CHAPTER XIV—LIFE, MANNERS, CUSTOMS, LAW, RELIGION

(_A_) THE EARLY SUMERIAN PERIOD

1. _LAWS, MANNERS AND CUSTOMS_

Thanks to the indefatigable labours of Père Scheil and M. Thureau-Dangin, and to the admirable work of M. Genouillac on _Sumerian Society_, in which that scholar publishes, translates and comments on many of the early tablets from Tellô, we are able to obtain a very fair idea of the manners and customs of the Sumerians at the time of the first dynasty of Lagash.

An investigation of the conditions of any society naturally commences with a brief consideration of the laws, which regulated the process of propagation upon which the continuance and prosperity of the community ultimately depends. It would appear that from the earliest Sumerian times marriage was regarded in the light of a legal contract, and divorce could similarly only be effected by legal procedure. But the Sumerian marriage laws of the time of Lugal-anda and Urukagina differed from the European laws of to-day in at least one important point, the contract being made by the man with his father-in-law rather than with his prospective wife, and consequently in the case of divorce it was the father-in-law and not the divorced wife who was entitled to satisfaction.

Polyandry was evidently not unknown, for Urukagina had occasion to apply the utmost rigour of the law to its repression, although it had hitherto been by no means condoned, but was on the contrary already regarded as a criminal offence, and not only was this the case, but even polygamy seems to have been discountenanced, for such expressions as “the wife of the priest of Nin-girsu,” or “the wife of the patesi” implicitly suggests that there was only one lady in it, and that there was no liability to confusion in the matter. It is however quite conceivable that the patesi had an official wife, just like the priests of Amen, or the kings of Egypt, the other ladies of the harem not ranking with the royal spouse or enjoying the same distinguishing appellative, but this is of course a matter of conjecture. However that may be, there is abundant evidence to show that the Sumerians compare very favourably with other primitive peoples in their regard for and treatment of women. They could act as free agents in the matter of property, and could be legal witnesses to contracts, while widows were especially safeguarded against the extortion of those in power, and the very poor were legally protected against the rapacity of the priest, who exacted a kind of tithe from the members of the community. Two other social reforms carried out during this reign are noteworthy in this connection, one being the abolition of the tax hitherto laid upon the parties to a divorce, and the other, the reduction of the priests’ burial fees. But in spite of the checks that it was thus found necessary to place upon the extortionate priesthood, the service of the gods was deserving of special recompense, and thus it was that in accordance with this principle an orphan, the son of a priestess of the goddess Bau, received a larger pension than other orphans.

But apart from what may be termed domestic and family duties, women were expected to perform other functions even as early as the time of Urukagina. Some women devoted themselves to the more menial services of the gods and attended to the offerings of the sanctuary; others again were employed as weavers, while another class of women attached to the court were occupied with the care of sheep, goats and other small domestic animals. Some again were gate-keepers, and a certain number pursued the art of hair-dressing.

As might be expected, the trades pursued by men were more numerous and various. The boat-building trade engaged a considerable number of the men of Lagash, while carpenters and furniture-makers also appear to have had plenty to do. The currier’s trade similarly flourished, and among the more æsthetic trades which were practised, perfumery and jewellery may be specifically mentioned, while of the proficiency to which the art of metal-working and stone-carving had been brought, we have abundant evidence in the numerous bas-reliefs, figures and statuettes that have come down to us. A large part of the working population were gardeners or tillers of the soil, for the Babylonians had long since emerged from the bedouin stage of primitive civilization, and had settled upon the land, which they cultivated apparently with great success. Among the domesticated animals of which they made use, the cow, the sheep, the ass and the goat may be specifically singled out. The ass was used both for riding and also for draft purposes. The ox was the principal beast of labour, his services being required both in the work of irrigation and in the transport of building materials, though the ass was also sometimes employed for these and similar purposes. The ox was further used for food, while cows were seemingly reserved for breeding and for supplying milk, from which they made butter, and possibly also cheese. The sheep was reared for the double purpose of providing wool as a material for clothing, and meat for consumption, some breeds being held in particularly high value for their wool, while others were specially prized for their tastiness as an article of diet, though some were utilized for both of these purposes. It appears to have been the custom to offer the flesh of the sheep in whole or in part to the gods before mortal man ventured to partake thereof, the shorn wool being given over to the female weaver of the harem. The sheep enjoying the especial royal patronage was white in colour, and was therefore presumably the most uncommon and the most highly valued, while the commonest breed was brown. The male sheep or lamb was usually selected for sacrifice to the gods in preference to the female. The kid seems to have been regarded as a medium of exchange, at all events rent was paid by means of kids, or sometimes sheep, while the goat often served as a sacrificial victim as we have seen elsewhere.[174] The kids belonging to the goddess Bau were tended by the women of the harem, though also sometimes by herdsmen. Goats as well as sheep were held in high value for their wool, two species being particularly singled out, one being known as the white-fleeced goat and the other as the black-fleeced. Other animals of a nondescript character also played an important part in the life of the people as well as in the service of the gods. Birds too formed part of the offerings due to the powers above, the principal of which were apparently the goose, the duck, the chicken and the turtle dove.

The fertility of the soil naturally encouraged its cultivation even in the earliest times. Part of the land in the time of Urukagina belonged to the royal domains, the remainder being occupied by private individuals. Cereals, such as corn and barley, were cultivated with success, as in the days of Herodotus,[175] while some of the land was reserved for fruit trees and vegetable products.

But the land was not entirely divided up into crown-lands and landed estates, “small ownership” accounted for a certain amount of the available ground, and it would appear that even poor women sometimes had their little plots; the small owners were often however the victims of the extortionate capitalist, and their wrongs from time to time called for redress. On such occasions the official entrusted with the task of readjusting matters took great care to distinguish between arable-land and land which did not admit of being cultivated. The supervision of the royal estates involved, as might be expected, the employment of a whole army of agricultural officials with different degrees of responsibility and varying duties to perform. Agriculture in the time of Urukagina even as to-day entailed a regular series of operations: the land had to be ploughed, the seed sown, and the harvest reaped, and last, but perhaps the most important and the most laborious of all, there was the work of irrigation, which in a land subject to floods in winter and a rainless semi-tropical heat in summer required constant attention and an infinite amount of hard work. The cutting of canals, even in our own day, with all the appliances at the disposal of modern hydraulic science, is by no means an easy or quickly accomplished task, and we can readily understand that the labour was no less, and the process no simpler some four or five thousand years ago. The work of irrigation, so essential and so arduous, was not left to individual enterprise, but was undertaken by the state and formed one of the principal departments of public works, and the early rulers of Lagash seem to have been as proud of their irrigation-engineering performances as they were of their triumphs on the battle-field. The persons employed were either regular engineers, or else navvies turned on to the work for the time being. But the work of irrigation was not finished with the cutting of the canals; some means had to be devised for conveying the water from the canals to the soil. No doubt in earlier times this was done by means of a hand machine, perhaps consisting in a bucket attached to a pole, to the other end of which a counterpoising weight was suspended. In Assyrian times,[176] these machines were set by the side of a “pit” or cistern, which was often a depression in the bed of the stream, into which the buckets were lowered and from which they were raised when full, or else a pit dug actually on the field into which the water of the canal flowed by means of a runnel. The machine itself in its simplest form resembles the modern “shadûf,” such as was used in ancient Egypt[177] and is in common use among the fellahin of Upper Egypt to-day. But on big estates some more efficient apparatus would be obviously required, and was undoubtedly used, at all events by the Assyrians. What the larger machines were, we do not know, but as Johns suggests, they may have very possibly consisted in a set of buckets fastened to a wheel, which was revolved by oxen, the buckets taking up the water as the wheel brought them to the bottom, and emptying their contents on their way round: but whatever the machine was it must have been fairly elaborate, for it sometimes required as many as eight oxen to work it.

The important part which agriculture played in the life of the community is shown by the name of one of the months which was called “the month during which the oxen labour.” The rainy season of November and December over, the labourers proceeded to sow the seed, the harvest of which was to be reaped in the summer during the “month of harvesting.” The corn was cut with a kind of sickle, after which the grain was beaten or else trodden by oxen on the field itself. Next it was passed through a sieve, and was then ready to be distributed or stored in the granaries.

As we have already seen, much the same animals were reared for the maintenance and comfort of man some five thousand years ago as to-day. Human nature and human requirements vary but little compared with the marked differences which separate one civilization from another, and one stage of culture from one more primitive or more advanced, though these differences are indeed superficial rather than fundamental, but the elementary laws upon which human life depends essentially belong to those things which are fundamental, and in that sense they are eternal. Thus it was that the members of Urukagina’s community partook of beef, mutton or lamb according to the season, as we do to-day; his bill of fare however not only comprised joints but also poultry and birds—chicken, duck, goose, or turtle as the case might be. Fish of all kinds, including both fresh-water and salt-water fish, were prepared in various ways for food, while milk, butter and cheese all appear to have been in regular use. Wheat and barley, as we have several times had occasion to note, were grown on a large scale, and without doubt formed the staple food of the people, providing them with an ample supply of material for cakes and different kinds of bread, including milk loaves and black bread. The principal fruits which were cultivated at this period, were dates, figs, pomegranates and grapes: they were eaten cooked and uncooked, sometimes forming part of a fruit salad, at other times being made into fruit cakes.

The date-palm flourished everywhere and was a principal means of support to the poor, while the dates themselves seem to have been used as a medium of exchange. The apple appears to have been cultivated and to have furnished certain drink,[178] while the tamarisk provided a kind of sweet gum. As regards vegetables, onions, radishes, cucumbers and beans appear to have been the most favoured, though various other vegetable products, which have not as yet been identified, are mentioned in the texts. At this early period the art of fermenting cereals was already known, and beer, date-wine, and other alcoholic drinks were to be found in the Sumerian cellars.

With their arts and crafts we have dealt elsewhere, as also with their architectural remains, which however afford us little or no information regarding the structure of private dwelling-places, but from the literature we learn that wood as well as brick was used more extensively in their building operations than we should suppose. Wool formed the principal material for making clothes, though linen was also possibly manufactured,[179] while fur was sometimes worn, presumably in the cold weather.

Business transactions were made by contracts, the transactions in question usually having reference to the sale of slaves, animals or other property. The validity of the contracts apparently depended upon their being duly attested, as in later times, the witnesses receiving gifts for their services. In regard to the purchase of slaves, and the price which they fetched in the market, it is a significant fact that according to the stele of Manishtusu, an ass and a slave were worth exactly the same, which betrays a lack of appreciation of the superiority of the working capacity of a human being over that of a brute beast.

But the crown and the church took good care not to allow the laity the full possession of their own property, and managed to make a very comfortable livelihood for themselves by means of various impositions and taxes. Farm produce, garden fruits, fish, cattle, wool and perfumes were all levied as royal or ecclesiastical dues, while the temple sacrifices were of course for the most part mere perquisites of the priests, though the latter had to hand a goodly proportion over to their royal patron.

A civilization such as this, with its commercial enterprises and its legal transactions, of course presupposes the invention of systems for ascertaining the weights and measures of the various objects and different forms of property with which those transactions were immediately concerned. There was a square or area measure, a sine quâ non in property-conveyancing; there was a long measure, equally necessary for the sale and purchase of wood or stuffen goods, the smallest unit of which appears to have been the thumb. Then again the daily requirements of man made the invention of a measure of capacity an absolute necessity. Other modes of reckoning besides the regular metrical systems were however sometimes adopted, thus fishermen appear to have sold their fish either by number or by the basket, while liquids were measured by means of different sized vessels. Lastly there was a weight measure, which was the same in Urukagina’s time as in that of the later dynasty of Ur.

2. _RELIGION_

The religion of the Babylonians and Assyrians was polytheistic throughout the whole course of their history. It is true that in later times a certain tendency towards monotheism was exhibited, but it never became forcible enough to create such a revolution in the religious ideas of the people as the change from polytheism to monotheism necessarily implies. The gods worshipped in the later period of Gudea were, with the exception of Nin-gish-zi-da the personal god of Gudea, known and venerated in the time of Urukagina.[180] It is further an interesting and noteworthy fact that the name Gishgibilgemesh (Gilgamesh) is sometimes accompanied by the determinative for “god” in the literature of the time, a clear indication that even at this date the hero of Babylonian folk-lore was accredited with divine or quasi-divine attributes. The local god of Lagash was Nin-girsu; to him the land belonged, and it was he who entrusted the government of it to the king; the people of Lagash are indeed identified with their divine lord, their triumphs are his, and their wrongs are crimes against his godhead. The priest of Nin-girsu ranked immediately after the patesi himself, and his temples are entirely national in character. The very palace of the patesi was in reality the house of Nin-girsu, while that of his queen was the dwelling-place of Nin-girsu’s divine spouse, the goddess Bau. Another goddess who was deeply revered and worshipped even as early as Ur-Ninâ’s day was the Lady Ninâ, from whom the founder of the dynasty derived his royal name, while the goddess Gatumdug, in whose honour Ur-Ninâ built a temple, was regarded as the “Mother of Lagash.” En-lil, the ever famous lord of Nippur, also occupied a prominent place in the assemblage of gods at this time; he is mentioned first in the royal protocols of Eannatum and Entemena, and is also first in the divine invocations on the Vulture Stele of the former ruler.

But the influence of the powers unseen upon the minds and lives of the people is reflected in the authority of the priests. The priest, minister or servant is not in truth “greater than his lord,” but his authority and his power are entirely proportional to those enjoyed by his heaven-born master. The temptation on the part of earthly emissaries to abuse the power which their position gives them is generally found to be irresistible, and the priests of Lagash were, as we have seen, no exceptions to the all but universal rule. The power enjoyed by the high priest of Nin-girsu may be judged from the fact that both Enlitarzi and Enetarzi occupied this position before they ascended the throne.

Sacrifice formed the principal part of early Sumerian worship; animals, birds, fruit, vegetables, bread and cakes all contributing to the heavily-laden altars of the gods, and incidentally to the rapacious appetites and pockets of the priests; offerings were also made to the statues of the living and the dead, the offerings being placed on an altar close to the statue; thus a certain Shagshag seems to have derived satisfaction by placing offerings before her own effigy, while the statue of the deceased Ur-Ninâ was similarly honoured. Another interesting practice in vogue at this period was that of burning oil-lamps before the statues. The latter were apparently votive in character, and they seem to have performed the religious obligations required of the people whom they represented, to have actually offered the prayers inscribed on their lifeless bodies, and, in short, to have played the noble part of a vicarious worshipper. Without doubt this is the real explanation of the devotional attitude displayed by Gudea in his statues. Magic and divination, the ever-ready handmaids of all primitive religions, were cultivated and fervently believed in at this period as in later times, prophets, seers, and dream-interpreters being almost as much in demand as they are to-day.

A special order of priests was appointed to take funerals and perform the necessary rites and ceremonies, and they received fees or honoraria for their services. The dead required sustenance in the grave, and it was customary to place seven jars of liquor and four hundred and twenty loaves of bread beside the corpse; this custom had become virtually binding and obligatory upon the unfortunate relations of the deceased, and one of Urukagina’s reforms was the reduction of these dues.

