of the 111 signs to 

nNeue Beitrdge zur Erlduterung der Persepolitanischen Keil- 
schrift (Hanover, 1837). 

*aN. L. Westergaard, Zur Entzifferung der Achamenidischen 
Eeilschrift zweiter Gattung (Zeits. fur die Kunde des Morgen- 
landes, vol. vi, pp. 337-466); also published in English, On the 
Deciphering of the Second Akhcemenian or Median Species of 
arrowheaded Writing (M6moires de la Socie'te' Eoyale des Anti- 
quaires du Nord, 1840-44, pp. 271-439). 

 CUNEIFOKM DECIPHEKMENT 111 

be distinguished in Class II, but it was a beginning. 
Progress would have been more rapid had not Wester- 
gaard fallen into some serious errors which had to be 
corrected by subsequent researches. He picked out cor 
rectly the signs representing the names Cyrus, Darius, 
Xerxes, Hystaspis, Achsemenian and Persian; and he 
also recognized the mixed syllabic and alphabetic char 
acter of the script, but he erred, as was quite natural, 
in the vowel signs and in the selection of signs repre 
senting syllables and those representing merely a con 
sonant. For twenty-two signs he could not determine 
any values through the mere comparison of proper 
names. Hincks again came to the rescue in correcting 
some of Westergaard's errors. In two papers on the 
subject*3 he identified the three signs for the vowels, 
a, i, u. He recognized the determinative placed before 
the names of deities, added nine signs to those correctly 
fixed by Westergaard. The publication of the version 
of Class II in the great Behistun inscription by Edward 
Norris, in 1855,*4 to whom Rawlinson had given his 
copies and squeezes of this part of the great rock in 
scription, marked a decided advance through the recog 
nition by Norris of the close relationship of the signs 
of Class II to those of Class III. By this means the 
value of a number of signs could be fixed by comparison 
with the Babylonian-Assyrian signs, and when later 
on the principles governing the modifications that the 
signs of Class III had undergone in their transforma 
tion to Class II, had been ascertained, the bulk of the 
syllabary of the latter class became perfectly trans- 

81 (a) On the First and Second Kinds of Persepolitan Writing, 
(6) On the Three Kinds of Persepolitan Writing and On the 
Babylonian Lapidary Characters; both published in the Trans 
actions of the Eoyal Irish Academy, vol. xxi, Part II, pp. 114-131 
and 233-248. 

84 Memoir on the Scythic Version of the Behistun Inscription 
(Journal of the Eoyal Asiatic Society, vol. xv, pp. 1-213). The 
paper was read in 1852. 

 112 BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA 

parent. In this way the decipherment of Babylonian- 
Assyrian became of service in reading the second variety 
of the cuneiform script. Westergaard now took up the 
subject again85 and succeeded in increasing the number 
of signs correctly read to sixty-seven. Steady progress 
was made through the efforts of various scholars, among 
whom M. Haig, A. D. Mordtmann, Oppert and Sayce 
are to be specially mentioned, so that by the year 
1879, when Oppert published his work, Le Peuple et 
la Langne des Medes, the decipherment, so far as the 
reading of the signs was concerned, was practically 
completed. The final work on the subject, giving a full 
account of the course of the decipherment and detailing 
the results in the most exact manner, is the publication 
of the inscriptions of Class II by Weissbach, in 1890.86 
The question, however, as to the language of the inscrip 
tions was a more difficult one. Scholars wavered as to 
the name to be given to the language. The first sug 
gestion to call it Scythic was abandoned in favor of 
Median, proposed by Oppert, but this designation 
yielded in time to others so that at present it is generally 
designated from the region in which it was spoken as 
neo-Susian or neo-Elamitic.ST The resemblance of the 
signs to those of Class III showed conclusively that the 
script was a derivative from the Babylonian-Assyrian 
cuneiform, and in view of the comparative ease in de 
termining through this resemblance the values to be 
assigned to the 113 signs to be distinguished, and the 
existence of certain signs as in Class III, as determina 
tives indicating whether a word was the name of a 
person, a deity, a city or a country, it was possible, 
through the comparison with Class I and III on the 

88 In a paper published in the Proceedings of the Danish 
Academy for 1854, vol. ii, pp. 41-178. 

88 Die Achcemenideninschriften zweiter Art, herausgegeben und 
bearbeitet von F. H. Weissbach (Leipzig, 1890). 

87 The second designation is at present the one more commonly, 
employed. 

 CUNEIFORM DECIPHERMENT 113 

large Behistun inscription to fix the sounds of many 
words in the language, the meanings of which were 
furnished by the comparison. This extended to verbal 
forms as well as to nouns, to pronouns and to particles. 
The language turned out to be a type which was neither 
Semitic nor Aryan, and yet totally different from the 
Sumerian. Excavations conducted by the French gov 
ernment for several years at Susa, under the general 
direction of J. De Morgan, brought to the surface a 
large number of historical and votive inscriptions and 
hundreds of commercial tablets such as were found in 
great abundance in the Babylonian and Assyrian 
mounds. The material covered an extensive period; 
and as it was studied and interpreted by one of the 
most distinguished Assyriologists of the day, Vincent 
Scheil,88 it was shown that the language was closely 
related to that of Class II. It was evident, therefore, 
that the inscriptions of this class represented the lan 
guage spoken by the inhabitants of Elam, lying to the 
east and northeast of Babylonia and which, as we know 
from the annals of Babylonian and Assyrian rulers, 
was for many centuries the rival of Babylonia and at 
various times made inroads into the Euphrates Valley.89 
The excavations at Susa confirmed the data derived 
from Babylonian and Assyrian monuments as to the 
great age of the Elamitic kingdom, for the material 
unearthed carries us back beyond the third millennium 
before our era. The script also shows traces of having 

88 The results of the remarkably successful excavations at Susa 
are being published by the French government. Thirteen large 
volumes have appeared up to the present time under the title of 
Delegation en Perse, of which six are devoted to the Elamitic 
material, edited by Scheil. The expedition also found a magnificent 
series of boundary stones and the famous Hammurapi Code, all of 
which were captured as trophies by the Elamites during an in 
cursion into Babylonia in the twelfth century and carried by them 
to their capital at Susa. See below, p. 283. 

•• See Chapter III. 
8 

 114 BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA 

passed through a long development, the oldest forms 
representing a much closer approach to the original 
pictures from which the linear wedges were derived. 
The decipherment of the older Elamitic inscriptions, 
successfully inaugurated by Scheil, is not, however, com 
plete. More material will no doubt be forthcoming 
which will enable scholars to clear up doubtful points. 
It seems certain that the language also changed some 
what with the lapse of centuries so that scholars now 
distinguish between the oldest form of Elamitic as 
proto-Elamitic, and the latest form, represented by 
Class II, as neo-Elamitic. The relationship of the 
Elamitic and neo-Elamitic cuneiform to the Babylonian 
is evident, but exactly how the proto-Elamitic char 
acters were derived from the Babylonian script is a 
question that must be left open for the present. As for 
the language, we must rest content with the statement 
that it is of a Turanian type and was one of the lan 
guages spoken in the districts lying to the east of 
Babylonia. The Elamites at one time extended their 
rule far into Asia Minor, for around the lake of Van 
in Armenia inscriptions have been found which are 
written in a cuneiform variety practically identical 
with that of Class II.90 

The extensive use of cuneiform script as a writing 
medium for various languages and the development of 
various distinct forms, all eventually to be traced back 
to some early variety of picture writing, is a remark 
able testimony to the profound influence exerted by the 
civilization that arose in the Euphrates Valley through 
the combination of the Sumerians and Semites or as 
we ought to say, Sumerians and Akkadians. Even with 
a consideration of these chief forms representing four 
distinct languages, Sumerian, Babylonian-Assyrian, 
Elamitic and Persian, we have not exhausted the scope 

80 See Sayce The Inscription of Hal-Amir and the Language of 
the Second Column of the Akhcemenian Inscriptions (Actes du VI. 
Congrea International des Orientalistes, Part II, pp. 639-756). 

 CUNEIFORM DECIPHERMENT 115 

of cuneiform writing. In Cappadocia a variety derived 
from the more specifically Assyrian form of cuneiform 
characters was used in connection with commercial in 
terchange. A considerable number of tablets, all of a 
commercial character, have been found dating from 
about the eleventh century, in which cuneiform is used 
to write the current tongue of Cappadocia,91 while at 
Boghaz-Keui, a capital of a Hittite kingdom, a large 
archive of clay tablets was discovered by the late Hugo 
Winckler,92 containing hundreds of tablets in cunei 
form writing, but representing the Hittite language— 
the same as the one found in hieroglyphic form on the 
Hittite inscriptions. Among the tablets of the cunei 
form archive found at Tell el-Amarna to which refer 
ence will be made,83 there were letters in cuneiform 
written by rulers of Mitanni—a district to the north- 

81 See Delitzsch, Beitrage zur Entzifferung und Erklarung der 
Kappadokischen Ketischrifttafeln (Abhandlungen der Koniglich- 
Sachsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften, Philologisch-His- 
torische Classe, XIV, pp. 207-270). 

92 See Orientalistische Literal urzeitung, Dec. 15, 1906, and 
Mitteil. d. Deutsch. Orient Gesellschaft, No. 35 (Dec., 1907), and 
now, also, Delitzsch, Sumerisch-Akkadisch-Hettitische Vdkdbular- 
fragmente (Berlin, 1914; Abh. d. Kgl. Preuss. Akd. d. Wiss., 1914, 
PhiL-Hist. Klasse, Nr. 3), embodying a study of 26 fragments of 
tablets found at Boghaz-Keui, containing in parallel columns 
Sumerian and Akkadian words and phrases, together with the 
Hittite equivalents (written in cuneiform characters) in the third 
column. In this way a large number of words and forms can be 
identified and, with the complete publication of this kind of ma 
terial, promised in the near future, there will be little difficulty in 
determining the exact character of the Hittite language. There is 
also reason to hope that with the aid of these transliterated Hittite 
texts it will be possible to find the definite key for the decipherment 
for the hieroglyphic Hittite script. The publication of the impor 
tant material found by the late Dr. Winckler is now announced 
as ready and is expected to be published within this year by 
Dr. E. P. Weidner. 

•» Below, p. 164. 

 116 BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA 

east of Mesopotamia—in their own language, which is 
represented again by some of the tablets found at 
Boghaz-Keui. Even Greek was written in cuneiform 
characters, as some tablets published a number of years 
ago by Pinches showed.94 

It is evident from this that the influence exerted by 
the civilization of Babylonia and Assyria extended 
throughout the ancient world, prompting the Egyptian 
scribes to learn cuneiform so as to carry on a corre 
spondence with Babylonian rulers and with the gov 
ernors of Palestinian and Phoenician centres, and lead 
ing the Hittites in the north to exchange cuneiform as 
a more convenient mode of writing for their own hiero 
glyphic script,95 and resulting in the adoption of a 
cuneiform script by the Elamites as well as by their 
successors, the Persian rulers. Within Babylonia and 
Assyria the script, developing from an archaic to sev 
eral varieties of more modern forms, survived the fall 
of the Babylonian empire through Cyrus' conquest and 
even the coming of the Greeks, for cuneiform inscrip 
tions from the days of the Greek supremacy have been 
found, and it is not until almost the threshold of the 
Christian era that the use of this form of writing finally 
disappears. The latest cuneiform inscription dates 
from the year 80 B.C._____________________ 

84 Greek Transcriptions of Babylonian Tablets (Proceedings of 
the Society of Biblical Archaeology, vol. xxiv [1902], pp. 118-119). 
These fragments of tablets, containing transcriptions of Greek words 
in cuneiform, furnished incidentally a further confirmation— 
though at the time of Pinches' publication no longer necessary— 
of the correctness of the method of reading the Babylonian-Assyrian 
cuneiform characters. 

85 For the Hittite inscriptions see Messerschmidt, Corpus In- 
scriptionum Hettiticarum (Mitteilungen der Vorderasiatischen 
Gesellsehaft, 1900, No. 4; 1902, No. 3; 1906, No. 5); Garstang, Tlie 
Land of the Hittites (London, 1910); Ed. Meyer, Reich und Kultur 
der Chettiter (Berlin, 1914); and the recent attempt at decipher 
ment by E. C. Thompson, A New Decipherment of the Hittite 
Hieroglyphics (Areheologia, vol. Ixiv, Oxford, 1913, pp. 1-144). 

 CUNEIFORM DECIPHERMENT 117 

Lastly a word as to the origin of the cuneiform 
script from a pictorial form. We have carried back the 
forms of cuneiform writing used outside of Babylonia 
and Assyria to the influence exerted by these two em 
pires, whose civilization originating in the Euphrates 
Valley is the result of the commingling of Sumerians 
and Akkadians. The oldest form of cuneiform writ 
ing, therefore, is that represented by the oldest inscrip 
tions of Babylonia which, we have seen, are couched 
in Sumerian. The script, however, in these Sumerian 
inscriptions, while archaic, is far removed from the 
state in which each sign represented a picture. More 
over, we have seen that contrary to the opinion at first 
held by scholars, the Sumerian in the form that we 
have it is no longer a purely ideographic mode of writ 
ing, but has already advanced to the syllabic stage in 
which a sign is used to represent a sound and no longer 
merely the word for which it stands. A careful study, 
however, of the forms of the characters enables us to 
pass beyond the wedge-shaped variety of cuneiform to 
a linear type; and in many cases it is not difficult to 
recognize in the linear outlines the remains of a picture, 
representing one of the words for which the sign stands. 
Thus the linear form ^ of the sign for sun, day, light, 
which in the wedge-form becomes <T is clearly a de 
rivative of a picture of the sun sending forth its rays. 
The sign for eye, face, seeing, which in the wedge-shape 
takes on the form <f- is in the linear form Q- and it is 
not difficult to recognize in this the outlines of an eye. 
The sign for man &£ is in the linear form 4nnas, which 
suggests a man lying on his back. 

To set forth in detail how, starting with a series of 
pictures, the writing, passing through various stages, 
developed to a linear form, suitable for transferring 
characters to a hard material and then by further stages 
was transformed to a wedge-shaped variety, better 
adapted for writing on a soft substance like clay, would 

 118 BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA 

carry us too far. Nor is it necessary for our purpose, 
which is merely to call attention at the close of this 
chapter to the manner in which the cuneiform script 
originated, to do so. Prof. Barton, who has recently 
published an elaborate work on the "Origin of Cunei 
form Writing,"96 in which he has embodied the results 
of many years of study, has added valuable tables of 
signs showing the changes they underwent in passing 
from the oldest to the latest period. He has also en 
deavored to reconstruct the objects represented by the 
signs. Thanks to the ingenious method pursued by 
him and to his wide and accurate scholarship, he has 
succeeded in a large number of instances in giving us 
the picture originally represented. Naturally some of 
his identifications are open to question. In a problem 
of this kind one must not expect that all phases of it 
can be satisfactorily solved. From a survey of the 
objects represented—animals, parts of the body, instru 
ments, pictures of water, of stars, trees and plants— 
and making due allowance for doubtful cases, we reach 
the general conclusion that the script originated at a 
time when already a considerable advance in culture 
had been made, and in a land in which agricultural con 
ditions prevailed, in which animals had been domesti 
cated, and the gods identified with personifications of the 
stars, by the side of the moon and sun. There is nothing, 
however, to indicate more precisely where the script 
originated. It may have been brought by the Sumerians 
to the Euphrates Valley and perfected by them there, 
or it may have originated in the Euphrates Valley or 
the neighboring district of Elam. It is not impossible 
that the proto-Elamitic script, to which a reference has 
above been made,97 may revert to the same source as 
the picture-writing underlying the oldest form of 
Sumerian inscriptions. Until we can determine more 
accurately whence the Sumerians came and how far 

"Beitrage zur Assyriologie, vol. ix (1912-1913). 
*7 Above, p. 113, seq. 

 CUNEIFORM DECIPHERMENT 119 

back the Sumerian culture can be traced, it is idle to 
speculate further. Archaeology has given us so many 
surprises that it is not out of the question that we should 
come across traces of a still earlier culture than the 
Sumerian or the proto-Elamitic,98 from which both may 
have derived their inspiration, and with this a pictorial 
script further developed by each group and adapted to 
its purposes." 

From the linear form we can without difficulty trace 
the further development to the latest stage of wedge- 
writing. Variant forms continued to arise both in 
Assyria and Babylonia and there can be no question 
that the neo-Elamitic cuneiform or Class II represents 
a variety of the Babylonian script simplified and 
adapted to Elamitic about the twelfth century B.C., 
further modified in the course of time, while the Persian 
variety represents another more simplified adaptation 
made in the sixth or possibly as early as the seventh 
century B.C. 

88 See King's ingenious suggestion in the appendix to his His 
tory of Sumer and Akkad (London, 1910), in which he takes up 
this problem. 

"See further on this subject besides Barton's book, Fossey's 
chapter on the Ideographic Origin and Evolution of Cuneiform 
"Writing in his Manuel d'Assyriologie, pp. 245-268, and Delitzsch's 
Entstehung des dltesten Schriftsystems oder der Ursprung der 
Kettschriftzeichen (Leipzig, 1897), the first thorough discussion of 
the subject, full of valuable suggestions, though some of the views 
set forth must be modified in the light of later researches. 

 CHAPTER III 

SURVEY OF THE HISTORY OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA 

I 

IN any general survey of the history of Babylonia 
and Assyria there are two facts of fundamental im 
portance to be borne in mind: first, that the course of 
civilization in the land of the Euphrates and Tigris 
proceeds to the north, and second, that the culture is 
the outcome of a mixture of two diverse elements—of 
a non-Semitic with a Semitic population. The obvious 
conclusion from the first fact is that the settlements 
in the south, in what is known as the Euphrates Valley, 
are older than those in the north—a conclusion con 
firmed by the excavations conducted at southern 
mounds, which have yielded us the documents for trac 
ing the civilization to a very early period, though as 
yet insufficient for carrying us back to the small be 
ginnings. The second fact prepares us for the dis 
tinguishing feature of the oldest period as likewise 
revealed by the monuments, to wit, the struggle between 
the non-Semites or the Sumerians, and the Semites or 
Akkadians for supremacy. 

This struggle represents the natural process in the 
assimilation of two apparently incompatible elements. 
Civilization may be described as the spark that ensues 
when opposing ethnic elements come into contact. Cul 
ture up to a certain grade may develop in any centre 
spontaneously, but a high order of civilization is always 
produced through the combination of heterogeneous 
ethnic elements. 

There is no more foolish boast than that of purity 
of race. A pure race, as I have it put elsewhere,1 if it 
exists at all, is also a sterile race. 

1 Aspects of Religious Belief and Practice in Babylonia and 
Assyria, p. 5. 
120 

 PLATE XXII 

FIG. I, SDMERIAN TYPE (TELLOH) 

FIG. 2, SEMITIC TYPE (BISMTA) 

 BABYLONIAN-ASSYRIAN HISTORY 121 

Whether the Semitic Akkadians were the first 
settlers in the Euphrates Valley or the non-Semitic 
Sumerians is a question to which, as indicated in the 
last chapter,2 no definite reply can be given in the 
present state of our knowledge. My own inclination is 
to side with Eduard Meyer,3 to give the benefit of the 
doubt to the Akkadians and to assume that the Su 
merians, who we have every reason to believe were a 
mountainous people, entered the Valley from the north 
east (or northwest) as conquerors—bringing a certain 
degree of culture with them, but which through the 
contact with the Akkadian population was further 
stimulated and modified until it acquired the traits dis 
tinguishing it when we obtain our earliest glimpse 
of political, social and religious conditions in the 
Euphrates Valley. 

Fortunately, through the monuments of Telloh, 
Sippar, Nippur and Bismya, and through the designs 
on numerous seal cylinders, we are in a position to 
picture to ourselves this non-Semitic race.4 They are 
portrayed in contrast* to the Akkadians as beardless 
and generally, though not always, with shaven heads. 
The general type suggests a comparison with the Mon 
golian race. The shape of the head was inclined 
towards roundness, the cheek bones were prominent 
and the nose was not full and fleshy as was the case 
with the Akkadians. The dress in the earliest period 
consisted of a plain or fringed garment, hanging from 
the waist or was formed in more elaborate fashion of 
three to five flounces—yielding, however, at a later 
period to a shawl or mantle, decorated with a border, 
drawn over the left shoulder and falling in straight 
folds. In contrast, we find the Akkadians represented 

2 Page 107. 

* Sumerier und Semiten in Babylonien, p. 107, seq. 

* See the accompanying illustrations, and further in Meyer, 
Sumerier und Semiten in Babylonien, and in Jastrow, BUdermappe 
eur Religion Babylonians und Assyriens, Nos. 1-7. 

 122 BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA 

with hair and beard, though it would appear that in 
consequence of a new wave of Semitic immigration 
about the time of Hammurapi or shortly before, the 
Bedouin custom was introduced of shaving the mous 
tache. The features, particularly the long-shaped head 
and the fleshy nose, are unmistakably Semitic. In dress 
the Semites are represented by the loin cloth or by a 
plaid wrapped around the body, falling in parallel 
bands, with the ends thrown around the left shoulder. 
The Sumerians appear also to have had the custom of 
wearing wigs, as the Egyptians, perhaps limited to cere 
monial occasions, though to what extent and during 
what periods the custom prevailed it is difficult to say. 
Curiously enough the gods, even in the oldest monu 
ments, have abundant hair and long beards,6 but with 
lips and cheeks often shaven, from which Professor 
Meyer has drawn the inference that the Sumerians, 
while retaining some of the customs that they brought 
with them, assimilated their gods to those worshipped 
in the land into which they came and therefore repre 
sented them as Semitic. 

Beside some form of writing which, as pointed out, 
the Sumerians may have brought with them, but further 
developed after their conquest of the Euphrates Valley, 
they appear to have been skilled in sculpturing in terra 
cotta and in stone, advancing gradually also to work 
ing in metals. Naturally, here again it is difficult to 
draw the line between what they brought into the 
country and the share of their artistic achievements 
due to their contact with the Semitic settlers, but since 
the Euphrates Valley is devoid of stone and metals, the 
balance is again in favor of the assumption that they 
brought some measure of artistic skill with them.6 

The architecture in the earliest period is conditioned 
by the native soil which furnishes clay as a building 
material that was readily adapted for the construction 

0 See Meyer, l.c., p. 95, seq. 

• Further details in Chapter VII. 

 BABYLONIAN-ASSYRIAN HISTORY 123 

of houses and temples, consisting of both unburnt and 
burnt bricks. The only characteristic structure that 
may be safely ascribed to Sumerian initiative is the 
stage-tower attached to the temples in all important 
centres.7 

II 

The change in habitat from a hilly country to a flat 
one was a momentous factor that brought with it an 
adaptation on the part of the Sumerians to the new 
conditions. In their mountain homes we may well sup 
pose the Sumerians to have been hunters—of which a 
trace remains in the Biblical tradition that makes 
Nimrod, pictured as one of the founders of the 
Euphratean culture, a mighty hunter, whereas the con 
ditions natural to the rich soil of southern Babylonia 
led to agriculture. 

The political feature at the earliest period at pres 
ent known to us, which may be roughly fixed on the 
basis of the material at our disposal at 4000 to 3500 B.C., 
is the existence of a number of cities under the control 
of Sumerians, each one of which formed a centre for a 
district of varying extent. These cities lay along the 
Euphrates or on one of the various arms into which it 
divides in the marshy districts. Owing, however, to 
the choking up of the bed of the river and of its tribu 
taries, the direction of the Euphrates was subject to fre 
quent changes, so that the location of the mounds be 
neath which cities like Nippur, Cuthah, Uruk, Sippar, 
Shuruppak lay buried, is at some distance to the east 
from the bed of the Euphrates, or from one of its 
branches. 

We find the south itself divided into two sections, 
the southern part, known as Sumer, which is the main 
stronghold of the non-Semitic conquerors, and the 
northern section of the Euphrates Valley, Akkad, where 
the Semites gradually developed the strength neces- 

7 See above II, note 13; pp. 23 and 30, seq. 

 124 BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA 

sary to meet the Sumerians on their own ground. A 
sharp boundary between Sumer and Akkad probably 
never existed, but in a general way Nippur may be re 
garded as the line of demarcation, so that Eridu, Larsa, 
Ur, Adab, Isin, Lagash, Shuruppak, TJmma, TJruk 
with Nippur, constitute the chief centres in the south, 
and Cuthah, Opis, Akkad, Kish, Babylon and Sippar 
the 'most important cities of the north. Nor can a 
sharp line be drawn between the non-Semitic and 
Semitic settlements, beyond the general proposition 
that the Semites, while commingling in part with the 
Sumerians, were also in part driven back to the north 
ern part of the Euphrates Valley. At all events, the 
south remained the chief seat of Sumerian power, 
though northern centres like Kish, Cuthah and Opis 
were for a period of indifferent extent also in the hands 
of the Sumerians. 

We are not able as yet to trace the history of the 
Euphrates Valley back to the time when the Sumerians 
were in complete and absolute control. The oldest 
inscriptions so far recovered already give evidence of 
a decline of the south, with the tendency towards a 
growth of power in the northern centres. We know 
nothing of the earliest history of Eridu and little of 
such centres as TJruk and Adab; and until excavations 
carry us nearer to the beginnings of Sumerian suprem 
acy, we must rest content with the testimony fur 
nished by the material at our disposal that there was 
no union or, at all events, no permanent union between 
the cities of Sumer and that no ruler of any Sumerian 
centre exercised control over all of Sumer and Akkad. 
The relationship between the states would therefore be 
marked by hostilities alternating with treaties that 
served to keep the peace for a while, and with combina 
tions of some of these city states against other groups. 
The central feature in each of these cities was the 
sanctuary dedicated to the local patron deity. So close 
was the association between the god and his city, that 

 BABYLONIAN-ASSYRIAN HISTORY 125 

the former either directly gave his name to the place, 
or the place was known as the city of the god in ques 
tion. The more precise character of these city gods we 
will have occasion to consider in the next chapter. The 
point of importance to us in an historical survey is to 
note that the jurisdiction of a deity was coextensive 
with the district controlled by his followers. The single 
exception to this general direction taken by the associa 
tion of a deity with a city is formed by the god Enlil, 
who, although the god of the city of Nippur, was in 
this first period of Euphratean history the acknowl 
edged head of the pantheon.8 In part this 110 doubt 
was due to the important position occupied by Nippur 
when the Sumerians obtained the mastery in the 
Euphrates Valley, but hi large part the special position 
acquired by Enlil is to be accounted for by the circum 
stance that as a storm-god having his seat on some 
mountain-peak, he was the chief of the gods worshipped 
by the conquerors before they left their mountain 
homes. 

Curiously enough, however, we have not come across 
any records of a powerful dynasty established in 
Nippur as a centre. Instead, the earliest traditions of 
the Euphrates Valley, carrying us back to the mythical 
age, in which rulers are pictured as deities or of divine 
descent, ruling for as many centuries as in historical 
time years,9 give Kish and Uruk as the first two dy- 

8 See further, p. 195, seq. 

• See the publication of important lists of early mythical or 
semi-mythical rulers, followed by historical dynasties, in Poebel's 
Historical and Grammatical Texts, pages 73 to 96. 

These lists show us, during the first two recorded dynasties of 
Kish and of Uruk, rulers who reign from 410 to 1200 years, and 
among the names of such rulers are the mythical rulers Etana and 
Gilgamesh, of the former of whom a story is told of an attempted 
flight to heaven on the back of an eagle, while the latter is the 
famous central figure of the great Babylonian epic. 

The high figures given for the reigns or lives of these rulers are 

 126 BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA 

nasties, after which we come to -a series of rulers with 
TJr as a political centre and the length of whose reigns 
shows that we have reached a more definite historical 
tradition. Beyond names and indications of lengths of 
reigns, however,—and these often uncertain—we know 
nothing further of this earliest period until we come 
down to about the year 3200 B.C. 

