Volume 2 — CHAPTER XXVI.

THE TEMPLES AND THE CULT.

The religious architecture of Babylonia and Assyria is of interest chiefly as an expression of the religious earnestness of rulers and people, and only in a minor degree as a manifestation of artistic instincts. The lack of a picturesque building material in the Euphrates Valley was sufficient to check the development of such instincts. Important as the adaptation of the clay soil of Babylonia for simple construction was for the growth of Babylonian culture, the limitations to the employment of bricks as a building material are no less significant. Ihering has endeavored to show[1311] by an argument that is certainly brilliant and almost convincing, that the settlement of Semites in a district, the soil of which could be so readily used to replace the primitive habitations of man by solid structures, made the Semites the teachers of the Aryans in almost everything that pertains to civilization. House-building produced the art of measuring, led to more elaborate furnishings of the habitation, created various trades, introduced social distinctions, necessitated divisions of time, and gave the stimulus to commercial intercourse. But, on the other hand, the artistic possibilities of brick structures were soon exhausted. The house could be indefinitely extended in length and even height, but such an extension only added to the monotonous effect. With clay as a building material, so readily moulded into any desired shape, and that could be baked, if need be, by the action of the sun without the use of fire, it was almost as easy to build a large house as a small one. But the addition of rooms and wings and stories which differentiated the house from the palace and the palace from the temple, served to make hugeness the index of grandeur. The best specimens of the religious architecture of Babylonia and Assyria are characterized by such hugeness. A proportionate increase of external beauty could only be secured by a modification of architectural style; but the conservative instincts of the people discouraged any deviation from the conventional shapes of the temples, which appear indeed to have been firmly established long before the days of Hammurabi. The influence of conventionality finds a striking illustration in the manner in which the temples of Assyria follow Babylonian models. Soft and hard stone suitable for permanent structures was easily procured in the mountainous district adjacent to Assyria. The Assyrians used this material for statues, altars, and for the slabs with which they decorated the exterior and interior walls of their great edifices. Had they also employed it as a building material, we should have had the development of new architectural styles; but the Assyrians, so dependent in everything pertaining to culture upon the south, could not cut themselves loose from ancient traditions, and continued to erect huge piles of brick, as the homage most pleasing in the eyes of their gods. The Book of Genesis characterized the central idea of the Babylonian and Assyrian temples when it represented the people gathered in the valley of Shinar—that is, Babylonia—as saying: 'Come, let us build a city and a tower that shall reach up to heaven.'[1312] The Babylonian and Assyrian kings pride themselves upon the height of their temples. Employing, indeed, almost the very same phrase that we find in the Old Testament, they boast of having made the tops of their sacred edifices as high as 'heaven.'[1313] The temple was to be in the literal sense of the word a 'high place.' But, apart from the factor of natural growth, there was a special reason why the Babylonians aimed to make their sacred edifices high. The oldest temple of Babylonia at the present time known to us, the temple of Bel at Nippur, bears the characteristic name of E-Kur, 'mountain house.' The name is more than a metaphor. The sacred edifices of Babylonia were intended as a matter of fact to be imitations of mountains. It is Jensen's merit to have suggested the explanation for this rather surprising ideal of the Babylonian temple.[1314] According to Babylonian notions, it will be recalled, the earth is pictured as a huge mountain. Among other names, the earth is called E-Kur, 'mountain house.' The popular and early theology conceived the gods as sprung from the earth. They are born in Kharsag-kurkura,[1315] 'the mountain of all lands,' which is again naught but a designation for the earth, though at a later period some particular part of the earth, some mountain peak, may have been pictured as the birthplace of the gods, much as among the Indians, Persians, and Greeks we find a particular mountain singled out as the one on which the gods dwell. The transfer of the gods or of some of them to places in the heavens was, as we saw,[1316] a scholastic theory, and not a popular belief. It was a natural association of ideas, accordingly, that led the Babylonians to give to their temples the form of the dwelling which they ascribed to their gods. The temple, in so far as it was erected to serve as a habitation for the god and an homage to him, was to be the reproduction of the cosmic E-Kur,—'a mountain house' on a small scale, a miniature Kharsag-kurkura. In confirmation of this view, it is sufficient to point out that E-Kur is not merely the name of the temple to Bel at Nippur, but is frequently used as a designation for temple in general; and, moreover, a plural is formed of the word which is used for divinities.[1317] In Assyria we find one of the oldest temples bearing the name E-kharsag-kurkura,[1318] that stamps the edifice as the reproduction of the 'mountain of all lands'; and there are other temples that likewise bear names[1319] in which the idea of a mountain is introduced.

To produce the mountain effect, a mound of earth was piled up and on this mound a terrace was formed that served as the foundation plane for the temple proper, but it was perfectly natural also that instead of making the edifice consist of one story, a second was superimposed on the first so as to heighten the resemblance to a mountain. The outcome of this ideal was the so-called staged tower, known as the zikkurat. The name signifies simply a 'high' edifice, and embodies the same idea that led the Canaanites and Hebrews to call their temples 'high places.'[1320]

The oldest zikkurat as yet found is the one excavated by Drs. Peters and Haynes at Nippur,[1321] the age of which can be traced back to the second dynasty of Ur—about 2700 B.C. This appears to have consisted of three stages, one superimposed on the other. There is a reference to a zikkurat in the inscriptions of Gudea that may be several centuries older; but since beneath the zikkurat at Nippur remains of an earlier building were found, it is a question whether the staged tower represents the oldest type of a Babylonian temple. At no time does any special stress appear to have been laid upon the number of stories of which the zikkurat was to consist. It is not until a comparatively late period that rivalry among the rulers and natural ambition led to the increase of the superimposed stages until the number seven was reached. The older zikkurats were imposing chiefly because of the elevation of the terrace on which they were erected, and inasmuch as the ideal of the temple is realized to all practical purposes by the erection of a high edifice on an elevated mound, the chief stress was laid upon the height of the terrace. The terrace, in a certain sense, is the original zikkurat—the real 'high place'—and the temple of one story naturally precedes the staged tower, and may have remained the type for some time before the more elaborate structure was evolved. However this may be, we are justified in associating the mountain motif with the beginnings of religious architecture in the Euphrates Valley, precisely as the underlying cosmic notions belong to the earliest period of which we have any knowledge. That the staged tower when once evolved was regarded as the most satisfactory expression of the religious ideas follows from the fact that all the large centers of Babylonia had a zikkurat of some kind dedicated to the patron deity, and probably many of the smaller places likewise. A list of zikkurats[1322] furnishes the names of no less than twenty; and while all of the important places are included, there are others which do not appear to have played an important part in either the religious or political history of the country, and which nevertheless had their zikkurat. To judge from the fact that in this list several names of zikkurat are connected with one and the same place, more than one zikkurat, indeed, could be found in a large religious center.[1323]

The Construction and Character of the Zikkurats.

The zikkurat was quadrangular in shape. The orientation of the four corners towards the four cardinal points was only approximate.[1324] Inasmuch as the rulers of Babylonia from a very early period call themselves 'king of the four regions,'[1325] it has been supposed that the quadrangular shape was chosen designedly; but there is no proof that any stress was laid upon symbolism of this kind, or upon the orientation of the corners of the sacred edifices. More attention was bestowed upon making the brick structure huge and massive.

The height of the zikkurats varied. Those at Nippur and Ur[1326] appear to have been about 90 feet high, while the tower at Borsippa which Sir Henry Rawlinson carefully examined[1327] attained a height of 140 feet. The base of this zikkurat, which may be regarded as a specimen of the tower in its most elaborate form, was a quadrangular mass 272 feet square and 26 feet high. The second and third stories were of equal height, but the square mass diminished with each story by 42 feet. The height of the four upper stories was 15 feet each. At the same time, the mass diminished steadily at the rate of 42 feet, so that the seventh story consisted of a mass of only 20 feet square. Sargon's zikkurat at Khorsabad (the suburb of Nineveh) was about the same height.

The average number of stages of the zikkurat appears to have been three, as at Nippur and Ur, or four, as at Larsa.[1328] In the pictorial representations of the towers,[1329] we similarly find either three or four. In these smaller zikkurats, the height of each tower, as in the first three stories of the tower at Borsippa, appears to have been alike; but the mass diminished in proportion in order to secure a space for a staircase leading from one story to the other. This method of ascent was older than the winding balustrade, which was better adapted to the more elaborate structures of later times. No doubt, as the towers increased in height, other variations were introduced—as, e.g., in the proportions of the stories—without interfering with the essential principle of the zikkurat.

The ungainly appearance presented by the huge towers was somewhat relieved by decorations of the friezes and by the judicious use of color. Enameled bricks of bright hues, such as yellow and blue,[1330] became common, and in the case of some of the towers it would appear that a different color was chosen for each story. Whether all the bricks in each story were colored or only those at the edge, or, perhaps, some rows, it is impossible to say. From Herodotus' description of the seven concentric walls of Ecbatana,[1331] in which each wall was distinguished by a certain color, the conclusion has been drawn that the same colors—white, black, scarlet, blue, orange, silver, and gold—were employed by the Babylonians for the stages of their towers; but there is no satisfactory evidence that this was the case. That these colors were brought into connection with the planets, as some scholars have supposed, is highly improbable.