The temples themselves, which sometimes stood in their own grounds and were surrounded by a sacred wood, were enriched with statues, vases, inscribed slabs, treasures of silver and precious stones, and luxuries of all kinds.

The actual and inward piety of the people of Lagash, as of the Babylonians and Assyrians of a later period is evinced in the divinely-compounded names which they bore, names which were clearly intended to secure the assistance and favour of the god whose earthly namesakes they were, and in whose honour these names were compounded. Thus the designation of one individual is “En-lil is my defence,” of another, “Bau is my mother,” and of a third “Enki is my companion,” names which vividly recall some of the proper names in the Old Testament. Another striking testimony to the reality of what may be termed the individual religion of those days, is the prevailing belief in the beneficence of one particular god towards oneself; it is clear that the personal element in the religious feelings and aspirations of the times was not satisfied by the oblations and ceremonies of the official cults, but sought and presumably found satisfaction in the comforting belief that some one god really understood the peculiar circumstances, difficulties and perplexities of the aspirant, and, understanding, might be counted upon to render help in time of need.

(_B_) THE KHAMMURABI PERIOD

1. _LAWS, MANNERS AND CUSTOMS_

The reign of Khammurabi is in some respects the half-way house in the history of Mesopotamian civilization. The king was of course the supreme head of the state, and indeed he was not only “the first gentleman” in Babylonia, but also enjoyed the unique privilege and blessing of being a demigod. The deification of kings was a practice in vogue centuries before the time of Khammurabi, and it was doubtless a practice assiduously cultivated by the kings themselves. Some of the early Semite kings of Kish were deified after death, while the name of Shar-Gâni-sharri of Agade is often written with the divine determinative, and the name of his son Narâm-Sin is hardly ever written without it. But during the later dynasty of Ur the practice grew up of deifying the king while still alive, instead of waiting for him to take his seat on the bench of gods after death. Of Khammurabi’s divine nature we have evidence in the use of such names as “Khammurabi-ilu” (==Khammurabi is god), as well as in the frequent coupling of his name with those of the gods in oaths.

After the king, but a long way after, come the nobility and gentry, a class which not only comprehended the men of high birth but also those who, though artisans, had the distinction of belonging to old trade guilds, among which may be mentioned carpenters, tailors, builders, or potters. Next came what may be termed the lower middle classes, while at the bottom rung of the ladder—if indeed he can correctly be said to have been on the ladder at all—was the slave, who was nothing more than a piece of goods or a chattel.

The full extent of Khammurabi’s empire is not known, but his claim to immortality rests not on the ever-shifting sands of territorial aggrandizement, but on the solid rock of moral progress. To form an accurate estimate of the influence which Khammurabi’s code of laws has had on the Mosaic code and indirectly on the European codes of to-day is beyond our power, but one fact is indisputable, and that is that the legal code of Khammurabi some four thousand years ago enshrines many of those principles of justice and mercy which we are apt to regard as the peculiar offspring of our own enlightened age.

Many however of the laws embraced in this world-famed code show little or no variation from those in force if not actually systematized in the time of Urukagina. The laws relating to marriage are almost a replica of those which obtained among the early Sumerians, the contract being still made between the suitor and the father of the prospective bride, to whom he normally paid a price for his daughter’s hand, the price of course varying according to the station in life of the parties concerned. The sum given to the father was often handed over by him to his daughter, but if no children were born of the marriage the man was entitled to receive back the price he had paid for his wife on her death, if it had not been returned to him previously. The father in his turn usually gave his daughter a dowry or marriage-portion, which on her death reverted to the family in the event of her having no children. The dowries often comprised various kinds of property including gold and silver, slaves, furniture and apparel, and generally appear to have exceeded in value the marriage-price paid by the husband. If children born of the marriage survived the wife, her dowry was divided amongst them. Even if the woman was divorced she retained her marriage-portion, though it was forfeited in the event of gross moral misconduct on her part. In the eyes of the law a married man and woman were one, each being held accountable for the other’s debts, not excepting even prenuptial liabilities. But though the Babylonian of Khammurabi’s day, as in the time of Urukagina, was apparently a monogamist, he was permitted to have a concubine in the event of his wife not providing him with an heir, the children of the concubine being regarded as legitimate, and the concubine being entitled to all the respect and consideration due to a wife. There are various clauses in the code dealing with special cases, such as the marriage of a free woman with a slave, or the marriage of votaries, but for a detailed account of these, reference must be made to the standard works on the Khammurabi Code, among which may be specially mentioned Harper’s _Code of Hammurabi_[181] and John’s translation of the code in his _Babylonian and Assyrian Laws, Contracts and Letters_.

As in the earlier period, the Babylonians of Khammurabi’s day were essentially an agricultural people, but since the time of Urukagina, agriculture had developed enormously, and the relationship of landlord to tenant, and of employer to labourer, was regulated and fixed by a number of legal enactments embodied in the code.

Ordinary arable land was let at a fixed rental, the rent being paid in corn, but the owner was entitled to a deposit, and non-payment of the rent was a legal debt. The code contains two special provisions, the effect of which must have been to make the tenant postpone the payment of his rent as long as possible. The one enacted that if the rent had not been paid, or if the land had been lent on the share-profit principle and the crops were destroyed by a storm, the damage done was shared either equally or proportionally by landlord and tenant. If on the other hand the rent had been already paid, the tenant could claim no compensation. The share-profit system was very common, and in such cases the landlord generally received a half or two-thirds of the crop. But the inequalities calculated to arise from such a system were obvious, for though it safeguarded the tenant to some extent, it left the landlord without remedy in the event of his tenant being an idler, and to provide for such a case a clause was inserted to the effect that the negligent small owner should pay an average rent “like his neighbours.” Often the landlord further secured himself by stipulating in the contract for the erection of a cottage on the land, or insisted on the tenant renting a cottage already built there, the cottage to be vacated on the termination of the lease.

The tenant was empowered to sub-let his ground, the principal landlord’s consent apparently not being necessary. The landlord was of course legally entitled to the rent agreed upon in the contract with his immediate tenant, but provided that was forthcoming, and the ground properly cultivated, he could raise no objection. Sometimes the landlord found the seed, the necessary tools, and also the oxen, and in addition paid a wage to the farmer; in this case the status of the tenant somewhat resembled that of a gardener in his cottage on an estate to-day. The seed, the oxen, and everything belonged to his master, and the penalty for any embezzlement of the same on the part of the tenant was the amputation of the latter’s hands. Again, if a tenant of this kind were a rogue, he might hire out the oxen, purloin the provender he had received from his master for the said oxen, and at the same time produce no crop: in this case he was liable to a heavy fine, and if he were insolvent, he was torn to pieces by the oxen on the field which he had neglected to cultivate.

The laws and regulations which applied to agricultural land-tenure, applied for the most part to the leasing of plantations and gardens as well. Thanks to the extraordinary fertility of Babylonian soil the owners of land became very wealthy; this notwithstanding, the money-lender was not without clients. Unforeseen disasters occurred, which crippled the landowner, and but for the money-lender he would not be able to tide over the trouble. As security for the loan he frequently mortgaged his land, but the code enacted that he should at all times reap the crop himself, and pay off the debt and the money-lender’s expenses from the produce. Moreover the money-lender was legally bound to accept such produce or corn in settlement of the debt, and could not insist on being paid in money, unless, as was frequently the case, he had stipulated in the contract that the loan was to be repaid in the same form as that in which it had been received. As a further safeguard for the unfortunate money-borrower it was made illegal to exercise distraint for rent or anything else upon a working ox. This was a humane law, for the watering of the ground, as well as the ploughing of the soil and the threshing of the wheat, was largely done by oxen.

The laws regulating the irrigation of the land were stringent owing to the disastrous consequences resulting from negligence on the part of any concerned. Once the canals had been made, it was the bounden duty of each landowner, whether small or great, to keep that part of the canal which passed by or through his land in good repair. If that part of the bank of the canal for which he was responsible gave way, and the water thereby flooded his neighbour’s land, he had to pay damages in full, and if he were insolvent he could be sold up. He was entitled to open a runnel to water his field, but if the water swamped the adjoining fields through some inadvertence or negligence on his part, he had to give full compensation.

The wages, presumably the minimum wage of the labourer, was fixed by law, as also was the hire-price of oxen and wagons. The hirer of animals was under a legal obligation to take proper care of them, and omission to do so involved a penalty. But if an accident occurred which the hirer could not be expected to foresee or prevent—such as an attack by a lion—the owner had to bear the loss. This was also the case if the person in charge of the animal was a shepherd or herdsman in the owner’s employ, the principle being the same in both cases. Wilful negligence was not to be condoned, but on the other hand, the consequence of unforeseen and unavoidable accidents was not to be visited upon either hirer or employee.

The larger half of the working population in Khammurabi’s time were probably engaged in agricultural pursuits while the remainder were occupied in trade or commerce. Now the expansion of trade depends upon the existence of an adequate means of transport, whereby exports can go out and imports come in. Before the invention and introduction of locomotives, water was the unrivalled medium for conveying large quantities of goods from one place to another, and even to-day with our interlacing networks of railways we still find use for the canals of primitive days. It was undoubtedly the two rivers, the Tigris and the Euphrates, that were accountable for the development of the trading faculty of the Babylonians, a faculty which ultimately made them the great commercial people of the Oriental world. We are accordingly not surprised to find that already, even in the time of Khammurabi, shipping was an important trade. A sure and certain indication of this fact is to be found in the number of laws directly concerning ship-builders and boatmen in the Code. The ship-builder, or rather the boat-builder,—for ships properly so-called were a very much later invention,—was absolutely responsible for his workmanship, and was required to give a year’s guarantee to the purchaser; if it proved faulty during that time he had to provide another. As in the case of the agricultural labourer,the hired boatman was responsible for the boat and cargo in his charge, and any negligence on his part was penal. If a ship collided with another ship riding at anchor, the colliding ship was liable for all damages.

Business was carried on largely by means of agents as it is with us to-day. The agent gave a receipt for the goods or money he received from his chief, and then went off to trade with them. The agent generally appears to have received an ordinary commission, which on his return he was expected to repay with a reasonable profit, the profit sometimes being a definitely fixed sum, at others, a prearranged share of the actual proceeds. As in our own day, some merchants were speculators, and all the uncertainty incidental to any kind of speculation seems to have surrounded the prospects of the agent, who doubtless at times scored well, while on other occasions he lost heavily. But any loss resulting from an untoward event which the agent could neither foresee nor prevent, had to be borne by the merchant. Thus if an agent were robbed in the course of his travels, he could clear himself from all liability in the matter by taking an oath to that effect. But this law might clearly lead to sharp practice on the part of a dishonest agent; and accordingly any false claims on his part had to be repaid threefold, but a false claim by a chief in regard to the goods entrusted to his agent had to be repaid sixfold. All business transactions had to be drawn up in writing to make them legal.

The obvious advantages of partnership were soon recognized by the commercially sagacious Babylonians, and business-partnerships were well known in the time of Khammurabi. In arriving at the dividends, the usual arrangement was for the partners to withdraw their capital and interest, and then receive equal shares of the superfluous profits. The dividends were made yearly and the withdrawal by each partner of his capital virtually dissolved the partnership, which could of course be renewed from time to time if desired.

As in all commercial enterprises, capital was the one essential, and the need of immediate cash was supplied by the money-lender. The rate of interest charged in Khammurabi’s time is not known, but the rate charged on loans of corn was often as much as forty per cent. Such loans were however generally in demand at seed-time, and if repaid at harvest, no interest seems to have been charged. A debtor could repay his loan either in the form of corn or sesame, and the value of each was fixed by law. If a debtor was insolvent, he could hand over a servant to his creditor to work off the debt which was due. The ownership of such a servant was, however, still vested in the debtor, and the servant was protected by law against maltreatment at the hand of the creditor. If he were a free man, the creditor had to restore him to his original master at the termination of three years, and the same rule applied if a wife or child of the debtor were the pledge or surety.

Distraint was not unknown, but it was the last expedient which the creditor was entitled to adopt after all other means had failed. Distraint on corn without the previous consent of the debtor was illegal, and illegal distraint _ipso facto_ forfeited the right of any further claim on the part of the creditor, while the execution of a distraint where no claim had been substantiated was penal, and the theoretical creditor had to pay a fine. As before-mentioned no distraint could be levied on a working-ox, and indeed distraint of any kind could apparently only be issued subsequently to the consent of the debtor. In short, the interests of the humbler and poorer members of the community were safeguarded in every way possible. Not only were the small farmers protected, but even the working-classes received the attention of the legislators of Khammurabi’s time. Thus at harvest-time there was evidently a tendency to put up the price of beer, and accordingly a clause in the code enacts that drink was to be sold at a cheap rate in spite of the increased demand.

Again, everyone in the community is practically at the mercy of the housebuilder, and accordingly any damage caused by the use of faulty materials or bad workmanship, had to be made good by the builder. If the house collapsed and the owner was killed, the builder was put to death, while if the owner’s son or servant was killed, the son or servant of the builder was similarly put to death, in accordance with the primitive law of retaliation. House-tenure in the time of Khammurabi was generally on the repairing-lease system, the tenant being required to leave the house in the same condition in which he found it, while it was customary to pay rent half-yearly instead of quarterly, the rent being paid in advance.

The ultimate sanction and enforcement of these various laws concerning the relationship subsisting between capitalist and workman, owner and hirer, and landlord and tenant, was to be found in the courts. Strange to say, the chief scene of jurisdiction was the temple, the god himself adjudicating through the mediumship of his earthly plenipotentiaries. The precise form of legal procedure in the time of Khammurabi is not known, but certain facts in regard to the institution and conduct of suits have been elucidated.

One great difference between law-suits in the time of Khammurabi and those of our own day was that the cases were not apparently conducted by counsel, but by the parties themselves, an arrangement which must have considerably accrued to the advantage of the abler of the two suitors. The more important cases were heard by a bench of judges somewhat resembling our Court of Appeal, while the minor suits were heard by a single judge, as in our High Courts and County Courts. The plea had to be set down in writing in the form of an “affidavit”; whether the defendant was able to file a counter-affidavit does not seem quite clear. At the trial itself the plaintiff and defendant both summoned their witnesses, and the judgment was signed by both parties. Appeal to a higher court was the only remedy for the loser of the suit, the judge in the lower court not being allowed to hear the same case a second time under pain of being struck off the list, and at the same time mulcted for twelve times the amount of the fine he had previously ordered, or the damages he had assessed.

The date of the trial was fixed by the judge, but it had to be within six months of the filing of the affidavit. This time was allowed in order to enable the plaintiff to procure his witnesses in the event of their being absent from home. The appointment of the judges, or at least of some of them, was vested in the crown; whether they were paid or not is a matter of doubt. Sometimes judgeships were hereditary. But whether judges received fees or not they appear to have been regarded as professional men and retained their title even after they had ceased to exercise their judicial functions. The supreme judge was the king himself, to whom cases of primary importance were occasionally referred, while the principal officers of state often acted as judges.