Ill 

The accident that so much of our earliest historical 
material comes from the excavations on the site of the 
ancient city of Lagash10 naturally places this city in 
the foreground of our horizon, but making due allow 
ance for this fact, it is nevertheless certain that Lagash 
played a most important role as early at least as 3000 
B.C., and exercised at one time a sway over a consider 
able portion of Sumer, including Nippur. Its most 
serious rival at the time when the outlines of this period 
become defined with sufficient clearness to enable us 
to grasp some details is the city of Kish, whose patron 
deity was a solar god known as Zamama. Indeed, a 
ruler, Mesilim, whose date can be approximately fixed 
at 3100 B.C., claimed Lagash as a part of his territory. 
This condition must have lasted for some time, for a 
patesi of Lagash, Entemena, whose date may be fixed 
as c. 2850 B.C., refers in a historical survey of the 

of the same character as the ages of the antediluvian patriarchs 
in the fifth chapter of Genesis. Both lists are no doubt based 
upon some artificially constructed system, though exactly of what 
nature scholars have not ascertained. To discuss the bearings of 
these important lists, published by Poebel, in detail would carry 
us too far and must be left for some other occasion. Suffice it 
to say that the existence of such lists, which evidently form part 
of the school archives of ancient Babylonian centres, shows con 
clusively that the accounts of early Babylonian rulers given by 
Berosus (see Gory, Ancient Fragments, page 51, seq.) rest upon 
actual material which was utilized by Berosus. 
10 Above, p. 39, seq., 

 BABYLONIAN-ASSYRIAN HISTORY 127 

relations between Lagash and a neighboring centre, 
Umma, to Mesilim's intervention as arbitrator between 
the two hostile districts. Through his mediation a 
treaty was made, fixing the boundary line between 
Lagash and Umma.11 

There are reasons for believing that not long before 
the days of Mesilim, the conditions were reversed and 
that Kish was in a state of dependency upon Lagash or 
some other centre, for a ruler, Utug,12 who is in all 
probabilities older than Mesilim, calls himself patesi 
of Kish, on a vase offered as a tribute to Enlil of Nip 
pur, in commemoration of a victory over the land of 
Khamazi. Under Eannatum, Kish again falls into the 
hands of Lagash, which, however, was not able to hold 
it for a long time. The Semites, perhaps originally 
pressed into service as mercenaries by the rulers of 
Kish,13 obtain control for a time—the first indication 
of the coming Semitic conquest of the Euphrates Val 
ley, but are again pushed back by Sumerians. Such a 
constant shift of political conditions extends over a 
long period, until Lugalzaggisi, of Uruk (c. 2675 B.C.), 
comes to the fore, puts an end to the independence of 
Kish, and this time in an effective manner. 

The treaty between Lagash and Kish, above referred 
to, took place c. 3050 B.C., as nearly as we can calculate 
at present; and we are safe in assuming that the su 
premacy exercised by Kish over important centres in 
the south began perhaps a century earlier and lasted 
until c. 2975 B.C., when we find a ruler on the throne of 
Lagash, Ur-Nina, who adopts the title of king, whose 
reign was marked by an era of peace, during which 
commerce flourished and the ruler was able to devote 
himself to the welfare of his subjects and to honoring 
the gods by beautifying their temples and bringing to 

11 Heuzey, Decouvertes en Chaldee, PI. 47, and Thureau-Dangin, 
Burner, und Akkad. Edwigsinschriften, p. 36. 

" Hilprecht, Old Babylonian Inscriptions, I, 2, No. 108, seq. 
11 So Meyer, Geschichte, I, 2, p. 481. 

 128 BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA 

their shrines evidence of his loyalty and affection in 
the shape of tributes and votive offerings. We have a 
remarkable series of limestone plaques showing TJr- 
Nina and his family in the act of taking part in the 
building of the temple E-Ninnu to Ningirsu—the main 
sacred edifice in Lagash.14 He is also occupied with 
strengthening the wall of Lagash and in digging nu 
merous canals and reservoirs, clearly intended to regu 
late the annual overflow of the Euphrates and to direct 
its waters into the fields. By the extension of this 
canal system, upon which the prosperity and growth of 
the country so largely depended, he established his claim 
to being a ruler devoted to the welfare of his subjects. 
Conditions changed soon after the death of Ur-Nina. 
His successor, Akurgal, appears to have been troubled 
again by the old-time rival and enemy to the north, 
Umma, though the crisis is not reached until the days 
of his son, Eannatum, c. 2920 B.C. The men of Umma 
removed the stele set up by Mesilim, the king of Kish, 
as the boundary between Lagash and Umma. This was 
the signal for an outbreak that ended disastrously for 
the district of which Umma was the centre. Eannatum 
appeals to his god Ningirsu for help. Ningirsu appears 
to Eannatum in a dream and promises victory over the 
enemy. Thus encouraged, Eannatum gathers his army 
and sets out for the encounter. The result was a total 
defeat of Umma, of whose warriors Eannatum assures 
us that he slew thirty-six hundred.15 The victory was 
followed up by the pursuit of the fleeing army. Ean 
natum takes Umma by assault, sweeping all before him, 
as he tells us, "like a destructive storm." In commem 
oration of the engagement he sets up a monument,16 on 
which he depicts in vivid form the incidents of the 

14 See Plate XLVI, Fig. 1. 

15 The number is under suspicion of being a round one, but 
nevertheless it furnishes us with an indication of the numbers that 
must have engaged in the struggle. 

"See Plate XLVII and XLVIII and the description of the 
monument p. 387. seq. 

 BABYLONIAN-ASSYRIAN HISTORY 129 

battle. The old boundary stone was again set up and 
a new treaty made between Eannatum and Enakalli, 
the successor of Ush, who probably perished in the 
encounter. The district of Gu-eddin, wrongfully ap 
propriated by Umma, was restored and a tribute im 
posed. A large booty was secured, and in commemora 
tion of the event shrines were erected on the frontier 
to various deities,—to Enlil and his consort, Ninkhar- 
sag, to Ningirsu and Utu (the sun-god) for their assist 
ance. A solemn oath was sworn by the two sides. "I 
have sworn the oath," says Eannatum, "and the men 
of Umma have sworn the oath to Eannatum, in the 
name of Enlil, the king of heaven and earth. ... If 
at any time they shall deviate from this agreement, may 
the great net of Enlil, in whose name they have sworn 
this oath, overwhelm them." The gods thus become 
the active partners in the events of the day. 

IV 

The events narrated on the remarkable monument 
which a fortunate chance has in part preserved for us 
are typical of the political history of the Euphratean 
states in this early period, marked by a frequent shift 
ing of the particles in the political kaleidoscope, as a 
consequence of which now the one, now the other of the 
various rival states secures a temporary supremacy, 
without, however, any permanent coalition into a united 
empire. For the time being Lagash wields the baton 
of authority, not only over the district of Umma, but 
also over that of Kish, which appears to have sided with 
Umma and whose king, Al-zu(?), was captured and 
probably slain. Eannatum followed up his success by 
other conquests, bringing a troublesome district, Opis, 
in the north, into subjection, exercising supremacy over 
Uruk, Ur, Larsa and other centres of the south and even 
extending his control to Elam on the east, beyond the 
bounds propei- of the Euphrates Valley. The successors 

9 

 130 BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA 

of Eannatum, Enannatum I and Entemena, were able 
to resist the attempt of Umma to throw off the yoke, 
and they forced their own minions on the people as 
patesis or governors of the district; they also kept Elam 
in check, though not without a severe struggle. But they 
seemed unable to prevent internal abuses from creeping 
in, which undermined the very foundations of govern 
ment. The evidence for this is found in the inscrip 
tions of a ruler, Urukagina (c. 2700 B.C.)," who tells 
us of his efforts to rescue the various classes of the 
population—he names boatmen, shepherds, fishermen 
and farmers—from the priests, into whose clutches they 
had fallen. The temples had profited by the general 
prosperity and become powerful commercial organiza 
tions which exercised a pressure on the land. Urukagina 
goes so far as to accuse the priests of robbing the farmer 
of the fruit of his labors, of imposing exorbitant taxes 
on the fishermen, of taking bribes and of thwarting 
justice in their capacity as the controllers of the courts 
of law. 

Urukagina puts an end to this shameful state of 
affairs by sweeping the corrupt army of officials out 
of office and by setting up a body of laws, regulating 
the taxes and fees, protecting the helpless against ex 
tortion, providing against violent alienation of goods 
or property. In his days divorces had been obtained 
by means of bribes given to the officials, and even 
divination had been carried on amidst similar abuses, 
the exorbitant fee for the service being divided among 
the patesi, his chief vizir and the priest. These matters 
were also regulated and it is of special interest to note 
that Urukagina's new code did away with polyandry. 
"Women were formerly possessed by two men. Now 
women in such a case will be thrown into the stream 
(?)." Urukagina sums up the contrast epigrammati- 

11 Thureau-Dangin, Sumerisch-Akkadiscfie Konigsinschriften, 
pp. 44-57. 

 BABYLONIAN-ASSYRIAN HISTORY 131 

cally between former and present conditions by declar 
ing that "formerly there was slavery, now freedom has 
been established." 

The movement for reform, however, came too late, 
as is often the case in history. The strength of the 
country had been sapped, and in a long inscription 
dating from Urukagina's reign, a scribe pathetically 
records the violent acts of the old-<time enemy, Umma, 
in invading Lagash and destroying the sanctuaries 
there and elsewhere. 

Urukagina suffered the fate of so many reformers 
in reaping the ingratitude of those whom he intended 
to benefit. The priests no doubt secured the cooperation 
of the nobles and officials in arousing opposition against 
the endeavor of the king to deprive them of the benefits 
they had so long enjoyed, and it is not impossible that 
they may have stood in league with the enemy in order 
to humiliate and overthrow their own ruler. At all 
events Lugalzaggisi triumphed over Lagash, reduced it 
to a state of subserviency so that the rulers once more 
became merely patesis, and succeeded in securing a 
supremacy over the districts of which Nippur, Uruk, 
Ur and Larsa were the centres. Indeed, if the state 
ment in a long inscription of his is to be taken literally 
and not as a mere idle boast, he led his victorious armies 
to the Mediterranean, for he speaks of conquering the 
lands from the lower sea of the Tigris and Euphrates 
to the upper sea. He thus foreshadows the world- 
conquest which became the ambition of the later Semitic 
rulers of Babylonia and Assyria, and there is only one 
other ruler in this earlier period with whom he is to be 
compared, namely, Naram-Sin, wihose reign we shall 
take up presently. 

The removal of Lugalzaggisi's capital from Umma 
to Uruk points to the greater importance of the latter 
centre, which is confirmed by the inscriptions of two 
rulers, Lugal-ki-gub-niddu and Lugal-kisal-si, who call 

 132 BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA 

themselves kings of Uruk and kings of Ur.18 Uruk had 
accordingly succeeded in uniting the important Su- 
merian centre, Ur, to her dominion and Lugalzaggisi, 
conquering the extreme south of the Euphrates Valley, 
falls heir to the sovereignty exercised by Uruk, plac 
ing his title, "King of Uruk," before all others. 

V 

Had Lugalzaggisi succeeded in maintaining the ex 
tensive kingdom organized by him, the entire course 
of Babylonian history might have been changed. The 
factor that blocked his path was the advance of the 
power of the Semites in the land. It is significant that 
in the long inscription on the votive vase from which 
we have quoted and in which he sums up his achieve 
ments there is no mention of Kish. We have already 
encountered the influence of this centre in the conflicts 
between Lagash and Umma,19 and although Mesilim, 
the king of Kish, who intervenes to fix the boundary 
between these two rival states is not a Semite, there is 
every reason to believe that as early as his day, c. 3100 
B.C., Kish contained a considerable Semitic population, 
serving perhaps as mercenaries in the army which three 
centuries later had obtained the upper hand. In an 
inscription20 which belongs to a period not far removed 
from the time of Lugalzaggisi, we encounter a ruler 
of Kish whose name, Enbi-Ishtar, leaves no doubt of 
his being a Semite. We must assume that Kish had 
recovered its position, for it is through a ruler of this 
centre, Sargon I, that, according to a definite state 
ment,21 Lugalzaggisi is overthrown after a reign of 
twenty-five years, that is about 2675 B.C. With Sargon 
we reach the period of a definite advance of the Semites. 
The dynasty founded by him is Semitic in character, 

18 Thureau-Dangin, I.e., p. 156. 

18 See above, p. 127. 

*• Thureau-Dangin, I.e., p. 152. 

11 See Poebel, in Orientalist. Litteraturzeitung, XV, Sp. 481, seq. 

 BABYLONIAN-ASSYRIAN HISTORY 133 

as is shown by the official language of the royal inscrip 
tions, which is Akkadian. Sargon, to be sure, comes to 
Kish as a conqueror. His starting-point is Agade or 
Akkad, somewhat to the north, but the independence 
of Kish is maintained, so that he calls himself inter 
changeably King of Kish and King of Akkad. A list 
recently discovered22 assigns no less than twelve rulers 
to this dynasty of Akkad, but owing to the defective 
character of the tablet at this point, only the last six 
names and the beginning of the first are clearly pre 
served so that we are left in doubt as to the balance. 
Through other sources the gap can be partially filled 
out, with the result that by the side of Sargon, the 
founder, we must recognize another bearing a some 
what similar name, Sharganisharri, who in tradition 
became confused with Shargani or Sargon.5"5 Both 
must have been active conquerors, extending their 
dominions beyond the Euphrates Valley, but it looks 
as though the older were the more aggressive of the 
two. He passes to the east and brings Elam under sub 
jection. In the north he conquers Subartu, an extensive 
district later known from its capital Ashur as the land 
of Ashur or Assyria, and which at this tune was the 
seat of a mixed population of Semitic tribes and of 
Hittite groups. Pushing on to the northwest, he checks 
the growing power of the Amorites—"the land of sun 
set in its totality"—which indicates that he reached 
the shores of the Mediterranean. A rebellion breaks 
out towards the close of Sargon's reign which, accord- 

22 Published by Scheil, Comptes Rendus de 1'Acad. des Inscrip 
tions, 1911, p. 606, seq., and Revue d'Assyriologie, IX, p. 69. See 
Meyer, Geschichte, I, 2 (3d ed.), pp. 343-347, and the same author's 
paper, Zur JEltesten Geschichte Babyloniens (Abhandl. d. Kgl. 
Preus. Akad. d. Wiss. Phil.-Hist. Klasse, 1912, p. 1062, seq.). 

23 The confusion was facilitated by the fact that the last element 
of the longer name, sharri, means "king," so that Shargani-sharri, 
meaning "Sargon is king," could easily come to be looked upon as 
embodying a statement of the sovereignty of the older Sargon. 

 \ 134 BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA 

ing to an official chronicle, he suppresses, but in which 
it is more likely to assume he must have perished, for 
his son tells us, at the beginning of a long inscription, 
of a general uprising of all lands conquered by Sargon. 
The name of the son is broken out, but we can definitely 
say that it was a ruler whose name can be read Uru- 
mush or Rimush, with a preference in favor of the 
latter.24 Rimush claims to have been successful in 
overcoming his enemies who were led by an Elamite, 
Abalgamash. There is no reason to question the sub 
stantial accuracy of his narrative, but it is significant 
that he calls himself King of Kish and not of Akkad. 
The conclusion to be drawn is that Kish became the 
capital and remained so in the days of his son Manish- 
tusu, who also boasts of his conquests. It must have 
been difficult, however, for Rimush and Manishtusu to 
maintain their position. The former we know, from 
other sources, was put to death by a conspiracy hatched 
among the members of his court, while Manishtusu tells 
us of a confederation of thirty-two cities formed 
against him. Such facts point to disturbed internal 
conditions and to frequent combinations on the part 
of the conquered districts of the Euphrates Valley with 
the help of Elam to throw off the yoke of the Semitic 
rulers, abetted probably by a rivalry between Akkad 
and Kish for the privilege of being the capital of the 
new kingdom. An interesting trace of this rivalry is 
to be found in a most remarkable monument of the 
days of Manishtusu, a large obelisk of diorite, describ 
ing in detail the purchase of enormous tracts of lands 
in Kish and its environment on which to settle citizens 
of Akkad.25 The names of eighty-seven overseers of 
certain tracts acquired by the ruler are given; they are 

24 First suggested by Hrozny (Wiener Zeitschrift fur die Kunde 
des Morgenlandes, Tol. xxiii, pp. 192, seq. and xxvi, pp. 152). 

25 Published by Scheil, Delegation en Perse, Mcmoires, II, pp. 1- 
52. The monument is 4% feet high and is closely inscribed on 
four sides. 

 PLATE XXIII 

FIG. I, OBELISK OF MANISHTUSU, KING OF K1SH 
(C. 26OO B.C.) 

FIG. 2, BUST OF MANISHTOSU 

 BABYLONIAN-ASSYRIAN HISTORY 135 

removed by Manishtusu to other places, while in their 
place he appoints forty-nine new officials whom he 
calls "citizens of Akkad." Their followers take the 
place of the 1564 laborers employed by the older over 
seers and who are likewise sent elsewhere. Evidently 
Manishtusu was engaged in a deliberate policy of send 
ing from Akkad as a disturbing centre portions of the 
population through offering them attractive posts in 
Kish and surrounding sites, where they could be kept 
under surveillance. We are reminded of the similar 
policy of deportation practised by Assyrian and Baby 
lonian kings many centuries later, and which led to the 
transfer of large numbers of Hebrews, after the fall 
of Samaria and Jerusalem, to various sites on the 
Euphrates and Tigris.26 

VI 

The upshot of the activity of three rulers of un 
usual aggressiveness, Sargon, Rimush and Manishtusu, 
was a most striking advance of Semitic influence 
throughout the Euphrates Valley—an influence that be 
came a permanent factor in the further development of 
political affairs. The Semitic rulers of Akkad and 
Kish took up the policy of extending in all directions 
their dominions left them as a legacy by Lugalzaggisi, 
but this ambition overvaulting itself became a source 
of weakness instead of strength. Manishtusu succeeds 
in keeping Elam under subjection and gives evidence 
of his control by dedicating a statue of himself to an 
Elamite god Naruti,27 but under his successor, Shar- 
ganisharri, we find the Elamites strong enough to make 
an invasion of the Euphrates Valley, advancing as far 
as Opis, not far from Akkad, where they received a 
check. Uruk heads a coalition ofj Sumerian forces 
which was likewise repulsed. Under Naram-Sin, the 
son of Sharganisharri, this disturbed condition reaches 

2« II Kings 17, 6; 24,12-16. 

21 The bust of the statue was found at Susa. See Plate XXIII, 
Piff- 2. 

 136 BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA 

its climax, for he speaks of combinations of nine rulers 
and even of seventeen kings against him. No doubt he 
exaggerates when he declares that he faced an army 
of 90,000 men drawn up against him, and yet triumphal 
monuments of his reign, including one found far up in 
the north, not far from the source of the Tigris,28 leave 
no doubt of his far surpassing his father in military ex 
peditions in all directions—against Elam in the east, 
against Subartu in the north, and the mountainous 
borders in the northeast, as well as against regions lying 
far to northwest and southwest. He thus merited, by 
his achievements, the proud title of "King of the Four 
Quarters," which was equivalent to "King of the Uni 
verse, '' borne later by the Assyrian monarchs. Naram- 
Sin appears indeed to have surpassed all of his pre 
decessors in opening up new fields of conquest, particu 
larly to the northeast and to the southwest. His father 
had crossed arms with a strong mountainous group 
known as the Guti, and succeeded in capturing their 
king, Sharlak. It was left to the son, however, to fol 
low up this movement by more systematic endeavors 
and on a larger scale to bring various of the groups in 
these distant, forbidding regions, so difficult of access, 
to subjection. On a monument, noteworthy also as one 
of the finest specimens of the older Babylonian art, 
Naram-Sin gives a vivid picture of his triumph over 
the Lulubasans and other peoples in the Zagros range.29 
No less significant was his expedition to Magan, a dis 
tant land whence diorite was brought in large quan 
tities for the manufacture of statues and large vessels. 
Occurring frequently by the side of Melucha, Magan 
and Melucha are probably designations of districts 
along the eastern coast of Arabia and the western coast 

28 At Pir Hussein. See Plate L, Fig. 2, and King, History of 
Burner and Akkad, p. 244. 

28 See Plate L, Fig. 1. The monument was found at Susa, whither 
it was carried as a trophy in the eleventh century, as the others 
mentioned above p. 113. 

 BABYLONIAN-ASSYRIAN HISTORY 137 

of Africa. To have proceeded to such distant climes was 
an achievement hitherto without parallel. We thus 
obtain a view of -the strength unfolded at this early 
period by the Semitic settlements of the Euphrates Val 
ley which makes the achievements of the Sumerians, 
even of a Lugalzaggisi, dwindle into comparative 
insignificance. 

It would seem, however, that a decline began soon 
after the death of Naram-Sin, who appears to have been 
succeeded by a second Sharganisharri, of whom we, to 
be sure, know nothing. A period of internal disturb 
ances sets in, marked by a succession of four rulers 
within three years, so that, as the recently discovered 
list of dynasties puts it, one could not tell "who was 
king and who was not king."30 It is Uruk, the Su- 
merian centre which Lugalzaggisi raised to its highest 
glory, that succeeds in overthrowing the dynasty of 
Akkad after an existence of 197 years. We may fix 
this event approximately in the year 2475 B.C. 

The overthrow of so powerful a dynasty as that of 
Akkad must have affected the entire country; it was a 
signal for the older, once independent centres, to assert 
themselves. Among these centres we find Lagash profit 
ing to a special degree by the growing weakness of 
Akkad, for there must have been preliminary symptoms 
of decay before the final catastrophe set in. Among the 
most remarkable monuments found at Lagash are nine 
diorite statues of a ruler,31 Gudea, who, although he still 
retains the title of patesi, appears to have been entirely 
independent. Inscriptions in large numbers on the 
statues in question, on two large clay barrels and on 
votive objects confirm the power wielded by Gudea, 
whose emissaries are sent to the north and south to 
obtain wood and stone for his buildings and works of 
art with which he embellishes his seat of residence. He 

30 See Poebel's ingenious interpretation of the text (Oriental. 
Litteraturzeitung, XV, Sp. 481). 

" Above, p. 41. See Plate XIII and Plate XII, Fig. 2. 

 138 BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA 

does not, indeed, lay claim to the control of lands out 
side of his district, but it is significant that he has access 
to them. The only war in which he engages is a conflict 
against Elam which ends in victory and a large booty 
for Gudea. This booty is promptly dedicated to 'his 
god, Ningirsu, and deposited in the temple, E-Ninnu, 
at Lagash, to the enlargement of which he devoted his 
chief energy. Gudea's date can be approximately fixed 
at c. 2450 B.C. With him Lagash rises to new splendor, 
though the way is paved in a measure by his predeces 
sor, Ur-Bau, from whose reign we have a number of 
monuments testifying to the growing power of the dis 
trict ruled by Ur-Bau while still owing nominal allegi 
ance to Akkad. Whether Uruk at the time that it 
became the heir of Akkad succeeded in securing con 
trol of Lagash is uncertain, but with1 the coming of 
an invasion from the north, the glory of Lagash 
vanishes again as suddenly as it reached its climax 
under Gudea. 

The regions to the north and particularly those 
groups in the mountainous district of the upper section 
of the Tigris not only regained their independence as 
the dynasty of Akkad approached its close, but one of 
these groups, the Guti, took their revenge for the humil 
iation inflicted upon them by Sharganisharri and 
Naram-Sin by making an incursion into the Euphrates 
Valley. For a period of about fifty years a Guti dy 
nasty actually occupied the throne, presumably choos 
ing Uruk as the seat of residence. Such, then, was the 
sad result of the conflict between Sumerians and 
Semites for control on the one hand and of the am 
bitious efforts on the other, inaugurated by Lugalzag- 
gisi and continued by Sargon, Sharganisharri and 
Naram-Sin to pass beyond the natural confines of the 
Euphrates Valley. The terror aroused by this northern 
foe, sweeping down upon the cultivated cities of the 
plain from their mountain homes with all the violence 
of an elemental force, must have been extreme. Utuche- 

 BABYLONIAN-ASSYEIAN HISTOEY 139 

gal, who succeeds in driving the Guti out of the coun 
try/2 gives us a vivid picture of the ravages committed. 
He calls the Guti "the dragon of the mountains, the 
enemy of the gods," and describes how tlney tore the 
wives away from their husbands, robbing parents of 
their children and spreading devastation on all sides. 
Such invasions of semi-barbarous groups from the 
northwest and northeast were destined to repeat them 
selves frequently in the course of Babylonian-Assyrian 
history and inflicted a serious check to the advance of 
the Euphratean culture, though on the other hand 
they lead fierce tribes to take on at least a veneer of 
culture through contact with a higher civilization.33 
Tribute was no doubt exacted from the conquered 
groups, and relationships were maintained with Magan 
and Melucha to the extent of procuring stones and 
metals from these rich districts; but the control over 
such sections as Subartu and the more distant settle 
ments of the Amorites could at most have been nominal. 
The more direct result was the check given to the ad 
vance of the Semites, and another period of 250 years 
elapsed before the latter were strong enough again to 
risk a passage of arms with the Sumerians. 

VII 

With the temporal eclipse of the power of the 
Semites, the old-time rivalry between the Sumerian 
states, which we have seen was typical of conditions 
prevailing until the days of Lugalzaggisi, again sets in. 

IZ See the important inscription of this ruler published with a 
translation and commentary by Thureau-Dangin in the Revue 
d'Assyriologie, IX, pp. 114-120. 

18 We have an Akkadian inscription of Lasirab, King of the 
Guti (Thureau-Dangin, Sumerisch-Akkadische Konigsinschriften, 
p. 170), of Erridupizir, who calls himself "King of Guti, King of 
the four quarters" (Hilprecht, Earliest Version of the Deluge, 
p. 20, seq.) and of Anubanini, King of the Lulubi (Thureau- 
Dangin, l.c,p. 172). 

 140 BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA 

Ur which had been forced to play a secondary role 
in the combination with Uruk reasserts itself, and about 
thirty years after Utuchegal's accession Urengur suc 
ceeds (c. 2450 B.C.) in making Ur once more the capital 
of a united Sumerian kingdom. For 117 years this 
dynasty maintained itself and the orderly succession 
of its five rulers from father to son—Urengur, Dungi, 
Pursin, Gimilsin and Ibisin—bears witness to the 
tranquil conditions which these rulers established. The 
same testimony is borne by the large number of busi 
ness documents34 that we have of this period which 
give evidence of an extensive commercial activity that 
goes hand in hand with political stability, while the 
dates attached to these documents, the years being still 
marked in this period by important events,36 likewise 
show that the rulers were able to devote themselves 
chiefly to works of peace, such as the rebuilding of 
walls or of temples to the chief deities in a variety of 
centres, Nippur, Eridu, Uruk, Larsa, Lagash and above 
all in Ur, and in otherwise improving and embellishing 
these and other cities and towns. Occasionally Elam 
to the east gives the rulers of Ur trouble, but far more 
serious was the menace from the distant north. Dungi, 
the second ruler of the dynasty, undertakes no less than 
nine campaigns against the land of Sumuru and Lu- 
lubi. These groups show the same resistance to a for 
eign yoke that formerly characterized the Guti, of 
whom we hear nothing during the period of the Ur 
dynasty and who, while unable to stand up against 
better disciplined forces, rebelled again and again as 
the opportunity offered. 

We do not as yet know the circumstances as a con 
sequence of which the Ur dynasty came to an end, 
through the capture of its last representative, Ibisin, 

34 See Legrain, Leg Temps des Eois d'Ur (Paris, 1912). 

85 The dating of years by the reign of rulers is not introduced 
until the time of the Cassite dynasty in the eighteenth century. 
See below, pp. 156 and 351. 