As already pointed out, no special stress seems to have been laid upon the number of stories of which the zikkurat consisted, but the natural result of ambition and rivalry among builders tended towards an increase of the height, and this end could be most readily attained by adding to the number of stories. Still, there may have been some symbolism which led to the choice of three, four, or seven stories, inasmuch as these numbers have a sacred import among so many nations.[1332] For the number seven, the influence of cosmological associations is quite clear. The two most famous of the zikkurats of seven stages were those in Babylon and in Borsippa, opposite Babylon. The latter bears the significant name E-ur-imin-an-ki,[1333] i.e., 'the house of the seven directions of heaven and earth.' The 'seven directions' were interpreted by the Babylonian theologians as a reference to the seven great celestial bodies,—the sun and moon and the five planets Ishtar, Marduk, Ninib, Nergal, and Nabu.[1334] To each of these gods one story was supposed to be dedicated, and the tower thus became a cosmological symbol, elaborating in theological fashion the fundamental idea of the zikkurat as a reproduction of the dwelling-place of the gods. The identification of the five gods with the planets is a proof of the scholastic character of the interpretation, and hence of its comparatively late origin. This interpretation of the number seven, however, was not the only one proposed in the Babylonian schools. Two much older towers than those of Babylon and Borsippa bear names in which 'seven' is introduced. One of these is the zikkurat to Nin-girsu at Lagash, which Gudea[1335] describes as 'the house of seven divisions of the world'; the other, the tower at Uruk,[1336] which bore the name 'house of seven zones.' The reference in both cases is, as Jensen has shown,[1337] to the seven concentric zones into which the earth was divided by the Babylonians. It is a conception that we encounter in India and Persia, and that survives in the seven 'climates' into which the world was divided by Greek and Arabic geographers. It seems clear that this interpretation of the number seven is older than the one which identified each story with one of the planets.[1338] Both interpretations have a scholastic aspect, however, and the very fact that there are two interpretations, justifies the suspicion that neither furnishes the real explanation why the number seven was chosen.

It by no means follows from the names borne by the zikkurats at Lagash and Uruk that they actually consisted of seven stories. The 'seven divisions' and the 'seven zones' are merely terms equivalent to 'universe.' The names given to the towers would have been equally appropriate if they consisted—as they probably did—of fewer stories than seven. But, on the other hand, the introduction of the number seven into the names may be regarded as a factor which influenced ambitious builders to make the number of stories seven. Over and above this, however, seven was chosen, primarily, because it was a large number, and, secondly, because it was a sacred number,—sacred in part because large, since 'largeness' and 'sacredness' are correlated ideas in the popular phases of early religious thought. In the same way, it is because seven was popularly sacred that the world was divided into seven zones and that the planets were fixed at seven, not vice versa.

The opinion of some scholars[1339] that the zikkurats were used for astronomical observations remains a pure conjecture, of which it cannot even be said that it has probability in its favor. It is certain that the astronomical observations, since they were conducted by the priests, were made in the temple precincts; but a small room at the top of a pyramid difficult of access seems hardly a spot adapted for the purpose. Moreover, the sacred character of the zikkurat speaks against the supposition that it should have been put to such constant use, and for purposes not directly connected with the cult. In the numerous astronomical reports that we have, there is not a single reference from which one could conclude that the observations reported were made from the top of a zikkurat.

But, on the other hand, it would appear that as the zikkurat developed from a one-story edifice into a tower, and as the number of the stages increased, the zikkurat assumed more of an ornamental character. While the ascent of the tower continued to be regarded to the latest days as a sacred duty, pleasing in the eyes of the deity, for the ordinary and more practical purposes of the cult, other buildings were erected near the tower. Within the temple area and bordering on it there were smaller shrines, while in front of the zikkurat there was a large open place, where the pilgrims who flocked to the sacred city, congregated. The sacrifices which formed the essential feature of worship were brought, not at the top of the zikkurat, but on altars that were erected at the base.

The ideographic designation of the zikkurat as a 'conspicuous house,'[1340] which accords admirably with the motive ascribed in the eleventh chapter of Genesis to the builders of a zikkurat to erect an edifice that "could be seen," supports the view here taken of the more decorative position which the staged tower came to occupy,—an homage to the gods rather than a place where they were to be worshipped, something that suggested the dwelling-place of a god, to be visited only occasionally by the worshipper—in short, a monument forming part of a religious sanctuary, but not coextensive with the sanctuary. The differentiation that thus arose between the dwelling-place of the god and the place where he was to be worshipped is a perfectly natural one. To emphasize the fact that the zikkurat was the temple for the god, a small room was built at the top of the zikkurat,[1341] and it was a direct consequence of this same distinction between a temple for the gods and a temple for actual worship that led to assigning to zikkurats special names, and such as differed from the designation of the sacred quarter of which the zikkurat formed the most conspicuous feature.

Thus the name E-Kur, 'mountain house,' though evidently an appropriate designation for the zikkurat, becomes the term for the sacred area which included in time a large series of buildings used for the cult, whereas the zikkurat itself receives the special name of 'house of oracle';[1342] and similarly in the case of the various other religious centers of Babylonia, the name of the zikkurat is distinct from that of the sacred quarter—the temple in the broader sense.

The special position which the zikkurat thus came to occupy is, of course, merely an outcome of the growth of the religious centers of the country, and involves no departure from the religious ideals of earlier days. The distinction is much of the same order as we find in the case of the Hebrew temple at Jerusalem, where the court in which the worshippers gathered was distinct from the 'holy of holies,' which was originally regarded as the dwelling of Yahwe, and in later times was viewed as the spot where he manifested himself. The name 'house of oracle' given to the zikkurat at Nippur is a valuable indication of the special sanctity that continued to be attached to the staged tower.

The Temple and the Sacred Quarter.

But the zikkurat, while the most characteristic expression of the religious spirit of Babylonia, was by no means the only kind of sacred edifice that prevailed.

The excavations at Nippur have afforded us for the first time a general view of a sacred quarter in an ancient Babylonian city. The extent of the quarter was considerable. Dr. Peters' estimate is eight areas for the zikkurat and surrounding structures, and to this we may add several acres more, since beyond the limits of the great terrace there were buildings to the southeast and southwest, used for religious purposes. It is likely that the extent of E-Sagila at Babylon was even greater. Outside of the temple area at Nippur, Peters[1343] and Haynes unearthed a court of considerable size, lined with brick columns. The court was open to the sky, but the columns supported a roof which was apparently of wood. Similar courts have been found elsewhere, so that we are justified in regarding the Nippur structure as characteristic of the architecture of Babylonia. The court was attached to an edifice of considerable size, which contained among other things rooms in which the temple records were kept. The entrance to the court was by a large gateway, supported on each side by a brick column, double the diameter of those that surrounded the court. While the nature of the building is not perfectly clear, still the presence of the temple archives and the gateway make it probable that the structure was used in connection with the cult of some deity worshipped at Nippur. Lending weight to this supposition are the points of resemblance between this structure and the sacred edifices of the ancient Hebrews and Arabs. A court of sixty columns—made of wood, quadrangular in shape, with the supports and tops of metal—was the characteristic feature of the tabernacle.[1344] Within this court, open to the sky, the people gathered for worship. The altar and the basin for ablutions stood in the court, while the holy tent containing the ark was set up near the eastern end of the place. Similarly at Mecca,[1345] the Kaaba, the pulpit, and the sacred fountain are grouped within a space enclosed on all sides by colonnades. Again, surrounding the Solomonic temple on three sides was a spacious court. This court was enclosed with colonnades.[1346] It may well be, therefore, that the edifice around or near the fine court of columns at Nippur was a sacred structure, erected in honor of some deity. The two large brick columns at the entrance to the Nippur court are paralleled in the case of the Solomonic temple by the two large columns, known as Yakhin and Boaz, that stood at the gateway. These names are as yet unexplained. Their symbolic character, apart from other evidence, may be concluded from the circumstance that, as Schick has shown,[1347] the columns stood free, and did not serve as a support for any part of the gateway.[1348] There is no need, therefore, for any hesitation in comparing these two columns, whose presence in the Solomonic structure is certainly due to foreign influence, to those found at Nippur.[1349]

That the columns at Nippur were erected in accordance with recognized custom follows from De Sarzec's discovery of two enormous round columns within the sacred quarter of Lagash.[1350] In the light of Peters' excavations, the significance of the columns at Lagash becomes clear. Unfortunately, De Sarzec's excavations at Lagash at the point of the mound in question were interrupted, but he gives reasons for believing that other columns existed near the two large ones found by him.[1351] There is, therefore, every reason to conclude that at Lagash, as at Nippur and no doubt elsewhere, the two columns belonged to a great gateway leading into a large court of columns. That these columns served a symbolic purpose in the Babylonian temple as they did at Jerusalem, cannot be maintained with certainty, but is eminently likely.