The following crimes were capital offences, though the precise form in which the death sentence was to be carried out is not always quite clear:—a false accusation of witchcraft; perjury on the part of a witness in a capital case; burglary of a temple, palace, or private house; kidnapping a free-born child; highway robbery; theft of the goods of a man whose house is on fire; adultery; various forms of incest; rape of a betrothed maiden; persuading a slave to flee from his master, or being an accessory after the fact by harbouring him; various forms of theft and fraud; and building a house so badly that it collapsed and thereby killed the owner. The penalty of death appears to have been inflicted either by burning, impalement, dismemberment, or drowning.

Criminal offences of a less serious character were treated differently. Among the penalties enumerated in the code, mutilation, branding and scourging are the most barbarous. Mutilation was a punishment based logically on the “eye for an eye,” and “tooth for a tooth” principle, its application being primarily to those who had mutilated their neighbour. But its application was extended to cover other forms of crime or offences adjudged in those days as crimes, thus insolence on the part of an adopted child to his foster-parents was effectually stopped by the removal of the child’s tongue; while an adopted son who is unduly inquisitive into the origin of his birth has his eye plucked out; lastly—and what perhaps to us seems the most amazing of all—if a surgeon performed an operation and the patient died through any carelessness or lack of skill on his part, the surgeon’s hands were amputated—a law which must have considerably cooled the ardour of any of the surgeons of those days particularly addicted to the use of the knife. Branding was the outward and visible sign (usually imprinted on the arm) of degradation to slavery,—the punishment for slandering a votary or a married woman. Scourging was the penalty for striking a superior; the scourging was to be performed in public, the strokes numbering sixty, and the implement used a cow-hide whip; while banishment from the city was the very fitting and meet punishment for incest.

2. _RELIGION_

The one outstanding feature of the Babylonian religion of Khammurabi’s time was the unique position assigned to Marduk in the Babylonian pantheon. Marduk owed his exaltation to what we may without undue levity call local interest. The dynasty of which Khammurabi was so illustrious a monarch was the first dynasty of the city of Babylon itself; and Marduk the local god of Babylon naturally shared in the good fortune and prosperity of the people over whose welfare he presided. To Marduk belonged the real credit, honour and glory of his people’s success, what wonder then that he should be accorded the post of honour in the hierarchy of heaven! Other gods indeed existed, and received such attention as befitted their inferior position, but their light was as that of a planet compared with the dazzling radiance of the midday sun, while a monotheistic tendency sprang up, fostered by a desire to attribute to Marduk such marvellous performances as the creation of the world, performances which had hitherto been ascribed to the older gods of Southern Mesopotamia.

But reverence and respect for the traditions of a heroic past precluded the possibility of dishonouring the gods who had made that past so glorious, and the only way to satisfy the religious aspirations of Marduk’s devotees on the one hand, and maintain the loyalty due to the time-honoured gods of Babylonian infancy on the other, was to identify the latter with Marduk; had this process of identification been carried to its logical conclusion it would have resulted in the evolution of a monotheism as exclusive and as simple as the most dogmatic Unitarianism of to-day.

Fortunately or unfortunately such was not the case; the practical sequence of the tendency was realized in the identification of Marduk with the ancient god of Nippur, but apart from that, the tendency remained a tendency and nothing more. Notwithstanding this fact however, Marduk’s supremacy was so firmly established, and his position so impregnably secured, that the passing changes and chances of some two thousand years were unable to oust him from his high estate, and it is to Marduk that Cyrus, the vanquisher of Babylon’s last native king, and the fated heir to her evanescent empire, ascribes the triumphant victory which attended his arms. He recorded the acknowledgment of his obligations to the lord of E-sagil on a clay cylinder now preserved in the British Museum.

The inscription is written in cuneiform characters, and states that Marduk “sought out a righteous prince, a man after his own heart whom he might take by the hand, and he called his name Cyrus. And Marduk the great lord, the protector of his people, beheld his good deeds and his righteous heart with joy.” Thus 1500 years after the time of Khammurabi, the cult of Marduk was still intimately bound up with the prosperity of his people, and it was owing to the neglect of his worship and to the mal-preservation of his fanes that Nabonidus the last king of the Neo-Babylonian dynasty was unable to withstand the onslaughts of a foreign conqueror.

Although Marduk was thus the supreme god of Babylon, to whose shrine all true patriots were wont to resort, other gods were still the subjects of veneration, and it was still thought prudent to seek their favour and assistance. The sun continued to pursue the even tenor of his way, and after all, the sun is an important factor in the manifold operations of agriculture, it therefore behoves man to pay his respects to a god whose mere momentary absence behind a cloud of displeasure may bring about such momentous consequences. Among other deities worshipped at this time, mention should be made of Ishtar, the mother of the gods, and the goddess of love and war, Anu the lord of heaven, and Ea the god of the deep, of Sin the moon-god and the specific patron of the people of Ur, of Ninib the god of war, and Adad the weather deity.[182]

The great religious movement which characterized the establishment of the first dynasty of Babylon, naturally brought in its train all the paraphernalia required by and incidental to a highly-organized state religion. The priesthood became a power, and the temples commercial centres as well as seats of learning. The revenue of the temple was very large; its principal source seems to have been the endowments and royal bounties of the kings. As in earlier times, it owned a large number of cattle and sheep, and the administration of its property seems to have caused Khammurabi a considerable amount of anxiety. A great many priests and laymen were attached to the service of the temple, and the spiritual labourer of those days seems to have deserved an altogether exorbitant hire. It was clearly a most profitable concern, and the privilege of serving in the temple was a positive asset which could be bought, sold, or mortgaged. This valuable privilege which brought such pecuniary advantages with it, was, needless to say, very jealously guarded by the elect, who firmly adhered to the hereditary principle—then in full swing. These privileges were in fact inalienable and were transmitted from father to son.

The financial prosperity of the temple and its attachés is shown by their opening their doors for financial business pure and simple, money-lending in time becoming quite an important branch of the temple work. The loans however seem to have generally been free loans, no interest being exacted.

But the temple had its obligations to perform as well as its privileges to enjoy, one of the duties incumbent upon the temple authorities being the ransoming of a fellow townsman who had been taken prisoner by the enemy.

(_C_) THE ASSYRIAN ERA

1. _STATE OF SOCIETY_

In Assyrian times the same explicit or implicit regulations in regard to the family seem to have been in force, or tacitly agreed to, as those which obtained in the older Babylonian period. Apparently a man was only expected in the normal way to marry one woman, though it seems probable that in the event of the first wife proving childless it was regarded as quite justifiable and legitimate for a man to take to himself another woman, in view of the desirability of his having an heir.[183] Accordingly monogamy seems to have been the general rule, though polygamy was by no means unknown. When a man married, he left his father and mother and was expected to “cleave” unto his wife, and they became “one flesh” and inhabited “one house”; in short, the Assyrian “home” was normally the same as the English “home” of to-day. As in the time of Khammurabi, women could be legal owners of property, and often owned farms and occupied vineyards.

The general pursuits of the people were much the same as those followed by the earlier inhabitants of Mesopotamia. The population was, as then, largely agricultural; the land required the same careful and elaborate irrigation while the ground had to be ploughed, the seed sown, and the harvest reaped as heretofore. A corn-land holding[184] usually had a house attached to it, and also a court where the corn was stored, which thus served the purpose, if not resembling the appearance, of a barn. A large number of people were evidently employed in the vineyards, which must sometimes have been very extensive, for the number of plants in a single vineyard in one case was as many as 49,300, and it is a significant fact that the most celebrated wines in Babylonia came from the north, while it is also worth noting the frequency with which the vine occurs on Assyrian bas-reliefs. Orchards and gardens also abounded, though what grew in them is to some extent a matter of conjecture; if however we may assume that the list of plants mentioned in the Babylonian _Garden Tablet_ published by Meissner, holds good also for the Assyrian garden, leek, onion, garlic, lettuce, coriander, hyssop, turnip, cabbage, and radish must have been familiar garden products.

Cattle and sheep were reared as in the old days, the latter both for their wool and also for food, while goats provided milk, as well as meat and hair, goat’s hair being used even to-day in the East for the coverings of tents. Oxen were used largely for working the irrigation machines, while asses also served as beasts of labour. The camel was not unknown, and is often named in connection with the sales of estates. The horse at this period was in common use, but was seemingly reserved for riding and driving.

The legal paraphernalia of Assyrian times was the natural development of the Babylonian law code of which it was the off-shoot. In the ownership of land the hereditary principle seems to have been the dominating factor, and probably farms and vineyards passed automatically from father to son in the same way as crown lands and larger estates. The peasant was still a serf, bought or sold with the land to which fate had attached him; he was not permitted to migrate elsewhere, but on the other hand he was under the protection of the state; he could not be ousted by invaders, and his living was a first charge on the estate. It is certain that estate-slaves were sometimes requisitioned for military or other state purposes, the owner being of course compelled to meet the demand, while the produce of his land was also subject to taxation. Some estates were however exempt from dues of this kind, the exemption doubtless being granted by the royal favour and confirmed by royal charter.

Among the smaller land-owners we find a number of farmers or vine-owners who have forsaken business or industrial pursuits, and have left the bakery and the scribe’s office to return to the soil.

The landlord frequently did not reside on his land, but let it out to tenants, whom he expected to pay rent in due season. The original ownership of land was no doubt largely if not entirely the gift of the king, while conquests would continually place fresh tracts of land in his hands. Probably some of the newly acquired property went to swell the extent of the crown lands, while the rest or part of the rest was distributed among the king’s ministers, generals and other court favourites.

2. _RELIGION_

The Assyrian religion was Babylonian both in origin and character. Anu, Bel, and Ea, Marduk, Nergal, Adad, Shamash and Sin, Nanâ and Ishtar were all held in esteem, and temples were erected in their honour. The supremacy of Assyria and the corresponding decline in Babylonian power scarcely affected the authority and influence of the time-honoured gods of the Babylonian pantheon. But the new political situation required some recognition in the religious life of the nation, and the exigencies of the present demanded some consideration, as well as the hallowed traditions of the past. These two conflicting interests had to be reconciled, and the reconciliation was effected and a way of escape devised similar to that adopted by the earlier Babylonians when confronted with a like dilemma. The local god of Ashur was exalted to the first place in the pantheon, and became as it were the Marduk of Assyria, though his position was even more unassailable than was that of Marduk in Babylon, for the latter[185] was bound to acknowledge Ea as his father, whereas Ashur is above all ties of this kind; the Babylonian-Assyrian pantheon is recognized by him, but it in no way touches his lofty estate.

The cult of the god of Ashur goes back to the earliest known period of Assyrian civilization, while he gave his name to the first known capital of the country, and ultimately to the country itself. Ashur is the divine impersonation of Assyria, as Marduk was of Babylonia, only the identification was more pronounced, for the decline of Assyrian power and the death of her empire meant virtually the death of Ashur, whereas Marduk maintained his influence during the time of Babylon’s adversity as well as during that of her prosperity; foreign conquerors sought to do him honour, Cyrus the Persian ascribes his conquest of Babylon to the lord of E-sagil, and even Antiochus Soter (280-260 B.C.) restores his renowned temple. But another difference between the Ashur-cult of the north and the Marduk-cult of the south must also be noted. Ashur was worshipped in temples erected all over the Assyrian empire, whereas Babylon was the place “where men ought to worship” Marduk, just as in later times Jerusalem was the only authorized centre for the worship of Jehovah. But in spite of the universality of his presence, Ashur had a principal seat of worship, the locality of which was the same as that of the then centre and capital of the empire, Ashur, Calah, Nineveh or Khorsabad as the case might be.

The adaptability displayed by Ashur in regard to his earthly home may, as Jastrow suggests, be partly due to the fact that a statue was not the only, or even the principal symbol of his divine presence, as was the case with Marduk and the other great gods. His usual emblem was a standard consisting of a pole surrounded by a winged disc to which is attached an archer with drawn bow. It is impossible to say the exact time when a military standard came to be regarded as the natural and fitting symbol of the patron god of the country, but the nature of the symbol itself makes it quite clear that Ashur was regarded as a god of war. Indeed the patron deity of a people as warlike as the Assyrians, could not but reflect the military spirit of his people. The Assyrian warriors were the “troops of Ashur,” their enemies being his enemies and their friends his friends. Ashur’s spouse was Bēlit (==“the Lady”), but the same goddess sometimes appears as the consort of Bel[186] and sometimes also as the wife of Ea, in the Assyrian inscriptions, while at other times again Bēlit is merely a designation of Ishtar. The last-named goddess occupies a very prominent place in the Assyrian pantheon, only coming second to Ashur himself. There were indeed no less than three Ishtars in Assyria—Ishtar of Nineveh, Ishtar of Arbela, and Ishtar of Kidmuru, but the Assyrians do not appear to have preserved any definite distinction between them, so that for all practical purposes we only have one goddess to consider in this connection.

It is hardly to be wondered at that Ishtar, the goddess of war as well as of love, should have been held in high reverence by the Assyrians, who not unnaturally accentuated her warlike attributes. But the Assyrians were not responsible for the origin of Ishtar’s warlike character; she had been regarded in this light at least as early as the time of Khammurabi,[187] while her fighting spirit is strongly painted in the early Gilgamesh epic, but it remained for the Assyrians to develop this aspect of her character to the virtual exclusion of all other aspects. As the Assyrians extended their sway on every side, the power of Ishtar the _Bēlit_, or “lady” of battles, advanced also; she is the goddess of kings and people alike; in times of danger she vouchsafes her counsel and her timely words of encouragement to the king through the medium of dreams. She is “perfect in courage” and incomparable in splendour; her appearance is like unto flames of fire, and she rains streams of fire upon the enemies of Ashur-bani-pal. Unlike other goddesses she reigns in her own right, and not in virtue of her position as the spouse, counterpart, or reflection of any of the important gods. She is their equal in rank, power and dignity, while her very name becomes almost a synonym for “goddess,” and in later times all goddesses, whether native or foreign, came to be regarded as so many forms or manifestations of Ishtar.

But apart from the advancement to honour of the warlike deities of Babylonia, and the further development of the military character which they already bore, the Assyrian religion varies but little from that of the mother-country. The civilization and culture of the Assyrians was imported _en bloc_ from Babylonia, and this wholesale appropriation of the manners and customs of the people of the south displays itself in Assyrian art, religion, law and architecture. Their temples and palaces were more or less faithful copies of those erected in Babylonia; their beliefs, rites and ceremonies were derived from the same source, while their literature shows hardly any originality at all. When Ashur-bani-pal resolved to collect a library in his royal palace at Nineveh he was obliged to dispatch his scribes to the south to make search in the archives of the ancient temples which contained the prayers and hymns addressed to the gods, the legends and epics of the remote past, the astronomical reports and medical formulæ of the immediate present. A large part of Ashur-bani-pal’s library consisted in practically verbatim copies of these original texts, but the debt which we owe to Ashur-bani-pal’s bibliographical propensities must not be measured by the originality of the volumes of his library, but by the large contribution which they make to the Babylonian and Assyrian literature now at our disposal. In a great many cases the Babylonian originals have not been recovered, and we are entirely dependent on the copies of Ashur-bani-pal’s scribes, and but for this great king’s assiduity in this direction we should be in entire ignorance regarding the contents of a large part of the Babylono-Assyrian literature.