 BABYLONIAN-ASSYRIAN HISTORY 141 

by the Elamites, c. 2330 B.C. Presumably, a combina 
tion of various centres was formed which did not hesi 
tate to call in the assistance of the common enemy to 
the east. Between the dynasty of Akkad and that of 
Ur, Elam had enjoyed a short era of independence 
during which one of her rulers, Basha-Shushinak, actu 
ally lays claim to the control of the "four quarters." 
It is not impossible that the Elamites were aided by 
Semites, whose influence, at all events, must have been 
considerable in this district, for we find the rulers 
using Akkadian instead of their own language in official 
inscriptions, and for a number of centuries business 
documents are also couched in Akkadian, though about 
the middle of the second millennium before this era a 
reaction sets in which leads to the reintroduction of the 
Elamite speech. Towards the close of the Ur dynasty 
there are indications of a reassertion of power in Elam 
which led to open hostilities and the overthrow of the 
Ur dynasty. In place of the latter centre, we find Isin 
the seat of a dynasty which maintained itself for 225 
years (c. 2350-2125 B.C.), though its rulers content 
themselves with the title of "King of Sumer and Ak 
kad" and were unable to prevent the simultaneous rise 
of an independent, smaller monarchy in Larsa which 
outlived that of Isin and whose rulers maintained 
themselves till 2090 B.C., when its last representative, 
Rim-Sin, was forced to yield to the great conqueror 
Hammurapi.36 The kings of Larsa also exercised con 
trol over Ur, sometimes designating themselves as kings 
of Ur, but more frequently as patrons. These rival 
dynasties of Isin and Larsa must often have been in 
conflict with each other, but unfortunately the century 
and a half following the overthrow of Ur is one for 
which few historical documents have as yet been found. 
Uruk also appears to have had a number of independ 
ent rulers, until a ruler, Rim-Sin, of Elamitic origin 
obtains control of Larsa, and thence as a centre both 
88 See below, p. 146 

 142 BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA 

overthrows Uruk and puts an end to the Isin dynasty. 
The period was therefore one in which the centralizing 
tendency of former days was considerably weakened 
and a gradual return to the conditions prevailing be 
fore the time of Lugalzaggisi is brought about. 

The rulers of Isin apart from their inability to 
retain control of important centres in the Euphrates 
Valley were menaced chiefly from two sides—from the 
east through the formation of a new Elamitic state in 
the district of Eamutbal (or Jamutbal), the .borderland 
to the east of the Tigris, and from the north through 
the rise of an Amorite dynasty which established itself 
in the city of Babylon c. 2225 B.C., not long after the 
death of the usurper Amel-Ninib (c. 2256-2228 B.C.), 
and controlled northern Babylonia. The formation of 
an independent Elamitic state on the border between 
Babylonia and Elam proper is another indication both 
of the weakness of the Isin dynasty and of the inability 
of the central Elamitic power with its seat in the cap 
ital, Susa, to maintain the integrity of the empire.37 
From Ashurbanapal 's inscriptions we know that he 
recaptured a statue of the goddess Nana, of Uruk, 
which he says the Elamites had carried away as a 
trophy 1635 years ago,38 which brings us to the year 
2280 or, according to a variant, 1535 years, which would 
be equivalent to 2180. He names as the Elamite ruler 
who plundered the temples of the Euphrates Valley, 
Kudurnanchundi, and since we know of a ruler of 
Emutbal, Kudurmabug, containing the same element, 
Kudur, it is quite possible that Kudurnanchundi be 
longs to the Emutbal dynasty rather than to one which 
reigned in Susa. If this be so, the lower date is prob 
ably the more correct of the two, for shortly after 
2180 B.C., we find Kudurmabug as ruler of Emutbal 

*T See further on the relationship between this central kingdom 
of Elam and the rulers of Emutbal, Meyer, Qeschichte des Alter- 
tums, I, 2, p. 601-605. 

•• Rawliuson, V, PI. 6,107, with parallel passages. 

 PLATE XXIV 

FIQ. I, LUGAL-DAUDU, KINO OF ADAS—AS TYPE FIG. 2, MARDUK-NADIN-AKH1, KINO OF BABYLONIA 
OF SUMERIAN (c. 1140-1086 B. C.)—AS TYPE OF SEMITE 

 BABYLONIAN-ASSYRIAN HISTORY 143 

(c. 2150 B.C.) actively interfering in the affairs of the 
Euphrates Valley; he rescues Larsa out of the hands 
of a certain Mutiabal and places his own son Aradsin 
in control.39 This date is coequal with the beginning 
of the reign of the last ruler of the Isin dynasty and 
we have seen that the last sixty years of this period 
were marked by internal disturbances. After a reign 
of twelve years Aradsin is succeeded by his brother, 
Rim-Sin. During the reign of these two sons of Ku- 
durmabug, Elamitic influences must have been para 
mount. They no doubt kept close relations with 
Emutbal, which at this period exercised a sway over 
the old kingdom of Elam, with its capital at Susa, 
whose rulers became vassals of the kings of Emutbal. 

VIII 

The Sumerian domination of the Euphrates Valley 
thus comes to an end. An entirely new situation had 
been created by this astonishing aggressiveness of 
Elamitic chieftains. Instead of Sumerians and Ak 
kadians, we have Amorites and Elamites preparing for 
a final test of arms. 

Chronological lists at our disposal reveal a series of 
eleven rulers with their seat in Babylon and whose 
reigns can now be approximately fixed as extending 
from c. 2225 to 1926 B.C. The first of these rulers is 
Sumuabu, the form of whose name is Semitic, but of a 
quite different formation from the Akkadian names. 
The same is the case with the names of other rulers of 
this dynasty like Sumulailu, Sabu, Hammurapi; in fact 
all but two—Apil-Sin and Sin-muballit40—are dis 
tinctly foreign. Those bearing these names, therefore, 
represent part of an immigration into the Euphrates 

89 See his votive inscription to Nergal published by Thureau- 
Dangin (Revue d'Assyriologie, IX, pp. 121-124). 

"Signifying "Son of the god Sin" and "Sin gives life"— 
genuine Akkadian names. 

 144 BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA 

Valley, and there is more than sufficient evidence to 
show that the new settlers came from the northwest— 
the large and not sharply defined district known as 
Anmrru, the land of the Amorites. In fact the rulers 
in question speak of themselves and of their subjects 
as Amorites.41 The Semitic character of these Amorites 
is as pronounced as that of the earlier Semitic settlers 
in the Euphrates Valley, if not indeed more so since 
they had not been obliged to submit to an assimilating 
process with Sumerians and other non-Semites. Once 
in the country, however, they adopt the language, cult 
and customs of the Akkadians, and only in their names 
and in retaining the habit of the Semitic Bedouins of 
shaving the upper lip do they reveal externally a trace 
of their foreign origin. "We do not know the special cir 
cumstances under which these Amorites entered Baby 
lonia. Migrations into the Euphrates Valley on a larger 
or smaller scale were probably going on at all times, 
particularly from the northwest, whence Bedouin tribes 
could easily pass along the course of the Euphrates into 
the south. 

The Akkadians themselves probably did not wel 
come these constant accessions from the north and 
northwest, and conflicts ensued which must sometimes 
have ended disastrously for the invaders, though they 
generally led to a coalition. That appears to have been 
the case with the Amorites, who, entering the country 
at a time when the Akkadians were forced to submit 
once more to Sumerian supremacy, were probably aided 
by their fellow Semites in the endeavor to re-establish 
the power of the Semites in the northern part of the 
Valley, which from the time of the dynasty of Agade 
becomes definitely known as Akkad, in contrast to 
Sumer as the designation of the south. The Amorites 
established themselves in the city of Babylon, which, 
situated somewhat to the south of Agade, had already 
in the days of the Akkad dynasty begun to acquire 

41 See Meyer, Geschichte des Altertums, I, 2, p. 615, note. 

 BABYLONIAN-ASSYRIAN HISTORY 145 

some importance. These Amorite rulers succeeded in 
uniting the Semitic population of the north under their 
banners. Sumuabu controls the old Semitic centre, 
Kish; his dominion reaches to Dilbat to the south of 
Babylon, but he makes no effort to encroach on Sumer. 
Indeed, he appears to have had some trouble in con 
trolling all of Akkad, for we learn of an expedition 
against Kasallu to the north of Kish which refused 
to submit to Sumuabu's dominion and which is there 
fore destroyed by him. The patesi of Ashur—the old 
capital of Assyria—Ilushuma, also makes an attack 
on Sumuabu, which is significant as foreshadowing the 
rivalry between the two Semitic kingdoms of Meso 
potamia, that of Babylonia in the south and of Assyria 
in the north. After a rule of eleven years, Sumuabu 
is succeeded by Sumulailu, whose long reign of thirty- 
six years (c. 2211-2176 B.C.) was largely devoted to 
strengthening the newly established kingdom and to 
overcoming rivals who appeared on various sides. It 
was not until near the close of his reign that Sumulailu 
succeeded in overcoming his foes and rivals, and in 
establishing himself as ruler of the entire north. He 
is the real founder of the dynasty of Babylon whose 
name is celebrated as such by his successors. His suc 
cessors, to be sure, still had difficulties to contend with. 
Rebellions broke out here and there, but were sup 
pressed aparently with increasingly less effort, so that 
the strength of the kingdom was well maintained. 

The time was approaching for the supreme test of 
this strength in passages of arms with the Elamitie 
rulers who, as we have seen, had obtained the mastery 
of Sumer. The kings of Babylon were unable to pre 
vent the aggressiveness of Kudurmabug and his two 
sons, Aradsin and Rim-Sin, whom he had placed on the 
throne of Larsa. It may be, indeed, that they abetted 
Elam in its endeavors to crush the Sumerians. The 
seventeenth year of Sin-muballit's reign, corresponding 
to about 2126 B.C., is entered in business documents as 
10 

 146 BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA 

the one in which Isin was captured. This, we know, 
was the work of Rim-Sin and not of Sin-muballit, but 
if the event is recognized in Babylon as a basis for the 
official dating of documents, it is tempting to suppose 
that Sin-muballit was in some measure involved in the 
overthrow of the Isin dynasty.42 He certainly appears 
to have taken advantage of disturbed conditions in the 
south by making an attack on Ur, which was recorded 
as having been successful.43 But if a coalition between 
Sin-muballit and Rim-Sin existed, it must soon have 
become apparent that it could not last. When two 
aggressive kingdoms are brought face to face, it is only 
a question of time before hostilities between the two 
will break out. There was no room for both Amorites 
and Elamites. The one or the other had to yield. 

Within two years after the end of the Isin dynasty, 
Sin-muballit dies and is succeeded (c. 2123 B.C.) by his 
son, Hammurapi, who so amply merits the title of 
"Great." He at once inaugurates an aggressive policy 
which brings city after city into his control. In 2117 he 
succeeds in wresting Uruk and Isin from the Elamites 
and follows up his advantage by moving against the 
Elamitic border state Emutbal in the following year. 
A number of years passed, however, before the great 
conqueror succeeded in capturing Ur and Larsa and 
in bringing the bootj^ to Babylon. Emutbal became 
a province of the Amorite kingdom in 2090 B.C., and in 
another year all Sumer acknowledged Hammurapi's 
supremacy. During the last nine years of his reign 
he displayed the same energy in promoting works of 
peace, enlarging the canal system, and furnishing Uruk 
and other cities with an abundant water supply. He 

*2 Sin-muballit did not go so far as to actually claim that he 
put an end to the Isin dynasty, and it is noticeable that in busi 
ness documents for the seventeenth year, there is an alternative 
dating of a totally different character. See Schorr, Altbdbylonische 
Bechtsurkunden, p. 588. 

*s See the date for the eighteenth year (Schorr, I.e.). 

 BABYLONIAN-ASSYRIAN HISTORY 

restores the temples in Larsa, Eridu, Lagash, Khallab, 
Cuthah, and Adab, which had suffered during the pro 
longed period of the wars; he is equally concerned for 
the old centres of the north, such as Opis and Kish. 
Naturally his chief concern is for his capital, Babylon, 
and next to this for the neighboring Borsippa and for 
Sippar, which remains in specially close touch with 
Babylon. The chief cities of Assyria, Ashur and 
Nineveh, included in his empire, are also the objects of 
his care. His aim is evidently to establish a permanent 
union between the Semitic and the non-Semitic ele 
ments of the population of Sumer and Akkad. The 
old Sumerian centres, Eridu, Nippur, Ur, Uruk and 
Larsa, retain their position in the religious organiza 
tion, though henceforth deprived of political impor 
tance. Both languages, jSumerian and Akkadian, are 
recognized as official. Documents are not infrequently 
set up in both languages, though in the cult the Su 
merian continues for some time to occupy the first 
place. Hammurapi crowns his career by a codification 
and formal promulgation of the laws which were to 
serve as the basis of legal decisions and according to 
which justice was to be dealt out. Already at the be 
ginning of his reign he emphasizes his aim to establish 
justice in his dominions, so that, in a measure, his 
famous code—discovered at Susa in 1901, whither it 
had been carried as a trophy of war by the Elamites in 
the twelfth century 44—is one of his earliest works, but 
since it was not promulgated until the close of his 
career, after he had finished his long series of wars and 
had succeeded in uniting all of Babylonia, as we may 
from now on designate the country brought under a 
single rule, it represents, as it were, his last testament 
—the monument of his career, which was of a more 
enduring character than any of his other achievements 
in war or in peace.45____________________ 

" See above, p. 113, note 88. 

48 See an analysis of the code in Chapter VI. 

 148 BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA 

IX 

Hammurapi's reign thus closes an epoch in the 
history of the country and marks the beginning of a 
new age. The prolonged struggle between Sumerians 
and Akkadians ends in the definite supremacy of the 
latter, reinforced by the Amorites. Babylonia as a 
united empire with Semitic rulers on the throne arises 
out of the issue to become a dominant factor in the 
world's history. The Akkadian language replaces the 
Sumerian as the popular speech and becomes also the 
official medium, although for the present it did not 
•drive the Sumerian entirely out of use. 

A survey of the history such as we have attempted 
up to the days of Hammurapi makes it perfectly clear 
why the culture of Babylonia, and therefore also that 
of Assyria is essentially a mixed product, due to the 
long-continued process of alternating conflict and as 
similation between the Semitic and non-Semitic ele 
ments of the population. If the Semites come out of 
this conflict as the conquerors, they nevertheless have 
absorbed much of the Sumerian culture; in fact, the 
ability to combine these foreign elements—the script, 
the religious beliefs, the rites, the military organiza 
tion and other features—with their own points of view 
and contributions to civilization is to be accounted as 
an important factor in leading to their ultimate 
triumph. From the time of Hammurapi, we may 
drop all distinctions of Sumer and Akkad and speak of 
the Sumero-Akkadian kingdom, or more briefly Baby 
lonia, since Babylon as the political centre now assumes 
a fundamental importance. 

A centralizing tendency in religion also sets in, as 
we shall have occasion to point out in the following 
chapter, leading to heaping on Marduk, as the god of 
the city of Babylon, the powers and attributes of all 
the chief gods, the patrons of the old centres in the 
south and north. Babylon and Marduk become the 

 BABYLONIAN-ASSYRIAN HISTORY 149 

dominating factors in the historical and religious for 
tunes of the country; and in view of the wide scope 
of religion in ancient civilizations, the two factors also 
that condition the further steps in the unfolding of 
the culture of both Babylonia and Assyria. 

X 

It was no easy task for even so great a ruler such as 
Hammurapi was to hold a vast empire together. The 
only hope lay in bringing about an assimilation of the 
population to the extent at least of creating a feeling 
of national pride as the basis for the maintenance of the 
political integrity of the realm. Such a policy, how 
ever, had its distinct limitations. Sunier and Akkad 
could be brought together in this way. Assyria in the 
north was still too weak to offer serious resistance, but 
these conditions did not apply to districts beyond As 
syria to the north and northeast—the land of the Guti, 
Lullubi and other groups of whom, in fact, we hear 
nothing during the period of the dynasty of Babylon, 
while Elam to the East, chafing under the humiliat 
ing yoke, merely waited for a favorable opportunity 
to again reassert herself. 

The opportunity came not many years after the 
death of Hammurapi, in 2081 B.C. The same Rim-Sin 
who overthrew Isin, and who was himself obliged, after 
a long and desperate struggle, to yield to Hammurapi, 
once more became active despite his advanced years.*6 
After his defeat by Hammurapi, he appears to have 
returned into the mountain regions bordering on Elam 
and there gathered recruits for a fresh attack. We 
hear in the days of Samsuiluna, the son and successor 
of Hammurapi, of a new group, the Cassites, who were 
destined to become the controlling element in Baby- 
lonia. The origin of these Cassites is still involved in 

46 Assuming that he was a very young man at his conquest of 
Isin in 2126 B.C., he must have been almost eighty years old when he 
again makes the attempt to regain his lost prestige. 

 150 BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA 

considerable doubt.47 They were a people of mountain 
eers, semi-barbarous, but capable of rapidly absorbing 
the elements of the higher civilization with which they 
came in contact in Elam and subsequently in Babylonia. 
The ninth year of Samsuiluna, that is 2071 B.C., records 
a conflict with the "Cassite hordes" which stands in 
connection with the events of the following year, in 
which Samsuiluna is <at war with Emutbal, Ur, Uruk 
and Isin. In the same year we fold Rim-Sin in pos 
session of Upi (or Opis), the old border city in the 
extreme north of Babylonia, and assuming with the 
consent of the chief goddess of Upi, Ninmakh, the title 
of king "over the whole land." Clearly Rim-Sin had 
succeeded in rallying to his side the districts in the 
south over which he formerly ruled as well as Emut 
bal. The army which he gathered must have been rein 
forced by the Cassite hosts, aiding him to march across 
the road leading from Ecbatana to Babylon, along 
which lay Upi as an important strategic point. The 
effort of Rim-Sin and his allies, however, failed, and 
Rim-Sin appears to have perished in the flames of his 
own palace. Samsuiluna took his revenge on Ur and 
Uruk by destroying the walls of these two ancient 
centres. 

For all that, he could not prevent frequent upris 
ings in various parts of Babylonia, nor the constitution 
of a rival state in the marshy districts of the extreme 
south, spoken of in the inscriptions as the "sea land." 
Here we find Ilumailu establishing himself as king, 
c. 2070 B.C., and giving considerable trouble to Samsui 
luna (2080-2043 B.C.) and to his son and successor, 
Abeshu (2042-2015 B.C.). The rulers of the "sea land" 
who maintained their independence during the re 
mainder of the period of the first dynasty of Babylon 
were probably not Semites, despite the Semitic forma 
tion of their names. We may see in them the last faint 
and desperate efforts of Sumerians, driven into the 

47 See Meyer, Geschichte des Altertums I, 2, p. 652, seq. 

 BABYLONIAN-ASSYRIAN HISTORY 151 

waste lands of the south, difficult of access, to assert 
themselves. Though for the greater part obliged to 
limit their jurisdiction to a small strip bordering on 
the Persian Gulf—the portion of Babylonia that sub 
sequently became known as Chaldsea—the successors of 
Ilumailu, of whom we know no less than ten, made 
incursions from time to time, in the hope of regaining 
at least the old capital Isin—the last stronghold, as 
we have seen, of the opponents of the dynasty of 
Babylon. For a short time, indeed, Damikilishu II— 
adopting the name of the last ruler of the Isin dynasty 
—succeeds in this aim. He occupies the city and re 
builds the wall, but, about 1988 B.C., we have the record 
that Ammiditana (c. 2014-1978 B.C.), the son of Abeshu, 
destroyed this wall, which naturally involved the cap 
ture of the place. The two successors of Ammiditana 
appear to have kept the rival kings in check, but in the 
year 1926 B.C., a strange occurrence brings the dynasty 
of Babylon to a sudden end. This was an invasion of 
the Hittites, with whom a new and entirely unexpected 
factor enters into Babylonian history. These Hittites 
come from the northwest, from the Taurus range and 
beyond.48 The name Khatti given to them appears 
to be one that acquired a very wide and general signifi 
cance and included a. variety of groups, of whom the 
Mitanni in northwestern Mesopotamia represent a sub 
division. The centre, however, of Hittite dominion was 
in the interior of Asia Minor, stretching at an early 
time up to the shores of the Caspian Sea. Here we 
find a powerful kingdom established which in the fif 
teenth century is able to oppose an active resistance 
against the attempts of Egyptian rulers to bring north 
ern Syria under their control. The entire region from 
northern Syria to Boghaz-Keui, near the Black Sea, 
is covered with mounds containing remains of Hittite 
palaces and forts which, while showing the decided 

*8 See Garstang, Land of the Hittites (London, 1910), and Ed. 
Meyer, Ecich vnd Kultur dcr Chetitcr (Berlin, 1914); also above, 
p. 116. 

 152 BABYLONIA AND ASSYEIA 

influence of Babylonian and Assyrian models,49 have yet 
distinctive features which justify us in speaking of 
the Hittites as a unit, though it must always be borne 
in mind that the term is merely a convenient one for 
massing together a number of groups that combined to 
form powerful kingdoms in central and northern Asia 
Minor, and then, pressing southwards, established a 
number of independent states in northern Syria be 
tween the Euphrates and the Taurus range and prob 
ably also in the Zagros range, while offshoots proceeded 
still further south and, entering Palestine proper, be 
came an element of the very mixed population of that 
region. Hittite groups thus covered an enormous area 
and it is not surprising, therefore, to find a contingent, 
attracted by the culture of Babylonia, passing into this 
region in the hope of establishing themselves there. 
The Hittites swooped down upon Babylonia and, tak 
ing advantage of weakened conditions through the con 
stant attacks from the rival kingdom in the "sea land," 
which had to be repulsed, actually succeeded in over 
throwing Samsuditana in the year 1926 B.C. The attack 
was probably undertaken as a plundering raid, to which 
an open country like the Euphrates Valley was fre 
quently subject, but for the time being with the result 
of actually placing a Hittite chieftain on the throne of 
Babylon. How long the Hittites remained in control 
we do not know, as in general our knowledge of the 
closing years of the dynasty of Babylon is still very 
defective, while with the downfall of this dynasty a 
gap of a most serious character ensues which stretches 
over the succeeding centuries. 

XI 

Until a short time ago it seemed possible to join a 
short Hittite occupancy of Babylonia directly on to the 
conquest of the land by the Cassites, whose first en- 

48 See Plate LIV, Fig. 1, for specimen of Hittite art, showing 
Assyrian influence. 

 BABYLONIAN-ASSYRIAN HISTORY 153 

counters with the kings of Babylon, it will be recalled, 
took place in the reign of Samsuiluna. This is, now 
that a more definite basis for dating the reigns of the 
rulers of the Babylon dynasty has been secured,50 not 
easily possible, indeed one may say out of the question. 
As a makeshift it is assumed that the rulers of the "sea 
land" availed themselves of the disturbed condition of 
affairs through the invasion of the Hittites and suc 
ceeded not only in gaining control of Isin and the land 
of Sumer in general, but also of Akkad, and ruled as 
kings of Sumer and Akkad for a period of about 150 
years. There are some indications pointing in this 
direction. Until, however, further documents for this 
period shall be forthcoming, we cannot trace the course 
of events which led (c. 1760 B.C.) to the conquest of the 
entire country by the Cassites. All that may safely be 
inferred is that the interval (c. 1926-1760 B.C.) between 
the invasion of the Hittites and the establishment of a 
dynasty of Cassite rulers who maintained themselves 
on the throne for more than half a millennium must 
have been marked by unrest, by frequent shiftings of 
the political kaleidoscope and by internal disturbances 
during which there was in many respects a reversion to 
earlier conditions when Sumer and Akkad were hope 
lessly divided up into a considerable number of in 
dependent little states. 

XII 

The Cassites did not remain idle during this inter 
val. While originally perhaps serving merely as mer 
cenaries in the army of Rim-Sin, they must soon after 
his death have obtained a position of mastery in the 
border state of Emutbal. Prom this point of vantage 
they would be apt to make incursions into the 
Euphrates Valley and if we were better informed re 
garding this period, we would probably find them hold- 

60 By Kugler, Sternkunde und Sterndienst in Babel, II, 2, Heft I, 
p. 257, seq., on the basis of notices in astrological texts. 

 154 BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA 

ing portions of the land in their control. Elam proper 
must also have been affected by the proximity of these 
warlike hordes. It does not appear to have ever actu 
ally fallen into the hands of the Cassites, though in 
default of documents we cannot be certain of this. 

The Babylonian Chroniclers name Gandash as the 
first Cassite ruler who lays claim to titles emphasizing 
control of Babylonia. In fact he calls himself in an 
inscription that has been preserved in a late copy,51 
"King of the Four Regions, King of Sumer and Akkad, 
King of Babylon," from which we are permitted to 
conclude that he asserted his complete succession to 
the dynasty of Babylon, but it does not of course fol 
low that he was the first Cassite who succeeded in gain 
ing the supremacy over any portion of the Euphrates 
Valley. Predecessors of Gandash for many genera 
tions back may have had parts of Sumer or Akkad in 
their possession, dividing the authority with the rulers 
of the "sea land." All therefore that is to be con 
cluded from the official recognition of Gandash as the 
first ruler of the Cassite dynasty is that with him the 
interference of the Cassites in the political fortunes of 
the Euphrates Valley assumes a new and more definite 
phase. For about forty years the rulers of the "sea 
land," no doubt driven back to their limited marshy dis 
trict in the south, were able to maintain themselves 
until about 1720 B.C., when their rule was practically 
brought to an end by Ulamburiash, the Cassite who 
calls himself the brother of Kashtiliash I. 

A strange issue indeed of the long continued con 
flicts between Sumerians and Akkadians that after such 
various vicissitudes in which Semitic influences steadily 
gained the mastery, the prize should have been snatched 
out of the hands of the two rivals by a foreign power, 
and one that represented a far lower level of culture. 
The Cassites indeed brought little with them that could 

61 Winckler, Untersuchungen zur Altorientalischen Geschichte, 
pp. 34 and 156. 

 BABYLONIAN-ASSYRIAN HISTORY 155 

be regarded as an addition to the civilization which they 
assimilated unless it be the horse, which appears to 
have been introduced by them,52 as better adapted than 
the ass for purposes of war—particularly for drawing 
chariots across mountain regions. Indeed many cen 
turies lapsed before it became customary to use the 
horse also as a riding animal as we find it on the monu 
ments of Assyrian kings. The Cassites appear to 
have adopted the civilization of Babylonia in a sur 
prisingly short time; they retain the names of the chief 
deities worshipped by them53 but assimilated them to 
figures of the Babylonian pantheon, to whom they bore 
a resemblance.54 

A civilization having reached a certain point does 
not stand still; it either moves forward or a period of 
decline, albeit temporary, sets in. The latter appears 
to have been the result of the coming of the Cassite 
hordes. The works of art of this period are few in 
number, which may of course be due to accidental pres 
ervation, but what we have is of a decidedly lower 
order. The best specimens are the so-called boundary 
stones, large steles of hard or soft stone or of a com 
posite material, recording gifts of lands or special deeds 
illustrated with symbols and representations of the 
gods and occasionally of rulers in whose reigns these 

62 The code of Hammurapi does not mention the horse, but we 
find it referred to in a business document of this period. (See 
Ungnad, Oriental. Litteraturzeitung, X, Sp. 638, seq.); it does not 
become common, however, until the time of Cassite control. The 
horse (sisu) is written ideographically "ass of the mountain," an 
indication of the district whence it was brought to Babylonia. See 
Meyer, Geschichte des Altertums, I, 2, p. 651, seq. 

63 See Jastrow, Religion Bdbyloniens und Assyriens, I, p. 180 
and the references there given. 

64 Shipak is identified with Marduk, Khala with the goddess 
Gula, Shukamuna, who appears to have been the head of the 
Cassite pantheon, with Nergal, Shuriasli with Shamash, and Marut- 
tash with Ninib. 