The court of columns was surrounded by a series of rooms. If the view taken of the building is correct, these rooms were used for the temple administration. However this may be, there can be no doubt that the structures of various size found around the zikkurat at Nippur served as dwellings for the priests and the temple attendants, as stalls for the temple cattle, as shops for the manufacture and sale of votive objects, and the like. Within the temple area proper were the schools where young priests were trained to be scribes, and received instructions in the doctrines and rites. The astronomical observatories, too, were situated near the temple. The schools served, as they still do in the orient, as the gathering-place of the mature scholars. The systematized pantheon, and the cosmological and astronomical systems represent the outcome of the intellectual activity that manifested itself within the sacred quarters of the cities of Babylonia. The execution of justice being in the hands of the priests, the sacred area also contained the rooms where the judges sat. It is interesting to note that Gudea mentions a hall of judgment in the temple to Nin-girsu at Lagash. The number of such buildings attached to the temple precinct varied, of course, according to the needs and growth of each place. In Nippur, the numbers appear to have been very large. We may assume, likewise, that at Sippar, Uruk, Ur, and Larsa the zikkurat was the center of a considerable group of buildings, while at Babylon in the days of her greatest power, the temple area of E-Sagila must have presented the appearance of a little city by itself, shut off from the rest of the town by a wall which invariably enclosed the sacred quarter. Within this large wall there were smaller ones, marking the several divisions of the temple buildings. The construction of the smaller edifices does not appear to have varied from the ordinary form chosen for the one-story dwelling-houses in the city proper. The material used for all structures—the large and the small ones—was brick. In earlier times the bricks were merely dried in the sun. The buildings, as a consequence, suffered much from the influence of the heat and rain, and required frequent repairs. Often the tower would crumble away, and an entirely new edifice would have to be erected. The later custom of kiln-dried bricks was an improvement, and still more solidity was insured when the exterior series of brick was glazed. In the older buildings, the bricks were merely piled together, without cement. Afterwards straw was mixed with the clay, but as early as Gudea's days the bitumen, abounding in the valley, became the common cement employed in all edifices of importance. Wood was used in the case of smaller sanctuaries (as also in palaces) for the roof, and the kings often refer with pride to the efforts they made to obtain the precious cedars of the Lebanon forests for their building enterprises. The decoration was confined largely to the façades, the doors, and the floors. A pleasing effect also was produced by the judicious distribution of glazed and enameled bricks in the walls. Colors were used with still greater lavishness in the decorations of the interior. The brilliancy was heightened by the use of precious stones and gold and silver for the walls and floors and ceilings. The aim of the builders was, as they constantly tell us, to make the buildings as brilliant as the sunlight. The decorations of the brick walls and floors suggest textile patterns, and to account for this, some scholars have supposed that prior to the use of colored bricks, it was customary to cover the walls and floors of temples and palaces with draperies and rugs. The suggestion lacks proof, but has much in its favor. In exterior architecture no profound changes were ever introduced, but within the prescribed limits, the builders did their utmost to make their edifices testimonials of their zeal and power. They imported gold, copper, and diorite from the Sinai peninsula and Arabia, precious stones from Armenia and the Upper Euphrates, wood from Bahrein and from various parts of the Amanus range, and so all quarters of the ancient world of culture were ransacked for contributions to add to the splendor of the Babylonian and Assyrian cities. Much care was bestowed in the course of time upon the portals. The wooden gates were covered with bronze, in which art of decoration great skill was developed.[1352] The columns of stone appear only in Assyrian edifices as decorations in the front of palaces, supporting a portal or portico that projects from the temple proper.[1353] The introduction appears to be due to foreign influence, perhaps Hittite.[1354]

To determine the interior arrangement of a sacred structure, we have two small Assyrian temples, excavated by Layard at Nimrod, to serve as our guide.[1355] A long hall constituted the chief feature. At the extreme end of this hall was a small room, in which stood a statue of the god to whom the temple was dedicated. This room, known as the papakhu or parakku, was the most sacred part of the temple, and it is doubtful whether any but the king or the highest officials had access to it. Certainly, no one could approach the presence of the deity without the mediation of a priest. Both terms for this room convey the idea of its being "shut off"[1356] from the rest of the building, precisely as the holy of holies in the temple of Jerusalem containing the ark, was separated from the central hall. Gudea[1357] describes the papakhu as the "dark" (or inner) chamber.

We are fortunate in having a pictorial representation of such a papakhu. A stone tablet found at Sippar[1358] represents Shamash seated in the "holy of holies" of the temple E-Babbara. The god sits on a low throne. In front of him is an altar table on which rests a wheel with radiant spokes,—a symbol of the sun-god. Into this sanctuary the worshipper, who is none other than the king Nabubaliddin, is led by a priest. The king is at pains to tell us in the inscription attached to the design, that he was careful to restore the image of Shamash after an ancient model, and his motive in adding an illustration to this tablet is that future builders may have no excuse for not being equally careful. We may, therefore, take the illustration as a sample of the general character of the sacred chambers in the Babylonian and Assyrian temples in the great centers. The papakhu was decorated with great lavishness. The floors and walls and also the ceiling were studded with precious stones. We may believe Herodotus[1359] when he tells us that the statue of Marduk in his temple at Babylon and the table in front of it was of gold. It was to the papakhu that the priests retired when they desired to obtain an oracle direct from the god; and as in the course of time the sanctity of the spot increased, we may well suppose that the occasions when the deity was directly approached in his papakhu became rarer. Through the influence of the schools attached to the Marduk cult at Babylon, the New Year's Festival—the character of which we will have occasion to explain later on—came to be regarded as the season most appropriate for approaching the oracular chamber. During this festival, Marduk was supposed to decide the fate of mankind for the whole year, and the intercession of the priests on the occasion was fraught with great importance.

A special significance, moreover, came to be attached to the sacred chamber in the Marduk temple. Complementing in a measure, the cosmological associations that have been noted in connection with the zikkurat, the papakhu of Marduk was regarded as an imitation of a cosmical 'sacred chamber.' As the zikkurat represented the mountain on which the gods were born and where they were once supposed to dwell, so the sacred room was regarded as the reproduction of a portion of the great mountain where the gods assembled in solemn council. This council chamber was situated at the eastern end of the great mountain, and was known as Du-azagga, that is, 'brilliant chamber.' The chamber itself constituted the innermost recess of the eastern limit of the mountain, and the special part of the mountain in which it lay was known as Ubshu-kenna, written with the ideographic equivalents to 'assembly room.' It will be apparent that such a view of the papakhu is the result of theological speculation, and is not due, as is the conception of the zikkurat, to popular beliefs.

The assembly of the gods presupposes a systematization of the pantheon, and the fact that it is only the papakhu in Marduk's temple which is known as Du-azagga[1360] is a sufficient indication of the influences at work which produced this conception. In the creation epic, there is a reference to the Ubshu-kenna[1361] which shows the main purpose of a divine assembly in the eyes of the priests of Babylon. The gods meet there in order to do homage to Marduk. They gather around the victorious vanquisher of Tiâmat, as the princes gather round the throne of the supreme ruler,—the king of Babylon and of Babylonia.

One can see, however, that, as is generally the case with theological doctrines, there is a popular starting-point from which these views were developed. The Du-azagga is older than the Ubshu-kenna. Situated in the extreme east, the 'brilliant chamber' is evidently the place whence the sun rises in the morning. A hymn to Shamash[1362] expressly speaks of the sun rising out of the Du-azagga, and, since the sun also appears to rise up out of the ocean, the Du-azagga is placed at a point close to the great Apsu, which flows underneath the mountain. In confirmation of this view, a syllabary[1363] identifies the Du-azagga with the Apsu. Marduk, by virtue of his original quality as a solar deity, would naturally be pictured as coming forth from Du-azagga. In this sense the title Mar-Du-azaga,[1364] 'son of Du-azagga,' is applied to him, just as he is called Mar-Apsi, the son of Apsu. But the same conception would hold good of Shamash, of Ninib, and of some other solar deities, though not of all. That Du-azagga came to be especially associated with Marduk is due simply to the preëminent rank that he came to occupy. Whether there was also a popular basis for the conception of an Ubshu-kenna, an 'assembly room' of the gods, is a question more difficult to answer. Certainly, the view that the gods gathered together in one place belongs to an age which attempted to fix, at least in some measure, the relationship of the divine beings to one another. The popular phase of the conception of a general assembly house could, in any case, hardly have proceeded further than the assumption of some particular part of the great mountain, where the gods were wont to come together. The connection of this assembly place with the Du-azagga is distinctly the work of the theologians of Babylon. In their desire to make Marduk the central figure of the pantheon, they bring all the gods to his side. The Ubshu-kenna is thus transferred to the region whence the sun issues on his daily journey. The 'chamber' of Marduk becomes the most sacred spot in this region, and the Ubshu-kenna the general name for the region itself. As Marduk in Babylon was surrounded by his court, so in Ubshu-kenna the gods assemble to pay homage to the one freely acknowledged by them as the greatest, and who is pictured as sitting on his throne in Du-azagga. The further speculation which brought the gods together yearly on the occasion of the great Marduk festival belongs likewise, and as a matter of course, to the period when Marduk's sway was undisputed.

The ideas that were thus attached to the papakhu in E-Sagila are a valuable indication of the sanctity attached to that part of the temple where the god sat enthroned. In a general way, what holds good of Marduk's papakhu applies to every sacred chamber in a temple, and no doubt views were once current of the papakhu of Bel at Nippur and of the 'holy of holies' in E-Babbara[1365] and elsewhere that formed in some measure, a parallel to what the Marduk priests told of their favorite sanctuary.

Coming back now to the large hall which led into the papakhu, the absence of bas-reliefs in this hall in the case of the Assyrian temples excavated by Layard, suggests that the walls of this hall were not lined with sculptured slabs, as was the case in the large rooms of the palaces; and we may conclude that in Babylonian temples, likewise, the decoration of the walls was confined as a general thing to enameled bricks, interspersed, perhaps, with metallic panels, and that mythological scenes—such as the contest with Tiâmat or Gilgamesh's adventures—were only occasionally portrayed. An aim which, as the rulers themselves tell us in their inscriptions, they always kept in view was to make both the exterior and interior of the temples resplendent with brilliant coloring—"brilliant as the sun." At the entrances to the Assyrian temples stood lions, chiseled out of soft limestone or the harder alabaster. At Telloh various fragments of large lion heads were found,[1366] so that there is every reason not only to trace this custom to Babylonia, but to carry it back to a very early period. Besides the lion, a favorite religious symbol, as we have seen,[1367] was the bull, and, since Nebuchadnezzar speaks of retaining the "bull" statue of the old temple to Nanâ (or Ishtar) at Erech, we may suppose that the representation of colossal bulls at the entrances to the temples also belongs to the characteristic features of Babylonian religious architecture. The lion, it will be recalled, is more particularly the symbol of Nergal, but he appears originally, like the bull, to have been a symbol of other gods as well—perhaps, indeed, of the gods in general. Similarly, the eagle, which becomes the special symbol of Ashur, appears prominently on the monuments of Entemena[1368] and other ancient rulers, centuries before the Ashur cult comes into prominence.