(_D_) BABYLONIAN AND ASSYRIAN SYMBOLISM

In all religions, whether ancient or modern, material representation forms the connecting link between the natural and the supernatural, the physical and the spiritual. The medium sometimes assumes the shape of an image of a naturally or unnaturally conceived deity, at other times it takes the form of an emblem, astronomical or otherwise, with which the god is associated. We have had abundant evidence of the prominent part played by images in the worship of the Babylonians and Assyrians, and it will perhaps not be unfitting to devote two or three pages to a brief consideration of some of the emblems of the deities to whom reference has been made.

The chief sources for the study of Assyrian and Babylonian symbolism are the cylinder-seals, the Babylonian Boundary-Stones, and the monoliths of Assyrian kings. In a brief review of Mesopotamian cylinder-seals we have had occasion to observe the frequent occurrence of emblems, many of which are also found on the monoliths of Assyrian kings, e.g. Sargon, Sennacherib and Esarhaddon. Among those of which the signification is certain we may mention the crescent, obviously emblematic of the Moon-god Sin, and the star of Ishtar, while the deity armed with thunderbolts is certainly Adad. The winged disc which occurs on a stele of Esarhaddon, as well as on other Assyrian monuments, is clearly symbolic of Ashur, though in earlier times it apparently emblematized Shamash, the Sun-god,[188] and if this be the case we have a useful piece of evidence in support of the theory of a solar origin for Ashur.

But the Babylonian _kudurrus_ or boundary-stones provide far more material for the study of Babylonian symbolism than do the Assyrian royal sculptures, for the emblems of the gods, as well as the gods themselves, were for the most part borrowed from Babylonia and adopted with variations by the people of the north. We have the emblems which are scattered about sporadically on the Babylonian cylinder-seals collected together in more or less large groups on the boundary stones. On one of these boundary stones (cf. Fig. 113) the name of the god with whom the emblem is associated is inscribed by the side, thus giving us definite data instead of hypothetical conjecture upon which to base our investigation. Unfortunately all the names inscribed on this kudurru are not legible, but among those which are certain, the following should be noted: Shamash the Sun-god who is represented by a circle within which are four rays of light alternating with four streams of water. Ishtar is represented by a star, and Sin the Moon-god by a crescent as usual. Ea is symbolized by a ram’s head on a column, the column being set on a rectangular throne beneath which lies the fish-tailed capricorn. Marduk is represented likewise by a column, the top of which however is shaped like a lance. Nergal, the god of the dead, is symbolized by a lion-headed column, while the seated goddess is Gula, who has been identified with Bau.

Another important monument in this connection is the rock-relief of Sennacherib near Bavian (cf. Fig. 114). The inscription mentions twelve gods, and the same number of emblems, presumably corresponding to the twelve gods, are sculptured on the rock. But the important point is that not only does the number of emblems portrayed tally with the number of gods mentioned, but there are definite indications that the order of sequence is the same in both cases.[189] Thus the crescent which obviously symbolizes the moon-god occurs fifth, the same place occupied by Sin in the list of names. Again, the star, the undoubted emblem of Ishtar, similarly comes eleventh, the name of the goddess also being eleventh in the list. Lastly, the thunderbolt, which is the certain symbol of Adad, occupies the seventh place and corresponds with that occupied by the god in the inscription. These three coincidences can hardly be regarded as accidental, and it is reasonable to assign the remaining symbols to the corresponding gods in the list. Following out this method we can provisionally assign the emblems as follows: Ashur, Anu and Bel are represented by horned hats; Ea by a column with a ram’s head; Sin by a crescent; Shamash by a winged disc; Adad by a thunderbolt; Marduk by a column with a pine-apple termination; Nabû by a simple column; Ninib (?) by a column surmounted by two lions’ (or two bulls’) heads; Ishtar by a star; and Igigi by seven dots.

Probably the finest specimen of a Babylonian stele of this character is that of Nebuchadnezzar I (_circ._ 1120 B.C.) (cf. Fig. 115). In the upper register we have the crescent, disc and star of Sin, Shamash and Ishtar respectively, the second register being occupied with a row of three emblems each consisting in a divine seat surmounted by a horned turban. The last-named seemingly represent Anu, Bel and either Ashur or Ea.[190] Next in succession we appear to have the emblems of Marduk and Nebo, while in the fourth register we have the double-headed column of Ninib, a horse’s head resting on a seat and surmounted by a vaulted arch, (this is of particular interest, as according to Ward, it is probably the earliest representation of the horse in Babylonian art); an eagle on the top of a column, and another column surmounted by a hawk’s head and representing Zamama. In the fifth register is the goddess Gula seated on a throne and accompanied by a dog; a scorpion-man or Sagittarius; while last of all we have the thunderbolt of Adad over a calf, a tortoise which is possibly an alternative emblem for Ea,[191] a scorpion, and the lamp of Nusku, the god of fire. Finally the whole of one side of this remarkable stele is traversed by a gigantic serpent. Other monuments exhibit different varieties of the same emblems, while among those not included here, are the club, the arrow, the sparrow and plough, the sheaf, the vase, the bull, the goose, the man-fish, the dove, the rod and ring (cf. Pl. XIV), and the coiffure and knife of the goddess Ninkharshag, for a full and exhaustive study of which the reader should refer to Ward, _Cylinder-Seals_, pp. 389 ff. Of the burial customs of the Babylonians and Assyrians, so far as they are known, we have treated elsewhere (cf. pp. 62, 69, etc.), but it will perhaps not be superfluous for us to briefly consider their eschatology.

(_E_) BABYLONIAN ESCHATOLOGY

Man’s ideas and thoughts are very largely determined by his environment, so too his beliefs regarding the next world have as their material basis and setting the world in which he now lives; the unknown but vaguely guessed at, can only be defined, or rather depicted in terms of the known, the unseen in terms of the seen, heaven in the terms of earth, God in the terms of Man—in short, the doctrine of the Incarnation underlies all religion and all religious systems. As we have already seen, the early Babylonians in all probability came from the mountainous country of Elam, for they used the same picture-sign or ideogram for both “mountain” and “country”; the earth was therefore conceived by them under the form of a mountain, and if this world be shaped like a mountain, the world beyond must also doubtless bear a similar shape, hence one of their names for the other world was E-KUR, which signifies “mountain-house,” the same name being also applied to the present world. In the early days of Babylonian mythology, the gods themselves were believed to inhabit E-KUR, the mountain-house of the world, and it is perhaps not unnatural to find the gods so intimately associated with mother-earth, when one recalls that the Babylonians believed the gods themselves to have been evolved from the same watery chaos from which the earth as it were emerged—the gods and the earth were children of the same parent, and were brought into being in the same way.

But this mountain-theory with regard to the other world in no way excluded or apparently even collided with other views of quite a different character; indeed the most popular conception of the next world, as the realm of the dead, was that of a hollow, or cave situated underneath the earth, which was believed to be shaped somewhat after the fashion of an inverted saucer: this cave was called “Aralu,” and was poetically described as “irṣitum la tarat”—“the land without return”—a description which is strangely negative, and which illustrates how little the Babylonian concerned himself with the life after death compared with the Egyptian, who may with some truth be said to have devoted his attention more to the life beyond than to the life which now is. The locality of Aralu under the earth may also be inferred from the story of Ishtar’s descent into Hades; this practically universal conception is so natural a one that it hardly calls for an explanation. The association of the realm of the dead with the grave beneath the earth where the remains of the dead were deposited—is almost inevitable, and the corresponding association of the abode of the gods, or heaven with the regions of light and brightness above this earth—the ever-visible sun and moon being gods themselves—is equally natural, but in passing, it must be remarked that in the system—for lack of a better word—which set the abode of the gods in the regions of the sky, the heaven which they inhabited was not accessible to mortal man, be he ever so good or virtuous; it was apparently only in earlier times when the home of the gods was located in or on the earth that the souls of the departed are regarded as dwelling with or near them.

This is further corroborated by the application of the term E-KUR—“mountain-house”—to the earth itself as well as to the abode of the gods and the realm of the dead, while at the same time it was used to designate the earthly abodes or temples of the gods; the theory which located the home of the gods upon the E-KUR is probably the earlier, and it was only in later times, when Babylon had made herself more or less supreme in the Euphrates valley, and had thereby gained for her god Marduk a similar supremacy, that the circumstances seemed to demand, as it were, a more universal and less local home for the god whose sway thus extended all over the country; if Marduk confines himself to his temple-home in Babylon, how can he watch over the fortunes and receive the homage of his devotees all over the empire?

Moreover, as has been already stated, on grounds independent of this the temptation to assign a heavenly or sky-home to the gods has been yielded to almost universally; this view of course did not exclude the possibility of the god’s presence in the temples erected to his honour, it only excluded the idea of his exclusive presence in the temple.

But there were yet other names besides Aralu and E-KUR, used to designate the abode of the dead, one of which was “Shualu”; this term signifies “enquiry” and comes from the same root as that from which the proper name “Saul” (“asked for”) is derived, itself being the equivalent of the Hebrew “Sheol” which the Greeks rendered “Hades,” and English translators unfortunately rendered “hell”; the world of the dead is accordingly regarded as a place of enquiry, the enquiry being presumably of the nature of an oracle. The dead are thus supposed to be endowed with the power of answering questions addressed to them by people on earth; and in this capacity they resemble the gods, the only difference being that the gods grant oracles through the hands of their priests, while the dead use necromancers as their mediums, as was the case when Samuel manifested himself to Saul through the agency of the necromancing witch of Endor. Thus in connection with the E-KUR home of the gods and of the dead, it will be observed that the dead are not only regarded as with, or near the gods, but, like the gods they are also empowered to assist earthly mortals with their oracular utterances; this presupposes that the dead are endowed with a greater knowledge than the living, and accordingly however gloomy Aralu, Shualu or E-KUR (as the home of the dead) may be, the dead are at all events drawn nearer to the gods in this respect, and partake more freely of the Tree of Knowledge than the living.

Having arrived thus far, the deification of the dead is but a short step, which the Babylonian found no great difficulty in taking; as however the deification of the departed was the exception rather than the rule, the exceptional cases of such deification must have had a special raison d’être of their own, and that raison d’être was probably the power of granting oracles which the Babylonian attributed to those highly-favoured individuals, whose heroic achievements on earth had won for them the greatest honour accorded to mankind in antiquity. The kings indeed were often deified after death and even during their lifetime, but that was the natural corollary of the belief that the next world is similar in order and in its mode of government to this world, albeit it was much more gloomy and also of a comparatively negative character.

But though the dead are thus regarded as more akin to the gods than the living, and more the objects of their special care, yet their very affinity to the gods seems to place them more beyond the power and control of the latter, and the priests whose delegated divine authority is paramount over the living, have no right of influence whatever over the dead.

Another name for the under-world was “Ki-gallu” which signifies “great land,” “Ki” being the regular ideogram for “earth” generally, or “land” specifically, the two being to the early oriental mind practically synonymous; this term, like E-KUR, thus associates the abode of the dead with the abode of the living, the abode of the living being on the earth, and the abode of the dead being under or within the earth. Other epithets applied to the under-world were—“the dark dwelling,” “the house of death,” “the grave,” “the great city,” “the deep land,” and the above-mentioned “irṣitum la tarat,” “the land whence there is no return,” the latter occurring in the well-known story of Ishtar’s descent into Hades, where the nether-world is further described as a house of darkness in which the dead, clothed in feathers like birds, depend upon dust and clay for their nourishment. This account of the world beyond the grave tallies well with the account given by Ea-bani, when called up from the realms of the dead to speak to his friend Gilgamesh; Ea-bani shrinks from paining his friend by describing the horrors of the under-world, but is at last prevailed upon to do so, and his description of Hades is that of “a place where the worm devours and all is cloaked in dust”—“Dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.” The idea of the dead being clothed with feathers like birds recalls the characteristically Mesopotamian monsters of composite form, half-bird and half-man, themselves apparently connected directly or indirectly with the nether-world.

It was believed however that the pitiable lot of the dead could be to some extent mitigated by acts of devotion and charity practised by those that remain; thus it was of primary importance to the deceased that he should receive a respectable and decent burial, and furthermore his needs did not stop there, for in E-KUR—whether the term be applied to the earth as the home of mortals, or to the land of the dead, man requires both food and drink for his sustenance. The condition of the hapless man who receives no burial and is provided with none of the necessaries of life in the next world is described at the close of the Gilgamesh Epic, where we are informed that such an one is consumed by gnawing hunger and has perforce to satisfy his appetite with the offal on the streets; but not only was the unburied shade a curse to himself so to speak, he also became a curse to the living by assuming the form of an “ekimmu” or demon, possessed with malignant intentions towards mankind, and furthermore endowed with the regrettable power of carrying those intentions into good effect; it therefore behoved the living to attend to the requirements of the dead from the point of view of self-defence quite apart from any considerations of pious charity.

There was no distinction made between the faithful and unfaithful departed in the halls of Aralu, the only difference there was, lay between the lot of those who received the rites of burial and the means of sustenance at the hands of their surviving friends and relatives, and the lot of those to whom were denied the last rites and offices; it should however be observed that the future life of those who perished on the battle-field was believed to be fraught with greater happiness, or at least less unhappiness than that of the generality of mankind.

Thus to the Babylonian the sting of death was very far from being removed, and their funeral dirges consisted chiefly in lamentations on account of the pitiful plight of the departed one rather than for their own personal loss; for them there was no swallowing up of Death in Victory, the only possibility of future bliss lying in immunity from death, an immunity which had only been offered to one or two mortals, and of which only one had apparently succeeded in availing himself, that single exception being Ṣit-napishtim whose exaltation to the godhead apparently exonerated him from the necessity of dying. The prevailing note was thus one of pessimism, a pessimism from which “the dwellers in Mesopotamia” have never succeeded in entirely emancipating themselves, a pessimism which is moreover discernible in the sacred writings of the Hebrews long after their emigration from Babylonia to the land of Canaan. To Job the lot of a tree is preferable to that of humanity, for “it hath hope, if it be cut down, it will sprout again; but man lieth down and riseth not; till the heavens be no more, they shall not awake nor be raised out of their sleep”; so too the Psalmist begs that he may be allowed to recover his strength—“before I go hence and be no more,” the general inference being that to the Hebrew mind the life beyond the grave resembled bare existence rather than a life with positive activities and positive functions to perform.

The tendency to regard the unknown with suspicion and doubt is incidental to the laws of our nature, and history demonstrates that only a courageous buoyancy won through the ceaseless efforts of mankind to combat the Mother who bore them, can overcome this as all other tendencies inherent in human nature. To the peoples of antiquity the world beyond was unknown and dark, for primitive man perforce regards as dark a state of existence concerning which he is in the dark, just as he has invariably attributed the causes of physical phenomena outside his ken to the powers of darkness, but the very darkness of the other world so far from diminishing the reality of its existence in his primitive mind, seems to have contrariwise, intensified it; he regarded the unseen through the medium of a mental telescope—to him it loomed dark but big; seeing was by no means the necessary condition of his believing, he believed where he did not see, and his imagination proved quite adequate to the occasion. In the twentieth century on the other hand there is an inclination to regard the unknown as _ipso facto_ non-existent, but it must be confessed that the tendency exhibited by early man to accredit the unknown with an even greater reality than the known, accords more closely with the archetypal idealism of Plato and others whose mental development is at least of no mean order, and whose theories have not as yet stood convicted at the bar of Logic.