 156 BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA 

monuments were set up.55 No literary products date, 
so far as can be ascertained, from the five centuries of 
Cassite supremacy. The old was preserved and we do 
not even find evidence of any adaptation of ancient 
hymns or rituals or myths to the changed conditions, 
such as happened when Babylon, with Marduk as the 
chief deity, took the place of Nippur and Enlil,56 or as 
happened centuries later when the Babylonian literature 
was carried over to Assyria and adapted to conditions 
prevailing in the north. It may be that certain divina 
tion practises were brought to Babylonia by the 
Cassites,57 but this can certainly not be regarded as a 
contribution to culture, as little as can changes in mili 
tary organization and warfare which they may have 
introduced. The ancient laws were retained by the 
Cassite rulers, as the business documents, which from 
the days of Burnaburiash (c. 1370 B.C.) become quite 
numerous,58 show. The one important innovation in 
these documents is the introduction of dating according 
to the years of the ruling monarch, instead of accord 
ing to significant events. 

While continuing to recognize Babylon as the official 
residence, the Cassite rulers seemed bent on restoring 
to Nippur the prestige which this centre lost in a meas 
ure through the transfer of the headship of the pan 
theon to Marduk as the chief deity of Babylon. We 
find the Cassites displaying great zeal in restoring and 

BB See the illustration and also in Chapter VII. Plates LXXIII 
and LXXIV. 

66 See p. 212, seq. 

67 Probably the divination through the play of oil bubbles in 
water, for which see p. 266 and the reference there given. 

*8E.g., in Nippur. See Clay, Documents from the Temple 
Archives Dated in the Reigns of Cassite Rulers (Philadelphia, 1906, 
2 vols.), and the same author's Personal Names from Cuneiform 
Inscriptions of the Cassite Period (New Haven, 1912); in Babylon, 
also, business documents of the time of Burnaburiash II onwards 
have been found. 

 BABYLONIAN-ASSYRIAN HISTORY 157 

improving the sanctuary of Enlil at Nippur, which, 
however, did not hinder them from paying their homage 
to the chief patron deities of other centres, to Sin or 
Nannar at Ur, to Shamash at Larsa, to Nana in Uruk 
and naturally also to Marduk in Babylon. 

XIII 

We must now leave Babylonia for a while and turn 
our attention to the north, for before the Cassite do 
minion comes to an end (c. 1200 B.C.), we find the rulers 
of Assyria not only in a position of complete independ 
ence of the south, but inaugurating the aggressive 
policy which in due course, with many turns and twists, 
to be sure, made them the masters of a large portion 
of the ancient world—world-conquerors in the full 
sense of the term. 

Despite the large advance signalled in our knowl 
edge of the earliest period of Assyrian history as a con 
sequence of the thorough excavations that have been 
conducted during the past fourteen years by the Ger 
man expedition at Kaleh-Shergat,59 the site of the 
ancient capital of Assyria, we are still in the dark as 
to the origin of the northern state or the manner of its 
settlement. The region offers a ready access to the 
northern hordes always pressing southwards from their 
mountain recesses, and since the names of some of the 
earliest personages in connection with the history of 
Assyria show affiliations with Mitanni names, as, for 
example, TJshpia, the first builder of the temple at 
Ashur, and Kikia who built the city wall, we are per 
mitted to conclude that Hittite groups formed a con 
tingent in the earliest settlements of Assyria to which 
the material found leads us. Waves of Amoritic migra 
tions or invasions must also have reached Assyria at 
an early date, and the circumstance that one of the 
oldest temples in Ashur is dedicated to the god Adad, 
of Amoritic origin, in conjunction with Ami, the patron 

88 Above, p. 55, seq. 

 158 BABYLONIA AND ASSYEIA 

god of Uruk who becomes the god of heaven in gen 
eral, is significant.60 The natural extension northwards 
of the Euphratean civilization would further tend to 
bring a steady string of settlers from the south. 

The extension of the script and language of Baby 
lonia to Assyria forms naturally the most significant 
symptom of the spread of the culture produced in the 
south, for with the script and language went the re 
ligious beliefs and practises (adapted so far as neces 
sary to modified conditions), as well as the laws as an 
inherent element of the religion, deriving their author 
ity direct from the gods. The form in which the culture 
is passed on is that assumed through the gradual pre 
dominance of the Semitic or Akkadian element of the 
population. The earliest inscriptions recovered, which 
take us back to considerably beyond 2000 B.C., are 
couched in Akkadian, which is perhaps also to be taken 
as an indication that the movement to the north was 
largely from Akkad, the centre of the Semitic settle 
ments, rather than from Sumer. 

As already pointed out, the new documents found 
in considerable numbers through the excavations of 
Kaleh-Shergat enable us to carry back the history of 
Assyria to several centuries beyond the threshold of the 
third millennium before this era, but the facts gleaned 
from these documents, usually brief votive inscriptions, 
are meagre. We learn the names of early rulers, call 
ing themselves at first patesis,61 who record their ac 
tivity in building walls or enlarging temples in the 
city of Ashur dedicated to various gods, as Ashur, Ish- 
tar, Enlil, Anu and Adad and the goddess of the lower 
world, Ereshkigal. It is not until we reach the days of 
Samsi-Adad, son of Ishme-Dagan, whose date may be 
provisionally fixed at c. 1850 B.C., that we -obtain a 

80 The temple is always spoken of as the "house of Anu and 
Adad." 

81 See Messerschmidt, Keilschrifttexte Aus Assur (Leipzig, 1911). 

 BABYLONIAN-ASSYRIAN HISTORY 159 

more definite picture of the internal state of affairs. 
This ruler already bestows on himself the title "king 
of universal reign," which the later kings of Assyria 
so proudly wield and with far more justification. How 
ever, Samsi-Adad would assuredly not have used the 
title without some claim, albeit exaggerated, as a result 
of conquests made by him. We find him, as a matter 
of fact, extending his realm far beyond the natural 
confines of Assyria. He speaks of subjecting to his 
control "the land between the Tigris and Euphrates," 
by which presumably he means Mesopotamia proper 
to the west of Assyria and which would include the 
Hittite settlements of Khani in that region. This is 
confirmed by a tablet found in Tirka, the capital of 
Khani, speaking of Samsi-Adad's activity in building 
a temple to Dagan in that centre. He passes still fur 
ther to the north into the mountain districts of the 
Lebanon and erects monuments on "the coast of the 
great sea," by which he means the Mediterranean.62 
To conquer such an extensive territory was no small 
achievement, and it points to a remarkable advance in 
power that the rulers of the city of Ashur should be 
prepared to take up the policy of the old Sumerian 
kings like Lugalzaggisi and Urukagina, and of Akkad 
ian conquerors like Sargon, Naram-Sin and Ham- 
niurapi, to stretch their dominions to the "great sea." 
Samsi-Adad would not have been able to carry out 
such a plan but for the weakened condition of the south 
at the time, where, as we have seen, after the invasion 
of the Hittites a period of decided decline had set in. 

This relationship between conditions in the south 
and those in the north becomes characteristic for the 

82 Hardly the Black Sea as Meyer, Geschichte des Altertums, 
1, 2, p. 593. I do not hesitate to identify Lab'an with Lebanon, 
and since Samsi-Adad immediately thereafter (col. IV, 13-18) 
speaks of the "coast of the great sea," he cannot have in mind 
anything else than the Mediterranean—and in all probability at the 
point where the Dog River enters the Mediterranean. 

 160 BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA 

future; and we will have occasion to see how constantly 
weakness in Babylonia is taken advantage of by As 
syria for an aggressive policy and, vice versa, periods 
of decline of power in the north are marked by a re 
newal of strength in the south. With the triumph of 
the Cassites in Babylonia, a strong central power was 
once more established and, correspondingly, we find 
Assyrian rulers unable to follow up the policy of ex 
tension inaugurated by Samsi-Adad. 

XIV 

A problem in connection with this early history of 
Assyria that still awaits solution is to account for the 
presence of an extensive settlement in far distant Cap- 
padocia, making use of the cuneiform script and Ak 
kadian language (with certain modifications) for re 
cording business transactions on clay tablets precisely 
like those to which we are accustomed in Babylonia and 
Assyria, even to the attachment of the seals of the 
parties concerned.63 Through these seals furnishing 
names of rulers of the TJr dynasty and of early patesis 
of Ashur, we are enabled to say definitely that these 
Cappadocian documents, found at various places of the 
extensive district, revert to a period as high as about 
2400 B.C., and come down to about 1900, though a defi 
nite limit at the other end has not yet been determined. 
The proper names in these documents are unmistakably 
Assyrian, as is shown by the frequent introduction of 
the element Ashur—generally written Ashir as in the 
oldest Assyrian inscriptions—in names of individuals. 
A further proof of the presence of Assyrians in this 
district at an early period is the designation Assyria 
given by early Greek geographers to the land on both 
sides of the river Halys, covering precisely the region 

•3 See the references grouped together by Meyer, Qeschichte des 
Altertums, I, 2, p. 613, seq., and the note on page viii of the Intro 
duction. 

 BABYLONIAN-ASSYRIAN HISTORY 161 

in which Cappadocian tablets have been found. Even 
in later times, the inhabitants of Cappadocia are spoken 
of as Syrians (an abbreviation of Assyrians), and by 
way of contrast to the Syrians south of the Taurus 
range are specified as "White Syrians."64 How are 
we to account for this Assyrian colony in a district so 
remote from both Babylonia and Assyria at this early 
date ? A plausible hypothesis which may be provision 
ally accepted is to assume that Assyrian garrisons were 
placed here to maintain some measure of control over 
the land and that around these garrisons, owing alle 
giance to rulers of Sumer and Akkad, settlements of 
Assyrians and perhaps also of Babylonians grew and 
maintained commercial and other relationships with 
their native land.65 

In view of this extension of Assyrian influence in 
Asia Minor at so unexpectedly early a period, even 
though these Semitic settlements represent merely the 
outgrowth of military outposts, the aggressive policy 
of Samsi-Adad centuries later appears in a more 
natural light. What he did, others may have attempted 
before him, and indeed it is possible that he endeavored 
to secure for Assyria a control of lands to the north 
west that had been wrested from her while her rulers 
were still merely patesis, owing allegiance to rulers of 
the south. At all events, the advance of the Hittites, 
marked by their success in overthrowing the dynasty 
of Babylon, must have put at least a temporary end to 
Assyrian control in Asia Minor, and we may perhaps 
bring the end of the settlements in Cappadocia in con 
nection with this rise of the Hittites to a position of 
extraordinary power. 

•4 See the references given by Noldeke in Hermes, vol. v, pp. 
443-468. 

86 A parallel in much later days would be the growth of an 
extensive Jewish colony in Upper Egypt out of a military frontier 
garrison at Elephantine. See Ed. Meyer, Papyrusfund van Ele 
phantine (Leipzig, 1912). 
11 

 162 BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA 

But for the presence at this time of the strong Cas- 
site rulers in Babylonia, one might have witnessed 
another Hittite invasion of the Euphrates Valley in 
the sixteenth century. If we place Samsi-Adad shortly 
before the definite control of Babylonia through the 
Cassites, we obtain a date for the decline of the Hittite 
power in Babylonia, c. 1750 B.C., which answers the 
required conditions—the weakened state of the south 
through constant uprisings of various centres, and at 
tempts of rulers of the "sea land" to maintain or ex 
tend their power, and the advantage reaped by Assyria 
from this state of affairs to assert her independence 
and to push on to a renewed control of the regions lying 
to the north and northwest. 

In default of historical documents of Assyrian 
rulers for the succeeding centuries we are left in doubt 
as to the further course of this extension of Assyrian 
power, but the existence, in the sixteenth century, of 
the strong, independent state of Mitanni in northwest 
ern Mesopotamia, extending to the Taurus range, and 
the simultaneous establishment of a still more powerful 
Hittite kingdom with a centre near the Black Sea, 
furnish a date for the reaction which must have forced 
Assyria back within her proper bounds. The large 
admixture of Aryan elements at this time to the Hittite 
population, employed perhaps at first as mercenaries 
and then rising as successful soldiers to leading posi 
tions, is to be regarded as an important factor in bring 
ing new vigor to the various Hittite groups throughout 
Asia Minor. 

The supremacy of the Cassites in the south, reach 
ing the height of their power in the seventeenth to the 
fifteenth centuries, would act as a further deterrent in 
restricting the activity of Assyrian rulers to keeping a 
watch on the formidable neighbor, whose natural am 
bition would be to re-establish the dependency of 
Assyria upon Babylonia which had prevailed for so 
many centuries. A definite point of contact between 

 BABYLONIAN-ASSYRIAN HISTORY 163 

the Cassites and the Assyrians is found in a statement 
of a chronicler,00 that the Cassite ruler Karaindash, 
whose reign may be approximately fixed in the second 
half of the fifteenth century, made a treaty with Ashur- 
rimnisheshu, the King of Assyria, agreeing by a solemn 
oath to respect the boundary as fixed between them. That 
Assyria is strong enough to compel Babylonia to make 
an agreement regarding the boundary between the two 
lands is extremely significant, pointing as it does to 
the failure of attempts on the part of the Cassites to 
secure a control of the north. The northern kingdom 
was thus steadily growing in strength, and it is emi 
nently likely that after 1500 B.C. the south had given up 
all hope of reducing the north to the former position 
of subserviency. Assyria, in fact, was beginning to 
assume the role of aggressor, though some time natu 
rally elapsed before she was ready to assume a direct 
interference in the affairs of the south. This was 
brought about through the marriage of an Assyrian 
princess, Muballitat-Sheru'a, the daughter of Ashur- 
uballit (c. 1380-1350 B.C.), with Karakhardash, the 
Cassite ruler of Babylonia. The offspring of this mar 
riage, Karaindash, was murdered in a rebellion that 
broke out and Ashur-uballit proceeds to Babylonia to 
wreak vengeance for the death of his grandson. He 
succeeds in this to the extent of dispatching Nazibug- 
ash, an usurper and the ringleader of the uprising. In 
place of the latter, Kurigalzu II, another son of Burna- 
buriash, is placed on the throne and he rules for twenty- 
three years (c. 1355-1332 B.C.). 

XV 

"We have thus reached an entirely new state of 
affairs. The tables are turned about. The more vigor 
ous Assyria feels called upon to suppress internal dis 
turbances in Babylonia and to secure the legitimate 
succession to the throne. There are other indications 

" Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek (ed. Schrader), I, p. 194. 

 164 BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA 

of this momentous change in the relationships between 
the south and north. From this period, the middle of 
the fourteenth century B.C., date the important official 
archives found some twenty years ago in Tell el- 
Amarna in Egypt,67 containing a portion of the cor 
respondence of governors and other officials of dis 
tricts and cities in Palestine and Syria with the kings 
of Egypt, Amenophis III and Amenophis IV, in whose 
service they stood. This correspondence is carried on 
in Akkadian, which, as a result of the spread of Baby 
lonian culture, had become current beyond the borders 
of Babylonia. Included in the correspondence are also 
letters from Babylonian and Assyrian rulers which 
throw a further light on the change in the relationship 
between the two countries. The Cassite king Burna- 
buriash reproaches Amenophis IV for having recog 
nized Ashur-uballit as an independent monarch, as long 
as Babylonia still laid claim to a supremacy over As 
syria. This complaint is a proof of the weakness to 
which the south had been reduced. A foreign power is 
appealed to, to make good a claim that had long since 
ceased to have any warrant and that had become merely 
a tradition handed down from an age that had passed 
away. The Cassite ruler is not content with sending 
costly gifts to Amenophis III; he adds his daughter 
and his sister to be incorporated into the harem of the 
Egyptian ruler, and it is indicative of the situation that 
Amenophis refuses the request of the Babylonian king 
for an Egyptian princess in return. 

Enlil-nirari, the successor of Ashur-uballit, engages 
in battle with Kurigalzu II, despite the fact that the 
latter owed his throne to Assyrian interference. As 
syria is victorious and apparently dictates terms in 
bringing about a rearrangement of the boundary line. 
From now on till towards the end of the Cassite dy 
nasty, Assyria had a free hand in extending her power 
to the north, northeast and northwest, with occasional 

87 See the Introduction to Knudtzon's standard work, Die 
El-Amarnatafeln (Leipzig, 1908) for further details. 

 BABYLONIAN-ASSYRIAN HISTORY 165 

incursions even into Babylonia, which the latter, how 
ever, was able to resist, until, about 1290 B.C., she suc 
cumbed for a while to the authority of her northern foe. 
All four rulers following upon Enlil-nirari stand 
out prominently as aggressive warriors. Erik-den-ilu, 
who leads his armies into the mountainous regions to 
the northeast as well as to the northwest, subdues the 
Guti in the Zagros range and the Hittite groups on the 
western side of Assyria and drives back the Bedouins, 
grouped under Akhlami and Suti, into the desert lands 
to the southwest. His son, Adadnirari I, continues the 
work of his father and claims control of a large region 
to the east as well as to the northwest of Assyria. He 
appears definitely to have put an end to the Mitanni 
kingdom—an important achievement as a road, leading 
again to a further extension of Assyria into and beyond 
the Taurus range. Under the two successors, Shal- 
maneser I (c. 1300 B.C.) and Tukulti-Ninib (c. 1290 
B.C.), the aggressive policy reaches the height of its 
success. Chronicles record attacks on Babylonia by 
Adadnirari I, by Shalmaneser I and by Tukulti-Ninib I, 
corresponding to the reigns of Cassite kings from Nazi- 
maruttash (c. 1332-1307 B.C.) to Kashtiliash II (c. 
1261-1254 B.C.). Each attack meant not only a weak 
ening of the vitality of the Cassite rule in Babylonia, 
but concessions to Assyria in the settlement of the 
boundaiy line between the northern and southern king 
doms. Finally after several campaigns, Tukulti-ninib I 
actually besieges Babylon and captures the reigning 
king, Kashtiliash II. This happened about the middle 
of the thirteenth century.68 Babylonia passes entirely 
into control of Assyria, as is indicated by the title, 
"King of Karduniash" (i.e., Babylonia69) and "King 

118 We have a definite indication for the date of Tukulti-Ninib in 
a statement in one of Sennacherib's inscriptions. See King, 
Records of Tukulti-Ninib, I, p. 60, seq. 

169 For Kar-duniash ("Fortress of the god Duniash" as the 
Cassite name of Babylonia, see Meyer, Geschichte I, 2, p. 659, seq., 
and the references there given. 

 166 BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA 

of Sumer and Akkad" which Tukulti-Ninib I adds to 
his other claims. 

"With Tukulti-Ninib we reach the climax in this 
period of Assyrian aggressiveness. Had the strength 
which the north unfolded at this time been maintained, 
Babylonia would in a short time have become merely a 
province of Assyria. Tukulti-Ninib, however, is killed 
in an uprising instituted by his own son, and the de 
cline of Assyria now sets in with such rapidity that 
she not only loses her prestige but is attacked on the 
north by the various mountain groups, while Babylonia 
regains her independence and forces her favorites on 
the throne of Assyria. For a short time indeed, extend 
ing from the reign of Ashur-reshishi to that of Tig- 
lathpileser I, covering the second half of the twelfth 
century B.C., Assyria recovers her position. The former 
succeeds in driving back the Lulumi and the Guti and 
other groups into their mountain recesses, holds the 
Bedouin hordes in check and successfully combats an 
attack from Babylonia, the purpose of which was to 
reduce the district recognized by previous treaties as 
constituting the extent of Assyria. His son, Tiglath- 
pileser I (c. 1125-1100 B.C.), maintains the prestige re 
covered by his father and increases it by a series of 
campaigns to the northeast and northwest. He pene 
trates to the sources of the Euphrates, far up in the 
Nairi district, and erects a monument to himself there 
as the symbol of the extent of the dominion once more 
claimed by him. He forces the troublesome Hittite 
groups in the northwest to submission, and coming into 
the Taurus range makes himself master of an extensive 
district that stretches far into central Asia Minor. 
Egypt once more acknowledges the independence of 
Assyria; her kings send gifts to Ashur as in the days of 
Amenophis III and IV. Moreover, Tiglathpileser I 
surpasses the achievements of his predecessors on the 
throne of Assyria, and in imitation of the ambition of 
Babylonian rulers at various epochs plants his stand- 

 BABYLONIAN-ASSYRIAN HISTORY 167 

ards on the shores of the Mediterranean. At the mouth 
of the Dog River he erects a statue of himself, with an 
inscription recording his achievements. Tiglathpil- 
eser I crowns his achievements by two campaigns 
against Babylonia, in the first of which he extends the 
boundary line of Assyria, while in the second he reaches 
and captures the chief cities in northern Babylonia, in 
cluding the capital city, Babylon. Once more, there 
fore, as in the days of Tukulti-Ninib, the supremacy 
of the north had to be acknowledged by the south, but 
the second epoch of glory was of even shorter duration 
than the first, and with Tiglathpileser's death his ex 
tensive kingdom once more crumbles to pieces. For 
two centuries Assyria, restricted in her activity to 
maintaining herself within her own very definite and 
limited boundaries, plays little or no part in the larger 
affairs of the ancient world. 

It is not difficult to account for the rapid decay 
after the exhibition of such great force. The burden 
of military campaigns for a term of years, involving 
the annual loss of thousands of men, was too large to 
be borne, nor. was the booty, though large, or the tribute 
imposed an adequate compensation for the cost and 
effort. In a summary of five years of his reign, Tig- 
lathpileser speaks of having conquered no less than 
forty-two countries, covering a territory that stretched 
west to the Mediterranean, north to the Black Sea and 
northeast to the lake of Van and beyond. In the case 
of a single engagement,70 the king is opposed by a force 
of 20,000 men, of whom only six thousand escape. From 
such a statement we can infer what enormous hosts 
must have been gathered together by him to carry on 
wars successfully into difficult, almost inaccessible, 
regions. 

Externally, indeed, everything seemed rosy for As 
syria when Tiglathpileser I passed away. fThe old 
capital of Ashur had risen to new glory in the enlarge- 

70 Rawlinson, I, PI. 9, Col. I, 74. 

 168 BABYLONIA AND ASSYKIA 

ment of her temples and palaces, in the strengthening 
of her fortifications and in the tribute that poured in 
from all sides. He laid out beautiful parks about this 
palace, bringing trees for this purpose from distant 
lands. The king appears also to hare been the one who 
introduced wild hunting sports as a royal pastime. He 
hunts elephants on the banks of the Chabur; he boasts 
of having killed almost one thousand lions and all man 
ner of big and little game besides. In ships he sails 
along the Mediterranean and catches a sea monster 
which may have been a whale.71 Everything that the 
king thus does is on a huge scale and, making due allow 
ance for the exaggerations of his chroniclers, zealous in 
flattering their royal master, enough remains to show 
that, in peace as in war, Tiglathpileser I played the 
part of the grand monarque—with little concern, how 
ever, whether his successors would be able to keep up 
the grandeur and the glory. 

XVI 

Returning now to Babylonia, we have still to trace 
her history after the first serious conflicts with Assyria 
down to the close of the Cassite period. We have seen 
that the coming of the Cassites marks the beginning 
of a period of stagnation in the general culture, which 
after some time shows itself also in a political decline. 
Unfortunately, owing to a gap in our knowledge of the 
events during the two centuries that followed upon 
Agum II,72 we are not in a position to indicate exactly 
when the decline set in and we are left to conjecture as to 
the specific causes which brought it about. Difficulties in 
keeping the native population in check, particularly in 
the south, may be set down as an important factor, 
for both Sumerians and Akkadians must have chafed 

71 So Haupt's view. See Amer. Journal of Semitic Languages, 
vol. xxiii, pp. 253-263. The Assyrian term is ndkhiru. 

72 Above, p. 152. 

 BABYLONIAN-ASSYRIAN HISTORY 169 

under the humiliation of being governed by foreign 
invaders. The jealousy of Elam, seeking every oppor 
tunity of fomenting internal dissensions in the 
Euphrates Valley in the hope of profiting by the 
division, is a second factor, but one more fundamental 
was the general lowering of the niveau of culture 
through the mere presence of rulers who represented a 
cruder element—one that had to be assimilated to a 
higher civilization. In the course of such a process 
the more refined element suffers a temporary eclipse. 

It is significant as a general symptom of the weak 
ness of the Cassite dynasty, especially from the six 
teenth century on, that Babylonia was unable to oppose 
the Egyptian control over Palestine and the Phoanician 
coast. The Hittites alone in northeastern Syria and in 
central Asia Minor offered resistance to the advance of 
Egyptian arms, while Babylonian kings seemed happy 
to be able to maintain friendly relations through inter 
change of gifts with the rulers on the Nile who were, as 
a matter of fact, their natural rivals and who had 
wrested from their control the important strip along 
the Mediterranean and extending inland to high table 
lands and to the desert region respectively. Babylonia 
thus seemed condemned to a policy of concentration to 
preserve her independence, without thought of extra 
territorial extension. She is not even well prepared 
for this more humble role, for the result of the numer 
ous conflicts with Assyria, which began, as we saw,73 
in the reign of Karaindash (c. 1430 B.C.), is a steady 
growth of Assyrian territory by changes in the bound 
ary lines between the north and the south, until, about 
two centuries later, Babylonia is forced to accept as 
her rulers the candidates selected by Assyrian kings. 
The south profits by the decline in the power of Assyria 
which sets in after the murder of Tukulti-Ninib I, and 
through some of her rulers is able to avenge herself 
for the humiliation which she suffered at the hands of 

78 Above, p. 163. 

 170 BABYLONIA AND ASSYEIA 

Assyria. In several successful counter attacks on 
Assyria, Babylonia regained some of the territory that 
she had been obliged to yield to Assyria. At the same 
time, as a result of Assyrian interference in Babylonian 
affairs, the influence of the Semitic element of the 
population reasserted itself; and it is reasonable to 
conclude that the rivalry between Cassites and the 
native population, not completely assimilated despite 
the lapse of so many centuries of coexistence side by 
side, finally led to a vigorous attempt on the part of the 
Semites to regain complete possession of their country. 
A momentous change, however, was impending in the 
south, for within four years after the death of Marduk- 
paliddin (c. 1199-1187 B.C.) the native chroniclers 
record the rise of a new dynasty in the land. 