In the large court in front of the zikkurats there stood the jars used in connection with the cult, and the presence of these jars furthermore suggests that there was an altar in the great court, precisely as in the case of the Solomonic temple.[1369] In the larger of the temples found by Layard, there was a smaller hall in front of the large one. We may assume that the same was the case with the larger temples of Babylonia, and this three-fold division of the interior,—the vestibule, or pronaos, the main hall, or naos, and the papakhu,—further warrants the comparison of a Babylonian sacred edifice with the Solomonic temple,[1370] where likewise we have the vestibule, the hall known as the 'holy' part, and the 'holy of holies,' the one leading into the other. As to the further disposition of the rooms in the main temple, we must be content to wait for further excavations. What we know is sufficient to warrant the supposition that there was practical uniformity in the interior arrangement of the Babylonian and Assyrian temples. What variation there existed was probably confined to the decoration of the walls, doorways, and to the façades. Meanwhile, it is something to have reached general results. The zikkurat was surrounded by a varying number of shrines that were used as places of assembly for worshippers. The latter gathered also in the large court in front of the zikkurat, where the chief altar probably stood.[1371] In the large halls of the shrines, there were in all probabilities likewise altars. It seems natural to suppose that the hall of judgment, mentioned already in Gudea's inscription,[1372] was attached to some shrine. Besides the zikkurats and shrines, there were smaller structures used as dwellings for the priests and temple officials, for storehouses, for the archives, and as stalls for the animals to be used in the sacrifices. At Nippur a smithy was found near the temple precinct. There were workshops near the temple where the furnishings for the temple, such as the curtains and the utensils, were made, and there were magazines where votive tablets and offerings were manufactured and sold. The number of these structures varied, naturally, in each religious center, and increased in proportion to the growth of the center. The zikkurat, the great court, the shrines, and the smaller structures formed a sacred precinct, and it was this precinct as a whole that constituted the temple in the larger sense, and received some appropriate name. Thus E-Kur at Nippur, E-Sagila at Babylon, E-Zida at Borsippa are used to denote the entire sacred precinct in these cities, and not merely the chief structure. The zikkurat always had a special name of its own.

A factor that contributed largely to the growth of the sacred precinct in the large centers was the circumstance that the political importance of such centers as Nippur, Lagash, Ur, Babylon, and Nineveh led the rulers to group around the worship of the chief deity, the cult of the minor ones who constituted the family or the court of the chief god. The kings measured their importance by the number of the gods upon whose assistance they could rely. The priests came to the assistance of the kings in connecting the gods of the royal pantheon in such a way, as to satisfy the pride of both their royal and divine masters.[1373] The ambition of the kings, more especially of the Assyrian empire, led also to the addition of foreign deities to the pantheon. For these also shrines were built within or near the sacred precinct.

Gudea sets the example for his successors by parading a large pantheon at the close of his inscriptions,[1374] and a list of temples in Lagash, recently published by Scheil,[1375] shows that most, if not all, of the gods invoked by the ruler had a sanctuary erected in his or her honor. There were, as we have seen, several quarters in Lagash, and therefore several sacred precincts, so that we cannot be certain that all of these sanctuaries stood in one and the same quarter. But, since the list in question furnishes the name of no less than thirteen sacred edifices, we are certain that as many as four or five smaller chapels surrounded the precinct in which stood the great temple E-Ninnu, sacred to Gudea's chief god Ningirsu-Ninib.

The list is headed by the sanctuary to Nin-girsu. There follow temples to Bau, to Nin-gishzida, Nin-mar, Ninâ, Dumuzi-zu-aba, Nin-si-a, Ga-tum-dug known to us from the inscriptions of Gudea, besides others, like Shabra (?), Nin-sun, Nin-tu, that appear here for the first time. In Nippur, we find traces of the worship of Belit (or Nin-lil), of Ninib, and of Nusku, though with the exception of the first named, the worship of these gods has not been traced back further than the days of the Cassite dynasty. Subsequent excavations may, of course, change the present aspect; but one gains the impression from the most ancient inscriptions found at Nippur that at an early period Bel was a god much like the Hebrew Yahwe, "jealous" of having others at his side. Such a conception would help to account for the title 'lord' being applied to him above all others, and also aids us in understanding the lasting impression he made upon the people of Babylonia,—an impression so profound that when the time came for En-lil to yield his supremacy to Marduk, no better means could be found of emphasizing the latter's authority, than by transferring to him the names and titles of the older Bel.[1376] In this respect, however, Nippur was an exception, and in later times the Bel cult was affected by the same influences that led Gudea to group around the sanctuary to Nin-girsu, edifices sacred to other gods and goddesses. Lugalzaggisi[1377] of Erech enumerates an extensive pantheon,[1378] which contains most of the chief deities, and from which we may conclude that the temple of Nanâ was similarly the center of a large precinct in which the cult of other deities was carried on. When we come to the cult of Marduk at Babylon and of Nabu at Borsippa, the inscriptions, chiefly those of Nebuchadnezzar, come to our aid in showing us the arrangement of the various chapels that were comprised within the sacred precincts of E-Sagila and E-Zida, respectively. In the first place, the close relationship between Marduk and Nabu was emphasized by placing a papakhu to Nabu in the precinct of E-Sagila, which—built in imitation of E-Zida at Borsippa—was called by the same name.[1379] This papakhu, it would seem, was independent of a special temple to Nabu known as E-Makh-tila, and which lay in Borsippa. The consort of Marduk, Sarpanitum, likewise had her temple in Babylon, and naturally close to the chief sanctuary of Marduk.[1380] Ea, the father of Marduk, had a small sanctuary known as E-kar-zaginna in the sacred precinct.[1381] It does not follow, of course, that all the temples in a center like Babylon or Borsippa were concentrated in one place. Indeed, when Nebuchadnezzar speaks of three temples to Gula being erected in Borsippa,[1382] it is certain that they could not have been within the precinct of E-Zida, and so the temples to Shamash and Ramman, Sin and Ishtar, as well as to Nabu in Babylon, had an independent position; but we are at least warranted in concluding that they were not far removed from E-Sagila, and so, likewise, the numerous temples enumerated by Nebuchadnezzar as erected or improved by him in Borsippa were not far distant from Nabu's sanctuary,—the famous E-Zida. The palaces of the kings were also erected near the temples. In Babylon, we know that before Nebuchadnezzar's days, the palace stood so close to E-Sagila that an enlargement of it was impossible without encroaching on the sacred quarter.[1383] The tendency to combine with the worship of the chief god, the cult of others is as characteristic of Assyrian rulers as of their Babylonian predecessors. We are fortunate in possessing an extensive list,[1384] enumerating the various deities worshipped in the temples of Assyria, and the occasions on which they are to be invoked. The information to be gained from this list is all the more welcome since the Assyrian kings are chiefly interested in transmitting an account of their military expeditions, and tell us comparatively little of the religious edifices in their capitols. From this list we learn that in the old temple sacred to Anu and Ramman,[1385] in the city of Ashur—the oldest Assyrian temple known to us,[1386]—some twenty deities were worshipped. Images at least of these deities must have stood in the temple;[1387] but, since there is a distinct reference zikkurats[1388] in the list, for some of them special sanctuaries of some kind must have been erected within the precinct. From the same list we learn that there was a temple to Marduk[1389] in Ashur in which the cult of the Shamash, Sarpanitum, Ramman, Ninib, Anunit was also carried on; similarly, in the temples of Ashur, of Gula, and of Ninib, other gods were worshipped. Provisions of some kind for the cult of these deities must have been made, and one cannot escape the conclusion that in the Assyrian capitols, the sacred precincts likewise covered considerable territory, and that the tendency existed towards a steady increase of the structures erected in connection with the cult of the patron deity. Sennacherib proudly describes Nineveh as the city which contained the shrines of all gods and goddesses.[1390]

The Names of the Zikkurats and Temples.

We have seen that every sacred edifice had a special name by which it was known. This custom belongs to the oldest period of Babylonian history, and continues to the latest. Through these names, to which, no doubt, considerable significance was attached, we obtain a valuable insight into the religious spirit of the Babylonians; but it is important to note that the custom does not appear to have been as general[1391] in Assyria, where the temples are simply known as the house of this or that god or goddess. Of special interest are those names which were suggested by the original design of the temples. Such are E-Kur, 'the mountain house' at Nippur, E-kharsag-kurkura, 'the house of the mountain of all lands,' the name of several temples.[1392] The same idea finds expression also in such names as E-kharsag-ella, or 'house of the glorious mountain,' the name of a temple to Gula in Babylon; E-kharsag, 'the mountain house,' a temple in Ur;[1393] E-khur-makh, 'the house of the great mountain,' which a text[1394] declares to be equivalent to E-kharsag-kalama. Closely allied with these names are those indicating in one way or the other, the height or greatness of the buildings, as the general aim of the builders. Prominent among such names are E-Sagila, 'the lofty house,' the famous temple and temple area at Babylon; E-makh, 'the great house,' a chapel to Nin-kharsag, situated perhaps within E-Sagila; E-gal-makh, 'the great palace,' an old temple in Ur; E-anna, 'the heavenly house,' that is, the house reaching up to heaven, which is the name of the temple of Ishtar or Nanâ at Erech; E-lgi-e-nir-kidur-makh,[1395] 'the tower of the great dwelling' sacred to Ninni at Kish. To the same class belong such designations as E-dur-an-ki, 'the link of heaven and earth,'[1396] the name of a zikkurat at Larsa; E-an-dadia, 'the house reaching to heaven,' the zikkurat at Agade; E-pa, 'the summit house,' the zikkurat to Nin-girsu at Lagash; E-gubba-an-ki, 'the point of heaven and earth,' one of the names of the zikkurat in Dilbat; E-dim-anna, 'the house of heavenly construction,' the chapel to Sin within the precinct of E-Zida at Borsippa,—a name that again conveys the notion of an edifice reaching up to heaven. The names of the zikkurats at Erech and Borsippa, 'the house of seven zones' and 'the house of the seven divisions of heaven and earth,' respectively, while conveying, as we saw,[1397] cosmological conceptions of a more specific character, may still be reckoned in the class of names that embody the leading purpose of the tower in Babylonia, as may also a name like E-temen-an-ki, 'the foundation stone of heaven and earth,' assigned to the zikkurat to Marduk in Babylonia.