A SHORT BIBLIOGRAPHY

Those readers who may desire to enlarge their information on any particular subject referred to in this volume cannot do better than consult the following works. For a history of the excavations, Hilprecht’s _Explorations in Bible Lands_ (T. & T. Clark, Edinburgh), is a most useful book. For further details regarding the excavations at Nippur Peters’ _Nippur, or Explorations and Adventures on the Euphrates_ (Putman) should be consulted, and also Fisher’s _Excavations at Nippur_ (Philadelphia). For a study of cuneiform writing and the inscriptions, Sayce’s _Archæology of the Cuneiform Inscriptions_ (S.P.C.K.) should be read. It is the most recent work on the subject, is full of interest and original ideas. For the literature of the Babylonians and Assyrians, see Harper’s _Literature of the Assyrians and Babylonians_, (Aldine Library), which contains the translation of a thoroughly representative selection of the literary products of both countries.

An account of the excavations carried on during the last decade by the Deutsche Orient-Gesellschaft at Babylon and Ashur will be found in the official reports of Koldewey and Andrae in the Mitteilungen of the Society (published by J. Hinrichs’sche, Buchhandlung Leipzig), while for a detailed account of the Anu-Adad temple at Ashur Andrae’s _Der Anu-Adad Tempel_ (also published by Hinrichs) should be consulted. The works of De Sarzec and Heuzey (published by E. Leroux, Paris) should be studied by those who wish to gain a full and comprehensive account of the excavations at Tellô; of these the _Découvertes en Chaldée_ is the most important. This magnificently illustrated work, which contains a complete statement of the early discoveries made on this site, and also a critical and well-balanced judgment of the deductions which we may make from those discoveries, is unquestionably one of the most important contributions to the study of Sumerian art. Of M. Heuzey’s smaller works, _Une Villa Royale Chaldéenne_ (Leroux, Paris) is calculated to be of special interest to the student of Babylonian architecture, while his numerous articles in the _Revue d’Assyriologie_ (Leroux, Paris) and papers in the _Comptes Rendus de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres_ solve many of the problems which beset the study of oriental art. In regard to Cylinder-seals, the monumental work which has recently been published by W. Hayes Ward, _The Cylinder-Seals of Western Asia_ (Carnegie Institute) is by far the most comprehensive on the subject, and is the culmination of a great many years’ research in the public and private collections of Europe and America.

For the study of Law, the reader should consult C. J. Johns’ _Babylonian and Assyrian Laws, Contracts and Letters_ (Edinburgh), _Assyrian Deeds and Documents_ (Cambridge), and _An Assyrian Doomsday Book_ (Delitzsch and Haupt, _Assyriologische Bibliothek_, Band XVII, Leipzig), while the student of Babylonian and Assyrian Religion should refer to Morris Jastrow’s _Religion of Babylonia and Assyria_ (Boston, U.S.A), which is the only exhaustive work on the subject. For a detailed and comprehensive treatment of the arts and crafts of the Babylonians and Assyrians in the light of the material available when the book was published, Perrot and Chipiez, _History of Art in Chaldaea and Assyria_ (Chapman & Hall, London; A. C. Armstrong & Son, New York) should be read.

In regard to manners, customs and general mode of life, reference should be made to the standard works of Maspero—_The Dawn of Civilization_, _The Struggle of the Nations_, and _The Passing of the Empires_ (S.P.C.K., London), to the same writer’s (Maspero) _Life in Ancient Egypt and Assyria_ (Chapman & Hall) to Sayce’s _Assyrians and Babylonians_ (J. C. Nimmo, London); and to Delitzsch’s _Handel und Wandel in Altbabylonien_ (Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt, Stuttgart), while for military matters, the reader should consult J. Hunger’s _Heerwesen und Kriegführung der Assyrer_ in _Der Alte Orient 1911_.

This volume does not deal with the history of the Babylonians and Assyrians, but those interested in that branch should read Rogers’ _History of Babylonia and Assyria_ (Eaton & Mains, New York; Jennings & Pye, Cincinnati), Goodspeed’s _A History of the Babylonians and Assyrians_ (Smith, Elder & Co., London); and the standard-works of Maspero—_The Dawn of Civilization_, _The Struggle of the Nations and The Passing of the Empires_ (S.P.C.K., London) for a general history, while for the early period King’s _Sumer and Akkad_ (Chatto & Windus) and Radau’s _Early Babylonian History_ (Oxford University Press) should be studied.

LIST OF THE MORE IMPORTANT KINGS AND RULERS AND A BRIEF CHRONOLOGICAL SUMMARY

Approximate dates B.C.

Mesilim, king of Kish, suzerain of Southern Babylonia 3000

FIRST DYNASTY OF LAGASH.

Ur-Ninâ, the founder of dynasty 3000 Akurgal Eannatum Enannatum I Entemena Enannatum II Enetarzi Enlitarzi Lugal-anda Urukagina, defeated by Lugal-zaggisi, king of Erech 2800 and Sumer

DYNASTY OF KISH.

Sharru-Gi 2750 Manishtusu Urumush

DYNASTY OF AGADE.

Shar-Gâni-sharri, established empire embracing Assyria, 2650 Syria and Palestine Narâm-Sin

SECOND DYNASTY OF LAGASH.

Ur-Bau 2500 Gudea 2450

DYNASTY OF UR.

Ur-Engur 2400

Dungi, sacks Babylon, exercises suzerainty over Babylonia, extends his sway to Elam

Bur-Sin I

Gamil-Sin

Ibi-Sin

DYNASTY OF ISIN. 2300-2100

FIRST DYNASTY OF CITY OF BABYLON.

Khammurabi, king of Babylon, establishes a powerful 1900 kingdom in Babylonia, expels the Elamites who had effected a settlement in Ur and Larsa, restores Shar-Gâni-Sharri’s empire in Palestine and embraces Assyria within the sphere of his influence

This dynasty is brought to an end by an invasion of the Hittites, who captured Babylon

The Kassites from the mountainous district, east of the Tigris, invade Babylonia and establish themselves as kings of Babylon. About a century after the Kassite invasion Assyria asserts her independence and becomes a separate kingdom

(?) Ushpia,[192] the probable founder of the temple of 2100 Ashur

(?) Ki-Ki-a, the first builder of the Dûru at Ashur, 2000 restorer of the temple of Ashur, and builder of the Adad-temple

Shalmaneser I 1300

Tukulti-Ninib I, king of Assyria, conquers Babylonia 1275

Ashur-rêsh-ishi 1140

Tiglath-Pileser I 1100

Ashur-naṣir-pal extends the limits of the empire 885-860

Shalmaneser II becomes master of the whole of 860-825 Western Asia. The Israelites under Jehu acknowledge his suzerainty

Tiglath-Pileser III recovers the ground lost by his 745-727 immediate predecessors, carries the tribes of Reuben, Gad, and the half-tribe of Manasseh into captivity

Shalmaneser IV besieges Samaria 727-722

Sargon, the usurper, takes Samaria and transports 722-705 most of population; defeats Egyptians and Philistines at Raphia; reduces Babylonia, carries on war in Elam; builds great palace at Khorsabad

Sennacherib reduces rebellious Babylonia; defeats 705-681 Egyptians at Altaku in Dan; carries on war in Palestine; Hezekiah of Judah acknowledges his suzerainty; destroys Babylon (689)

Esarhaddon conquers Lower Egypt (672) 681-668

Ashur-bani-pal invades Egypt, the latter having 668-626 thrown off the Assyrian yoke; sacks Thebes, the Egyptian capital (666); entirely subjugates Elam; defeats and puts to death Shamash-shum-ukîn, Viceroy of Babylonia

Egypt and Lydia assert their independence

The Medes made raid on the eastern borders of the empire (_circ._ 634)

Ashur-bani-pal dies 626

Shortly after his death the Median king Cyaxares defeats Assyrians and besieges Nineveh. Invasion of Scythian hordes momentarily checks Cyaxares, but soon after Cyaxares and possibly Nabopolassar, an Assyrian general in Babylon, besiege and ultimately capture and destroy Nineveh (_circ._ 607)

Assyria goes to the Medes, Babylonia to Nabopolassar, who founds the Neo-Babylonian Dynasty

NEO-BABYLONIAN DYNASTY.

Nabopolassar 625-604

Nebuchadnezzar II defeated Necho, king of Egypt, 604-561 before his accession; captures Jerusalem and takes Judah into captivity

Nabonidus, entrusts Babylon to his son Belshazzar. 555-538 Cyrus, the Persian, invades Babylonia, captures Babylon and destroys the Neo-Babylonian Empire

FOOTNOTES:

[1] Cf. Ward, _Seal Cylinders_, p. 24 ff.

[2] Cf. Pinches, _Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archæology_, 1910, p. 42.

[3] “Sargon” (i.e. Sharru-ukîn) was the name given to this ancient king by the later Assyrian scribes.

[4] Cf. however Fisher in _Records of the Past_, Vol. II, part iv, p. 116.

[5] Cf. Fisher, _Excavations at Nippur_, p. 1; and Prestwich, _Geology_ (Map).

[6] Cf. _Comptes Rendus, Académie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres_, 1894, p. 409.

[7] Ward, _Cylinder-Seals_, p. 30, Fig. 55.

[8] Cf. note on page 86.

[9] Cf. Clay, _American Journal of Semitic Languages_, XXIII, p. 269.

[10] Cf. Ward, _Cylinder-Seals_, Fig. 289.

[11] Cf. Fig. 25, E.

[12] Cf. Ungnad in _Orient. Lit. XI._, 1908, _cols._ 533-537.

[13] Cf. Botta, _Nineveh_, II, Plates 108, 110; Layard, Series II, Plates 9, 32.

[14] Cf. Ward, _Cylinder-Seals_, Fig. 179.

[15] Cf. No. 43, Nineveh Gallery, British Museum.

[16] Cf. Perrot and Chipiez, II, p. 153.

[17] Cf. Ward, _Cylinder-Seals_, Fig. 93.

[18] For representations of birds on Assyrian bas-reliefs, cf. Botta, _Nineveh_, II, Plates 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, and Layard, Series II, Plates 9, 32, 40.

[19] Cf. p. 185.

[20] Layard, _Nineveh_, p. 74 ff.

[21] Hilprecht, _Explorations_, p. 236.

[22] It has been argued that the burnt condition of human remains discovered in Mesopotamia is in all cases to be regarded as the effect of a general conflagration, and that in fact cremation was never practised. But if such be the case, then the pottery buried with the burnt human remains would similarly bear the marks of burning. In many cases the pottery apparently affords no definite evidence for or against the theory, but Dr. Koldewey informs me that the vessels containing the burnt remains of human beings at Surghul, showed no trace of their having been in the fire themselves, so here at all events we have clear and incontrovertible evidence of the practice of cremation in Babylonia.

[23] Cf. Hilprecht, _Explorations_, p. 317.

[24] For description of the ziggurat, cf. p. 133 ff.

[25] Cf. however, Jastrow, _Journal of the American Oriental Society_, vol. XXVII, pp. 147 ff.

[26] Clay, _Records of the Past_, Vol. II, Part II, pp. 47 ff.

[27] For a description of the famous Ishtar-Gate, and for further details regarding Nebuchadnezzar’s palace, cf. pp. 136, 137, 149.

[28] Cf. _Mitteilungen_, No. 44, p. 11.

[29] For an account of this temple, cf. chapter on Architecture, pp. 141 ff.

[30] Cf. further, pp. 176 ff.

[31] Cf. Andrae, _Mitteilungen_, No. 38, pp. 23 ff.

[32] Cf. further pp. 144 ff.

[33] Cf. _Mitteilungen_, No. 42, p. 42.

[34] _Ibidem_, No. 42, p. 35.

[35] _Ibidem_, No. 43, p. 34.

[36] Cf. _Mitteilungen_, No. 44, p. 34.

[37] The Zend-Avesta is practically the equivalent of the Bible and prayer-book of the Zoroastrians. The Zoroastrian faith flourished as early as the sixth century B.C., and probably became the religion of the later Achaemenian kings.

[38] The Pehlevi language and literature belongs to the middle Persian period, i.e. from the third to the ninth century or so A.D. The language is related to old Persian on the one hand, and to modern Persian on the other. The Zend as it were bridged over the gulf between modern and ancient Persian, and was of the greatest assistance in the decipherment of the old Persian language as found in the cuneiform inscriptions.

[39] _Archæology of the Cuneiform Inscriptions_, p. 8.

[40] Squeezes are made by means of a series of layers of thick paper, which has been moistened, the impression being gained by applying the substance thus formed to the inscription and beating it in with a brush.

[41] A partial duplicate of this inscription on the Behistun Rock is inscribed on a dolerite block discovered by the German excavators at Babylon; it contains many interesting additions.

[42] The term “Assyrian” is used, as a large part of the earlier Babylonian literature comes down to us through Assyrian hands, being copied and as it were republished by Assyrian scribes. Assyrian and Babylonian were different dialects of the same language; similarly Assyrian and Babylonian cuneiform exhibit great differences in style, Babylonian being more cursive and generally therefore more difficult to read.

[43] Cf. A. J. Booth, _Trilingual Inscriptions_; Rogers, _History_, pp. 175 ff.; Sayce, _Archæology of the Cuneiform Inscriptions_, pp. 1-35; Harper, _Biblical World_, XVI, pp. 294-7, 371-3 (a short and concise summary).

[44] For references to texts in which these signs occur, cf. G. A. Barton in Harper’s _Old Testament and Semitic Studies_, Vol. II, pp. 241 ff.

[45] Cf. _Babylonian Expedition of the University of Pennsylvania IV, Series D_, for this Babylonian boundary-stone and for a full discussion of the subject generally.

[46] An eponym was an official of high rank—sometimes the king himself—who held office for a year, and whose name was used to date all documents drawn up in that year. He corresponded to the Roman consul and the Athenian archon.

[47] Cf. Hilprecht, _Explorations_, p. 517.

[48] A “plano-convex” brick is a brick which is flat on one side and convex or oval on the other, its general appearance resembling an oblong cake, or a small pillow.

[49] Cf. De Sarzec et Heuzey, _Une Villa Royale Chaldéenne_, p. 47.

[50] Cf. Loftus, _Travels_, p. 189.

[51] Loftus, _Travels_, p. 187.

[52] Cf. Heuzey, _Une Villa Royale_, p. 48.

[53] Heuzey, _Une Villa Royale_, pp. 47, 48.

[54] In the northern fortification wall, and according to Koldewey, there only on the Kasr, great building blocks of limestone were also discovered.

[55] J. R. A. S., 1855, p. 266.

[56] _Ibidem_, p. 407.

[57] Cf. Harper, _Assyrian and Babylonian Literature_, p. 57.

[58] _Ibid._, p. 87.

[59] Cf. King, _Sumer and Akkad_, p. 88.