Our knowledge of Babylonian history for the suc 
ceeding two and one-half centuries is still quite frag 
mentary. Of only a few rulers who flourished during 
this period do we possess documents of a historical 
character; for the rest we are dependent upon inci 
dental references in the annals or votive inscriptions of 
Assyrian kings and on short notices in official chron 
icles. With Enlil-nadin-akhi, the second member of 
the new dynasty, the chroniclers close the Cassite con 
trol and again record eleven kings of the Isin dynasty 
covering a period of 130 years. It is no longer a ques 
tion of a Sumerian uprising, for that epoch is long 
since past. The assimilation of Sumerians and Ak 
kadians is an accomplished fact. To account for 
another Isin dynasty, we must assume that, during the 
closing years of the Cassite rule, native governors in 
some of the old centres once more made themselves 
independent, and that a combination of such petty 
states headed by Isin dealt the final blow which ended 
the foreign rule in the Euphrates Valley. The gov 
ernors of Isin were acknowledged as the heads of the 
kingdom, and hence officially recognized as the basis 
for dating legal documents. We have boundary stones 

 BABYLONIAN-ASSYRIAN HISTORY 171 

dated in the reigns of several of these rulers from which 
we glean some facts connected with their reigns. So, 
for instance, Nebuchadnezzar I (c. 1140-1110 B.C.), ap 
parently an usurper, gains some successes in expedi 
tions against Elam. He also claims to have conquered 
the Lulubi, whose seat is to be sought in the Zagros 
range, and he even led his armies to the northwest, 
though his achievements here could not have been of 
any great moment. Nebuchadnezzar I takes the aggres 
sive and attempts to win back Assyria, but is completely 
routed by Ashurrishishi. Under Ashurrishishi's son, 
the active and energetic Tiglathpileser I (c. 1125-1100 
B.C.), Assyria recovered her former prestige and again 
becomes the attacker of the south, threatening the very 
life and independence of Babylonia. The successors of 
Tiglathpileser were unable to maintain the position 
won, and accordingly we find, instead of a subjection 
of Babylonia to Assyria or a renewal of hostilities be 
tween the two kingdoms, an era of mutual good will 
setting in. How long this period of stability lasted is 
again involved in doubt, owing to a lack of historical 
documents. Internal disturbances lead to the over 
throw of the Isin dynasty (c. 1043 B.C.) and in its place 
we once more find rulers of the "sea land" asserting 
themselves and acknowledged as sovereigns over Baby 
lonia for about twenty years. About 1020 B.C. we find 
another dynasty, likewise consisting of three rulers, 
ruling for about twenty years, and whose designation 
Bit-Bazi is as yet a puzzle. The entire period of forty 
years covered by these two dynasties must have been 
marked by rivalry among the old centres of Babylonia. 
The old enemy to the east, Elam, taking advantage of 
the situation, overruns the Euphrates Valley in the 
twelfth and again in the eleventh century, and for six 
years the official chronicle records that an Elamitic sov 
ereign (c. 1000 B.C.) occupied the throne. We know 
from other sources the extent to which Babylonia suf 
fered from these incursions of Elamites, who, among 

 172 BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA 

other marks of devastation, carried a large number of 
the finest monuments of the country with them as 
trophies to their capital, Susa, where they were found 
in the course of excavations in our own days.74 

The return of a native dynasty did not carry with 
it a renewal of sufficient strength to inaugurate another 
aggressive period during the succeeding centuries. 
Gradually but steadily Babylonia sinks to the position 
of more or less complete dependency upon Assyria. The 
degree of this dependency varies somewhat, according 
to the extent to which the reigning Assyrian king pur 
sues a policy of vigorous opposition to endeavors on the 
part of the south to reassert itself, or seeks to conciliate 
Babylonia by allowing her as large liberties as are con 
sistent with a protection of the interests of Assyria. 

About the middle of the eighth century, Assyrian 
kings become de facto also the governors of Babylonia. 
The history of Babylonia thus becomes merged with 
that of Assyria, whose fortunes we must now briefly 
summarize from the time of the decline which set in 
again after the death of Tiglathpileser I, about 1100 B.C. 

XVII 

It is not until the beginning of the ninth century 
that indications of a renaissance of Assyrian power 
become marked. With the advent of Tukulti-Ninib II 
(c. 889-884 B.C.) a new era begins, marked by a steady 
growth till the climax of Assyrian glory is reached, some 
two centuries later. 

"VYe find Tukulti-Ninib undertaking, after a long 
interval, one of those campaigns against the moun 
taineers to the northeast which brings him up to Lake 
Unniyeh in the northeast, and Commagene in the north 
west. His son, Ashurnasirpal III (885-860 B.C.), far 
outdistances the father in achievements. He inaugu- 
rates his reign by a campaign against the lands to the 

74 See de Morgan, Memdres de la Delegation en Perse, I, pp. 165- 
182. See above, p. 113, note 88; 136, note 29, and p. 147. 

 BABYLONIAN-ASSYRIAN HISTORY 173 

northeast and northwest of a far mors systematic char 
acter than the campaigns of his father, with the result 
that in a few years the entire territory comes within 
his control. A large booty is secured, heavy tribute 
levied, and we find the king transcending all predeces 
sors in the ruthless manner in which he burned and 
pillaged settlements as he went along. All this, how 
ever, could not prevent the outbreak of rebellions in 
the conquered territory which the Assyrian governors 
appointed by the king were powerless to master, and 
so in the reigns of Ashurnasirpal and his successors 
campaign follows upon campaign with almost monot 
onous regularity against the same districts to the north, 
northeast and northwest, varied by endeavors to force 
the non-assimilated Bedouin groups, classed as Akh- 
lami and Suti, along the Euphrates to the southwest 
of Assyria, back into the desert lands beyond. 

Remarkably successful in conquest by virtue of the 
overwhelming force of her attack, Assyria showed her 
self even in her best days weak in establishing a definite 
control and in maintaining order in the conquered 
provinces. She failed in the organizing power which 
made Rome for so long the mistress of the world. 

Shalmaneser III (c. 858-824 B.C.) leads in person 
annual campaigns for an uninterrupted period of 
twenty-six years. The resources at the command of 
the king must have been nigh inexhaustible to provide 
for such a record, even if we make due allowance for 
exaggerations in the number of the forces encountered 
and in the enumeration of the men, horses, camels, 
chariots, etc., captured. 

The reign of Shalmaneser III is of special interest 
because it marks the beginning of the period which 
brings Syria and Palestine at the mercy of the Assyrian 
power.75 The northern Hebrew kingdom joins in a 
combination with Phoanician cities, with Damascus and 
Hamath and with the groups in the Taurus range to 
70 See the illustration above, Plate VI. 

 174 BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA 

oppose the Assyrian advance. At Karkar on the 
Orontes a great battle was fought in 854 B.C., which 
ended in a victory for Assyria. This state of affairs, 
however, lasted for a century and more before this por 
tion of the ancient world finally succumbed, worn opt 
by the drain on the resources and vitality of the petty 
states whose rivalry with one another prevented the 
formation of a permanently united kingdom which 
might have withstood the Assyrian onslaught. 

In Assyria, on the other hand, the chief stumbling 
block in the way of equable progress, in addition to 
her inability to maintain order in her widely extended 
dominions, were the frequent internal rebellions—pre 
cisely as in the south. Shalmaneser himself had to 
suffer the pain and humiliation of seeing one of his own 
sons, Ashurdaninapal, lead an uprising against him a 
few years before his death. Shamshi-Adad IV, how 
ever, succeeded in overcoming his brother and in secur 
ing an undisputed hold on the throne, though his reign 
was of short duration—just twelve years. Naturally, 
the internal disturbances had given all the provinces 
the desired opportunity to -throw off the Assyrian yoke, 
and even Babylonia made attempts to regain her in 
dependence. Accordingly, we find Shamshi-Adad 
obliged to go over the same territory again to the north 
and south, to the northeast, northwest, and even to the 
southwest in a series of campaigns for the purpose of 
regaining Assyria's lost prestige. 

We can pass rapidly over the next century, during 
which the rulers of Assyria on the whole maintained 
the strength of their kingdom and manifested the same 
weaknesses as their predecessors, and come to Tiglath- 
pileser IV, a usurper who in 745 B.C. inaugurates an era 
which gives to Assyria its most famous rulers—Shal 
maneser V, Sargon, Sennacherib, Esarhaddon, and 
Ashurbanapal. With him Assyria enters upon the last 
but also the most glorious phase of her history. Profit 
ing by the abundant experience of the past, the rulers 

 PLATE XXV 

FIG. I, THE ANNALS OF ASHURBANAPAL. KINO OF ASSYRIA (668-626 B.C.) 

FIG. 2, CLAY CYLINDER OF CYRUS WITH ACCOUNT OF THE CAPTURE OF BABYLON 

(539 B.C.) 

 BABYLONIAN-ASSYRIAN HISTORY 175 

of the dynasty founded by Tiglathpileser perfected the 
organization of the Assyrian army to a degree which 
still arouses the admiration of students of military 
strategy of our own days. 

With Tiglathpileser the last step in the subjection 
of Babylonia to Assyria is taken through the direct 
assumption in its affairs by the kings of Assyria, who, 
no longer trusting the government to Babylonians, ap 
pointed by them, either themselves act as the governors 
—"lieutenants of the god Bel" as they designate them 
selves—or name a son or a brother as the ruler of the 
southern province, as which Babylonia is from this time 
on reckoned. Several expeditions were needed to bring 
about a reassertion of Assyrian supremacy in the 
troublesome districts to the east and southeast. In both 
Babylonia and in districts to the east of Assyria, Tig 
lathpileser adopted on a larger scale the policy of set 
tling colonists from parts of Assyria, and in return to 
transport portions of the population to other countries. 
In this way the rulers hoped to remove unruly elements 
and to secure by a mixture of the natives with loyal 
Assyrians, or with those who had no special interest in 
the district to which they were transported a more 
amenable populace. 

Hardly less difficult was Tiglathpileser's task in the 
lands to the north, including the northeast and north 
west. Here, after the reign of Shalmaneser III, Assyria 
had steadily lost ground until new independent king 
doms had been formed by combinations of native 
groups, among which the kingdom of Urartu developed 
noteworthy strength. The difficulties of the situation 
were increased by the other combinations of states in 
the interior of Syria and Palestine and along the 
Phoanician coast, formed to resist the tribute imposed 
upon these districts by Assyria. The Assyrian king 
was obliged once more to turn his attention to Syria 
and Palestine, with the result that the northern Hebrew 
kingdom became practically a province of Assyria, 

 176 BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA 

while Judaea's position was only a trifle less precarious, 
because its king had voluntarily submitted to become 
tributary to Assyria. The eighteen years of Tiglath- 
pileser's reign (745-727 B.C.) were thus filled with, 
events of great importance. By his more systematic 
efforts actually to govern distant provinces reconquered 
by him, as by his policy above outlined76 to remove 
causes of fomentation among conquered peoples, he 
gave a more permanent character to the results of his 
many campaigns in Syria, Palestine, and in lands to 
the north and northeast. Less permanent were the 
efforts to control the east and southeast, and it was from 
this quarter—Media and Ela/m—that his successors 
had much to endure. 

Of his son who ruled as Shalmaneser V for only 
five years (727-722 B.C.), we know little beyond his suc 
cess in putting an end completely to the northern 
Hebrew kingdom which, relying perhaps upon help 
from Egypt, had refused the payment of tribute to 
Assyria. Before the capital, Samaria, actually fell, 
Shalmaneser died, succeeded by an usurper who on 
seizing the throne adopted as his name Sargon—asso 
ciated as will be recalled with a most glorious dynasty 
of past ages.77 

XVIII 

Like Tiglathpileser IV, Sargon probably rose from 
the ranks, but he could hardly have attained his posi 
tion without some violence which, perhaps, he deemed 
it wiser to pass over in silence in his annals. In many 
respects the campaigns of Sargon are repetitions of the 
conditions prevailing in the days of Tiglathpileser. In 
Babylonia we find the "sea land" organizing an attempt 
to place a native once more on the throne, Mardukpalid- 
din, who starts out as a local chief by ingratiating him 
self with Tiglathpileser IV, but as he grows in power 

1 Above, p. 175. See also p. 135. 
7 Ahnvp n 133 

7* 

77 Above, p. 133. 

 BABYLONIAN-ASSYRIAN HISTORY 177 

takes advantage of the change of dynasty to make him 
self master of all Babylonia in the very same year that 
Sargon begins his rule. A first and immediate attempt 
to suppress Mardukpaliddin failed, and for the next 
years Sargon was so much occupied with campaigns 
against the Hittite state of which Carchemish was the 
capital, against the petty kingdoms of northern Syria 
and in the regions to the northeast that it was not until 
the year 710 B.C. that he succeeded in putting Marduk 
paliddin out of the way, and in himself again assuming 
as king of Assyria the direct rule over the south as well. 
Sargon sets up the claim of being the deliverer of 
Babylonia and inaugurates a policy marked by great 
consideration for the ancient rights of the populace. 
The policy, however, was of little avail. Babylonia con 
tinued to chafe under the humiliation of a northern 
rule imposed upon her. The large centres were hotbeds 
of intrigue and opposition to Assyria. Uprisings be 
ginning usually in the extreme south and fomented by 
Elam, which had hopes of again conquering her old 
enemy, followed in frequent succession until finally in 
the days of Sennacherib, the son of Sargon, the patience 
of Assyria was exhausted, and in 689 B.C. Sennacherib 
marched against Babylon and destroyed the ancient 
city entirely. 

The reigns of Sargon (721-705 B.C.) and of his son 
Sennacherib (705-681 B.C.) thus mark further steps 
leading inevitably to the dissolution of the Babylonian 
kingdom after an existence of about two millenniums. 
The other new factor was the approaching conflict be 
tween Assyria and Egypt. Foreshadowed in the days 
of Sargon, the direct encounter between the two 
mighty powers took place in 701 B.C., through the 
assistance given by Egypt to an uprising of Syria, the 
Phoenician coast and Palestine against the Assyrian 
yoke. The Egyptians were defeated, the uprising 
broken up, but owing to disturbed conditions in Baby 
lonia, Sennacherib was unable to follow up the ad- 
12 

 178 BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA 

vantage gained by him and hastened back to put things 
in order nearer home. 

It is surprising that Assyria was able to bear the 
strain of these campaigns, organized on a larger scale 
than before, for the entire century intervening between 
Tiglathpileser IV and the destruction of Nineveh in 
606 B.C. The stretch of her dominions passed beyond 
the borders of the Mediterranean. Under the greatest 
possible difficulties a fleet was added to the equipment, 
and Cyprus incorporated as a part of the Assyrian 
power. 

Sennacherib fell a victim in 680 B.C., to the blow of 
an assassin, who was his own son or according to the 
Biblical account,78 there were two sons involved. His 
son Esarhaddon, appointed by Sennacherib as the heir 
to the throne, succeeded in quelling the uprising and 
in establishing himself firmly. Reverting to the policy 
of his grandfather, Sargon, he decided to make an 
endeavor to reconcile the Babylonians by rebuilding 
the city of Babylon. Despite this, the "sea land" con 
tinued to be a centre of opposition and Esarhaddon 
passed through the same experiences as his predecessors. 
Esarhaddon took the bold step of crossing over into 
Egypt. The victorious standard of Assyria was planted 
on the Nile, and in 670 B.C. the ancient capital Memphis 
fell into the hands of the Assyrian king. The ruling 
dynasty was overthrown, the government of the country 
reorganized under Assyrian control, though as a con 
cession to tradition a native was recognized or set up 
by him as king of the twenty-two provinces or nomes 
into which Egypt was divided. In addition to Egypt, 
portions of northern and southern Arabia which had 
hitherto stood in a very loose connection with Assyria 
were brought under a firmer control, though it could 
hardly be said that the enormous tracts of central 
Arabia, so difficult of access and in which hordes of 
Bedouin tribes roamed at will, were ever really subject 
to Assyria._________________________ 
T" II Kings 19, 36-37. 

 PLATE XXVI 

T 

FIG. I, KINO ASHURNASIRPAL III OF ASSYRIA 
(88^-859 B.C.) 

FIG. 2, KING ESARHADDON OF ASSYRIA 
(680-669 B.C.) WITH TWO ROYAL 

PRISONERS 

 BABYLONIAN-ASSYRIAN HISTORY 179 

XIX 

With the advent of Ashurbanapal in 668 B.C., we 
reach the climax in the glory of the Sargonide dynasty, 
as upon his death, in 626 B.C., the rapid decline sets in. 
Legend soon gathered around his name and as Sardan- 
apalos among the Greeks he sums up as it were the 
spirit of Assyria's greatness. His efforts, to be sure, 
are largely taken up with maintaining the integrity of 
the vast empire claimed by Assyria. His campaigns in 
one direction or the other are therefore on the whole 
attempts to quell disturbances and to strengthen the 
hands of those governors of provinces who were merely 
the tools of Assyria. Now it is Egypt to which his 
armies turn, now Syria and Palestine which are forced 
to pledge themselves anew to do homage to the mighty 
power, and again it is the various groups of northern 
Syria, in and beyond the Taurus range, and the moun 
tain hordes to the northwest which have to be kept in 
check. In two directions Ashurbanapal branches out .. 
even beyond the ambitious scope of Esarhaddon. Lydia Jl 
comes within his grasp on the one side, while in a series 
of campaigns he deals a severe blow against Elam, the 
old enemy on the east, and with the capture and death 
of Teumman, the Elamite king, puts an end for the time 
being to the independence of this district. 

The opposition to Ashurbanapal began once more in 
the south, and it was the king's own brother, Shamash- 
shumukin, whom he had appointed as governor of 
Babylonia, who organized an uprising on all sides 
against the Assyrian yoke. Ashurbanapal wreaked 
vengeance on those who had assisted his treacherous 
brother and, after quieting Babylonia, proceeded to in- 
flict punishment on Elam and Arabia for their share 
in the great uprising. The agitation in the north, too, 
gradually subsided, but the greatest danger to Assyria, 
the pressure of hordes pouring into Asia Minor towards 

 180 BABYLONIA AND ASSYEIA 

the south, was one that even Ashurbanapal was unable 
to resist. Already in the days of Esarhaddon new 
groups like the Cimmerians, Mannai and Ashguzeans 
make their appearance in the royal annals, represent 
ing a wave of Aryan migration across the Caucasus 
range and that appears to be one of a series of Volker- 
wanderungen in this general region. Esarhaddon and 
Ashurbanapal were able to keep the advance in check, 
but only by tremendous efforts involving the dispatch 
ing of Assyrian armies of large size into the mountain 
ranges to the north and northeast. Twenty years after 
Ashurbanapal's death, Nineveh fell, through a com 
bination between the Babylonians and the wild hordes 
of the northeast—at that time grouped under the gen 
eral designation of Manda. 

i The rapidity with which Assyria declined after 626 
B.C., when Ashurbanapal passed away, will always re 
main a puzzling phenomenon. A gradual decline 
through exhausted vitality was to be expected, but that 
within twenty years the achievements of centuries 
should have crumbled like a house of cards is a sad 
reflection not only upon the transitoriness of mere 
worldly power, but upon the weakness of the founda 
tions upon which the structure was reared. 

A country divided against itself cannot endure. 
Babylonia fell under Assyrian sway because the south 
was pitted against the north and preferred to have re 
course to intrigue and to combinations with the enemy 
to the east—Elam—or with Bedouin hordes from the 
west and southwest rather than to unite with the north. 
Onlf strong rulers, as they arose from time to time, 
were able to keep the north and south of the Euphrates 
Valley firmly knit together. Similarly Babylonia and 
Assyria, although the latter was the offshoot of the 
former and both had practically everything in common, 
never held together, while even within Assyria as she 
expanded factions arose which threatened her unity at 

 BABYLONIAN-ASSYRIAN HISTORY 181 

frequent intervals. Assyria and Babylonia both suc 
cumbed to this inherent weakness, but Assyria fell first 
because of the exhaustion of her vitality through 
incessant warfare. 

XX 

We must not, however, take leave of her without 
considering briefly the other side of the picture—her 
achievements in other fields than conquest. It is a 
relief to find that her rulers, even those whose greed 
for power and for the extension of Assyria's borders 
was strongest, were zealous also in the promotion of 
works of peace, more particularly the embellishment of 
the capital in which they resided, though their concern 
was extended also to other places. "Wars were under 
taken in the name of the gods, and with their help, 
and when victory crowned the Assyrian arms, to the 
gods belonged the glory. The kings, thus feeling at all 
times close to their gods, took every occasion to show 
their homage. Attached, therefore, to the annals de 
tailing their military expeditions are accounts of the 
enlargement of the temples, of repairs to sacred edifices, 
which were so frequently required in the case of brick 
structures that building and rebuilding became synon 
ymous terms. Next to the temples, the royal palaces, 
built in close proximity to the chief temples in each 
centre, engaged the attention of rulers; and they are 
equally proud of their efforts at improving conditions 
of life for the people by providing new canals to pro 
vide good water supply and transportation facilities, 
laying out parks and gardens, regulating commercial 
dealings, affording protection to all classes of the com 
munity. With the extension of political power, com 
mercial intercourse with distant lands also expanded, 
and the priestly organization kept pace with the de 
velopment of the military strength. 

Ashurbanapal, though perhaps not the greatest of 
Assyrian rulers, becomes the typical grand monarque, 

 182 BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA 

who, in addition to his campaigns organized on so large 
a scale, is the promoter of art and patron of learning. 
Nineveh, which from the time of Tiglathpileser IV 
on is selected as the capital, reaches the height of its 
splendor under the Sargonic dynasty. Its temples and 
palaces are worthy of the pre-eminent position acquired 
by Assyria as the mistress of the nearer Orient. Ashur- 
banapal embellishes his new palace with sculptured 
slabs representing scenes from his campaigns, engag 
ing for this purpose the services of the best artists, and, 
following the initiative of Sennacherib, brought to 
gether in his palace copies of the most important liter 
ary productions of the past which his scribes copied 
from the originals in the temples of the south.79 He 
thus made Nineveh a cultural as well as a military and 
political centre, for he succeeded in really gathering 
together a collection of tablets that merits the term 
royal, embracing as it did, every branch of the literary 
activity of Babylonia during the long period of her 
existence, together with the additions to native liter 
ature made by Assyria. 

XXI 

The death of Ashurbanapal was the signal for the 
final uprising of Babylonia, and in 625 B.C., Nebopo- 
lassar, of humble birth and who came from the "sea 
land" in the extreme south which had always been the 
centre of political fermentation, became the independ 
ent king of Babylonia, after having previously served 
as governor under Assyrian supremacy. He not only 
maintained himself against endeavors on the part of 
Assyria to overthrow him but he was able on his death, 
in 604 B.C., to pass over the succession to his son, 
Nebuchadnezzar. He founded a dynasty which lasted 
till close to the downfall of Babylon. Nebopolassar's 
reign was largely devoted to the strengthening of the 

» Above, p. 21. 

 BABYLONIAN-ASSYRIAN HISTORY 183 

kingdom and to rebuilding and improving the capital. 
He also took a part in the movement which led to the 
fall of Nineveh, though more as a fomenter of the 
opposition to Assyria than as a direct participant in 
the final attack. Nebuchadnezzar, however, was an 
active warrior as well as a promoter of prosperity in Ms 
own domain. A renewed spirit of aggressiveness had 
entered Egypt with the accession of Necho II, who had 
the ambition once more to make the nearer East, especi 
ally Palestine and Syria, subservient to the Pharaohs. 
His success threatened the existence of Babylonia, and 
accordingly Nebuchadnezzar was sent by his father to 
an encounter with the Egyptian army at Carchemish, 
the old Hittite centre, which ended in a decisive victory 
for the Babylonians and checked the further advance 
of Egypt. 

During the next twenty years he made himself 
master of Syria and Palestine, crushing the little 
Hebrew kingdom, which had maintained a semblance 
of independence despite the weight of the Assyrian 
yoke. Egypt came to the rescue of Judaea and of the 
other principalities of this district, but it was of no 
avail. The fall of Jerusalem, in 586 B.C., marks another 
turning point in the affairs of the nearer east, for it 
meant the renewed ascendency of Babylonia and the 
decline of Egyptian influence. It was no easy task, 
however, for Nebuchadnezzar to bring the coast towns 
on the shores of the Mediterranean, notably Tyre, to 
subjection, and so it is not until 562 B.C. that we find him 
ready to invade Egypt. He seems to have proceeded 
into the heart of the country triumphantly, but never 
theless fails actually to incorporate Egypt as a part of 
his own empire. But even without this he had succeeded 
in giving to Babylonia an extension and a power almost 
equal to that of Assyria in her most glorious days. 

Nebuchadnezzar II followed the example of the As 
syrian monarchs in adding to the glory of his reign by 
extensive building operations. The city of Babylon 

 184 BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA 

was the primary object of his concern, and the boast 
recorded in the Book of Daniel,80 "Is not this the great 
Babylon that I have built1?" correctly associates the 
name of Nebuchadnezzar with the new Babylon that 
arose out of the ashes of the destroyed one.81 Nebuchad 
nezzar did not, however, confine his interest to the cap 
ital city. The temples at Borsippa, Sippar, Larsa, Uruk, 
Ur and Dilbat were restored and beautified by him dur 
ing the course of his reign. When Nebuchadnezzar 
died, in 561 B.C., he left to his son, Amel-Marduk ("man 
of the god Marduk"), a legacy which only a strong 
monarch could maintain intact. The son did not possess 
this quality and after a reign of only a year fell a victim 
to a conspiracy against his life, fomented by his brother- 
in-law Neriglissar. This act marked the beginning of 
the decline of the neo-Babylonian empire, though before 
the end came we find a usurper, Nabonnedos, who main 
tained himself for a period of sixteen years, from 555 
to 539 B.C. Internal dissensions hastened the end, so 
that when Cyrus the Mede marched against Babylon he 
was hailed by the priestly party, who were dissatisfied 
with Nabonnedos' policy, as a deliverer come to restore 
the glory and dignity of the god Marduk. So quietly 
was the transfer of the control of the Euphrates Valley 
made to the old enemy to the east, that probably the 
people hardly felt that an epoch in the world's history 
had come to an end. 

Cyrus himself adopted a conciliatory policy towards 
the conquered land. His desire was to leave conditions 
undisturbed, and accordingly we find him and his suc 
cessors maintaining the cult of the Babylonian gods in 
Babylon, Borsippa and in the other centres. Even the 
introduction of Zoroastrianism (or Zarathustrianism) 
as the official religion of Persia in the days of Darius I 
towards the end of the sixth century did not materially 
change conditions in Babylonia, except possibly in giv- 

80 Chap. 4, 27. 

" See above p. 55, for the excavation of this new city of Babylon. 

 BABYLONIAN-ASSYRIAN HISTORY 185 

ing a new impetus to the movement to look upon Marduk 
as the god who embodied the attributes of all the other 
gods—a kind of Babylonian counterpart to Ahura- 
Mazda. On the other hand, the presence of a religion 
of so spiritualized a character as Zoroastrianism acted 
as a disintegrating factor in leading to the decline of 
faith in the gods of Babylonia. Both the religion and 
the culture of the Euphrates Valley had fulfilled their 
purpose. The time was ripe for the appearance of new 
forces in the world—first Persia and then, two centuries 
after Cyrus, Greece. Alexander's entrance into Baby 
lonia in 331 B.C., where by a curious freak of historical 
chance he dies in the very palace which Nebuchadnezzar 
had erected for himself, marks another epoch in the 
world's history. Even after Alexander, the religious 
and social life of Babylonia goes on unchanged to out 
ward appearances, but the contact with Greek civiliza 
tion destroyed what little vitality had survived the im 
petus of the new force represented by Persia and Zoro 
astrianism. Up to within a few decades of the Christian 
era, the Babylonian language and script continued in 
use, but Greek ideas and Greek usages had made their 
way not only into the government of the country but 
also into the life of the people. 

If, in a final summing up, the question be asked, 
What was the legacy which Babylonia and Assyria 
left to the world after an existence of more than three 
millenniums, the answer would be, that through the 
spread of dominion the culture of the Euphrates Val 
ley made its way throughout the greater part of the 
ancient world, leaving its impress in military organiza 
tion, in the government of people, in commercial 
usages, in the spread of certain popular rites such as 
the various forms of divination, in medical practises 
and in observation of the movements of heavenly 
bodies—albeit that medicine continued to be dependent 
upon the belief in demons as the source of physical 
ills, and astronomy remained in the service of astrology 

 186 BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA 

—and lastly in a certain attitude towards life which it 
is difficult to define in words, but of which it may be 
said that, while it lays an undue emphasis on might, is 
yet not without an appreciation of the deeper yearn 
ings of humanity for the ultimate triumph of what is 
right. 

The most unfortunate blot on the escutcheon of 
Assyria more especially is the craving for power, the 
ambition to extend her rule beyond the natural bound 
aries, and which affected Babylonia as well though 
not to the same degree. Alexander, Caesar and 
Napoleon are the natural successors of the Babylonian 
rulers who first laid claim to being the "king of the 
four regions." War for conquest made both Assyria 
and Babylonia cruel and remorseless, as it proved to 
be the undoing of Rome. 