The sacred edifice, as the dwelling of the god to whom it is dedicated, leads to such names as E-Zida, 'the true house or fixed house,'[1398] the famous temple to Nabu in Borsippa; E-dur-gina,[1399] 'the house of the established seat,' a temple of Bel-sarbi[1400] in Baz; E-ki-dur[1401]-garza, 'the sacred dwelling,' a temple to Nin-lil-anna in Babylon; E-kua, 'the dwelling-house,' the name of the papakhu of Marduk in E-Sagila; E-gi-umunna, 'the permanent dwelling'; E-esh[1402]-gi, a shrine to Nin-girsu at Lagash with the same meaning, 'permanent house.'

Another class is formed by such names as are suggested by the attributes of the deity to whom the edifices are dedicated. Such are E-babbara, 'the brilliant house,' which, as the name of the temples to Shamash at Sippar and Larsa, recalls at once the character of the sun-god. Similarly, E-gish-shir-gal, 'the house of the great luminary,' was an appropriate name for the temple to the moon-god at Ur. The staff or sceptre being the symbol of the god Nabu, suggests as the name of a sanctuary to him in Babylonia, the name E-pad-kalama-suma, 'the house of him who gives the sceptre of the world,' while the character of Shamash as the god of justice finds an expression in the name E-ditar-kalama, 'the house of the universal judge,' given to his temple or chapel in Babylon. The association of the number fifty with Ningirsu-Ninib leads to the name E-ninnu, 'house of fifty,'[1403] for his temple in Lagash. Again, the position of Anu in the pantheon accounts for the name E-adda, 'house of the father,' given to his temple, just as E-nin-makh, 'the house of the great lady,' the name of a chapel in Babylon, at once recalls a goddess like Ishtar. Other names that describe a temple by epithets of the gods to whom they are sacred, are E-nun-makh, 'the house of the great lord,' descriptive of Sin; E-me-te-ur-sagga, 'the house of the glory of the warrior,' a temple sacred to Zamama-Ninib; E-U-gal, 'the house of the great lord,' a temple to En-lil. A name like E-edinna, 'house of the field,' a temple to the consort of Shamash at Sippar, may also have been suggested by some attribute of the goddess.[1404]

Lastly, we have a class of names that might be described as purely ornamental, or as embodying a pious wish. Of such we have a large number. Examples of this class are E-tila, 'house of life.' Names extolling the glory and splendor of the temples are common. In a list of temples[1405] we find such designations as 'house of light,' 'house of the brilliant precinct,' 'great place,' 'lofty and brilliant wall,'[1406] 'house of great splendor,' 'the splendor of heaven and earth,' 'house without a rival,' 'light of Shamash.' The seat of Sarpanitum in E-Sagila, is known as 'the gate of widespread splendor'; E-salgisa, 'the treasury,' as the name of a temple in Girsu, may belong here. A temple to Gula in Sippar was called E-ulla; that is, 'the beautiful house.' The old temple to Sin at Harran bore the significant name E-khulkhul, 'house of joys,' while the pious wish of the worshipper is again expressed in the name 'threshold of long life,' given to the zikkurat in Sippar.[1407] Among a series of names,[1408] illustrating the religious sentiments of the people are the following: 'the heart of Shamash,' 'the house of hearkening to prayers,'[1409] 'the house full of joy,' 'the brilliant house,' 'the life of the world,' 'the place of fates,' and the like.

These various classes of names are a valuable index of the varied and often remarkable conceptions held of the gods. To call a temple, for example, 'court of the world'[1410] may have been due originally to a haughty presumption on the part of some one deeply attached to some god; but such a name must also have led to regarding the god as not limited in his affections to a particular district. Whatever tendencies existed in Babylonia and Assyria towards universalistic conceptions of the divine beings were brought out in the temple names, and in part may have been advanced by these names. The custom still surviving in the Jewish Church of giving names to synagogues may be traced back to a Babylonian prototype.[1411]

The History of the Temples.

The history of the temples takes us back to the earliest period of Babylonian history, and the temples of Assyria likewise date from the small beginnings of the Assyrian power. The oldest inscriptions of Mesopotamian rulers commemorate their services as builders of temples. Naram-Sin and Sargon glory in the title 'builder of the temple of En-lil in Nippur.' Of the rulers of the first period of Babylonian history, it so happens that we know more of Gudea than of any other. We may feel certain that he but follows the example of his predecessors, in devoting so large a share of his energies to temple building. Hammurabi is an active builder of sanctuaries, and so on, through the period of Assyrian supremacy down to the closing days of the Babylonian monarchy, the thoughts of the rulers were directed towards honoring the gods by improving, restoring, rebuilding, or enlarging the sanctuaries, as well as by endowing them with rich gifts and votive offerings. The Assyrian kings, though perhaps more concerned with embellishing their palaces, do not neglect the seats of the gods. Anxious to maintain the connection between their kingdom and the old cities of the south, the Assyrian monarchs were fond of paying homage to the time-honored sanctuaries of Babylonia. This feeling, which is of course shared by the Babylonian rulers, results in bringing about the continuity of the Babylonian and Assyrian religion. If, despite the changes that the religious doctrines underwent, despite the new interpretations given to old myths and legends, despite the profound changes introduced into the relationship of the gods to one another through the systematization of the pantheon, if, despite all this, the Babylonians and Assyrians—leaders and people—continued to feel that they were following the religion of their forefathers, it was due to the maintenance of the old sanctuaries. We can actually trace the history of some of these sanctuaries for a period of over 3000 years. In their restorations, the later builders were careful not to offend the memory of their predecessors. They sought out the old dedicatory inscriptions, and took steps to preserve them. They rejoiced when they came upon the old foundation stones. In their restorations they were careful to follow original designs; and likewise in the cult, so far from deviating from established custom, they strongly emphasized their desire to restore the cult to its original character, wherever an interruption for one reason or the other had taken place. In all this, the rulers were acting in accord with the popular instincts, for the masses clung tenaciously to the old sanctuaries, as affording an unfailing means of protection against the ills and accidents of life.

To enumerate all the temples of Babylonia and Assyria would be both an impossible and a useless task. Besides those mentioned in the historical texts and in the legal literature, we have long lists of temples prepared by the pedagogues. Some of these lists have been published;[1412] others are to be found among the unpublished material in the British Museum collections.[1413] It is doubtful whether even these catalogues were exhaustive, or aimed at being so; moreover, a large number of gods are known to us only from the lists of the pedagogues.[1414] So, to mention some, taken from a valuable list[1415] which gives chiefly the names of foreign gods, together with the places where they were worshipped, we learn of such gods as Lagamal, Magarida, Lasimu, A-ishtu, Bulala, Katnu, Kannu, Kishshat, Kanishurra, Khiraitum. Knowing, as we do, that at various periods foreign deities were introduced into Babylonia and Assyria,[1416] it was necessary to make some provision for their cult; and, while no doubt most of these minor deities and foreign gods were represented only by statues placed in some temple or temple precinct, it is equally certain that some had a shrine or sanctuary of some kind specially erected in their honor. In hymns, too, deities are mentioned that are otherwise unknown. So in a litany, published by Craig,[1417] a long series of gods is introduced. Some are identical with those included in the list just referred to,[1418] others appear here for the first time, as Mishiru, Kilili Ishi-milku. Epithets also occur in lists and hymns, that appear to belong to deities otherwise unknown. We are safe, therefore, in estimating the number of temples, zikkurats, and smaller shrines in Babylonia and Assyria to have reached high into the hundreds. Sanctuaries must have covered the Euphrates Valley like a network. By virtue of the older culture of the south and the greater importance that Babylonia always enjoyed from a religious point of view, the sanctuaries of the south were much more numerous than those of the north. For our purposes, it is sufficient to indicate some of the most important of the temples of the south and north. The oldest known to us at present is the frequently mentioned temple of E-Kur at Nippur, sacred to En-lil or the older Bel. Its history can be carried back to a period beyond 4000 B.C.; how far beyond cannot be determined until the early chronology is better known than at present. We know, however, that from the time of Sargon[1419] and probably even much earlier, the rulers who had control of Nippur devoted themselves to the embellishment of the temple area. Climatic conditions necessitated frequent repairs. The temple also suffered occasionally through political tumults, but with each century the religious importance of E-Kur was increased. Ur-Bau, we have seen, about 2700 B.C., erected a zikkurat in the temple area. Some centuries later we find Bur-Sin repairing the zikkurat and adding a shrine near the main structure. As the political fortunes of Nippur varied, so E-Kur had its ups and downs. Under the Cassitic rule, an attempt was made to recover for Nippur the position which it formerly occupied, but which had now passed over to Babylon. It was of little avail. Bel had to yield to Marduk, and yet, despite the means that the priests of Marduk took to transfer Bel's prerogatives to the new head of the pantheon, the rulers would not risk the anger of Bel by a neglect of E-Kur. Kurigalzu, a king of the Cassite dynasty (c. 1400 B.C.) brings back from Elam[1420] a votive object which, originally deposited by Dungi in the Ishtar temple at Erech, was carried to Susa by an Elamitic conqueror about 900 years before Kurigalzu. The latter deposits this object not in Marduk's temple at Babylon, but in Bel's sanctuary at Nippur. During the entire Cassitic period, the kings continued to build or make repairs in the temple precinct, and almost every ruler is represented by more or less costly votive offerings made to Bel's sanctuary. In this way, we can follow the history of the temple down to the Assyrian period. In the twelfth century the religious supremacy of E-Kur yields permanently to E-Sagila. The temple is sacked, part of it is destroyed, and it was left to rulers of the north like Esarhaddon and Ashurbanabal to once more restore E-Kur and its dependencies to its former proportions. These kings, especially the latter, devote much time and energy in rebuilding the zikkurat and in erecting various buildings connected with the temple administration. Under the new Babylonian dynasty, however, E-Kur was again destroyed, and this time by the ruthless hands of southern rulers. Nebuchadnezzar, so devoted to Marduk and Nabu, appears to have regarded E-Kur as a serious rival to E-Sagila and E-Zida. Some traces of building operations at E-Kur appear to date from the Persian period, but, practically, the history of E-Kur comes to an end at the close of the seventh century. The sanctity of the place, however, remained; a portion of the old city becomes a favorite burial site, while other parts continue to be inhabited till the twelfth century of our era. The city of Bel becomes the seat of a Christian bishop, and Jewish schools take the place once occupied by the "star-gazers of Chaldea."