[60] Cf. Taylor in J. R. A. S., 1855, pp. 261 ff.

[61] Cf. J. R. A. S., 1855, pp. 405 ff.

[62] Cf. however Andrae, _Der Anu-Adad Tempel_, p. 80.

[63] Cf. Pinches, Hastings Dict., Religion and Morals, “Architecture,” _Perrot and Chipiez_, II, p. 393; Layard, _Discoveries_, pp. 348 ff.

[64] Cf. Harper, _Assyrian and Babylonian Literature_, pp. 25, 26.

[65] Cf. _Mitteilungen_, No. 44, p. 30.

[66] Cf. _Découvertes_, Pl. 22 bis, Figs. 2_b_, 3_b_.

[67] Cf. Andrae, _Der Anu-Adad Tempel_, p. 80.

[68] Hilprecht, _Explorations_, p. 286.

[69] Loftus, _Chaldæa and Susiana_, p. 133; J. R. A. S., XV, pp. 265, 266.

[70] Loftus, pp. 187 ff.

[71] Cf. p. 80.

[72] Cf. Hilprecht, _Explorations_, p. 372.

[73] _Ibidem_, p. 402.

[74] Cf. Taylor, _Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society_, 1853, p. 269.

[75] Loftus, _Travels_, pp. 174 ff.

[76] Cf. _Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society_, 1855, p. 406.

[77] Cf. _Mitteilungen_, No. 43, p. 7.

[78] Cf. Layard, _Discoveries_, p. 590; Dieulafoy, _L’Art Antique_, V, pp. 57 ff.; _Perrot and Chipiez_, p. 214.

[79] Place discovered an eight-sided column at Karambs, but it apparently belonged to the Parthian period (Place, _Nineveh_, II, pp. 169 ff.).

[80] Cf. _Mitteilungen_, No. 40, p. 25.

[81] Cf. _Ibid._, No. 40, p. 24.

[82] Cf. _Ibid._, No. 42, p. 40.

[83] Cf. Hilprecht, _Explorations_, pp. 397 ff.

[84] Cf. J.R.A.S., 1855, p. 266.

[85] Cf. _Mitteilungen_, No. 8, p. 4.

[86] Cf. _Perrot and Chipiez_, p. 231.

[87] Cf. Fig. 9.

[88] Cf. Andrae, _Mitteilungen_, No. 27, pp. 29-32.

[89] Cf. _Mitteilungen_, No. 40, p. 29.

[90] Cf. Hilprecht, _Babylonian Expedition of the University of Pennsylvania_, Vol. I, part ii, Pl. XVI.

[91] Hilprecht, _Explorations_, pp. 474, 475.

[92] Cf. also above, Fig. 28, A.

[93] Cf. above, p. 33.

[94] For a rough sketch, cf. Rawlinson, _The Five Great Monarchies_, II, 79.

[95] Cf. p. 45.

[96] Cf. Rawlinson, _Five Monarchies_, pp. 151-62.

[97] Cf. E. J. Banks, _Scientific American_, Aug. 19, 1905, p. 137; _American Journal of Semitic Languages_, XXI, p. 59.

[98] _Comptes rendus_, 1907, p. 399.

[99] Cf. _Mitteilungen_, No. 29.

[100] Cf. _Découvertes_, Pl. 24, Fig. 2.

[101] _Revue Archéologique_, 1894, I, 108.

[102] Cf. Heuzey, in _Mon. Mem. Acad. Insc. Fondation Piot_, XII, pp. 19-28, and _C. R. Acad. Inser._, 1905, p. 75.

[103] Cf. _Mon. Piot._, t. VII, Pl. 1, Fig. 1, and _Louvre Cat._, p. 324.

[104] Cf. _Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society_, XV, p. 410.

[105] Cf. Sayce, _Archæology of the Cuneiform Inscriptions_, p. 58.

[106] Cf. _Découvertes_, Pl. 28, Figs. 1 and 2.

[107] Cf. Hilprecht, _Explorations_, p. 539.

[108] Cf. _Louvre Cat._, No. 173; and _Mon. Piot._, t. VII, Pl. I, Fig. 1.

[109] Cf. Harper, _American Journal of Semitic Languages_, XX, pp. 266, 267.

[110] Cf. King, _Sumer and Akkad_, p. 26; and Hilprecht, _Explorations_, p. 156.

[111] Layard, _Discoveries_, p. 357.

[112] Cf. Boscawen, _Transactions of the Society of Biblical Archæology_, 1876, p. 347.

[113] Layard, _Discoveries_, p. 177.

[114] Cf. the Taylor Cylinder of Sennacherib.

[115] For an admirable reproduction of the best half of the Balâwât Gates, a good introduction, and translation of text, cf. Birch and Pinches, _The Bronze Ornaments of the Palace Gates of Balâwât_. Cf. also Delitzsch, _Beiträge zur Assyriologie_.

[116] For translation, cf. Ungnad, _Or. Lit._, IX (1906), 534-8.

[117] Cf. Delitzsch, _Records of the Past_, 1903, pp. 323 ff.

[118] Cf. Harper, _Assyrian and Babylonian Literature_, p. 129.

[119] Harper, _Assyrian and Babylonian Literature_, p. 14.

[120] Cf. Harper, _Assyrian and Babylonian Literature_, pp. 54, 99.

[121] Cf. Perrot and Chipiez, p. 277.

[122] Layard, _Nineveh_ I, p. 64; II, pp. 306, 307.

[123] Layard, _Nineveh_, II, p. 15.

[124] _Ibid._, I, p. 130.

[125] Cf. Delitzsch, _Mitteilungen_, No. 6, pp. 13-17; and Diodorus II, 8.

[126] Cf. Koldewey, _Mitteilungen_, No. 3, pp. 5, 10, 11.

[127] Layard, _Monuments_, Series II, Pl. 55, 6; and Layard, _Discoveries_, p. 167.

[128] _Discoveries_, p. 166.

[129] A considerable number of the seal-impressions here reproduced are taken from Dr. W. Hayes Ward’s monumental work on cylinder-seals in Western Asia, by the author’s generous permission.

[130] _Scarabs_, p. 5.

[131] Ward, _The Seal-Cylinders of Western Asia_, p. 1.

[132] Cf. Ward, _Seal-Cylinders_, p. 69.

[133] Cf. _Seal-Cylinders_, p. 48, Fig. 127.

[134] Cf. Ward, p. 128.

[135] Cf. _Mitteilung._, No. 9, p. 6.

[136] Cf. Menant, _Pierres Gravées_, II, p. 132; Ward, p. 193.

[137] Cf. Ward, p. 197.

[138] Cf. Heuzey, _Cat._, pp. 387 ff.

[139] For the early history of inlaid jewellery cf. Dalton, _Archæologia_, LVIII, pp. 237-74.

[140] Cf. _Mitteilungen_, No. 44, p. 24.

[141] Cf. also the Assyrian seal reproduced in Fig. 76.

[142] Jastrow, _Religion of Babylonia and Assyria_, p. 208.

[143] Cf. Heuzey, _Catalogue des Figurines de terre cuite du Musée du Louvre_, Pl. I, Fig. 2.

[144] For the other two, cf. _Ibidem_, Pl. I, Figs. 1 and 3.

[145] Cf. Heuzey, _Les Figurines Antiques de terre cuite_, Pl. II, Fig. 3.

[146] Cf. Koldewey, _Mitteilungen_, No. 5, pp. 19, 20.

[147] Cf. Banks, _American Journal of Semitic Languages_, Vol. 22, p. 35 ff.

[148] Cf. Banks, _American Journal of Semitic Languages_, Vol. 22, p. 37.

[149] Cf. Hilprecht, _Babylonian Expedition_, Vol. I, part ii, Pl. XX.

[150] Cf. _Découvertes, Description_, p. 118; Hilprecht, _Explorations_, p. 170.

[151] Cf. p. 243.

[152] Cf. Layard, _Discoveries_, p. 197.

[153] Cf. Hilprecht, _Explorations_, p. 407.

[154] Hilprecht, _The Babylonian Expedition of the University of Pennsylvania_, Series A, Vol. I, part ii, Pl. 27.

[155] Cf. E. J. Banks, _American Journal of Semitic Languages_, Vol. 22, p. 139.

[156] _Ibidem_, p. 140.

[157] Cf. E. J. Banks, _American Journal of Semitic Languages_, Vol. 22, p. 140.

[158] Cf. _Comptes Rendus, Académie des Inscriptions et des Belles Lettres_ 1904, p. 115.

[159] Cf. _Mitteilungen_, No. 40, p. 8.

[160] Cf. _Ibid._, No. 26, p. 19.

[161] Cf. Heuzey, _Catalogue des Antiquités Chaldéennes_, p. 249.

[162] Prince, _Journal of the American Oriental Society_, XXVI, p. 93.

[163] Cf. _American Journal of Semitic Languages_, April, 1905, p. 173.

[164] Cf. Ward, _Cylinder-Seals_, Fig. 139 _c_.

[165] Cf. Heuzey, _Comptes Rendus_, 1908, pp. 415-22.

[166] Cf. _Comptes Rendus_, p. 418, Fig. C.

[167] Cf. Sayce, _Archæology of Cuneiform Inscriptions_, pp. 65, 66.

[168] Cf. Botta, II, Pl. 155.

[169] An interesting bead of black marble, measuring 1-1/2 × 5/8 inches was discovered at Ashur; it bears an inscription of Shalmaneser, the purport of which is that that king brought the bead from a temple in Syria.

[170] Cf. _Mitteilungen_, No. 7, p. 18.

[171] Cf. Botta, _Monument_, II, Pls. 90, 93.

[172] Cf. Rawlinson, _Five Monarchies_, II, p. 49.

[173] Cf. Rawlinson, _Five Monarchies_, II, p. 43.

[174] Cf. p. 17.

[175] Cf. p. 10.

[176] Cf. Johns, _An Assyrian Doomsday Book_, p. 19.

[177] Cf. Erman, _Life in Ancient Egypt_, p. 426; and Wilkinson, I, p. 281.

[178] Cf. Genouillac, p. xlix.

[179] Cf. p. 346.

[180] Cf. Genouillac, p. lii.

[181] This work comprises an autographed text, transliteration, translation, glossary, index of subjects, list of proper names, signs and numerals, together with a map, frontispiece, and photograph of text.

[182] Cf. Jastrow, _Religion_, pp. 116 ff.

[183] Cf. Johns, _Doomsday Book_, p. 26.

[184] _Ibid._, p. 20.

[185] Cf. Jastrow, pp. 191 ff.

[186] Jastrow, _Religion_, p. 226.

[187] _Ibid._, p. 83.

[188] Cf. Ward, _Cylinder-Seals_, pp. 391, 392.

[189] Cf. Ward, _Cylinder-Seals_, pp. 391 ff.

[190] Cf. Ward, _Cylinder-Seals_, p. 398.

[191] _Ibid._, p. 407.

[192] Cf. _Mitteilungen_, No. 21, p. 49.

INDEX

Abêshu’, k. of Babylon, 33

Abû Adham, 163

Abû Habba, 3, 60, 68; cf. also Sippar

Abû Hatab, 77

Abû Shahrein, 121, 134, 156, 157, 163, 242, 263

Acacia, 12

Accounts, lists of, 109

Achaemenian inscriptions, 86

Adab. Cf. Bismâya

Adad. 263, 388, 391, 397

Adad-nirari I, 78, 81, 254

Adad-nirari II, 81

Adad-nirari III, 43, 81, 233, 268

Adar, 232, 323

Agade, 7, 29

Agate, 76, 287, 340

Agents, 381

Agglutinative languages, 105

Agriculture, 13, 14, 367, 368, 377, 389

Ahab, 36, 316

Ahaz, k. of Judah, 36, 111

Akkad. Cf. Agade

Alabaster, 14, 75, 76, 83, 146, 225, 226, 326

Alashiya, 109

Alcohol, 370

Alexander the Great, 3, 39

Altaku, battle of, 37

Altars, 135, 141, 184, 206, 301

Amen, 365

Amenḥetep III, 21, 108

Amenḥetep IV, 108; cf. Khuenaten

Amethyst, 287, 340

Amphora, 298

Amran, 71, 72

Amulets, 116, 321

Amurru, land of, 130

Andrae, excavations and discoveries by, 69, 77, 140, 142, 149-51, 176, 254, 335 _et passim_

Animals, 14-24, 244, 270, 271

“Ankh” sign, 314

Antelope, 16, 19, 184, 291

Antiochus Soter, 59

Anu, the god, 102, 388, 391; Temple of, 397

Anu-Adad Temple, 141-4, 323

Apil-Sin, 110

Appeal, Court of, 384

Arabia, 114

Arad-Sin, 32

Arakhtu canal, 74

Aralu, 400

Aramaic brick-inscriptions, 70

Archers, 195, 261, 350-6

Arches and arched structures, 156, 168-80, 210

Architecture, 119-80

Armenia, 10

Arrow, copper heads, 242; emblem, 398

Artaxerxes I, 66

Ashdod, 53, 112, 113

Ashur, 141-4, 178, 180, 200, 229, 232, 254, 261, 263, 335

Ashur, the god, 25, 79, 146, 306, 307, 391, 392, 397

Ashur-bani-pal, 2, 38, 39, 56, 64, 71, 73, 114, 150, 218-22, 268

Ashur-bêl-kala, 35, 48, 229

Ashur-etil-ilâni, 43

Ashur-naṣir-pal, 20, 24, 35, 48, 78, 80, 81, 140, 141, 145, 199, 201, 202, 205, 230, 239, 240

Ashur-rêsh-ishi, 81, 142

Askelon, 37

Ass, 14, 18, 220, 366

Assyrian army, 350; buildings, 140-48, 151-58; civilization of, 3, 34; cylinder-seals, 304; laws, customs, etc., 344, 389-95; sculpture, 200, 229

Astrolabæ, 116

Astrology, 104, 109

Aten, disc of, 306

Axe, 254, 340

Babil, 59

Babylon, 29, 59, 69, 114, 116, 241, 268 _et passim_; cf. also Ḳasr

Babylonia, 3, 4, 10, 156, 181, 222, 375, 386

Balâwât, 15, 55, 258

Bandlets, 216

Bank, artificial, 208

Banks, E. J., excavations and discoveries by, 6, 82, 172, 223, 326, 333, 334

Barbaro, Josafat, 85

Barbel, 27

Barley, 11

Barton, G. A., 96, 98

Basalt, 14, 81, 167, 198, 232, 240, 326

Baskets, 190

Basket-carriers, 247

Bas-reliefs, 181-200, 201-22, 271, 272, 273, 274

Battering-rams, 203, 208, 261, 359 f.