 CHAPTER IV 
THE GODS OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA 

THE hybrid character of the Babylonian-Assyrian 
civilization, the result, as we have seen, of the com 
mingling of a non-Semitic or Sumerian element with 
the Semitic or Akkadian contingent, is reflected in the 
religion which in the formation of the pantheon, in 
the doctrines and in the cult is the outcome of the 
combination of these same two factors. To be sure, the 
mixture of the two factors is so complete that it is no 
longer possible to specify the features contributed by 
each, except along very general lines. This is particu 
larly the case in the conceptions formed of the gods, 
for both those of Sumerian origin and those that may 
with more or less probability be regarded as Semitic in 
character take on the color demanded by the unfolding 
of social and political life. We know, for example, 
that a prominent deity in the earliest period, known as 
Enlil, and who indeed remained for a long time the 
head of the pantheon, was brought to the Euphrates' 
Valley by the Sumerians. All indications point to his 
having been conceived by the Sumerians as a grim 
power who manifests himself in the storm and whose 
voice is heard in the thunder. As such his seat was 
placed on the top of the mountains, whence the storms 
sweep down. Such a deity belongs to a people whose 
rugged character would be f ormed by the mountainous 
region in which they dwelled. The Sumerians became 
agriculturists as the Akkadians had been, and they 
also engaged in the more peaceful pursuits incident to 
growing commercial activity. Corresponding to this 
transformation, Enlil became also an agricultural deity, 

187 

 188 BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA 

who was appealed to as the power able to bring about 
the fertility of the fields and the success of the crops. 
Now, agricultural deities are either conceived as per 
sonifications of the power residing in the sun as the 
chief factor involved in vegetation, or as the personifica 
tion of the earth pictured as the female element in 
whose womb the seed ripens and in time brings forth 
fruit. Enlil, therefore, while not losing the fierce 
traits belonging to him as a mountain god whose ele 
ment is the storm, absorbs the attributes of a solar 
deity, while his consort, Ninlil,1 becomes the mother 
goddess who nurtures the seed and spreads blessings 
among mankind. Attempts have been made by various 
scholars to distinguish in the case of religious doctrines 
between Sumerian and Akkadian nuances, but without 
much success. * 

Naturally, if we were in a position to trace the 
development of religious thought and practice in Baby 
lonia and AssjTia, we could differentiate more sharply 
between the Sumerian and the Akkadian elements. 
The material, however, at our disposal, though ample 
for obtaining a knowledge of details regarding the 
pantheon, the beliefs and the chief cults, is quite in 
sufficient for tracing the history of the religion itself, 
except in general outlines. We can distinctly see the 
Sumerian conquerors imposing the names of their 
deities on the country, just as they imposed their lan 
guage and script. As the superior cultural element, 
Sumerian beliefs predominate in the earliest periods, 
and the cult is similarly in its chief aspects to be re 
garded as Sumerian, while the earliest religious liter 
ature, including the form given to the popular myths, 
is entirely in Sumerian. And yet we must not be mis 
led by these external features to set aside entirely the 
participation of the Akkadians in the unfolding of 
religious belief and practice. There are traces of 

1Nin designating "lady," as En is "lord." 

 PLATE XXVII 

TEKRA-COTTA VOTIVE IMAGES OF THE GOD ENLIL AND OF HIS CONSORT NINLIL (NIPPUR) 

 BABYLONIAN AND ASSYRIAN GODS 189 

Semitic influences in the oldest votive inscriptions of 
Sumerian rulers. Semitic words make their way into 
the Sumerian language. 

Corresponding to these early Semitic influences, we 
find the Sumerians representing their gods generally 
with beards, after the fashion of the Semites, while 
they portray themselves as clean-shaven—a further in 
dication that the Sumerians identified the deities 
whose worship they brought with them, with such as 
already formed the object of a cult marked by crude 
images of the deities to whom appeals were directed. 
Similarly, the characteristic Sumerian plain or 
flounced skirt, falling from the waist, gives way to a 
kind of plaid draped around the body from the left 
shoulder down, with or without a slit in the front, 
which appears to have been the Akkadian form of 
dress.2 We are therefore justified in concluding that 
the Sumerians, thus assimilating even in external traits 
their gods with those which they already found in the 
country, also incorporated religious practices of the 
Akkadians into their cult; they would naturally do this 
in order to ensure the good-will and favor of the 
indigenous gods whom they identified with their own. 

In this way we can account for the striking fact 
that in the long course of the Babylonian-Assyrian 
religion, running parallel to the history that extends 
over several millenniums, there is no sudden break, 
but, on the contrary, a continuous line of development. 
The gods worshipped in the latest period of Babylonian 
history are practically the same as those found in the 

* See on this whole subject Eduard Meyer's important mono 
graph, Sumerier und Semiten in Babylonien (Berlin, 1906), whose 
general conclusions seem to me to be definitely established, though 
in matters of detail there is room for differences of opinion. So, 
e.g., the two kinds of plaids found on early monuments are not so 
distinct as to justify us in regarding one variety as Sumerian and 
the other as Akkadian. Both represent, as I believe, the "Semitic" 
fashion of the country, as against the plain or flounced skirt. 

 190 BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA 

earlier stages. The relationship of these deities to one 
another changes with the vicissitudes of political 
transformations that the country undergoes. These 
vicissitudes also carry in their wake the absorption on 
the part of certain deities of attributes belonging to 
others. Semitic designations replace in some cases, 
though by no means in all, the Sumerian forms, but the 
chief personages of the Babylonian pantheon in the 
latest period can all be traced back to the old Baby 
lonian epoch. The change of political control from the 
Sumerians to the Akkadians, of such fundamental 
significance in the history of Babylonia, leaves the 
religion practically unchanged, except for the rise of 
the local god of Babylon, Marduk, to the head of the 
pantheon by virtue of the pre-eminent position ac 
quired by Babylon as the political centre of the gov 
ernment, while the subsequent rise of Assyria to 
supremacy similarly carries with it no momentous 
changes in the pantheon or in the cult, beyond the rise 
of the god Ashur, originally a solar deity and the local 
patron of the city of Ashur, the early capital of 
Assyria, to the headship of the pantheon as finally con 
stituted in the north. 

II 

Bearing in mind this general aspect presented by 
the religion of Babylonia and Assyria, we may proceed 
to a consideration of the chief deities which we en 
counter in the pantheon. These deities are all, at least 
originally, personifications of nature—an indication 
that among the Sumerians as among the Akkadians the 
basis of worship was an animistic conception of nature, 
as we find it among all peoples at a certain stage of 
culture, and which involves as a primary supposition 
the identification of all forms and manifestations of 
life in nature with that of which we are conscious in 
ourselves. Life is power, according (to this view, and 
vice versa where there is a manifestation of power, 

 BABYLONIAN AND ASSYRIAN GODS 191 

there must be life behind it. Moon and sun are two 
most obvious manifestations, active and powerful, mov 
ing from place to place, both spreading light, and the 
sun in addition to light also warmth. Behind the 
manifestation, therefore, of these two powers there 
was life, and the same conclusion was dlfawn with 
respect to trees and fields, renewing their life with 
uninterrupted regularity yearly after a period of 
steady decay and apparent death. Storms and rains 
to the accompaniment of thunder and lightning were 
by a similar logic ascribed to 'the activity of powers 
having the essential quality of life, and lastly there was 
life in the running waters and the bubbling springs and 
even in rocks and stones, which by their peculiar and 
often fantastic formations suggested a petrification of 
objects that once possessed activity. As for the animal 
world around man, the activity put forth by the largest 
and the smallest species and one in so many respects 
of the same character as his own—running, feeding, 
struggling, attacking, growing, languishing—forced on 
him the conclusion that the life within them was 
identical with that which conditioned his being. The 
gods worshipped by a people in this stage of culture 
are thus merely personifications of powers of nature 
—the sun, the moon, the power manifesting itself in the 
storm, in trees and fields, in the waters and in stones, 
while the form given by fancy to these powers may 
either be human or animal, or under certain conditions 
a combination of the two. 

Naturally, the material at our disposal for the study 
of the religion of Babylonia and Assyria being of a 
literary character belongs to an age that has long left 
behind it the purely animistic conceptions and has ad 
vanced to more abstract views of the relationship of 
man to the powers around him. The growth of village 
communities living under agricultural conditions leads 
to the association of a particular deity as the special 
patron and protector of the community, though we 

 192 BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA 

must not fall into the error of supposing that such a 
specific association excludes the worship of other 
deities. The importance of the sun for an agricultural 
community, since upon his favor the blessings of the 
fields depend, leads in many instances to the choice of 
the sun-god as the special deity of a place, though a 
cognate association of ideas, with the earth pictured as 
the gracious and fruit-bearing female element, might 
result elsewhere in making the great mother goddess 
the patron of some centre. Again, the presence of a 
large body of water flowing past some agricultural 
settlement would bring about a close affiliation with the 
life-spirit of the watery element, personified like the 
sun and like the earth as a divine power. To a people 
in the nomadic stage the moon as the measurer of time 
and as the guide for wanderings by night is of more 
significance than the sun, and it may happen that, by 
force of tradition, in some centres the moon-god will 
be chosen as the patron saint. Be this as it may, we find 
in the earliest period to which our material leads us 
back, sun-gods, the earth-goddess, water deities and 
moon-gods closely bound up with the various centres of 
Sumerian and Akkadian settlements in the Euphrates 
Valley. The lists of deities drawn up by the priests 
show us a bewildering array of local deities, and in con 
nection with each deity we must perforce assume a 
local cult. Many of these local gods or goddesses play 
a minor part in the history of Babylonia so far as 
known to us, and still more of them no part at all, so 
that they are little more than names for us. In many 
cases we cannot even tell whether the deities concealed 
behind the strange-sounding Sumerian appellations 
are personifications of the sun or of the earth-goddess, 
of the moon or of the watery element. Only in the 
case of those local cults which, because of the political 
role played by the respective centres, come within the 
historical horizon are we in a position to specify the 
attributes assigned to them. When, in addition to 

 BABYLONIAN AND ASSYRIAN GODS 193 

votive inscriptions in their honor, we have hymns and 
prayers addressed to them, the details of the concep 
tions formed of them are clearly revealed. In this way 
we obtain a stately array of the main figures of the old 
Babylonian pantheon—Enlil, Nim'b, Ningirsu, Nergal, 
Anu, Ea, Shamash, Sin, Adad, Mar.duk, Nabu and their 
consorts, and of the chief goddess, Nana or Ishitar. 

Ill 

In the preceding chapter we pointed out that the 
oldest historical and literary documents reveal a vary 
ing number of little states or principalities in the 
Euphrates Valley, grouped around some centre, with 
now one of these centres, now another, exercising a 
measure of control over a larger section. This political 
picture is complemented on the religious side by the 
corresponding growth of the local deity to a position 
commensurate in proportion to the political control 
acquired by the centre in question; and as the local 
deity extends his sway, he is endowed with attributes 
that are quite independent of the power of nature 
which he originally personified. The tendency also be 
comes pronounced for the deity associated with a 
powerful centre not only to be given the attributes of 
other local deities but actually to absorb minor deities, 
so that the names of the latter become designations of 
the more powerful one. The conquest of a district 
carried with it the conquest of its gods, and in case the 
latter are not entirely absorbed, they are placed in a 
dependent position, as children, servants or officials 
of the triumphant god. In this way, through the close 
interrelations between the states of the Euphrates 
Valley—usually hostile in character and constantly 
shifting—there arises a pantheon which involves a 
selection out of the large number of once existing local 
deities, prompted by the rise to prominence of a limited 
number of centres. Naturally, in the development of 

13 

 194 BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA 

religious doctrines and in the unfolding of religious 
organization other factors besides the political one 
enter into consideration, so that the parallel between 
the shifting political panorama and the relationship of 
the gods of the various centres to one another is not 
complete. The latter relationship, when once it be 
comes definite, is not changed by every turn in political 
affairs but only through transformations of a large 
character; and even then gods whose position in the 
pantheon is fixed by tradition are not seriously affected 
by the vicissitudes of the centres to which they origi 
nally belonged; they survive the decline and even the 
complete eclipse of these centres. The religious life 
of a people is always more enduring than its political 
fortunes. The organization of a pantheon ensures for 
those gods fortunate enough to find a place therein a 
permanency, both theoretical and practical, which is 
often in contrast to the political history of the centres 
in which their worship arose. The god Enlil, to whom 
we had occasion to refer several times, is an illustration 
in point. Through circumstances which we are no 
longer able to follow, the city of Nippur became the 
seat of the cult of Enlil. Nippur became so thoroughly 
identified with Enlil that the name of the city was 
written by a series of signs designating it as the "place 
of Enlil." A storm-god, partaking of the aggressive 
character of his worshippers, Enlil is naturally pict 
ured as a mighty warrior who leads his subjects to 
victory. He is present in the midst of the fray. To 
him as the god of war the victories are ascribed and 
paeans are sung in his honor in his temple at Nippur, 
which in view of his original seat is appropriately 
known as E-kur, "the mountain house." 

An invocation that occurs frequently in a series of 
lamentation songs,3 bewailing catastrophes that have 

* See Langdon, Sumerian and Babylonian Psalms, pp. 90, 106, 
aeq., 114,126, etc. 

 BABYLONIAN AND ASSYRIAN GODS 195 

swept over the land, portrays the strength ascribed to 

him: 

"Lord of lands, 
Lord of the true word, 
Enlil, father of Sumer, 
Shepherd of the dark-headed people,* 
Seeing through his own power, 
Strong guide of (his) people, 
Causing multitudes to dwell together." 

The original personification of Enlil as the mighty, 
onrushing storm whose voice is heard in the roar of the 
thunder leads to an elaborate symbolism of the "word" 
of the deity, which becomes a synonym of his power. 
In many variations this "word" of the storm-god is 
celebrated.6 

"The word which rages in the heavens above, 
The word which causes the earth below to quake, 
The word which strikes terror among the Anunnaki.* 
Beyond the seer, beyond the diviner, 
An onrushing storm which none can oppose, 
Raging in the heavens above, causing the earth below to quake, 
Tearing mother from daughter like a buru-reed. 
It overwhelms the marshes in full verdure, 
It overflows the harvest in season, 
A flood tearing away the dams, 
It uproots the huge mcsu-trees, 
Reducing all things to submission." 

Such is Enlil who, as the chief god of Nippur, be 
comes the head of the pantheon with the Sumerian 
conquest of the country and who retains this position 
long after Nippur has ceased to be the political centre. 
The cult of Enlil, in fact, lends to his patron city a 
significance far outreaching its political prestige even 

* I.e., the Sumerians. 

8 E.g., Reisner, Sumerisch-Bdbylonische Hymnen, No. vii, rev. 
13-25. 

•A collective name for a minor group of deities. Even the 
gods fear the word of Enlil. 

 196 BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA 

in the heyday of its glory. As a religions centre, 
Nippur becomes a sacred city, not unlike that of centres 
of pilgrimage in our own days like Jerusalem, Benares, 
Mecca and Rome. The sanctity of Nippur survived 
the downfall of both Babylonia and Assyria, and the 
sacred quarter of the city in which the temple stood 
was converted into a burial place acquiring sanctifica- 
tion by its time-honored associations to which even 
Jews and Christians manifested their attachment down 
to the seventh century of our era.7 

The position of the god as the head of the pantheon 
entailed as a natural consequence the grouping of the 
other chief deities and of many minor deities about 
him. Smaller temples and shrines were erected for 
these deities, forming as it were the court of Enlil, 
around the chief sanctuary. In the extracts from re 
ligious compositions above given, he is regarded also 
as the power which brings forth vegetation. The storm 
god has become a solar deity. The control of the watery 
element is likewise assigned to him so that he becomes 
a water deity as well. The tendency grew to associate 
with Enlil as many gods as possible, with the implica 
tion that the latter derived their powers from this asso 
ciation. The gods stand in dread of him, precisely as 
do his subjects. He is the god of all lands, controlling 
gods and men alike. 

IV 

There are good reasons for believing that a deity 
whose name is provisionally read as Ninib, but the real 
pronunciation of which was probably Enmasht,8 was 

7 See Montgomery, Aramaic Incantation Texts from Nippur 
(Philadelphia, 1913). 

8 See Clay, Amurru, p. 197. The names of the gods (as to a large 
extent proper names in general) being written in ideographic form, 
we cannot in all cases be sure of the exact pronunciation, particu 
larly when the names are Akkadian and merely written in their 
Sumerian form. 

 BABYLONIAN AND ASSYRIAN GODS 197 

an earlier patron deity of Nippur who was forced to 
yield his position to the all-conquering Enlil. If, as 
has been made probable,9 this deity was of Amoritic 
origin, whose cult was brought to Babylonia by Semites 
coming from the northwest, we would have a further 
proof for the thesis which assumes that the Semitic 
settlers preceded the Sumerians in the Euphrates 
Valley. The secondary position of Ninib after the ad 
vent of Enlil is indicated by the title "son of Enlil" or 
"offspring of E-kur,"10 almost invariably attached to 
his name in invocations. This relationship of father 
and son is merely the formula to find a place for two 
deities associated with the same centre, or to indicate a 
control of one centre by the other, just as the designa 
tion of one deity as the servant of another or as holding 
some official rank in the service of a god is the manner 
in which Babylonian priests expressed, in the case of 
two gods representing originally the same natural 
power, the supremacy of the one over the other. Ninib 
in contrast to Enlil is a solar deity, who protects the 
fields, causes the verdure to grow and brings prosperity 
and the blessings of rich crops to the population. It is 
from Ninib that Enlil takes over the milder attributes 
of an agricultural deity, a Baal or "lord" of the fields, 
but in return Ninib, adopted by the Sumerians, be 
comes like his father, a war-god, armed for the fray 
and whose presence is felt in the thick of battle. In 
deed, so prominently is this trait emphasized, espe 
cially in the votive and historical inscriptions of both 
Babylonian and Assyrian rulers, -that it overshadows 

8 Clay, ib., p. 121. If the god Enmasht is of Semitic origin, then 
we must assume that the Sumerian element En, meaning "lord," 
was attached to the name by the Sumerians to whom also the 
method of writing the name as Nin-ib must be due. The problem is 
an exceedingly complicated one and cannot be discussed here. 
"Amorite," it should be added, is a general designation for north 
western Syria. 

10 The name of Enlil's temple is often used for the god himself. 

 198 BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA 

the original solar and beneficent character of Ninib. 
One of these hymns, shading off into an incantation 
for the exorcising of a demon of disease, begins:ll 

"0, Ninib, mighty god, warrior, ruler of the Anunnaki, controller 

of the Igigi,12 

Judge of all things, who shuts off the door of darkness, who dis 
sipates the obscurity,13 

Who renders decisions for mankind in their settlements, 
Resplendent lord, bestowing power on the land through his decision, 
Who seizes the demon Ti'u14 and drives him back to his place. 
Merciful one, granting life, bringing the dead to life, 
Who controls right and justice, destroying evil(f), 
Whose active weapon destroys all enemies." 

The solar character of Ninib is clearly revealed in 
the power ascribed to him of dissipating darkness, as 
well as in epithets emphasizing his brilliancy. In the 
course of the hymn he is expressly described as a 
"burning fire," with a direct allusion to the glow of 
the sun's rays. The sun-gods, moreover, are always 
associated in the religious literature of Babylonia and 
Assyria with justice and the punishment of the evil 
doers. His enemies are the evil-doers, the law breakers 
who are brought to justice and punished in accord with 
the righteous decrees that are traced back to him. It 
is Ninib, the sun-god, who is celebrated as the one who 
renders decisions, who dispenses justice to all mankind, 
who overthrows evil and scatters the enemies who are 
identified with evil-doers. Even as a warrior, Ninib 
does not cast off his role as a judge. His weapon is 
raised in order to smite evil. The cause of his subjects 
is a just one, and therefore he accords them his power 
ful aid. His temple in Nippur, known as E-shu-me-du, 
occupies a rank only second to E-kur itself; and as a 

11 See Jensen, Kosmologie der Babylonier, pp. 470-472. 

12 A collective name, like Anunnaki, for a group of minor deities. 
aSc. "of the night." 

14 A demon of disease, the cause of troubles having their seat in 
the head. 

 BABYLONIAN AND ASSYRIAN GODS 199 

trace of the former's independent position occupied by 
Ninib, the New Year's day continued, even after Enlil 
had become the head of the pantheon, to be celebrated 
as the festival of Ninib when gifts were offered to him 
and his consort Gula, and ceremonies enacted in his 
temple, symbolical of his marriage at the beginning of 
a new year. His festival was also the occasion when 
the fates of individuals for the coming year were de 
cided by him. The beneficent character of Ninib crops 
out also in assigning to him and his consort the power 
of healing, to which references are likewise made in the 
quoted hymn. Ninib saves his subjects from the 
clutches of the demons of disease. It is in this sense 
that he is spoken of as bringing those near death back 
to life. The other more aggressive aspect leads to 
making Ninib the deity who presides over the chase 
of wild animals—a favorite sport of the Assyrian 
kings. The chase is a species of warfare and it seemed 
natural, therefore, to dedicate the spoils of the chase to 
Ninib and to pour out libations to him over the dead 
bodies of lions and wild bulls15 laid low by royal 
hunters. 

The pre-eminence enjoyed at one time by Ninib 
over other solar deities associated with other centres is 
shown by the identification of such deities with him. 
The names borne by other solar deities become epithets 
of Ninib. Prominent among these is Ningirsu, the 
chief deity of a centre, Lagash, in southern Babylonia, 
where, it will be recalled,16 extensive excavations have 
been carried on. The name signifies "lord of Girsu" 
—Girsu being the name of a section or quarter of 
Lagash, presumably the one in which the temple of the 
god stood. For a long period Lagash played an impor 
tant role in the early political history of Babylonia; 

" See Plate LV in Chapter VII. 
14 See above, p. 39, seq. 

 200 BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA 

its rulers extended their sway over a considerable por 
tion of southern Babylonia, but eventually they were 
reduced to a secondary position, and it must have been 
at this time that Ningirsu was practically identified 
with Ninib, becoming, as it were, merely a manifesta 
tion of the great solar deity of Nippur. Ningirsu's 
consort, Bau, similarly becomes synonymous with Gula, 
the consort of Ninib. Precisely like Ninib, Ningirsu 
is commonly designated as a warrior, the son of Enlil, 
armed with powerful weapons that create havoc among 
the enemies of his subjects. On monuments found at 
Lagash he is thus represented, notably on a remarkable 
stele,17 graphically illustrating a severe conflict between 
Lagash and Umma—which ended in the triumph of 
Eannatum (c. 2920 B.C.).18 The victory, however, is 
due to the intervention of Ningirsu, who is portrayed 
in majestic size, holding the standard of Lagash in one 
hand, while in the other, he has a huge net in which the 
enemy is held captive. The temple of Ningirsu at 
Lagash, known as E-ninnu ("house of fifty"), was 
filled with votive offerings of all kinds dedicated by 
rulers or high officials to Ningirsu. Like Ninib, 
Ningirsu also manifests a beneficent aspect as the god 
of vegetation. 

The fate of Ningirsu in being absorbed by Ninib 
also overtakes another solar deity, Zamama, the patron 
of Kish, which was a centre that at one time exercised 
a wide sway.19 Like Ningirsu, Zamama becomes little 
more than a designation of Ninib, and as a war-god is 
likewise addressed as the "son of Enlil"; and the same 
applies to the solar deity of Dilbat, Urash, whose name 
becomes an epithet of Ninib. The force of the tra 
dition acquired by Nippur seems to have maintained the 
cult of Ninib even after Shamash of Sippar becomes 
the sun-god par excellence. Ninib's cult is transferred 

" See Plate XLVII. 

18 See above, p. 128. 

" Above, p. 126, seq. 

 BABYLONIAN AND ASSYRIAN GODS 201 

to Assyria. A temple to him is erected by Ashurnasir- 
pal III (883-859 B.C.) in Calah, for a time the capital 
of Assyria.20 A statue of the god of colossal dimensions 
is placed in the sacred niche, and provision made for 
the maintenance of the cult and for the celebration of 
the time-honored festival of Ninib and Gula. The 
kings of Assyria are fond of invoking Ninib among 
the powers which grant victory to the Assyrian armies, 
and we have seen the role which Ninib plays in Assyria 
as the god of the chase. Despite this, however, some 
of his prestige is lost in the course of time through the 
pre-eminence acquired by the sun-god of Sippar, whose 
Sumerian name is Babbar but who is more commonly 
known by the Akkadian designation Shamash, the com 
mon term in all the Semitic languages for the sun. 

VI 

The great antiquity of Sippar is vouched for by the 
results of excavations conducted on the site,21 but it is 
still an open question whether another seat of Shamash 
worship at Larsa is not even older. We must, at all 
events, assume some relationship between the two 
centres, for in both places the names given to the patron 
deity and to his temple, E-Babbar ("resplendent 
house"), are identical. It is a direct consequence of 
the Semitic control of Babylonia which becomes pro 
nounced in the days of Sargon and Naram-sin K that 
Shamash acquires his pre-eminent position as the sun- 
god par excellence, for Sippar is in close proximity to 
Agade and shared with the latter the prestige of being 
the capital of the kingdom that rose to supremacy 
under Sargon. Shamash is represented on monuments 
and on numerous seal-cylinders M as a majestic figure 

20 So in the days of his successor Shelmaneser III. 

21 Above, p. 37, seq. 

22 Above, p. 135, seq. 

23 See Plate LXXV, Fig. 3, and Plate LXXVII, Fig. 1, at the 
close of Chapter VII. 

 202 BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA 

seated on a throne, or stepping over a mountain, or pass 
ing through gates to symbolize the rise of the great 
orb of light, or sailing in a boat across the heavens. 
Frequently also rays are depicted as issuing from his 
shoulders. As the god of light, he is the general object 
of adoration, and the specific association with Larsa or 
Sippar does not stand in the way of his becoming a 
deity whose worship extends throughout Babylonia and 
passes northward into Assyria. In all large centres 
temples or shrines to Shamash were erected. Baby 
lonian and Assyrian rulers from the oldest to the 
latest period include Shamash in the invocations to the 
chief gods of the pantheon at the beginning of votive 
or historical inscriptions. So, to give an example of 
the early period, Lugalzaggizi, the king of Uruk (c. 
2750 B.C.), designates himself in the introduction to 
one of his inscriptions24 as 

"The great patesi2* of Enlil, endowed with understanding by 
Ea,28 whose name was called 2T by Babbar (i.e., Shamash), the chief 
minister of Sin,2* the lieutenant of Babbar, the provider for Innina, 
the child of Nisaba,28 nourished with the milk of Ninkharsag,30 
the servant of Mes,31 the priest of Uruk." 

At the other end of Babylonian history we find the last 
king of Babylon, Nabonnedos (555-539 B.C.), particu 
larly devoted to the service of Shamash, enlarging and 
restoring his temples in Sippar, Larsa and Babylon, 

24 Hilprecht, Old Babylonian Inscriptions, I, 2, No. 87, Col. I, 
15-30. 

26 A sacerdotal office which, however, also included secular 
functions. 

26 Written En-ki. See below, p. 210, seq. 

271.e., called to his high station. 

28 The moon-god, written En-zu. See below, p. 222. 

29 A goddess presiding over vegetation. 

10 "The lady of the mountain," a title of the consort of Enlil. 

11 An otherwise unknown deity. 

 BABYLONIAN AND ASSYRIAN GODS 203 

and invoking his aid almost to the exclusion of other 
gods in the political crisis which ended in the advent 
of Cyrus and in the fall of the nee-Babylonian empire.32 

The hymns in honor of Shamash, of which we have 
a large number, belong to the finest specimens of 
Babylonian and Assyrian literature, celebrating the 
god as the benefactor of mankind who sheds his light 
and his warmth in all directions, whose rays ripen 
the produce of the fields, who is the source of pros 
perity and of all manner of blessings, who spreads 
justice, who rewards the virtuous and punishes the 
wicked and who is also the judge who protects his 
people, and as a mighty warrior accomplishes the over 
throw of the enemy on the field of battle. 

A hymn which was evidently composed as a greet 
ing to Shamash as he appears on the horizon begins 
as follows:3a 

"0 lord, illuminator of the darkness, opening the face (of heaven f), 
Merciful god, raising the humble, protecting the weak; 
For thy light the great gods wait, 
All the Anunnaki look for thy appearance, 
All tongues $* dost thou direct as a single being.85 
With raised heads they look expectantly towards the sunlight; 
Thou art the light for the remotest bounds of heaven, 
The banner for the wide earth art thou; 
All mankind look upon thee with joy." 