The history of E-Kur, so intimately bound up with political events, may be taken as an index of the fortunes that befell the other prominent sanctuaries of Babylonia.

The foundation of the Shamash temple at Sippar, and known as E-Babbara, 'the brilliant house,' can likewise be traced as far back as the days of Naram-Sin. At that time there was already a sanctuary to Anunit within the precincts of E-Babbara. Members of the Cassite dynasty devote themselves to the restoration of this sanctuary. Through a subsequent invasion of the nomads, the cult was interrupted and the great statue of Shamash destroyed. Several attempts are made to reorganize the cult, but it was left for Nabubaliddin in the tenth century to restore E-Babbara to its former prestige. Esarhaddon and Ashurbanabal, who pay homage to the old Bel at Nippur, also devote themselves to Shamash at Sippar. They restore such portions of it as had suffered from the lapse of time and from other causes. Nebuchadnezzar is obliged to rebuild parts of E-Babbara, and the last king of Babylonia, Nabonnedos, is so active in his building operations at Sippar that he arouses the anger of the priests of Babylon, who feel that their ruler is neglecting the sanctuaries of Marduk and Nabu. It is through Nabonnedos[1421] and Nabubaliddin,[1422] chiefly, that we learn many of the details of the history of E-Babbara during this long period.

Of the other important temples that date from the early period of Babylonian history, we must content ourselves with brief indications.

The temple to Shamash at Larsa, while not quite as old as that of Sippar, was quite as famous. Its name was likewise E-Babbara. It is first mentioned in the inscriptions of Ur-Bau (c. 2700 B.C.), and it continues to enjoy the favor of the rulers till the Persian conquest.[1423]

The two chief places for the moon-cult were Ur and Harran. The name of Sin's temple[1424] at the former place was E-Gish-shir-gal, 'the house of the great light'; at the latter, E-khulklul, 'the house of joys.' Around both sanctuaries, but particularly around the former, cluster sacred traditions. We have seen that the moon-cult at an early period enjoyed greater importance than sun-worship. The temples of Sin were centers of intellectual activity. It is in these places that we may expect some day to find elaborate astronomical and astrological records. Harran, indeed, does not appear at any time to have played any political rôle[1425] (though it was overrun occasionally by nomads), so that the significance of the place is due almost entirely to the presence of the great temple at the place. It is Nabonnedos,[1426] again, who endeavors to restore the ancient prestige of the sanctuary at Harran. E-anna, 'the lofty house,' was the name of Ishtar's famous temple at Erech. The mention of this temple in one of the creation narratives[1427] and the part played by Ishtar of Erech in the Gilgamesh epic are sufficient indications of the significance of this structure. Historical inscriptions from the earliest period to the days of Ashurbanabal and Nebuchadnezzar come to our further aid in illustrating the continued popularity of the Ishtar cult in E-anna. The Ishtar who survives in Babylonia and Assyria is practically the Ishtar of Erech,—that is, Nanâ.[1428]

Passing by such sanctuaries as E-shid-lam, sacred to Nergal at Cuthah, and coming to E-Sagila and E-Zida, the two great temples of Babylon and Borsippa, respectively, it is of course evident from the close connection between political development and religious supremacy, that Marduk's seat of worship occupies a unique position from the days of Hammurabi to the downfall of Babylonia. While the history of E-Sagila and E-Zida cannot be traced back further than the reign of Hammurabi, the temples themselves are considerably older. Previous to the rise of the city of Babylon as the political center, the Nabu cult in E-Zida must have been more prominent than the worship of Marduk in E-Sagila. Marduk was merely one solar deity among several, and a minor one at that, whereas the attributes of wisdom given to Nabu point to the intellectual importance that Borsippa had acquired. The Nabu cult was combined with the worship of Marduk simply because it could not be suppressed. At various times, as we have seen,[1429] Nabu formed a serious rival to Marduk, and it will be recalled that up to a late period we find Nabu given the preference to Marduk in official documents.[1430] The inseparable association of E-Sagila and E-Zida is a tribute to Nabu which, we may feel certain, the priests of Marduk did not offer willingly. But this association becomes the leading feature in the history of the two temples. To pay homage to Marduk and Nabu meant something quite different from making a pilgrimage to the seat of Bel or presenting a gift to the Shamash sanctuary at Sippar. It was an acknowledgment of Babylonia's prestige. The Assyrian rulers regarded it as both a privilege and a solemn duty to come to Babylon and invoke the protection of Marduk and Nabu. In E-Sagila the installation of the rulers over Babylonia took place, and a visit to Marduk's temple was incomplete without a pilgrimage across the river to E-Zida. The influence exerted by these two temples upon the whole course of Babylonian history from the third millennium on, can hardly be overestimated. From the schools grouped around E-Sagila and E-Zida, went forth the decrees that shaped the doctrinal development of the religion of Babylonia and Assyria. In these schools, the ancient wisdom was molded into the shape in which we find it in the literary remains of the Euphrates Valley. Here the past was interpreted and the intellectual future of the country projected. The thought of E-Sagila and E-Zida must have stored up emotions in the breast of a Babylonian and Assyrian, that can only be compared to a pious Mohammedan's enthusiasm for Mecca, or the longing of an ardent Hebrew for Jerusalem. The hymns to Marduk and Nabu voice this emotion. There is a fervency in the prayers of Nebuchadnezzar which marks them off from the somewhat perfunctory invocations of the Assyrian kings to Ashur and Ishtar. An appreciation of the position of E-Sagila and E-Zida in Babylonian history is an essential condition to an understanding of the Babylonian-Assyrian religion. The priests of Marduk could view with equanimity the rise and growth of Assyria's power. The influence of E-Sagila and E-Zida was not affected by such a shifting of the political kaleidoscope. Babylon remained the religious center of the country. When one day, a Persian conqueror—Cyrus—entered the precincts of E-Sagila, his first step was to acknowledge Marduk and Nabu as the supreme powers in the world; and the successors of Alexander continue to glory in the title 'adorner of E-Sagila and E-Zida.'[1431] With the same zeal that distinguishes a good Babylonian, Antiochus Soter hastens to connect his reign with the two temples by busying himself with their enlargement and beautification. There was no better way in which he could indicate, at the same time, his political control over the country.

One more factor contributing to the general influence of the Babylonian temples remains to be noted. In the course of time, all the great temples in the large centers became large financial establishments. The sources whence the temples derived their wealth were various. The kings both of Babylonia and Assyria took frequent occasions to endow the sanctuaries with lands or other gifts. At times, the endowment took the form of certain quantities of wine, corn, oil, fruits, and the like, for which annual provision is made; at times, the harvest derived from a piece of property is set aside for the benefit of the temple. In other ways, too, the temples acquired large holdings, through purchases of land made from the income accruing to it, and from the tithes which it became customary to collect. This property was either farmed through the authorities of the temple for the direct benefit of the sanctuary, or was rented out to private parties under favorable conditions. We learn of large bodies of laborers indentured to temples, as well as of slaves owned or controlled by the temples. These workmen were engaged for various purposes,—for building operations, for service in the fields, for working raw material, such as wool, into finished products, and much more the like. But, more than this, the temples engaged directly in commercial affairs, lending sums of money and receiving interest. In some sanctuaries, a thriving business of barter and exchange was carried on. Crops are sold, houses are rented by the temple agents, and there was scarcely an avenue of commerce into which the temples did not enter. An active business was also carried on in the manufacture and sale of idols, votive offerings, amulets, and the like. A very large number of the legal documents found in the Babylonian mounds deal with the business affairs of the temples.[1432] Such a state of affairs naturally contributed towards making the temples important establishments and towards increasing the influence of the priests over the people.

The temples of Assyria play a minor part in the religious life of rulers and people. True, grand structures were reared in Ashur, Calah, Nineveh, and Arbela, and no important step was taken by the kings without consulting Ashur, Ishtar, or Ramman through the mediation of the priests. The great cities of Assyria also become intellectual centers. The priests of Arbela created a school of theological thought, but all these efforts were but weak imitations of the example furnished by the temples of the south. Even Ashurbanabal, whose ambition was to make Nineveh the center of religious and intellectual progress, failed of his purpose. His empire soon fell to decay, and with that decay Nineveh disappears from the stage of history. Babylon and Borsippa, however, remain, and continue to hand down to succeeding generations, the wisdom of the past.

The Sacred Objects in the Temples,—Altars, Vases, Images, Basins, Ships.