Battle-axes, 188, 193

Bau, the goddess, 326, 365, 367, 373, 397

Baumgarten, 74

Bavian relief of Sennacherib, 81, 397

Bazu, land of, 23

Beans, 370

Bearded and beardless Assyrians, 239

Beef, 366

Beer, 383

Behistun inscription, 90

Bêl, 17, 71, 391, 397

Bêlit, 71, 393

Bells, bronze, 255

Bel-Merodach, 305

Belshazzar, 39, 51

Belus, temple of, 138

Berosus, 150

Bey, Bedri, excavations by, 68

Bilingual tablets, 104

Bingani-shar-ali, 294

Bint-el-Amir, 64

Birch, 261

Birds, in Mesopotamian art, etc., 24, 115, 184, 367

Birs-Nimrûd, 18, 29, 51; cf. also Borsippa

Bismâya, 6, 82, 83, 121, 123, 159, 223, 251, 326, 327, 333

Bisons, 2, 3, 23, 292

Bitumen, 124 f., 226, 243, etc.

Black Obelisk, 15, 267; 93

Blow-pipe, 331

Boars, 19, 24

Boats, 14, 259, 334, 361 f.

Bone, implements of, 74, 178

Boomerang, weapons shaped like, 183, 188, 298, 340, 341 ff.

Booth, A. J., 94

Borsippa, 29, 59; cf. Birs-Nimrûd

Boscawen, 254

Botta, discoveries and excavations by, 41, 279, 321, 335, 345 etc.

Boundary-stones, 16, 101, 111, 395

Bows and arrows, 193, 203, 204, 205, 208, 216, 219, 341

Bracelets, 202, 212, 230, 233, 261, 268, 347, 348

Branding, 385

Bread, 11, 370

Breccia, 70, 71

Bricks, 120-3

Bridge of boats, 259

Bronze, 13, 54, 55, 103, 150, 242, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 261, 262, 267

Budge, E. A. Wallis, excavations by, 68

Buffalo, 2, 3, 23, 45, 293

Bull, 15, 17, 24, 213, 214, 236, 237-9, 257, 272, 275, 276, 280, 289, 298, 305, 310, 398

Burials, 62, 69, 74, 75, 77, 80, 176-8, 190, 365

Burnouf, Emile, 90

Bur-Sin, 77, 104, 253, 301, 324

Business-contracts, 371

Bustard, 26

Cabbage, 390

Calah, 35; cf. also Nimrûd

Calf, 192, 398

Camels, 15, 390

Camp-stools, 291, 297

Capital offences, 384

Capsules, 158, 323

Carchemish, 39

Carnelian, 287

Carpenters, 227, 366

Carts, 214

Case-tablets, 106

Cavalry, Assyrian, 281, 353 f.

Caylus, Count, 86

Cedar-wood, 2, 73, 130, 131, 150, 161, 258

Chalcedony, cylinder-seals of, 287

Champollion, 89

Chardin, 85

Chariots, 15, 188, 203, 204, 219, 220, 259, 281, 295, 304, 354 f.

Chickens, as offerings, 367

Chinese art and language, 10

Chosroes, 41

Cilicia, 38

Clark, C. H., 63

Clay, 75, 77, 95, 103-18, 252, 273, 274 ff., 324

Clay, A. T., discoveries by, 65, 303, 331

Clay, E. W., 63

Cloth, coverings of clay urns, 334

Club, emblem, 398

Cock, 26

Coffins, 49

Colour boxes, 77

Colours, 270, 283

Columns, 160-8, 396, 397

Combs, 349

Commagene, 34

Commercial tablets, 110

Cones, 111, 112, 123, 148, 202, 249

Copper, 75, 77, 180, 242-7, 249, 252, 286

Coral, 340

Coriander, 390

Corundum, 287

Cosmologies, Babylonian, Egyptian, Hebrew, 4

Cotton, 347

Couch, royal, 221

“Country of the Sea,” 33, 34

Cow, 366

Crane, 26

Creation legends, 53

Cremation, 62

Crenelated walls, 152, 203, 211, 227, 261

Crescent, 296, 302, 305, 306, 308, 395

Crews for transport-barges, 107

Cros, Gaston, excavations and discoveries by, 84, 235, 334, 344

Crown-lands, 391

“Crux ansata,” 314

Crystal, 287

Ctesias, 141

Cucumbers, 370

Cuneiform inscriptions and literature, 85-116, 203

Cups, 184, 205, 221, 326, 327

Cutha, 29

Cyaxares, 39

Cylinder-seals, 284-308

Cypress, 2, 73

Cyprus, 294

Cyrus, 39, 74

Dabigu, 260

Daggers, 202, 219, 281, 298, 311

Dagan, 307, 319, 320

Damascus, 114

Darius II, 66

Date, 12, 13, 370

Dating, Babylonian method of, 110

Dead, future state and offerings for, 374, 399 f.

De Bruin, 85

Deer, 3, 24, 220, 265

Deification of kings, 375

Deities on seals, 291 f.

Deity seated, 198; cf. also Gods

De la Becke, Sir H., 283

Delitzsch, Friedrich, 61, 71, 74, 261, 264, 273

Deluge story, 53

Demons, 140, 262, 321

De Morgan, J., 226

Dêr, 68

De Sacy, 86

De Sarzec, excavations and discoveries by, 13, 56-8, 161, 171, 187, 195, 227, 234, 243, 244, 248, 253, 329

De Saulcy, 93

Diarbekr, 195, 200

Diodorus, 59, 90, 127, 273

Diorite, 14, 81, 146, 227, 228, 229

Disc, of sun, 206

Disc, winged, 395

Distraint, 382

Divorce, 365

Dogs, 14, 18, 19, 220, 235, 297, 398

Dolerite, 14, 57, 69, 91, 241

Domes, 155

Dove, 26, 323, 398

Dowries, 376

Dragons, 275, 295, 305, 336

Drains, 158-60

Dress, 181, 198, 216, 221, 223, 226, 230, 232, 233, 281, 337-56

Ducks, 367

Duck weights, 26

Dudu, 192, 266, 289

Dungi, 6, 32, 50, 82, 101, 110, 247, 298, 301

Dûr Sharrukîn, 41, 279; cf. also Khorsabad

“Dûru,” the, 81

Ea, the god, 27, 73, 299, 388, 391, 392, 396, 397

Ea-bani, 2, 292, 293, 330, 403

Eagle, 24, 25, 280, 291, 306, 310, 398

Eagle, Etana and, 297

Eannatum, 27, 57, 187, 188, 326

Earrings, 252, 264, 347, 348

East India House Inscription, 140, 150

Ebony, 349

Eggs, stone, 340

Egypt, 3, 4, 38, 256, 258, 268, 269, 286, 312, 313

Egyptian hieroglyphics, 5, 331

“Ekimmu,” 403

Ekron, 37

Ekua, 73

E-kur, 399

Elamites, 2, 31, 32, 37, 38, 114, 199, 247

El-Hibba, 61, 148

En-lil, the god, 17, 62, 133-6, 325, 326, 373

Enlitarzi, 373

Entemena, 12, 30, 137, 191, 265, 326

Enubi-Marduk, 108

Envelopes, 105, 106

E-pa, 133, 136

Eponyms, 114

Erech, 9, 29, 30; cf. also Warka

Eridu, 27, 29; cf. also Abû Shahrein

Erman, 369

E-sagila, temple of Marduk, 71-3, 115, 199

Esar, k. of Adab, 223

Esarhaddon, 13, 23, 38, 43, 73, 78, 114

Eschatology, 399-405

Esneh, 4

Etana, 297

E-temen-an-ki, 73, 138

Eulmash-shakin-shûm, 205

Euphrates, 10, 11

Euting, Prof., 122

Exchange, mediums of, 367

Eyes, 181, 191, 202, 308

E-zida, 51, 59, 115

Face-masks, 264

Fâra, 74, 121, 157, 172, 242, 250

Feathers, 181, 403

Feudalism, 390, 391

Field, Mr., 63

Figs, 13, 217, 370

Fish, 26, 27, 115, 281, 334, 370

Fisher, C. S., 10, 63, 136

Fish-god, 307, 319; cf. also Dagon

Fishing-hooks, 76

Flandin, 272

Flint, 75, 242, 287

Flowers, 13, 277, 278, 301

Fly-flaps, 205, 216, 221

Foot-wear, 202, 271, 280, 349

Fortress, assault of, 210

Foundation-cylinders, 50, 51

Fox, 20

Frazier, W. W., 63

Freestone, blue, 326

Fresnel, expedition of, 47, 273, 328

Frog, 20

Fruits, 370

Funerals, 374

Furniture-makers, 366

“Future Life,” 76, 399 f.

Gardeners, 366

Garlic, 390

Garnet, 267

Gates, double-leaved, 210

Gates, on seals, 297; cf. also Balâwât

Gate-sockets, 57, 65, 83, 102, 259, 267

Gatumdug, the goddess, 228, 235, 373

Gaza, 37

Gazelle, 16, 19, 184, 256, 257

Geere, H. V., 63

Genouillac, 364, 370

Gezer, 254

Gilgamesh, 3, 53, 191, 289, 292, 293, 311, 330, 338, 372, 393, 403

Gimil-Sin, 302

Gishgibilgemesh, 372

Glass, 42, 76, 180, 286, 331

Goats, 14, 17, 18, 184, 250, 265, 290, 297, 366

Goddess, nude, 295, 321 f.

Gods, 102, 104, 111, 197, 318, 321, 324, 372-5, 386-9, 391-5

Gold, 6, 72, 73, 74, 79, 83, 139, 150, 263, 264, 286, 323

Goose, 867, 398

Grammatical tablets, 104

Granite, 59, 83

Griffins, 256, 257

Grotefend, G. Friedrich, 87

Gudea, 6, 13, 22, 31, 57, 61, 62, 84, 133, 136, 149, 227, 228, 235, 243, 298, 299, 318, 329

Guilds, trade, 376

Gula, the goddess, 397, 398

Gum, 370

Gungunu, 32

Hadadnadinakhe, 149

Hades, 400

Hair, arrangement of, 183, 188, 190, 216, 224, 225, 226, 230, 233, 244, 338

Halévy, Joseph, 105

Halicarnassus, 331

Handles, lateral, 243

Hanging gardens, 127

Hannon, 37

Hare, 20

Harper, R. F., excavations and discoveries by, 63, 82, 94, 97, 123, 131, 142, 264, 267, 377

Harrison, Provost, 63

Hatchets, 75, 76, 242, 296

Hawaiians, war-gods of, 263

Haynes, excavations and discoveries by, 125, 133, 135, 157, 171, 334

Head-dresses, 198, 202, 203, 206, 216, 228, 233, 249, 271, 321, 338, 339, 345, 356, 396

Hebrews, 404 f.

Heifers, 266

Helmets, 187, 188, 193, 195, 212, 281, 350 f.

_Henna_, 327

Hereditary principle, 390

Herodotus, 10, 13, 127, 131, 138, 157, 284

Heroes, 289, 290

Heuzey, Léon, discoveries, etc., by, 25, 169, 184, 186, 187, 191, 192, 251, 246, 310, 321

Hezekiah, k. of Judah, 37, 38, 208

Hillah, 285, 322

Hilprecht, H. V., excavations and discoveries by, 16, 57, 59, 60, 63, 66, 117, 136, 148, 169, 184, 252, 328, etc.

Hincks, 91, 92

Hindiyah Canal, 11, 12

Historical documents, 104, 110, 111

Hit, 124

Hittites, 33, 35, 69

Holtzman, 91

Hommel, F., 98, 139

Honey, 11

Honeysuckle, paintings of, 282

Horns, symbolic (?), 211

Horse, 14, 15, 16, 28, 281, 397

Hoshea, k. of Israel, 36

House-building, 383

Houses, 156-8

Hunting-scenes, 204-5, 218-21

Huts, 169

Hyenas, 24

Hyksos kings, 16

Hymns, 104

Hyssop, 390

Ibex, 3, 19, 257, 290, 308

Ibi-Sin, 302

Igigi, 397

Ili-Ippalzam, 108

Ilu-Ittia, 114

Iluma-ilu, 33

Imgur-Bêl, 139

Imgur-Marduk, 67

Impalement, 208

Implements, 252

Inlay work, 236, 249, 250, 251, 254

Inundation, 4

Irak, 344

Irishum, 3, 79

Iron, 255, 268, 269, 286

Irrigation, 368, 390

Ishme-Dagan, 143

Ishme-Dagan, k. of Isin, 321

Ishtar, the goddess, 70, 306, 388, 391, 393, 395, 396, 397

Ishtar’s Gate, 271, 274, 275

Isin, dynasty of, 32

Israel, 36

Ivory, 13, 83, 223, 254, 312

Ivy, 14

Jackals, 24

Jackson, Sir John (Ltd.), 11

Jade, 287

Jasper, 287

Jastrow, Morris, 65, 321, 388, 392, 393

Jehoiakim, 39

Jehu, 15

Jerusalem, 37, 39

Jewellery, 76, 252, 261, 267, 323, 340, 346, 348

Job, 404

Johns, C., 369, 377, 389

Jonah, 14

Josephus, 151

Judah, 36, 38, 39, 112

Ḳalat Sherḳat, 48, 59, 69, 77, 78, 94, 158, etc.; cf. Ashur

Kallima-Sin, 16

Kampfer, 85

“Kanephores,” 246

“Karduniash,” 34

Karûn, river, 22

Ḳasr, 149-51; cf. Babylon

Kassites, 33, 303, 335

“Kaunakes” garments, 310

Khabour, 129

Khammurabi, 32, 50, 107, 108, 110, 141, 198, 376

Khipa, 116

Khorsabad, 41, 131, 160, 174, 239, 272

Khuenaten, 306

Khukhnuri, land of, 110

“Ki-gallu,” 402

King, L. W., excavations and discoveries by, 84, 252, 311, 408

Kinneir, 90

Kish, 5, 29, 30, 310

Knife, 75, 242, 311, 398

Kohl, 327

Koldewey, R., excavations and discoveries by, 61, 68 f, 125, 127, 130, 144, 146, 149-51, 164, 276, 322, 335, 349

Kouyunjik collection, 104

Kudur-Mabuk, 32, 112, 247, 248

“Kudurrus,” 396; cf. Boundary-stones

Kurdistan, 16

Kurigalzu, 303

Labour, 377

Lachish, 38, 215-17

Lacouperie, 10

Lagash, 6, 9, 29, 191, 192, 265, 289, 290; cf. also Tellô

_Lamassi_, 238

Lamps, 177, 334, 398

Lance, 243

Landlord and tenant, 108, 377 f.

Lapis lazuli, 76, 102, 225, 250, 288, 315, 340

Larsa, 17, 29, 30; temples, 139

Lassen, 90

Layard, Sir Henry, excavations and discoveries by, 18, 22, 23, 42-7, 54, 129, 140, 166, 167, 175, 253, 255, 262, 271, 280, 335

Laws, 198, 384, 398

Lead, 253, 255, 267, 268

Leases, 398

Lebanon, 130

Leek, 390

Legal contracts, 105, 106 ff.