Briefly but effectively the expectant moments just 
before sunrise are described, the gods joining with 
mankind in waiting anxiously for the appearance 
of the great orb; and when the tension is released and 
the light spreads to all sides, all creation is represented 

82 See above, p. 184. 

88 Eawlinson IV,2 PL 19, Nr. 2. 

8* I.e., all peoples. 

88 The sun guides all humanity as one directs a single individual. 

 204 BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA 

as breaking out into joy. No less impressive is the 
description and praise of the sun at sunset:36 

"O, Shamash, on thy entrance into the heavens, 
May the resplendent bolts of heaven greet thee, •* 
May the gates of heaven bless thee, 
May Meshara,37 thy beloved messenger, direct thee! 
Over E-Babbar, the seat of thy rule, let thy supremacy shine, 
May A, thy beloved consort, step joyfully before thee, 
May thy heart be appeased,88 
May the table of thy divinity be spread,39 
O, Shamash, powerful warrior, be thou glorified! 
O lord of E-Babbar, pass on, thy course be rightly directed! 
Take thy way, on a firm path *° move along! 
O Shamash, judge of the world, giver of all decisions art thou." 

We find in all ancient religions a certain fear asso 
ciated with moments of transition, whether it be the 
transition of one season of the year to another, or the 
transition of one phase of the moon to the succeeding 
one, or the transition of the child from the womb into 
the light. In accord with this the appearance of the 
new moon and the time of full moon are fraught with 
special significance, and similarly in the case of the sun, 
the moment of sunrise and that of sunset. Hence the 
hope expressed in the hymn that the sun may safely 
enter into the midst of the heavens and be properly 
directed to pursue the correct path, so as to be certain 
to make its appearance in the morning at the expected 
time. If the sun should by any chance lose its way, 
disaster would follow. Emphasis is laid on the guid 
ance afforded by Shamash. It is he who directs man 
kind into the right path, just as the sun pursues the 
right road in moving across the heavens. The right 

86 Abel-Winckler, Ke&schriftexte zum Gebrauch fiei Vorlesungen 
(Berlin, 1890), pp. 59-60. 

87 "Righteousness"—personified as. an attendant of Shamash. 
881.e., may Shamash show himself gracious and not be angry. 
88 May rich offerings be placed before Shamash. 
•• The "firm path" along which the sun moves is the ecliptic. 

 BABYLONIAN AND ASSYRIAN GODS 205 

path for mankind is justice, and it is through Shamash 
as the supreme judge that the cause of the righteous 
is protected and hidden enemies brought to light. 

In the case of a religion unfolding and developing 
hand in hand with advancing culture, and following 
more or less closely the political vicissitudes of the 
country, we must be prepared for the theoretical elab 
oration of the doctrinal aspects of the current beliefs, 
by the side of a steady enlargement in the organiza 
tion of the cult and the priesthood in connection with 
the chief deities of the pantheon. The result of such 
a process continued for many centuries is to lead to 
attempts at a systematization of the currents and 
counter-currents of popular beliefs. It is part of the 
system devised by priestly activity to find a place in 
the pantheon for deities that personify the same power 
of nature. The god Ninib, we have seen, absorbed the 
roles of the other local sun-gods in the earlier Baby 
lonian period, but was obliged to yield his prerogatives 
to a still greater solar deity, Shamash. Such, how 
ever, was the force of tradition that Ninib could not 
be entirely set aside in favor of Shamash. A place had 
therefore to be found for Ninib in the pantheon, and 
this was done by differentiating between the phases 
of the sun according to the seasons of the year. The 
sun in a sub-tropical climate like the Euphrates Val 
ley with only two seasons, a rainy one beginning in 
the fall and lasting till the spring, and a dry one dur 
ing the summer months, presents two aspects, as a 
beneficent and revivifying force in the spring, driving 
away the rains and the storms and bringing new life 
in the fields after the apparent extinction of all vitality 
during the winter months, and as a raging and de 
structive one during the torrid months when its fierce 
rays scorch the earth, and the intense heat brings suf 
fering, sickness and often death. Shamash was the sun 
as a whole, while Ninib became in the theological 
system of the priests the sun of the springtime, and by 

 206 BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA 

a natural association also the morning sun. The sun 
as a destructive and hostile force was symbolized by 
another solar deity, Nergal, who, originally the local 
deity of an important centre in southern Babylonia, 
Cuthah, became the sun of the midsummer season and 
the sun of the noon-time. The cult of Nergal takes 
us back again to the old Babylonian period when Cuth 
ah 41 was the political focus of one of the principalities 
in the Euphrates Valley, enjoying an independent ex 
istence and exercising sway over a considerable ter 
ritory, even though the details of the history of the 
kingdom of Cuthah still escape us. Nergal was too 
prominent a solar deity to be absorbed by Ninib. His 
temple at Cuthah, known as E-shidlam, acquired great 
prominence at an early period. We find him repre 
sented by a shrine or sanctuary at Nippur within the 
sacred area in which E-kur stood, and when Babylon 
became the political and religious capital of the coun 
try, the cult of Nergal was transferred to this centre 
and continued in force to the end of the Babylonian 
monarchy. Like Ninib and Shamash, Nergal was 
pictured as a warrior but one of an invariably grim 
countenance, a god of battle, whose destructive power 
was directed against all mankind. True, he also leads 
his subjects to victory, but more commonly he deals 
out pestilence and death. He strikes unawares and 
he strikes apparently without discrimination. He is 
not a just judge like Shamash, but a god, filled with 
rage, stalking about in the heat of the day on the look 
out for victims. Nergal is thus primarily the god of 
death. When pestilence sweeps over the land, it is 
ascribed to Nergal's activity. Because of this forbid 
ding aspect, it was all the more important to raise one's 
appeal to him in the hope of averting his wrath. The 
hymns to Nergal, of which we have quite a number,** 

41 See above, p. 124, and below p. 455. 

42 See Bollenrueher, Gebete und Hymnen on Nergal (Leipzig, 
1904). 

 BABYLONIAN AND ASSYRIAN GODS 207 

all emphasize the severity and irresistible power of 
the god. He is pictured as a lion, which animal be 
comes his symbol. His solar character crops out in 
epithets that describe his brilliancy. Like Ninib, he is 
the son of Enlil who carries out the commands of his 
father, and as a god of death his presence is naturally 
felt also in the midst of battle. One of the hymns to 
him begins as follows: *3 

"Lord, strong, supreme, first-born of Nunammir,4* 

Kuler of the Anunnaki, lord of battle, 

Offspring of Kutushar,45 the great queen, 

Nergal, mighty one among the gods, beloved of Ninmenna,48 

Thou shinest on the brilliant heaven, high is thy station; 

Great art thou in the realm of the dead, without a rival art thou; 

By the side of Ea,4T thy counsel is supreme in the assembly of the 

gods, 

With Sin,48 thou overseest all in heaven. 
Enlil, thy father, entrusted to thee, the dark-headed, all living 

things, 
The animals of the field and all swarming creation into thy hand." 

The solar character of Nergal is unmistakably re 
vealed in these lines, which also indicate the endeavor 
to connect the god with other leading figures of the 
pantheon. As the god of pestilence and death, his 
special realm, however, is the lower world where the 
dead are huddled together and which was regarded as 
a dark, gloomy prison with Nergal and a goddess, 
Allatu, as the merciless overseers to prevent the escape 
of any of the prisoners back to the upper world. 

There is still another solar deity, originally a local 
patron of an ancient centre, and who retains his identity 
in the systematized pantheon by being advanced to the 

43 King, Babylonian Magic and Sorcery, Nr. 27. 

44 A title of Enlil, conveying the force of "hero of rulership." 
48 A goddess. 

48 "Lady of the crown"—a title of Kutushar, one of the names 
of the consort of Nergal. 
47 The god of humanity. 
•• The moon-god. 

 208 BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA 

general control of the heavens or the upper regions. 
This is Ami who is so closely associated originally with 
Uruk in southern Babylonia as to leave no doubt of 
his being at the start merely the patron deity of that 
place. The theoretical aspect of the Babylonian re 
ligion to which attention has been directed49 is illus 
trated by the position accorded to Anu. He becomes 
the god of heaven, just as Enlil is placed in control 
of the earth and the atmosphere above it, and a third 
deity, Ea, originally the god of the Persian Gulf, be 
comes the power in control of the watery element in 
general. 

This threefold division of the universe—heaven, 
earth and water—with the assignment of one deity to 
each division is clearly the work of the priestly schools 
attached to the Babylonian temples. It has an aca 
demic flavor. It is only through a phase of speculation 
which has all the earmarks of the school that the notion 
arises of the heavens as a distinct section of the uni 
verse with some god in general control, just as further 
speculation of this character leads to the predication of 
the other divisions of the universe—the earth with the 
atmosphere above it and the watery expanse; and since 
even the advanced speculation unfolded in the schools 
adopts the language and metaphors of the animistic 
view of all nature, the threefold division of the uni 
verse leads to assigning to each one a god in control, 
Anu for the heavens, Enlil for the earth with the sur 
rounding atmosphere, and Ea for the waters. As the 
god of heaven, Anu becomes the "king of the gods" 
and their "father." The triad Anu, Enlil and Ea are 
invoked at the beginning of votive and historical in 
scriptions in a manner which shows that the original 
and specific character of these deities has been entirely 
lost sight of. Enlil was chosen as the second figure of 
the triad because he was the most prominent of the 
gods whose power was manifested on the earth and in 
•• Above, p. 205. ' 

 BABYLONIAN AND ASSYEIAN GODS 209 

the atmosphere above it, while the choice of Ea as the 
third member was a similar logical process because he 
was in control of the greatest body of water known to 
the Babylonians. As the god of the Persian Gulf, Ea 
was naturally selected as the personification of the 
watery element in general. 

The conception of Ami as the king and father of 
all the gods furthermore reflects the period when the 
seat of the gods was projected on the heavens. Such 
a view is closely entwined with astrological notions, and 
rests upon the theory which identifies planets and stars 
with the gods of the pantheon and quite independent 
of their original character places the seats of all the 
gods, the one who presides over the divisions of the 
drawn up by Babylonian and, later, by Assyrian priests 
are to a large extent compiled in the interest of the 
astrological system devised in the schools, and which 
necessitated designations for a large and ever increas 
ing number of stars. It is therefore in an astrological 
sense that Anu is viewed as the king and father of the 
gods, the one who presides over the division of the 
universe in which each one of the gods has his assigned 
station, and since sun and moon are also suspended in 
the heavens, Anu as the god of heaven is supreme also 
over the two great orbs of light. In the actual cult 
of Babylonia, Anu plays a relatively minor part. We 
do not find hymns and prayers addressed to him, and 
even in his original seat of worship, it is a goddess, 
Nana, the personification of the female element in 
nature, who appears to have been within the period 
embraced by historical documents the chief object of 
worship. 

In an enumeration of the pantheon, however, in the 
old Babylonian period Anu is rarely omitted, and, in 
stead of Nana, a consort, Antum, is assigned to him— 
a name representing merely a feminine form of the god 
Anu. All the gods and goddesses being children of 
Anu and Antum, the name of Anu is often added both 

14 

 210 BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA 

in votive inscriptions and in the religious literature in 
connection with the name of a deity. So for example, 
Gudea frequently adds to the name Bau, the consort of 
Ningirsu, that she is the "daughter of Ami" or "the 
chief daughter"80, and even Enlil is designated as the 
son of Ami.81 Occasionally instead of the triad, we 
find only Anu and Enlil enumerated as summing up 
the manifestation of divine power among mankind. 

Ordinarily, however, the third member of the triad 
is included. As a matter of fact the god Ea is one of 
the most important as well as one of the most interest 
ing figures in the Babylonian-Assyrian pantheon. He 
begins his career as the local deity of Eridu, so that he 
becomes the personification of the watery element in 
general because the Persian Gulf on or near which 
Eridu was situated62 was the largest body of water 
known to the Babylonians, the "father" of all waters. 
The oldest settlements of the Euphrates Valley are 
those nearest to the Persian Gulf. The part that water 
plays in the life of mankind and in the development of 
human culture is quite sufficient to account for the 
unique position acquired by Ea in the pantheon as the 
protector of humanity, the friend and guide of man in 
his career, subject to such constant vicissitudes. He 
is the teacher also who instructs man in the various 
arts.88 It is Ea who endows the rulers with intelligence 
as it is he who presides over the fine arts, instructing 
men in architecture, in working precious metals and 
stones and in all the expressions of man's intellectual 
activity. Thus Ea may briefly be defined as the god 
of civilization. The friend of mankind, it is to him 
that one turns in the first instance when other gods 

80 E.g., Statue B, Col. 8, 58. 

" By Imgalzaggisi in the inscription above (p. 202) referred to, 
Col. 3, 16. 

•* Owing to the steady accumulation of the soil, Abu-Shahrein, 
the site of Eridu, is now some sixty miles from the head of the Qulf. 

•• Cory, Ancient Fragments, (2d ed.) p. 22, seg. 

 PLATE XXVIII 

FIG. I, THE GOD MARDUK IN CONFLICT WITH THE MONSTEK TIAMAT 

FIG. 2, PROCESSION OF CinDS 

 BABYLONIAN AND ASSYEIAN GODS 211 

seem hostile. When the gods in counsel decide to bring 
on a destructive rain-storm, it is Ea who reveals the 
purpose to a favorite of his who by constructing a ship 
for himself and his family escapes destruction; and 
similarly in another myth it is Ea who tries to secure 
immortality for mankind, though he alas! fails to do so. 
The healing qualities of springs, which man must 
have ascertained at an early period by experience, was 
no doubt a factor in making Ea a chief figure in the 
incantation rites for the purpose of driving out the 
demon supposed to be the cause of disease and bodily 
suffering. An elaborate exorcising ritual was devel 
oped by the priests of Eridu which continued to be 
down through the period of the Assyrian empire the 
model and prototype for all other methods of healing 
disease. The sick man was sprinkled with holy water, 
and various other rites, symbolizing the hoped for re 
lief from the clutches of the demons or supposed to act 
directly on the demons, were performed in the name 
of Ea. 

VII 

Ea stands in a particularly close relation to the god 
who with the rise of the city of Babylon as the political 
centre becomes the head of the pantheon—Marduk. 
The latter is invariably designated as the son of Ea, 
and since Marduk's sanctuary at Babylon bears the 
same name, E-sagila ("the lofty house"), as that of 
Ea at Eridu, we are perhaps justified in concluding 
that the settlement of Babylon itself is an offshoot of 
Eridu. Marduk is originally a solar deity like Anu, 
Ninib, Shamash and Nergal. As such he may very 
well have been worshipped at Eridu by the side of 
Ea until his cult was transferred to Babylon. But 
however we are to explain the association of Ea with 
Marduk, the relationship of father and son points to a 
dependence of the latter upon the former, and a depend 
ence of so decided a character that, although Marduk 
comes to be the lord over gods and mankind, he never 

 212 BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA 

ceases to acknowledge Ea's priority, even though in 
the religious literature the honor of Marduk is pro 
tected by representing Ea as rejoicing in the supreme 
position attained by his well-beloved son. So in the 
incantation texts, when the appeal is made to Marduk 
to release the sufferer from the grasp of the demons, 
Marduk, the dutiful son, goes to his father, Ea, and 
asks what can be done for the sufferer. Ea invariably 
replies, 

"My son, what dost thou not know that I could tell thee? 
What I know, thou also knowest."" 

In this manner, the way is paved for the applica 
tion of the Eridu ritual, but through Marduk Ea's 
authorship is acknowledged, and at the same time 
Marduk's equality with his father is indicated. Mar 
duk owes his position in the pantheon to the union 
of the Euphratean states definitely brought about by 
Hammurapi (c. 2120 B.C.), as a consequence of which 
Babylon becomes the political capital of the kingdom, 
setting aside for all times the prerogatives formerly 
enjoyed by Nippur, Uruk, Eridu, Lagash, Kish, Sip- 
par, Ur or any of the other centres of the Euphrates 
Valley. Even Enlil must yield some of his prestige 
to Marduk. Naturally, Enlil retains his position as 
the second member of the triad, but Enlil transfers of 
his own accord the headship of the pantheon to Mar 
duk. He is represented as doing this at the close of a 
tale in which Marduk's triumph over a monster, 
Tiamat, symbolizing the primeval chaos, is described 
in detail.66 All the gods assemble to celebrate Marduk's 
great deed. They bestow fifty glorious names upon 
him, the names symbolizing the attributes of Marduk, 
on whom, as the head of the pantheon, the qualities of 

•* This conversation occurs again and again in the incantation 
rituals, e.g., Cun. Texts, xvi, PI. 20, 128-138; 45, 119-148; xvii, 
PL 12, 20-31; 19, 31; 21,118-142; 26, 48-63, etc. 

" Se» below, p. 442. 

 BABYLONIAN AND ASSYRIAN GODS 213 

all the gods and goddesses grouped around Mm as the 
courtiers gather around the royal throne are thus 
heaped. Enlil steps forward and bestows his name 
as "lord" upon Marduk. The bestowal of the name, 
according to the prevalent view in antiquity, carries 
with it the power and position of the one bearing it. 
The god Ea follows Enlil's example, and thus without 
a conflict the rule passes to Marduk. 

The ritual of Nippur is carried over to a large extent 
to Babylon, with additions so as to adapt it to the cult of 
Marduk. Instead of the "word" of Enlil, that of Mar 
duk is celebrated. The "lord of lands" is no longer Enlil 
but Marduk who becomes the belu or Baal par excellence 
to such a degree that Bel becomes a common designa 
tion of a god, passing beyond the confines of Babylonia 
to other countries. "There is no god like Marduk" 
is the burden of the many hymns in honor of the god 
that have fortunately been preserved for us. So we 
read in a text found at Sippar,56 

"Mighty lord of gods, strong Marduk, 
Counsellor, beloved of Ea, of all pervading command, 
Before his mighty command the great Igigi5T bow; 
(In thy?) holy chamber the Anmmaki bow before thee; 
Lord of all below, merciful one, producer of fertility, 
Guardian of sacrifices for the gods, founder of cities, 
Guide of the sources, opener of fountains, 
Lord of lands, king of heaven and earth, granting prosperity, 
God without whom in the depth the fate of mankind is not deter 
mined. 
Thou lookest on the habitations of the wicked and destroyest their 

power. 

What god in heaven or earth is like to thee I 
Supreme art thou over all gods; 
Among the gods, thy counsel prevails; 
Thou art superior to Ea, the father who produced thee." 

••Seheil, Une Saison de Fouilles a Sippar (Cairo, 1902) pp. 
97-98. 

57 A collective name, like Anunnaki, for a series of minor deities. 

 214 BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA 

The hymn may well have been originally a com 
position in honor of Ea, composed for his cult at Eridu 
and then recast so as to adapt it to Marduk, with the 
express purpose of emphasizing the transfer of Ea's 
attributes to the head of the pantheon, who, although 
the son of Ea, becomes, as the hymn declares, superior 
to his father. 

It is interesting to compare this hymn with one ** in 
which in a similar manner descriptions belonging to 
Enlil as the storm-god and whose "word" is heard in 
the roar of the thunder are transferred to Marduk. 

"Who can escape thy gaze? 

Thy word is a great net stretching over heaven and earth; 
It encloses the sea, and the sea is stirred up, 
It encloses the marsh, and the marsh groans, 
It encloses the billows of the Euphrates. 
The word of Marduk troubles the river bed(?). 
Lord, thou art supreme, who is like unto theef 
Marduk, among all the great gods thou art supreme." 

The net is a metaphor for the storm which sweeps 
along in fury. The description fits a storm-god but is 
hardly appropriate for a solar deity, such as Marduk 
is. In the descriptions of Enlil's "word" of which a 
specimen has been given above,59 the same picture of 
a great, all encompassing net is introduced. There 
is no reason to question that the hymn in question also 
represents such a modification of an old composition 
in honor of Enlil, intentionally made to emphasize that 
Marduk has usurped the place of the older head of the 
pantheon. 

In a large proportion of the hymns to Marduk that 
have been preserved, these two aspects of the god— 
Ms functions derived from Ea and those transferred 
from Enlil—are prominently dwelled upon and indeed 
to such an extent as to overshadow his original role as 
a solar deity. Anu is also associated with Enlil and 

"Rawlinson IV2 PI. 26, No. 4. 
"»P. 195. 

 BABYLONIAN AND ASSYRIAN GODS 215 

Ea, in according to Marduk supremacy over the gods 
so that all three figures of the triad combine in doing 
homage to him. A particularly impressive hymn to 
Marduk60 begins as follows: 

"I pay homage to thy name, 0 Marduk, the strong one of the gods, 

the ruler of heaven and earth, 
Glorious being, who alone is supreme, 
Thou possessest the power of Anu, the power of Enlil, the power of 

Ea—rulership and majesty, 

Thou art in control of all wisdom, perfect in strength, 
Circumspect counsellor, lofty ruler, powerful and mighty, 
"Whose rule Anu praised as a preparation for the conflict.*1 
In heaven thou art supreme, on earth thou rulest, wise counsellor 

(of the gods), 
Founder of all settlements, who holds the ends of the starry heavens 

in his grasp." 

The hymn ends in a direct appeal to the god for 
divine grace and long life. 

"I implore thee, mighty, powerful lord, may thy enangered heart 

be appeased, thy stirred up liver be quieted,82 
Have mercy, let me live in fear of thee, ruler of the gods, supreme 

Marduk, 
The splendor of Sarpanit, thy great consort, wife of En-bilulu," 

daughter-in-law of Ea. 
I will glorify, the son of MummuM will I humbly glorify forever." 

The humble petitioner who has felt the anger of his 
god is no doubt, as in most of the hymns, the king 
himself. Some misfortune has come over the land or 

80 Craig, Assyrian-Babylonian Religious Texts, I PL, 29-31. 

41 An allusion to Marduk's conflict which Tiamat to which he is 
encouraged by Anu who declares that Marduk alone can overthrow 
the monster. See below p. 433 seq. 

*2 Heart and liver are in this way very frequently combined, 
the heart as the seat of the intellect, and the liver as the seat of the 
emotions. 

es A title of Marduk. 

**A personification of the watery deep and here used as a 
designation of Ea. The son of Mummu is, therefore, Marduk. See 
p. 428. 

 216 BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA 

over the royal house, and in a penitent spirit the king 
seeks out the divine throne for forgiveness. This 
attitude of the king, setting the example for the people, 
is further illustrated by the prayers to Marduk which 
we find in considerable number attached to royal in 
scriptions, particularly those of the neo-Babylonian 
dynasty. 

In eloquent and impassioned terms the great 
Nebuchadnezzar, the son of Nebopolassar, addresses his 
god upon ascending the throne of his father.65 

"O, eternal ruler, lord of the universe, grant that the name of 
the king whom thou lovest, whose name thou hast proclaimed, 
flourish as may be pleasing to thee. Lead him in the right path. I 
am the prince who is subservient to thee, the creature of thy hand. 
Thou hast created me and thou hast entrusted the rule of mankind 
to me. According to thy mercy, O lord, which thou bestowest upon 
all, may thy supreme rulership be merciful. The fear of thy 
divinity implant in my heart. Grant me what may seem good to 
thee, for thou art the one who has granted me life." 

Such prayers,66 beautiful and simple in diction and 
filled with a deep religious fervor, show us the religion 
of Babylonia at its best. The spirit of humility and 
reverence does not fall short of the attitude towards 
iYahweh in the Psalms, and the conception of Marduk 
rises to a height of spiritual aspiration which comes to 
us as a surprise in a religion that remained steeped in 
polytheism and that was associated with practices and 
rites of a much lower order of thought. 

Marduk, as the supreme god, naturally assumes the 
role of creator of the universe, and the creation mark 
ing the beginning of the calculation of tune, Marduk's 
festival is coincident with the new year. This festival 
which, as we have seen,67 was celebrated at Nippur in 
honor of Ninib and Gula, and at Lagash was sacred to 

m Rawlinson I, PL 53, Col. I, 55-11,1. 

60 For further specimens see Jastrow, Religion Bdbyloniens vnd 
Assyriens, I, pp. 400-420. and below pp. 465-469. 
6T Above, p. 199. 

 BABYLONIAN AND ASSYRIAN GODS 217 

Ningirsu and Bau, becomes in Babylon the season dedi 
cated to Marduk. In its developed form the New 
Year's festival of Babylon extended over eleven days 
with special rites for each day. The transition motif 
was also carried over from ancient days, as shown in 
the current conception which represents Marduk sitting 
in a sacred chamber, surrounded by the other members 
of the pantheon and determining the fate of individuals 
for the coming year. This point of view lent a sombre 
aspect to the New Year's festival. The statue of the 
god in E-sagila was carried in solemn procession to the 
special shrine which contained the "chamber of fates" 
as it was called, and at the close of the conclave of the 
gods was brought back to its resting place, accompanied 
as accorded with his dignity by the images of the other 
great gods. 

The process involved in the absorption of the roles 
and attributes of other gods which we have noted in the 
case of Enlil, Ninib and Shamash appears to have gone 
to even greater lengths in the case of Marduk, who is 
addressed in terms which give one the impression as 
though he were the one and only deity. The mono 
theistic strain in the prayers and hymns addressed to 
Marduk is sometimes so pronounced that if one sub 
stitutes Yahweh or God for Marduk, they might form 
part of a Jewish or Christian service of to-day. A god 
on whom the other gods bestow fifty names68 is well 
advanced on the way to become the one and only power, 
as the source of all the phenomena of nature. 

Still, the limitations of the monotheistic tendency 
in Babylonia must be recognized. Not only do the 
other gods of the pantheon continue to receive recog 
nition in their temples and sanctuaries scattered 
throughout the land, but neither Babylonians nor 
Assyrians ever passed beyond the point of regarding 
gods as personifications of powers of nature. Marduk, 
too, remains on this basis._________________ 

•• See above, p. 212 and below, p. 443. 

 218 BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA 

Just as Marduk is invariably associated with Ea as 
his father, so another deity, Nabu, whose name we have 
already encountered is closely attached to Marduk as 
his son. Like all the other gods of Babylonia, Nabu 
starts on his career as a local patron. He belongs to 
the city of Borsippa, lying in such close proximity to 
Babylon on the west bank of the Euphrates as to be 
come, with the extension of Babylon, almost a suburb 
of the latter. It is this close relationship between the 
two cities that finds an expression in making Nabu the 
son of Marduk. There are reasons, however, for be 
lieving that Borsippa rose to importance earlier than 
Babylon, and that for some time Nabu was a serious 
rival to Marduk. The original character of the deity 
of Borsippa is still in doubt, but indications point to 
his being originally a water-god—perhaps the water- 
spirit in the Euphrates—and as such he would natu 
rally become also a god of vegetation, since the fertility 
of the land is-dependent upon the overflow of the rivers 
during the rainy season. The association of water with 
knowledge and culture which, we have seen,69 dominates 
the views held in regard to Ea would account for the 
chief trait of Nabu as revealed in inscriptions and in 
the religious literature, to wit, his role as the god of 
writing more particularly and then in general as the 
god who gives understanding and wisdom. His symbol 
is the stylus of the scribe. He is the secretary of the 
gods who, at the time of the New Year's assembly of 
the pantheon when the fates of individuals are deter 
mined for the coming year, records the decisions of the 
gods. It is he who inspires the priests to collect the 
hymns, incantations, omens and other parts of the 
ritual as a guide for further ages. Secular wisdom is 
also due to him. Writing is his invention communi 
cated to mankind, and Ashurbanapal in the .subscripts 
to the tablets of his royal library rarely fails to ae- 
knowledge the aid of Nabu and of his consort, Tashmit, 
«• Above, p. 210. 

