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.
| Fig. 113. | Fig. 114. |
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 Fig. 115. 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 Akurgal Eannatum Enannatum I Entemena Enannatum II Enetarzi Enlitarzi Lugal-anda |
3000 |
Urukagina, defeated by Lugal-zaggisi, king of Erech and Sumer |
2800 |
| Dynasty of Kish. | |
| Sharru-Gi Manishtusu Urumush |
2750 |
| Dynasty of Agade. | |
Shar-Gâni-sharri, established empire embracing Assyria, Syria and Palestine |
2650 |
| Narâm-Sin | |
| Second Dynasty of Lagash. | |
| Ur-Bau | 2500 |
| Gudea | 2450 |
| 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 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 |
1900 |
KhaThis dynasty is brought to an end by an invasion of the Hittites, who captured Babylon |
|
KhaThe 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 Ashur | 2100 |
(?) Ki-Ki-a, the first builder of the Dûru at Ashur, restorer of the temple of Ashur, and builder of the Adad-temple |
2000 |
| 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 Western Asia. The Israelites under Jehu acknowledge his suzerainty |
860-825 |
Tiglath-Pileser III recovers the ground lost by his immediate predecessors, carries the tribes of Reuben, Gad, and the half-tribe of Manasseh into captivity |
745-727 |
| Shalmaneser IV besieges Samaria | 727-722 |
Sargon, the usurper, takes Samaria and transports most of population; defeats Egyptians and Philistines at Raphia; reduces Babylonia, carries on war in Elam; builds great palace at Khorsabad |
722-705 |
Sennacherib reduces rebellious Babylonia; defeats Egyptians at Altaku in Dan; carries on war in Palestine; Hezekiah of Judah acknowledges his suzerainty; destroys Babylon (689) |
705-681 |
| Esarhaddon conquers Lower Egypt (672) | 681-668 |
Ashur-bani-pal invades Egypt, the latter having 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 |
668-626 |
KhaEgypt and Lydia assert their independence |
|
KhaThe Medes made raid on the eastern borders of the empire (circ. 634) |
|
Ashur-bani-pal dies |
626 |
| Neo-Babylonian Dynasty. | |
| Nabopolassar | 625-604 |
Nebuchadnezzar II defeated Necho, king of Egypt, before his accession; captures Jerusalem and takes Judah into captivity |
604-561 |
Nabonidus, entrusts Babylon to his son Belshazzar. Cyrus, the Persian, invades Babylonia, captures Babylon and destroys the Neo-Babylonian Empire |
555-538 |
MAPS
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.
8 Cf. note on page 86.
9 Cf. Clay, American Journal of Semitic Languages, XXIII, p. 269.
10 Cf. Ward, Cylinder-Seals, Fig. 289.
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.
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.
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.