Leopard, 24, 257, 292

Letters, 107, 108

Lettuce, 390

Lever, 214

Lexicography, 104

Libations, 205

Libyan languages, 5

Limestone, 14, 70, 145, 153, 182, 183, 224, 230, 287, 326, 327

Linen, 346

Lions, 20, 21, 22, 24, 185, 218, 219, 234-43, 251, 255, 257, 265, 270, 275-6, 280-9, 290-1, 293, 309, 324, 330

Liver, omens derived from, 116

Locusts, 26

Loftus, W. K., excavations and discoveries by, 49, 51, 123, 156, 158, 163, 331

Longperier, 94

Lotus-plants, 13, 312

Löwenstern, 94

Lu-enna, 267

Lugal-anda, 288

Lugal-banda, 111

Lugal-Kigub-nidudu, 30, 102

Lugal-Kisali, 30

Lugal-shar-engur, 29

Lugal-Tarsi, 102

Lugal-zaggisi, 30, 326

Lydia, 39

Lynxes, 24

Maat, 314

Macalister, 254

Maces, 191, 200, 230, 287

Magan, 328, 335

Magic, 104, 109, 374

Mail, coats of, 350 f.

Manasseh, 38

Man-fish, 398

Manishtusu, 31, 226, 371

Marble, 42, 55, 83, 223, 287, 326, 328, 347

Marduk, 33, 48, 71, 73, 199, 273, 306, 386, 391, 392, 397

Marriage, 364, 376, 389

Maspero, 269, 408

Mathematics, 104

Measures, 372

Mechanics, 214, 215

Medes, 39

Medicine, 104, 109

Meissner, 69, 390

Memphis, 38

Mesilim, k. of Kish, 29, 30, 185, 310

Mesniu, the, 4

Messerschmidt, 62

Metals, Babylonian work, 242-53; Assyrian work, 253-69; cf. also pp. 83, 103, 131, 132

Meyer, M. L., excavations by, 61, 69

Military arrangements, 188, 195

Milk, 366, 370, 390

Millet, 11, 13

Mitani, 109

Mohammerah, 3, 22

Mohl, 41

Money-lenders, 379, 388

Monkey, 20, 282

Monotheism, 372, 386

Moritz, B., 61

Mortar, 124-6

Mortgage, 108

Moschians, 34

Mother of emerald, 287

Mother-of-pearl, 83, 249, 250, 309, 311, 340

Moulds, 252

Mounds, 6

Mountain-sheep, 20

Muḳeyyer, 50, 120, 156, 159, 242

Mule, 17

Münter, 86, 87

Murashû Tablets, 66

“Mushlala,” 78

Musical instruments, 197, 204, 205, 221, 222

Mutilation, 385

Mutton, 366

Mythology, 104

Nabonassar, 110

Nabonidus, 5, 6, 50, 60

Nabopolassar, 34, 39, 73, 112, 150, 207

Nabû. Cf. Nebo

Nabû-aplu-iddina, 118, 205, 207

Nails, 243-4, 245, 253, 258

Nairi, 35

Names, divinely-compounded, 374

Nanâ, 391

Napir-asu, 262

Narâm-Sin, 5, 7, 8, 30, 31, 57, 64, 67, 83, 84, 117, 135, 193-4-5, 293, 328

Nash, W. L., 331

Nebi Yûnus, 14, 56

Nebo, 48, 51, 77, 78, 84, 139, 232

Nebuchadnezzar I, 16, 397

Nebuchadnezzar II, 39, 50, 51, 73, 115, 138, 140, 149, 150, 243, 331

Necho, 39

Necklaces, 197, 264

Neo-Babylonian Empire, 304

Nergal, 73, 391

Neriglissar, 74

Nets, 310

Newberry, 284

Newton, 331

Niebuhr, Carsten, 86

Nile, 4

Nîmit-Marduk, 67

Nimitti-Bêl, 139

Nimrûd, 13, 42, 55, 56, 140, 175, 232, 235, 239, 268, 280, 281, 307, 312, 313, 319

Ninâ, 13

Nineveh, 14, 34, 84, 239, 335

Ningal, 197

Ningirsu, 29, 133, 183, 186, 191, 266, 299, 372

Nin-gish-zi-da, 22, 299, 329, 372

Ninkharshag, 227, 398

Ninib (Adar), 42, 388, 397

Nin-lil, 325

Nin-makh, 71, 136, 137, 278, 322

Ninsun, 111

Ninus, 273

Nippur, 6, 29, 99, 30, 62-8, 116, 121, 132-6, 161-3, 184, 304, 322, 333

Norris, Edwin, 91

Nusku, 398

Oaks, 13

Oannes, 27; cf. Ea.

Oars, 363

Obsidian, 75, 287

Olive, 11, 13

Oliver, 90

Omens, 104; Cf. Pigs, Dogs, etc.

Onions, 370, 390

Onyx, 83, 287, 326

Opis, 29

Oppert, 47, 94, 273, 328

Oryx, 3, 20

Ostrich, 25, 307

Ovid, 141

Oxen, 14, 16, 253, 273, 366

Ox-hoof, 115, 254

Oyster shells, 309

Padî, k. of Ekron, 113

Painting, 270-83

Palaces, Assyrian, 151-6; Babylonian, 148-51

Palm-trees, 129, 158, 221

Panther, 273

Partnerships, 382

Pehlevi, language and inscriptions, 16, 86, 87

Pepper, Wm., 63

Percy, Dr., 283

Perfumery, 366

Perrot and Chipiez, 140, 238, 271, 408, etc.

Persepolis, 86, 87, ff.

Persian cuneiform, 86, 87, ff.

Persians, 39

Peters, J. P., excavations and discoveries by, 63, 161, 162, 334, etc.

Petrie, W. Flinders, 269, 332

Phœnician characters, 21, 255, 312

Picture-writing, 96-100

Pigs, 14, 20

Pinches, T., 139, 140, 261

Pir-Hussein, 339

Place, Victor, excavations and discoveries by, 41, 42, 153, 160, 173, 279

Planetary colours, 138

“Plano-convex” bricks, 120

Plans, 116

Plants, 115

Pliny, 59

Plough, 16, 184, 280, 303, 304

Polyandry, 364

Polygamy, 364, 365

Polytheism, 372

Pomegranates, 12, 370

Poplar, 12, 129

Porcupines, 20, 24

Pork, 19

Porphyry, 326

Porter, 90

Potter’s wheel, 334

Pottery, 84, 282, 333-6

Prayers, 104

Prestwich, 10

Priests, 373, 388

Prisms, 112, 113

Pul. Cf. Tiglath-Pileser III

Pyramids, 141

Quartz, 287

Quivers, 188, 195, 358

Rabbit, 20

Radau, 187, 408

Radishes, 370, 390

Rafts, 363

Ram, 178, 396, 397

Raphia, battle of, 37

Rassam, H. H., excavations and discoveries by, 46-9, 54-6, 59, 61, 258

Raven, 26

Rawlinson, G., 200, 222, 352, 353

Rawlinson, Sir H., discoveries by, 18, 51, 90 f., 324

Reeds, 13, 14

Religion (early), 372-5; (Khammurabi period), 386-9; (Assyrian), 391-5

Rent, 378

Repoussé-work, 258, 259 ff.

Rezin, k. of Damascus, 36

Rich, C. J., discoveries by, 40, 59

Rîm-Sin, 32, 101, 247, 248

Ring and staff, 103, 198, 206

Riparian obligations, 379

Rivets, 252

Rogers, R. W., 94, 408

Roofs, Assyrian, 153, 154

Ropes, 206, 214, 281

Rosettes, 14, 78, 202, 233, 260, 274, 279, 315, 357

Sacrifices, 244, 373

Saddles, 353

Sagittarius, 398

Sammuramat, 233

Samsu-iluna, 50, 68, 108, 110

Sandals. Cf. Foot-wear

Sandstone, 69, 70, 163, 325, 327

Sanskrit, 90

Sarcophagi, 74, 75, 180

Sargon, 37, 53, 79, 112, 144, 151-4, 209, 212, 330

Saws, 75, 242

Sayce, A. H., 89, 94, 407, 408 _et passim_

Sceptre, 197, 230

Scheil, Père, 68, 364

Scimitar, 254

Schist, 287

Schrader, 61

Scorpion, 26

Scorpion-man, 398

Scourging, 385

Scroll-design, 192, 315

Sculpture, bas-reliefs (Assyrian), 201-22 (Babylonian), 181-200

Sculpture, in the round, 222-41

Seals, 285, 286, 324

Semiramis, 233, 273

Semites, 5, 30

Senkereh, 49; cf. also Larsa

Sennacherib, 37, 38, 46, 47, 56, 78, 113, 213-17, 330, 397

Serpents, 22, 23, 273, 296, 299, 329, 398

Sesame, 11

“Shadûf,” 369

Shagshag, 373

Shalmaneser I, 35, 78

Shalmaneser II, 15, 36, 55, 81, 143, 207, 232, 259, 268

Shalmaneser IV, 36, 37

Shamash, 1, 60, 139, 205, 296, 396-7

Shamash-Killâni, 116

Shamash-shum-ukîn, 38, 73, 110

Shamshi-Adad, 79, 143, 167

Share-profit system, 378

Shar-Gâni-Sharri, 5, 7, 8, 23, 67, 102, 117, 293

Sharru-Gi, 30, 31

Shatt el-Hai Canal, 224

Shatt en-Nîl Canal, 133

Sheaf, 398

_Shêdi_, 238

Sheep, 14, 17, 18, 115, 297, 366

Shell, 72, 75, 76, 236, 250, 287, 341

Sheol, 401

Shields, 208, 211, 281, 360

Shipping, 381

Shualu, 401 f.

Shutruk-Nakhunte, 194

Sidon, 114

Silver, 72, 73, 76, 150, 251, 264, 265, 267, 286

Simmash-shipak, 205

Simon, L., 61

Sin, the Moon-god, 50, 306, 388, 391, 395, 396, 397

Sin-eribam, 106

Sin-Gamil, 101

Sin-gashid, k. of Erech, 111

Sin-idinnam, k. of Larsa, 107, 111

Sin-ikisham, 106

Sin-muballit, 101

Sin-shar-ishkun, 81, 144, 145 ff.

Sippar, 3, 29, 139; cf. also Abû Habba

Ṣit-napishtim, 26, 404

Skins, 203, 211, 363

Slaves, 376

Slings, 341

Smith, George, excavations and discoveries by, 52-4, 128, 138

Solomon, 316

South-west wind, 262

Spain, 334

Sparrow and plough, 398

Spasinus Chorax, 3

Spearmen, Assyrian, 350-6

Spears, 76, 193, 211, 219, 242

Sphinxes, 312

Squeezes, 90, 117

Stag, 20

Stage-tower. Cf. Ziggurat

Stalagmite, 325, 326

Standards, 193, 204, 244

Star, 296, 302, 305, 395

Statues, offerings to, 373

Steatite, 197, 235, 252, 329

Stone, uses of, 74, 75, 100, 101, 115, 126-9, 224, 245, 246, 325-31

Stork, 26

Storm-god, the. Cf. Adad

Strabo, 127, 157, 158, 168

Stucco, 278

Stylus, 227

Sumerians, 1, 2, 10, 29, 290, 291, 364, 372

Sumu-abu, 32, 110

Sumu-ilu, k. of Ur, 235

Sumu-la-ilu, k. of Babylon, 110

Sun-god, 111; cf. also Shamash

“Sun-Tablet,” 164, 205

Surgeons, 385

Surghul, 61, 157

Susa, 1, 2, 32, 38, 193, 199, 226, 262, 331, 334

Swallow, 26

Swan, 26

Swimming, 203

Swords, 212, 254, 350 f.

Syenite, 287

Syllabaries, 109

Symbolism, 395

“Synchronous History,” 111

Syria (northern), 35, 36

Table, 307

Tablets, 103, 105, 286

Talbot, 94

Tamarisk, 130, 370

Tarsus, 38

Taylor, J. E., excavations and discoveries by, 50, 51, 120, 123, 124, 133, 134, 156, 159, 163, 176, 200, 242, 263

Tell el-Amarna letters, 108

Tell el-Hesy. Cf. Lachish

Tellô (Lagash), 13, 56-8, 61, 84, 161, 187, 195, 224, 234, 248, 301, 310

Tell Sifr, 50

Temples, Assyrian, 140-8; Babylonian, 132-40

Temple-towers, 1; cf. also Ziggurats

Terebinth, 13

Terra-cotta, 321, 322, 324

Te-Umman, k. of Elam, 114, 222

Thebes, 38, 114

Thistle, 14

Thompson, R. C., excavations by, 84

Thrones, 197, 216, 217, 235, 264

Thunderbolt, 79, 395

Thureau-Dangin, 364

Tiâmat, 306

Tibet, 18

Tiglath-Pileser 1, 34, 35, 112, 142, 200, 267, 268

Tiglath-Pileser II, 79

Tiglath-Pileser III, 36, 43, 81, 111, 208, 268

Tigris, 10

Til-Garimum, 113

Tin, 253, 255

Tirhakah, k. of Egypt, 38, 114

Toilet, 327, 347

Tortoise, 20

Trades, 366, 380

Trees, 12, 280, 291, 306

Trilingual inscriptions, 86

Tubal, 113

Tukulti-Ninib I, 21, 34, 72, 78, 79, 81, 179

Tukulti-Ninib II, 35

Tulips, 282

Turbans, 228, 300, 302

Turks, 12, 68

Turnips, 390

Turtle-doves, 367

Tychsen, 86

Tyre and Sidon, 363

Umbrellas, 205

Umma, 29, 30

Ungnad, 19

Untash-gal, k. of Elam, 262

Ur, 6, 29, 30, 31, 133; cf. also Muḳeyyer

Ur-Bau, 149, 227, 249

Ur-Engur, 6, 31, 32, 50, 64, 67, 82, 133 f., 299

Ur-Ninâ, 9, 30, 120, 130, 149, 186, 235, 244, 310

Urukagina, 13, 27, 30, 326, 374

Urumush, 30, 31, 328

Urzage, 325

Ushpia, 78

Utug, 325

Valle, Pietro della, 85

Vases, 226, 229, 302, 398

Vegetables, 373

Vestments, 206

Vetches, 14

Vines, 13, 112, 217, 218, 221

Votive figures, 244

Vultures, 24, 25, 57, 187, 188 ff., 204, 290

Wages, 380

Ward, W. Hayes, 2, 15, 16, 63, 284, 285, 287, 292, 295, 298, 304, 305, 341, 396-8

Warka, excavations and discoveries at, 9, 49, 156, 163, 312

Water-fowl, 334

Weapons, 188, 202, 221, 252, 259, 340-4, 350-9

Weavers, 365

Westergaard, 91

Wheat, 11

Wilkinson, 369

Windows, 160, 211

“Window Inscription,” 85

Wine. Cf. also Alcohol, 11

Winged Being, 202, 286

Winged Disc, 306

Winged monsters, excavation and transport of, 43-5

Witnesses, 384

Wolves, 24

Woman, 224, 225, 226, 229, 244, 245, 338, 340, 365, 366, 389

Wood, 129-31

Wood-carving, 236

Wool, 337, 366 f., 390

World, map of, Babylonian conception of, 116

Wuswas façade, 157

Xerxes, 86, 331

Yôkha, 121

Zabum, 72, 110

Zamama, 398

Zaquriu, 268

Zarpanit, 73

Zedekiah, 39

Zend-Avesta, 86

Ziggurats, 42, 142, 143, 148

Zoroastrian faith, 86

End of Project Gutenberg's Mesopotamian Archaeology, by Percy S. P. Handcock