The earliest altars were made of the same material as the zikkurats and sanctuaries. One found at Nippur at an exceedingly low level was of sun-dried bricks.[1433] How early this material was replaced by stone, we are not in a position to say. Gudea, who imports diorite from the Sinai Peninsula to make statues[1434] of himself, presumably uses a similar material for the sacred furnishings of his temples, though custom and conventionality may have maintained the use of the older clay material for some time. In Assyria, altars of limestone and alabaster became the prevailing types. The shape and size of the altars varied considerably. The oldest known to us, the one found at Nippur, was about twelve feet long and half as wide. The upper surface was surrounded by a rim of bitumen.[1435] Assyrian altars now in the British museum are from two to three feet high. The ornamentation of the corners of the rim of the altar led to giving the altar the appearance of horns.[1436] The base of the altar was either a solid piece with a circular or oblong plate resting on it, or the table rested on a tripod.[1437] The latter species was well adapted for being transported from place to place by the Assyrian kings, who naturally were anxious to maintain the worship of Ashur and of other gods while on their military expeditions. Much care was spent upon the ornamentation of the altars, and, if we may believe Herodotus, the great altars at Babylon were made of gold.[1438] In front of the altars stood large vases or jars of terra cotta, used for ablutions and other purposes in connection with the sacrifices. Two such jars, one behind the other, were found at Nippur. They were ornamented with rope patterns, and the depth at which they were found is an indication of the antiquity and stability of the forms of worship in the Babylonian temples. It may be proper to recall that in the Solomonic temple, likewise, there were a series of jars that stood near the great altar in the large court.[1439]

A piece of furniture to which great religious importance was attached was a great basin known as 'apsu,'—the name, it will be recalled, for 'the deep.' The name indicates that it was a symbolical representation of the domain of Ea. In Gudea's days the symbol is already known,[1440] and it continues in use to the end of the Babylonian empire. The zikkurat itself being, as we saw, an attempt to reproduce the shape of the earth, the representation of the 'apsu' would suggest itself as a natural accessory to the temple. The zikkurat and the basin together would thus become living symbols of the current cosmological conceptions. Gudea already regards the zikkurat as a symbol. To make the ascent is a virtuous deed.[1441] The thought of adding a symbol of the apsu belongs, accordingly, to the period when this view of the zikkurat was generally recognized. The shape of the 'sea' was oblong or round. It was cut of large blocks of stone and was elaborately decorated. One of the oldest[1442] has a frieze of female figures on it, holding in their outstretched hands flagons from which they pour water. In Marduk's temple we learn that there were two basins,—a larger and a smaller one. The comparison with the great 'sea' that stood in the court of Solomon's temple naturally suggests itself, and there can be little doubt that the latter is an imitation of a Babylonian model.

Another sacred object in the construction of which much care was taken was the ship in which the deity was carried in solemn procession. It is again in the inscriptions of Gudea[1443] that we come across the first mention of this ship. This ruler tells us that he built the 'beloved ship' for Nin-girsu, and gave it the name Kar-nuna-ta-uddua, the ship of 'the one that rises up out of the dam of the deep.' The ship of Nabu is of considerable size, and is fitted out with a captain and crew, has masts and compartments.[1444] The ship resembled a moon's crescent, not differing much, therefore, from the ordinary flatbottomed Babylonian boat with upturned edges. Through Nebuchadnezzar[1445] we learn that these ships were brilliantly studded with precious stones, their compartments handsomely fitted out, and that in them the gods were carried in solemn procession on the festivals celebrated in their honor.[1446] A long list[1447] of such ships shows that it was a symbol that belonged to all the great gods. The ships of Nin-lil, Ea, Marduk, Sin, Shamash, Nabu, Ninib, Bau, Nin-gal, and of others are specially mentioned. A custom of this kind of carrying the gods in ships must have originated, of course, among a maritime people. We may trace it back, therefore, to the very early period when the sacred cities of Babylonia lay on the Persian Gulf. The use of the ships also suggests, that the solemn procession of the gods was originally on water and not on land, and it is likely that this excursion of the gods symbolized some homage to the chief water-deity, Ea. However this may be, the early significance became lost, but the custom survived in Babylonia of carrying the gods about in this way. In Assyria, less wedded to ancient tradition, we find statues of the gods seated on thrones or standing upright, carried directly on the shoulders of men.[1448] In Egypt sacred ships are very common, and it is interesting to note as a survival of the old Babylonian and Egyptian custom that an annual gift sent by the khedive of Egypt to Mecca consists of a tabernacle, known as Mahmal, that presents the outlines of a ship.[1449] The ark of the Hebrews appears, similarly, to have been originally a ship of some kind.

The ships of the Babylonian gods had names given to them, just as the towers and sanctuaries had their names. The name of Nin-girsu's ship has already been mentioned. Marduk's ship was appropriately known as Ma-ku-a, 'the ship of the dwelling.'[1450] Similarly, a ship of the god Sin was called 'ship of light,' reminding one of the name of the great temple to the moon-god at Ur, 'the house of the great luminary.' The ship of Nin-gal, the consort of Sin, was called 'the lesser light.' Bau's ship was described by an epithet of the goddess as 'the ship of the brilliant offspring,' the reference being to the descent of the goddess from father Anu.[1451] These illustrations will suffice to show the dependence of the names of the ships upon the names of the temples, with this important difference, however, that the names of the ships are chosen from a closer association with the gods to whom they belong. So a ship of En-lil was known simply as 'the ship of Bel,' and the ship of Naru,[1452] the river-god, was called 'the ship of the Malku (or royal) canal'[1453]—an indication, at the same time, of the place where the cult of Naru was carried on.

The Priests and Priestesses.

At a certain stage in the religious development of a people, the priesthood is closely linked to political leadership. The earliest form of government in the Euphrates Valley is theocratic, and we can still discern some of the steps in the process that led to the differentiation of the priest from the secular ruler. To the latest times, the kings retain among their titles some[1454] which have reference to the religious functions once exercised by them. The king who continued to be regarded as the representative of a god, nominated by some deity to a lofty position of trust and power, stood nearer to the gods than his subjects. In a certain sense, the king remained the priest par excellence. Hence the prominent part played by the ruler in the religious literature of the country. A large proportion of the hymns were composed for royalty. The most elaborate ritual dealt with the endeavor to secure oracles that might serve as a guide for the rulers. Astronomical reports were made and long series of omen tablets prepared for the use of the royal household. The calendars furnished regulations for the conduct of the kings. A ceremonial error, an offence against the gods on the part of the kings, was certain of being followed by disastrous consequences for the whole country.

But even the smallest sanctuaries required some service, and it was not long before the religious interests were entrusted into the hands of those who devoted themselves to administering the affairs of the temples. The guardians of the shrines became the priests in fact, long before the priesthood of the rulers became little more than a theory; and as the temples grew to larger proportions, the service was divided up among various classes of priests.

The general name for priests was shangû, which, by a plausible etymology suggested by Jensen,[1455] indicates the function of the priest as the one who presides over the sacrifices. But this function represents only one phase of the priestly office in Babylonia, and not the most important one, by any means. For the people, the priest was primarily the one who could drive evil demons out of the body of the person smitten with disease, who could thwart the power of wizards and witches, who could ward off the attacks of mischievous spirits, or who could prognosticate the future and determine the intention or the will of the gods. The offering of sacrifices was one of the means to accomplish this end, but it is significant that many of the names used to designate the priestly classes have reference to the priest's position as the exorciser of evil spirits or his power to secure a divine oracle or to foretell the future, and not to his function as sacrificer. Such names are mashmashu, the general term for 'the charmer'; kalû, so called, perhaps, as the 'restrainer' of the demons, the one who keeps them in check; lagaru, a synonym of kalu; makhkhû, 'soothsayer'; surrû, a term which is still obscure; shâilu, the 'inquirer,' who obtains an oracle through the dead or through the gods; mushêlu, 'necromancer'; âshipu or ishippu, 'sorcerer.'[1456] These names probably do not exhaust the various kinds of 'magicians' that were to be found among the Babylonian priests. In the eighteenth chapter of Deuteronomy, no less than eleven classes of magic workers are enumerated, and there can be little doubt but that the Pentateuchal opposition against the necromancers, sorcerers, soothsayers, and the like is aimed chiefly against Babylonish customs. We have seen in previous chapters how largely the element of magic enters into the religious rites and literature of the Babylonian-Assyrian religion and how persistent an element it is. For the masses, the priest remained essentially a mashmashu. But we have also names like ramku and nisakku, 'libation pourer,' which emphasize the sacrificial functions of the priest; and in an interesting list of temple servitors,[1457] 'the dirge singers' are introduced as a special class, and appropriately designated as munambû, 'wailer,' and lallaru, 'howler.' Of some terms in this list, like asinnu, it is doubtful whether they indicate a special class of priests or are terms for servitors in general, attached to a temple; in the case of others, like nâsh pilakki, 'ax carrier,' we do not know exactly of what nature the service was.[1458] Lastly, priests in their capacity as scribes[1459] and as judges[1460] formed another distinct class, though it should be noted that in Assyria we meet with scribes occasionally who are not priests.[1461]