 PLATE XXIX 

FIG. I, THE GOD NABU 

FIG. 2, ISHTAB AS THE GODDESS OF WAR 

FIG. 3, ISHTAR AS THE MOTHER 
GODDESS 

 BABYLONIAN AND ASSYRIAN GODS 219 

as the ones who inspired the ruler with the idea of 
collecting the literary productions of the past. The 
close association with Marduk leads naturally to a 
similarity in the tennis in which they are addressed, 
but the distinctive character of Nabu as the god of 
writing on whose tablets one can read the future is 
rarely omitted even in the prayers of late Babylonian 
rulers like Nebuchadnezzar, where Nabu is generally 
invoked only in connection with his father. A prayer 
of this ruler on the completion of the tower attached 
to Nabu's temple at Borsippa reads as follows:70 

"Oh Nabu, legitimate son,71 sublime messenger, triumphant, be 
loved of Marduk, graciously look in joy on my handiwork. Long 
life, numerous progeny, a firmly established throne, enduring rule, 
conquest of the enemy's land grant me as a gift! On thy unchange 
able tablet which marks the bounds of heaven and earth, proclaim 
length of days for me, inscribe offspring (for me)! Before Marduk, 
the king of heaven and earth, the father who produced thee, make 
my deeds pleasing, intercede on my behalf and proclaim that Nebu 
chadnezzar is indeed a king who beautifies." 

The tablet of Nabu is the starry expanse on which 
the future is written for him who can read the signs 
in the heavens. Nabu, however, is merely the recorder 
of the decision which rests with Marduk. 

This close association of Nabu with Marduk finds 
many other expressions both in the cult and in the 
religious literature. Babylon and Borsippa were com 
bined so as to form practically a single conception in 
the minds of priests and populace. The one could 
hardly be thought of without the other. In Babylon, 
shrines and sanctuaries to the leading members of the 
pantheon were grouped around the central temple, 
E-sagila, as was done in earlier days at Nippur,72 
where E-kur, the temple of Enlil, grew to be the desig- 
iiation of the sacred quarter of the city._____ 

70 Rawlinson I, PI. 51, No. 1, Col. II, 16-31. 
T1 Sc. of Marduk. 
72 Above, p. 196. 

 220 BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA 

In the official correspondence it became customary 
to introduce in the greeting with which the letters be 
gan the names of Marduk and Nabu, and similarly in 
historical inscriptions the two names were constantly 
entwined. Indeed it would appear that at times at 
tempts were made to play off the one god against the 
other. It is probably not accidental that three of the 
rulers of the neo-Babylonian empire73 bear names com 
pounded with Nabu, and it looks as though the founder 
of this dynasty wished to place the son on an equality 
with the father. Cyrus, who overthrew this empire, 
claims to have come to Babylon to reinstate Marduk 
in his full dignity. In Assyria, where Marduk was re 
garded as in a manner the rival of Ashur, the head of 
the Assyrian pantheon, we find the kings disposed to 
pay their homage to the son rather than to the father 
as the chief figure of the Babylonian pantheon. An 
official of one of these kings, Adad-nirari IV (810-782 
B.C.), erects a statue to Nabu and inscribes on it:7* 

"0 offspring, rely on Nabu. Put your trust in no other god." 

Ashurbanapal, the greatest of the Assyrian kings 
(668-626 B.C.), is among those who pay homage to 
Nabu in a manner which betrays the tendency to make 
him more than a mere appendage to Marduk. 

It is interesting to note that the cult of Nabu (as 
that of Marduk) survives the fall of the Babylonian 
empire and even the substitution of Greek governors 
for the Persian rule. We have a prayer of the Seleucid 
ruler, Antiochus Soter (281-261 B.C.), addressed to 
Nabu on the occasion of that ruler's restoration of 
Nabu's temple, E-zida, at Borsippa. The prayer, 
though modelled upon those of the rulers of the neo- 
Babylonian dynasty, is nevertheless of sufficient in 
terest towarrantanextracth^e."___________ 

73 See above, p. 182, seq. 

T* Kawlinson I, PI. 35, No. 2, line 12. 

7t Eawlinson V, PI. 66, Col. I, 16-11, 29. 

 BABYLONIAN AND ASSYRIAN GODS 221 

"O Nabu, sublime son, mighty lord of the great gods, whom to 
praise seems meet, first-born son of Marduk, offspring of Erua,7* 
the queen, creator, look in joy! At thy supreme unchangeable 
command which has brought about my victory over the enemy, 
grant a just kingdom, an auspicious rule, years of prosperity, 
plentiful progeny to the kingdom of Antiochus and of Seleucus, 
his son. 

• •••••»»• 

By thy supreme stylus which fixes the bounds of heaven and 
earth, through thy glorious utterance may my salvation be pro 
claimed. May my hands conquer the lands from sunrise to sun 
set,77 compel their tribute in order to complete E-sagila and E-zida. 
0 Nabu, royal son, upon thy entering into thy legitimate temple,78 
proclaim favor for Antiochus, the king of (all) lands, for the king 
Seleucus, his son, and for the queen Stratonike." 

Even in this late composition Nabu is still the scribe 
who writes down the decrees of the gods. The king is 
careful also to drag in Marduk and his temple, and as 
an interesting new touch he includes in his prayer his 
son, associated presumably with the father in the gov 
ernment, and his queen. 

VIII 

We have still to consider one of the most notable 
figures of the Babylonian-Assyrian pantheon, one 
whose cult assumed great prominence in the earliest 
days to which we can trace back the history of the 
country with which we are concerned, and who re 
tained his position despite all political and social vicis 
situdes, throughout all changes in religious thought 
down to the disappearance of the Babylonian-Assyrian 
civilization—the moon-god, Sin. There were chiefly 
two centres of Sin worship in Babylonia, one at Ur in 
the extreme south, and the other at Harran in the north. 

78 A title of Sarpanit, the consort of Marduk. 

77 I.e., from east to west. 

78 With an allusion to the name of Nabu's temple, E-zida, '' the 
legitimate house." 

 222 BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA 

The former of these two is the older and by far the 
more important. By the side of Sin, the moon-god 
also bears a name, Nannar, which designates him as a 
"luminary." In Sumerian the name is written with 
two signs, En-zu, which describes him as the "lord 
of knowledge" and of which Sin—divided into Si-in— 
may be a derivative by an inversion of the two syllables, 
which is not uncommon.79 These two qualities, as a 
light-giving power and as a god of wisdom, are the two 
traits of Sin most prominently dwelt upon in votive 
and historical inscriptions and in religious texts. In 
the art,80 the moon-god is represented as an old man 
with a flowing beard, with the moon's crescent as his 
symbol. On the so-called Boundary Stones,81 the cres 
cent alone is used for the moon, as the circle with 
numerous rays stands for the sun. The horns sug 
gested by the moon's crescent were probably a factor 
in representing him also figuratively as a bull, and a 
frequent epithet given to him is "the young bullock of 
Enlil," which illustrates also the endeavor to associate 
him with the old Babylonian pantheon grouped around 
the god of Nippur. The crescent also suggests a bark, 
and in very old invocations he is pictured as sailing 
across the heavens in a bark. One of these reads in 
part as follows:82 

"In the resplendent bark of heaven, O self-appointed ruler, 

Father Nannar, lord of Ur, 

Father Nannar, lord of E-gishshirgal,8* 

Father Nannar, lord of Namrasit,84 

Lord Nannar, first-born son of Enlil, 

As thou sailest along, as thou sailest along, 

78 So we have Zu-ab, "house of knowledge," becoming apsu. 

80 See Plate LXXVII, Fig. 2. 

81 See p. 416, seq. 

" Cun. Texts, XV, PI. 17, and Eeisner, Sumerisch-Babylonischt 
Hymnen, No. 38. 

81 Name of Sin's temple in Ur. 

•* "Rising in light," an epithet of the moon-god. 

 PLATE XXX 

FIG. I, MAKDUK, THE CHIEF DEITY OF BABYLON 

FIG. 2, ADAD, THE GOD OF STORMS 

 BABYLONIAN AND ASSYRIAN GODS 223 

In the presence of thy father, in the presence of Enlil, thou art 

ruler; 

Father Nannar, thou art ruler, thou art leader, 
In the bark riding through the heavens,—thou art ruler." 

In this manner the litany proceeds, the lines of 
which are evidently intended to be chanted by a leader 
and chorus alternatively, or by two choruses of priests. 
Though Sin or Nannar is constantly addressed as 
father in his capacity as the chief luminary in the 
starry heavens, the endeavor is clearly made to bring 
him into association with Enlil whose first-born son 
he is therefore declared to be, and in the course of the 
process of the incorporation of the Sin cult into that 
centring around Enlil, the "word" which we have 
seen is the specific quality of the chief god of Nippur 
in his role of a storm deity is likewise transferred to 
Nannar, as it was transferred to Marduk, to Shamash, 
to Ea and in fact to all the chief figures of the pantheon, 
quite independently of their original character. 

IX 

A totally different god is Adad, the storm-god, who 
is represented as brandishing the thunderbolt and 
hurling the lightning. Adad is a counterpart of Enlil, 
but, unlike the latter, who, as we have seen, takes on 
other traits, Adad or Ramman ("the thunderer"), as 
he was also called, retains his forbidding character of 
a god who when he manifests himself does so because 
his wrath has been aroused. Gods as well as men stand 
in terror of Adad as is well brought out in one of the 
hymns to him.86 

"When the lord is enraged, the heavens tremble before him, 
When Adad is enangered, the earth quakes before him, 
Great mountains are cast down before him. 
At his anger, at his wrath, 
At his roar, at his thunder, 

K Rawlinson IV2 PI. 28, No. 2. 

 224 BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA 

The gods of heaven retire into the heavens, 
The gods of earth recede into the earth, 
The sun passes into the foundation of heaven, 
The moon disappears into the zenith of heaven." 

He is the destroyer who sweeps across "the heavens, 
the land and the waters" as we read in another invoca 
tion to him. When the gods decide to bring on a 
deluge, it is Adad who is the chief executive of the 
divine decree. 

But just because of his power and his violence, the 
attempt is made to gain his favor. When the storm 
ceases, the rainbow appears in the sky and the sun 
comes out from the clouds, it is a sign that Adad has 
been reconciled. Applying the association to human 
conditions, sickness, loss of life, destruction of crops, 
as a result of storms lead king and subjects to appeal 
to Adad's mercy, if happily they can arouse it. It is 
hoped that the god may feel flattered by being ad 
dressed as merciful and forgiving. So in a series of 
invocations to Adad we actually read :86 

"Merciful one among the (great) gods, 
I have directed my thoughts to thee, I implore thee humbly ( T) 
Be merciful, O lord, hear my prayer, 
Destroy my enemies, drive away my opponents, 
May the poison, poison, poison of the sorcerers not touch me, 
Have mercy and proclaim grace for me." 

While Adad is also brought into association with 
the Nippur pantheon and with that grouped around 
Marduk, he is to a larger extent than the other mem 
bers of the pantheon an independent figure. This may 
be due to the fact that so far as our material enables 
us to judge, he is not brought into connection with any 
important political centre. In this respect he marks a 
decided exception. He impresses one as an intruder 
whose cult may have been brought to the Euphrates 
Valley from the north, for in Assyria we find one of 

•« King, «&., No. 21, lines 61-66. 

 BABYLONIAN AND ASSYRIAN GODS 225 

the oldest temples dedicated to Arm and Adad—Arm as 
the old solar deity, afterwards replaced in Assyria by 
Ashur,87 and Adad the storm-god. 

There is still another phase of the cult of Adad to 
be briefly considered. He is a god of oracles and in 
this capacity is invariably associated with the sun-god, 
Shamash. In addition to divining the future through 
reading the signs in the heavens at night—in the moon, 
planets, stars, and constellations—the phenomena ob 
served in the sun and those seen in storms, hurricanes, 
clouds, rain, thunder, lightning and earthquakes were 
gathered into an elaborate system, supplemental .to 
astrology proper.88 The deities presiding over these 
phases of divination are naturally Shamash and Adad, 
who therefore become, as the "lords of divination," 
oracle gods, frequently designated as such in the in 
scriptions of Babylonian and Assyrian rulers. 

It is as a further reflex of astrology and supple 
mental forms of divination that by the side of the com 
bination of Shamash and Adad into a duality, we have a 
triad, Sin, Shamash and Adad, very frequently appear 
ing in invocations attached to votive and historical in 
scriptions as well as in religious texts, by the side of 
the greater triad Anu, Enlil and Ea.89 As the latter 
symbolize the three chief divisions of the universe— 
heaven, earth and water—so the second triad sum up 
the chief manifestations of nature, the sun which con 
ditions vegetation, the moon standing for the entire 
starry heaven, and the storm with all its accompany 
ing phenomena, rain, floods, thunder, lightning, earth 
quakes and all other abnormal occurrences, more or 
less directly connected with the activity of the storm- 
god. 

There are, however, two elements of nature not 

87 See below, p. 229. 

88 See, for details, Jastrow, Religion Babylonians und Assyriens, 
II, p. 577-612 and 705-748, and also below p. 262, seq. 

89 See above, p. 208. 
15 

 226 BABYLONIA AND ASSYEIA 

represented in this triad, the earth itself and fire. As 
to fire, this element appears to have been in part asso 
ciated with the sun and with lightning, and in part to 
have been looked upon as an independent force. Both 
views come to the surface, but of the two the latter may 
be regarded as the more popular belief, while the 
derivation of fire from the sun and from lightning 
assumes a point of view of a more speculative char 
acter. Among all peoples of antiquity we find fire 
looked upon as a separate element, in the possession of 
the gods to be sure, but not identified with any par 
ticular one, not even with the sun-god. 

The fire-god appears under various designations, 
Gibil—also written in the reversed form, Bil-ge— 
Girru, Gisbbar, Ishum and Nusku—the latter designa 
tion being the common one in Assyria. We do not find 
in connection with any of these names a special place 
selected as the centre of the cult, and this is quite what 
we should expect in the case of a god who does not 
represent a personification of a specific power of 
nature like the sun, moon, the water or the earth, for 
fire is to be found everywhere, on the earth and in the 
heaven and even within the bowels of the earth. The 
fire-god is a free lance as it were who, however, per 
forms service for both gods and mankind. He is ap 
propriately termed therefore the "messenger of the 
gods." Of the actual cult of the fire-god we learn little. 
His chief function is in connection with incantation 
rites to drive off the evil demons. As a sacred element, 
the fire is regarded like water as a purifying element. 
Hence by the side of a water ritual, associated as we 
have seen primarily with the god Ea, we have a fire 
ritual which consists of such ceremonies as burning 
images, made of various materials, of the sorcerer or 
sorceress by whose direct intervention some victim has 
been bewitched, or consigning to the fire such objects as 
onions, dates, palm blossoms, seeds or bits of wool to 
the accompaniment of magic formulas emphasizing the 

 BABYLONIAN AND ASSYRIAN GODS 227 

hope that as these materials are consumed, so the 
demons as the cause of the disease and suffering may 
be consumed or forced by the heat to abandon their 
victim.90 All this falls within the category of sympa 
thetic magic, involving a symbolical action to bring 
about the reality. Thus we have two series of incanta 
tion rituals which, because of the prominence given to 
fire in the rites, are known as "Maklu" and "Shurpu" 
—both terms having the force of "burning" or con 
sumption through fire. Hymns to Nusku, illustrating 
the current conceptions in regard to him, are inter 
spersed in these rituals. One of these reads as 
follows:81 

"Nusku, great god, prince of the great gods, 
Guardian of the offerings of all Igigi, 
Founder of cities, renewer of sanctuaries, 
Resplendent deity, whose command is supreme, 
Messenger of Anu, carrying out the decrees of Enlil, 
Obedient to Enlil, prince, leader of the strong Igigi, 
Mighty in battle, whose attack is powerful, 
Nusku, consumer, conqueror of enemies, 
Without thee no sacrificial meal is given in the temple, 
Without thee the great gods do not inhale any sweet smelling 

offering, 
.Without thee Shamash, the judge, does not make a decision." •* 

But the fire is also the indispensable aid to man in 
bis advance along the path of civilization. The bricks 
for the construction of houses, temples and walls are 
burnt in the fire, the metals are tempered through the 
sacred element, and so in almost all the operations of 
man the fire is his faithful ally. Nusku is therefore 
hailed as the founder of cities, through whom sanctu- 

•° See specimens in Jastrow, Religion Bdbyloniens und Assyriens, 
I, p. 305, seq., and 328, seq. 

n Tallqvist, Die Assyrische Beschworungsserie Maqlu, II, 1-11. 

'* Referring to offerings in connection with securing an oracle 
from the sun-god. 

 228 BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA 

aries are built and renewed. The fire associated with 
Shamash becomes like the latter the judge to whom 
the appeal for a just decision is made. So in the 
formulae accompanying the symbolical burning of a 
bronze image of the sorcerer or sorceress, Nusku is 
apostrophized as93 

"Mighty fire-god, awe-inspiring glow,94 
Guiding gods and princes, 
Judging the cruel one and the wicked woman,95 
Step forward to my cause like Shamash, the warrior, 
Judge my cause, proclaim my decision, 
Burn the sorcerer and the sorceress, 
Destroy my enemies, censure my opponents, 
May thy raging glow come upon them!" 

"We have several times had occasion to point out 
the dependence of Assyria upon Babylonia, extending 
to all aspects of Assyrian civilization, though we must 
not lose sight of some additions made to Babylonian 
culture by the northern empire, or of the modifications 
introduced by Assyria in what she took over from the 
south. In the case of the pantheon we have only one 
striking figure, embodying the spirit of Assyria and 
who represents an entirely original contribution—the 
god Ashur. We now know that the city bearing the 
name Ashur on the site of which successful and most 
thorough excavations have been carried on for the 
past fifteen years,96 represents the oldest capital of the 
northern kingdom, and that in fact from Ashur as a 
centre Assyria begins to extend her dominion about 2000 
B.C., though the settlements in the north by migrations 
from the south as well as through incursions from the 
northwest are to be carried back to a much earlier 

95 Maqlu II, 114-121. 

94Literally "day." 

*B I.e., the sorcerer and sorceress. 

96 See above, p. 55, seq. 

 PLATE XXXI 

FK1S. 2 AND ,}, WINGED DISCS AS 
SYMBOLS OF THE GOD ASHUK 

FIG. I, ASHUK ('!), THE CHIEF DK1TY OF ASSYRIA 

 BABYLONIAN AND ASSYRIAN GODS 229 

period. The name of the god being dependent upon 
that of the city, Ashur is thus the god of the city of 
Ashur. The original solar character follows from the 
common symbol of the god, a reproduction of the sola* 
disc, frequently with the rays of the sun clearly in 
dicated.87 He is addressed also in hymns and invoca 
tions in terms which betray the original conception, 
though this trait is naturally overshadowed by the 
supreme position accorded in Assyria to Ashur, who, 
taking the place assigned to Marduk in the south, be 
comes like the latter the creator of everything, the ruler 
of gods as well as of all mankind. At the dedication 
of an image of Ashur made at the instance of King 
Sennacherib (705-681 B.C.), the king addresses his god 
as follows:88 

"To Ashur, the king of the totality of the gods, his own creation, 

father of the gods, 

"Whose power is unfolded in the deep, king of heaven and earth, 
Lord of all gods, controller of the Igigi and Anunnaki,99 
Creator of the heaven of Anu and of the world below, creator of 

mankind, 

Dwelling in the resplendent heavens, Enlil l°° of the gods, deter 
miner of fates, 

Dwelling in E-sharra in Ashur—for his lord, Sennacherib, King of 
Assyria, has made an image of Ashur." 

The god who dwells in the heavens is a solar deity- 
like Anu himself was, as we have seen. Naturally, 
Ashur takes on the traits also of Marduk. The role ol 
creator is transferred by virtue of national pride from 
Marduk to Ashur. As the universal creator, Ashur 
controls the deep as well as the heavens. He is Anu, 

97 See Plate XXXIII, Figs. 2 and 3, and Plate XXXII, above 
the tree of life. 

98 Craig, Assyrian and Babylonian Religious Texts, I, PI. 83. 

99 The group designation for the minor order of heavenly and 
earthly deities. 

100 In the sense of "supreme lord." 

 230 BABYLONIA AND ASSYEIA 

Enlil, and Ea thrown into one. The process towards 
concentrating all divine attributes in one being is car 
ried to even further lengths in Assyria than in Baby 
lonia, for Marduk is always associated with Ea as the 
father and with Nabu as the son. Ashur stands entirely 
alone in his majesty. Representing the spirit of As 
syria which was so intensely martial as to make her 
at one time the greatest military power of the ancient 
world, Ashur naturally becomes primarily a warrior. 
The artists of Assyria yield to this influence and spoil 
the beautiful symbol of the god by placing a warrior 
with bow and arrow within the solar disc. Without 
this addition, the disc might indeed have become a 
symbol of a spiritualized power, as the swastika and 
the cross became. For the rulers, more particularly, 
Ashur is merely the warrior whose standard is carried 
into the midst of the battle field so as to ensure the 
presence and aid of the god. "By the might of Ashur" 
is the standing phrase in the votive and historical in 
scriptions of Assyrian kings. It is Ashur who mows 
down the enemies, who burns and pillages cities, who 
captures the women and children, and who spreads the 
misery and desolation incident to bloody warfare. 

As Ashur reflects the genius and spirit of Assyria, 
so the god follows the varying fortunes of the country. 
With the transfer of the capital to Calah and thence to 
Nineveh, the centre of Ashur's cult shifts to the 
political stronghold. Wherever the kings reside, there 
is Ashur's seat; and when the king himself leads the 
military exploits, Ashur follows. Ashur is not bound 
to a definite centre like his two older rivals. He and 
Assyria become synonymous terms in a sense which 
never applied to Marduk. He becomes the lord or 
Bel, par excellence, who has nothing to fear from any 
possible rival. A centralizing tendency arises more 
pronounced than previous endeavors in this direction, 
and without disturbing the time-honored traditions 
that grew up around Nippur, Sippar, Uruk, Cuthah, 

 BABYLONIAN AND ASSYRIAN GODS 231 

Eridu and other sites. Nineveh as the capital of 
Assyria rises to a supremacy equal to the rank acquired 
by Ashur himself—unsurpassed in majesty, without a 
rival in power and glory. 

XI 

We have thus passed in review the chief figures of 
the Babylonian-Assyrian pantheon and in the course 
of this review have endeavored to show the close asso 
ciation between the conceptions formed of the gods and 
the course of political development in the south and 
the north. We have seen how as a consequence of this 
association solar gods, 'moon gods, storm gods and 
"water gods lose their original character by having 
attributes given to them which are intended to sym 
bolize the supremacy they assumed because of the 
political prestige acquired by the centres in which they 
were worshipped. Attempts are made in earlier and 
later periods to specify the relationship of the great 
gods to one another and also to the minor local deities. 
A pantheon arises with Enlil as the head which is sub 
sequently replaced by another with Marduk taking the 
rank of Enlil, while in Assyria, Ashur eclipses both 
Enlil and Marduk. Gradually, a selection out of the 
large number of local deities is made. The pantheon 
takes on a more definite shape. The hundreds of minor 
gods fade into the background, becoming merely desig 
nations or attributes of the more important gods, or are 
placed in lists drawn up by the priests in the relation 
of members of the household,—relatives, servants, 
officials—of a great god. Through a process reflecting 
the speculations in the temple schools, a triad is evolved, 
consisting of Anu, Enlil and Ea, dividing among them 
selves the three parts of the universe—heaven, earth 
and water. A second triad is placed by the side of this 
one, summing up the chief manifestations of divine 
power in the universe, Sin (the moon), Shamash (the 
sun) and Adad (the storm, including water). In the 

 232 BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA 

case of each triad, a fourth figure is often added, Nin- 
lil, originally the consort of Enlil, or Nin-makh ("the 
great lady") to the first, and Belit ("the lady") or 
Jshtar to the second—'both, however, symbolizing the 
female element which, fructified by the male, is the 
indispensable complement to the production of life, 
vegetation, fertility and all blessings that go with the 
never ending process of vitality, growth, decay and re 
generation in nature. This leads us to a consideration, 
before leaving the pantheon, of one notable female 
figure, the great mother-goddess, frequently identified 
with the earth viewed as a fruitful mother but who 
should rather be regarded in a still wider sense as the 
mother of all that manifests life, embracing therefore 
the life in man and the animal world as well as in the 
fields and mountains in nature in general. 

This natural association of a female element as a 
complement to the male one leads to assigning to every 
deity a consort who, however, has no independent ex 
istence. So Enlil has at his side Nin-lil, Ninib has 
GulaA("the great one"), Ningirsu has Bau, Shamash 
has A, Sin has Nin-gul, Nergal has Laz, Anu a female 
counterpart Antum, to Ea a consort Shala ("the 
woman") is given, to Marduk, Sarpanit or Nin-makh 
("the great lady"), to Nabu, Tashmit ("obedience"), 
while Ashur's consort appears as Nin-lil or Belit and 
at times as Ishtar. All these figures with the single 
exception of Ishtar are merely shadowy reflections of 
their male masters, playing no part in the cult outside 
of receiving homage in association with their male 
partners. Ishtar, however, although assimilated in the 
Assyrian pantheon to the consort of Ashur, is an in 
dependent figure, who has her own temples and her 
distinct cult. She appears under a variety of names 
—Nana, Innina, Irnini, Ninni, Nina—all of which 
contain an element having the force of "lady," as is 
also the case with Nin-makh and Nin-lil, likewise used 

 BABYLONIAN AND ASSYRIAN GODS 233 

as epithets of the great mother-goddess. Corre 
sponding to the Sumerian element, we have in Ak 
kadian Belit "lady" or "mistress" as one of the gen 
eric designations of Ishtar. All this confirms the view 
that Ishtar is merely the symbol of the female element 
in the production of life, and that the specific name is 
of secondary significance. The circumstance that Nin- 
lil, the consort of Enlil, is also (though in texts of a 
later period) identified with the mother-goddess would 
seem to show that the female associate of the head of 
the pantheon was always an Ishtar, though in a certain 
sense, as we have seen, the consorts of all the gods 
were Ishtars. 

The oldest cult of the mother goddess, so far as 
our material goes, appears indeed to have been in Uruk 
where she is known as Nana, but we may be quite sure 
that the cult was never limited to one place. The 
special place which Nana has in the old Babylonian 
pantheon is probably due to the peculiar development 
taken by the chief deity of that centre, Anu, who as 
we have seen became an abstraction—the god of heaven, 
presiding over the upper realm of the universe. Her 
temple at Uruk known as E-anna "the heavenly 
house" and revealing the association of the goddess 
with Anu as a solar deity became one of the most 
famous in the Euphrates Valley. It is in connection 
with the cult of Nana that we learn of a phase of the 
worship of the mother-goddess which degenerates into 
the obscene rites that call forth the amazement of 
Herodotus.101 As the mother-goddess, Nana or Ishtar 
is not only the source of the fertility displayed by the 
earth and the kind, gracious mother of mankind, but 
also the goddess of love—the Aphrodite of Babylonia. 
The mysterious process of conception and the growth 
of the embryo in the mother's womb gave rise at an 
early period to rites in connection with the cult of the; 

101 Book I, § 199. 

 234 BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA 

mother-goddess that symbolized the fructification 
through the combination with the male element. 

There is, however, another side to Ishtar which 
comes particularly to the fore in Assyria, though it is 
also indigenous to Babylonia. She is not only the loving 
mother but, as the protector of her offspring, a war 
like figure armed for the fray and whose presence is 
felt in the midst of the battle. She appears to her 
favorites in dreams and encourages them to give battle. 
It is she who places in the hands of the rulers the 
weapons with which they march to victory. To Ashur- 
banapal she thus appears armed with bow and arrow 
and reassures him: "Whithersoever thou goest, I go 
with thee."102 As far back as the days of Hammurapi, 
Ishtar is thus viewed as the one who encourages her 
followers for contest and battle. 

Both ph