The range thus covered by the temple service,—magic, oracles, sacrifices, the lament for the dead, and the judiciary,—is exceedingly large. The subdivisions, no doubt, varied in each center. In the smaller sanctuaries, those who offered the sacrifices may also have served as soothsayers and dirge singers, and the judicial functions may likewise have been in the same hands as those who performed other services. On the other hand, in a temple like E-Sagila the classes and subclasses must have been very numerous. Of the details of the organization we as yet know very little. There was a high priest, known as the shangam-makhû,[1462] and from the existence of a title like sur-makhû,—that is, the chief surrû,[1463]—we may conclude that each class of priests had its chief likewise. With the natural tendency in ancient civilizations for professions to become vested in families, the priests in the course of time became a caste; but there is no reason to believe that entrance into this caste was only possible through the accident of birth. That instruction in the reading and writing of the cuneiform characters, and hence the introduction into the literature, was open to others than the scions of priests is shown by the presence in the legal literature of formal contracts for instruction between teachers and pupils who belong to the 'laity.' These pupils could become scribes and judges, and their standing as 'priests' represented merely the Babylonian equivalent to a modern university degree. For such service as the bewailing of the dead and as musicians, persons were initiated who were taken from various classes and likewise for the menial duties of the temples, and it is only when we come to the more distinctive priestly functions, like the exorcising of evil spirits, securing an oracle, or performing sacrifices, that the rules limiting these privileges to certain families were iron bound. As among the Hebrews and other nations, stress was laid also upon freedom from physical blemishes in the case of the priests. The leper, we learn, was not fit for the priesthood.[1464] In the astronomical reports that were spoken of in a previous chapter,[1465] there are references to the 'watches' kept by the astronomers. These watches, however, were probably not observed for astronomical purposes alone, but represent the time division, as among the Hebrews, for the temple service. There were three night watches among the Babylonians,[1466] and, in all probability, therefore, three day watches likewise. Relays of priests were appointed in the large sanctuaries for service during the continuance of each watch, and we may some day find that the Hebrews obtained their number of twenty-four priests for each 'watch' from a custom prevailing in some Babylonian temple.

An interesting feature of the Babylonian priesthood is the position occupied by the woman. In the historical texts from the days of Hammurabi onward, the references to women attached to the service of temples are not infrequent. Gudea expressly mentions the 'wailing women,' and there is every reason to believe that the female wailers, like the male ones, belong to some priestly class. Again, examples of women as exorcisers and as furnishing oracles[1467] may be instanced in Babylonia as well as in Assyria, and we have also references to female musicians as late as the days of Ashurbanabal. A specially significant rôle was played by the priestesses in Ishtar's temple at Erech, and probably at other places where the cult of the great mother goddess was carried on. The Ishtar priestess was known by the general term of Kadishtu,—that is, 'the holy one,'—or Ishtaritum, 'devoted to Ishtar'; but, from the various other names for the sacred harlot that we come across,[1468] it would appear that the priestesses were divided into various classes, precisely like the priests. That in the ceremonies of initiation at Erech, and perhaps elsewhere, some rites were observed that on the surface appeared obscene is eminently likely; but there is no evidence that obscene rites, as instanced by Herodotus, formed part of the regular cult of the goddess. Except in the case of the Ishtar worship, the general observation may be made that the position of the priestess is more prominent in the early period of Babylonian history than in the days when the culture and power of Babylonia and Assyria reached its zenith.

Sacrifices and Votive Offerings.

The researches of Robertson Smith[1469] and of others have shown that the oldest Semitic view of sacrifice was that of a meal, shared by the worshipper with the deity to be honored or propitiated. Dependent as we are in the case of the Babylonian-Assyrian religion for our knowledge of sacrifices upon incidental references in historical or religious texts, it is not possible to say how far the Semitic dwellers of the Euphrates Valley were influenced by the primitive conception of sacrifice. Historical and votive inscriptions and a religious literature belong to a comparatively advanced stage of culture, and earlier views of sacrifice that may have existed were necessarily modified in the process of adaptation to later conditions. The organization of an elaborate cult with priests and numerous temple servitors changes the sacrifices into a means of income for the temple. The deity's representatives receive the share originally intended for the deity himself; and, instead of sanctifying the offering to a god by contact with the sacred element fire, the temple accepts the offering for its own use. It is likely, however, that among the Babylonians, as among the Hebrews, certain parts of the animal which were not fit to eat[1470] were burned as a symbolical homage to a god. No references have as yet been found pointing to any special sanctity that was attached to the blood; but it is eminently likely that the blood was regarded at all times as the special property of the gods, and was poured on the altar. The two kinds of sacrifice—animals and vegetable products—date from the earliest period of the Babylonian religion of which we have any knowledge. In a long list of offerings, Gudea[1471] includes oxen, sheep, goats, lambs, fish, birds (as eagles, cranes,[1472] etc.), and also such products as dates, milk, and greens. From other sources we may add gazelles, date wine, butter, cream, honey, garlic, corn, herbs, oil, spices, and incense. Stress is laid upon the quality of the sacrifice.[1473] The animals must be without blemish, and if well nurtured, they would be all the more pleasing in the sight of the gods. The omission of dogs and swine is not accidental. Under that double aspect of sanctity which we find among the Babylonians as among so many nations, certain animals were too sacred to be offered, and, on the other hand, they were regarded as unclean.[1474] In treating of the omen texts we already had occasion to speak of the peculiar ideas attached to the dog by the Babylonians,[1475] and there is sufficient evidence to show that the boar likewise was viewed as a sacred animal, at least in certain parts of Babylonia.[1476] No certain traces of human sacrifices have been found, either in Babylonian literature or in artistic representations.[1477] If the rite was ever practised among the Babylonians or Assyrians it must have been at a very early period—earlier than any of which we as yet have any knowledge. On the other hand, a trace of some primitive form of tree worship may be recognized in the representation, so frequent on seal cylinders and monuments, of curious figures, in part human, in part animal, standing in front of the palm tree.[1478] The symbol belongs to Assyria as well as to Babylonia. In some of the designs the figures—human heads and bodies but furnished with large wings—appear to be in the act of artificially fertilizing the palm tree by scattering the male blossom over the female palm. This plausible interpretation first suggested by E. B. Tylor[1479] carries with it the conclusion that the importance of palm culture in the Euphrates Valley not only gave the palm the character of a sacred tree, but lent to the symbol a wider significance to a more advanced age, as illustrating fertility and blessings in general. The scene, reproduced in almost endless variations in which both trees and figures become conventionalized, came to be regarded as a symbol of adoration and worship in general. As such, it survived in religious art and continued to be pictured on seal cylinders to a late age.

The occasions on which sacrifices were brought were frequent. If the gods were to be consulted for the purpose of obtaining an oracle, elaborate offerings formed a necessary preliminary. In this case, the animals presented at the altar served a double purpose.[1480] They constituted a means of propitiating the god in favor of the petitioner, and at the same time the inspection of certain parts of the animal served as an omen in determining what was the will of the god appealed to. When the foundations were to be laid for a temple or a palace, it was especially important to secure the favor of the gods by suitable offerings, and, similarly, when a canal was to be built or any other work of a public character undertaken. Again, upon the dedication of a sacred edifice or of a palace, or upon completing the work of restoration of a temple, sheep and oxen in abundance were offered to the gods, as well as various kinds of birds and the produce of the orchards and fields. The Babylonian rulers appear to have accompanied their sacrifices on such occasions with prayers, and in a previous chapter we had occasion to discuss some of these dedicatory invocations.[1481] In the Assyrian inscriptions, prayers are specifically referred to only as being offered before setting out on an expedition, before a battle, or when the kings find themselves in distress,[1482] so that if the Babylonian custom likewise prevailed in Assyria, it did not form a necessary part of the sacrificial ritual. The sacrifice as a pure homage is illustrated by the zeal which the Assyrian kings manifest towards honoring the great temples of the south. The northern rulers were anxious at all times to reconcile the southern population to Assyrian control, and it was no doubt gratifying to the south to find Tiglathpileser II.,[1483] upon entering the ancient centers like Sippar, Nippur, Babylon, Borsippa, Cuthah, Kish, Dilbat, and Erech, proceeding to the temples in those places in order to offer his sacrifices. The example of Tiglathpileser is followed by his successors down through the time of Ashurbanabal. As often as the Assyrian monarchs may have had occasion to proceed to Babylonia—and the occasions were frequent, owing to the constant disposition of the south to throw off the hated yoke—they emphasized their devotion to Marduk, Nabu, En-lil, Shamash, and the other gods who had their seats in the south. Sargon[1484] goes so far in this homage as to pose as the reorganizer of the cults of Sippar, Nippur, Borsippa, and Babylon, and of restoring the income to temples in other places.[1485] But there was another side to this homage that must not be overlooked. By sacrificing in the Babylonian temples, the Assyrian rulers indicated their political control over the south. Such homage as they manifested was the exclusive privilege of legitimate rulers, and it was important for the Assyrians to legitimize their control over the south.

A phase of sacrifice is represented by the libations of oil and wine to which frequent references are found in the historical texts. It appears to have been customary to anoint the foundation stones of temples and palaces with oil and wine. Over the thresholds, too, and over the stones—bearing commemorative or votive inscriptions—libations of oil, honey, and wine were poured.

Nebopolassar[1486] speaks of placing sweet herbs under the walls, and Nabonnedos[1487] pours oil over the bolts and doors, as well as on the thresholds of the Shamash temple at Sippar, and fills the temple with the aroma of frankincense. Much importance was attached to this rite, and the kings take frequent occasion to adjure their successors who may in the course of restoring edifices come across stones bearing the record of former builders, to anoint these stones with oil and offer sacrifices.[1488] Thus, Nabonnedos,[1489] when he finds the inscription of Ashurbanabal in the Shamash temple at Sippar, carefully obeys the injunction. The rite bears all the marks of great antiquity. The instances of its occurrence in the Old Testament—notably in the case of Jacob's act of pouring oil over the holy stone at Bethel[1490]—confirm this view; and the interpretation for the rite suggested by Robertson Smith[1491] that the oil was originally the fat of the sacrificed animal smeared over an object or a person, as a means of investing them with sanctity, accounts satisfactorily for the invariable juxtaposition in the cuneiform texts of sacrificial offerings with the anointing of the inscribed stones.