In Sennacherib’s time, the ordinary cavalry are equipped in much the same way; some of the regiments however are heavily armed with a coat of mail extending to the bottom of the back (cf. Fig. 107). In the sculptures of Ashur-bani-pal, the horses of the cavalry are sometimes covered with a large cloth similar to that carried by the chariot steeds (cf. Fig. 108), over which the saddle-piece is placed, but the equipment of the cavalry themselves shows little or no variation from that of former times.
The charioteers form the last division of the Assyrian army to be briefly considered. The chariot contained at least two persons—the driver and a warrior; but when the king took the field in person he was attended by a shield bearer, or sometimes two shield bearers, as well as by a charioteer. The normal weapon used by the chariot soldier is the bow, which he generally has full drawn, the arrow on the string; he is however not infrequently girded with a sword, while a spear is often lying at his side within easy reach. He is sometimes merely clad in a tunic, sometimes in a long coat of mail reaching down at least as far as the knees, but having short sleeves, doubtless with a view to facilitating the manipulation of the bow. He either discharges his shafts from the chariot itself, or else dismounts in order to take a more certain aim; in the latter case the attendant protects the bowmen by means of a shield which he holds in his left hand, while in his right hand he holds a spear or sword wherewith to repel any close attack. The warrior generally wears a helmet which is occasionally furnished with side and front pieces made of metal scales, calculated to protect the shoulders, the nape of the neck, and sometimes even the chin, but the attendant as a rule has no covering for his head.
The chariots were drawn by either two or three horses, but there was apparently never more than one pole; accordingly when a third horse was harnessed to the chariot, he must have been attached by a rope or thong, and was probably taken as a relief-animal to fill the place of one of the others in the event of either of them being shot through. The trappings of the horses were often very elaborate, as may be seen in Figs. 83, while the chariots were also sometimes very ornate. There are two main types of war-chariot represented on the Assyrian bas-reliefs, one being characteristic of the earlier period, when Calah (Nimrûd) was the capital of the empire, the other of the later epoch when the seat of the government was established at Nineveh. The chariots of the early period are low and short, the wheels Fig. 108. Fig. 108. being comparatively small, and as a rule only having six spokes, while the chariots portrayed on the later reliefs are generally more capacious and also loftier, while the wheels, which would appear to be about five feet in diameter, are normally eight-spoked (cf. Fig. 108). A position in one of these later chariots consequently gave the warrior a good vantage ground for aiming at the enemy and also for viewing the situation. The poles of the chariots of both periods frequently terminate in the head of an animal, an ox or a horse as the case may be. Sometimes a cross-bar was fixed to the end of the pole, which also occasionally terminated in the heads of animals, the cross-bar being at times straight, at others curved.
From this brief description of the military equipment of the Assyrians, it will be at once manifest how elaborate must have been the organization of the army. Reference has frequently been made to the conical-shaped helmets of the soldiers, and the similarly shaped tiaras of the kings, but it must not be supposed that all Assyrian head-gears were conical. Some idea of the diversity of head-coverings used in Assyria may be gained from the selection reproduced in Fig. 109. The most noteworthy of these is the horned crown in the centre (A), which was worn by the colossal winged-bulls. The horns which are the symbol of divinity, occupy a prominent position on the head-coverings of nearly all Babylonian and Assyrian gods, and their presence on the head-gear of a human-headed bull is indicative of the divine character with which they endowed these colossi. The top of this massive crown or hat is decorated with a row of feathers, while its face is adorned with the familiar rosettes. In (B) we have a royal tiara, and (C), (D), (E) and (F) illustrate the different kinds of fillets worn round the head, while (G) to (M) exhibit the various types of helmets used in the Assyrian army.
The offensive and defensive weapons of the Assyrians, however, exhibit even greater variations than their helmets. Few actual weapons have been preserved, but thanks to the vast quantity of bas-reliefs which Botta and Layard have rescued from the ruined mounds of Assyria, we are able to form some idea of the extensiveness of an Assyrian armoury. The weapons of the ordinary soldier are sufficiently simple in character, but those which kings, demigods, or viziers wear are often most ornate. In Fig. 110 we have a selection of the more striking weapons represented on the bas-reliefs. (A), (B), (C) and (D) show us four different kinds of pike wielded by the warriors of Ashur; they vary in length and their handles differ, but they all have a more or less diamond-shaped blade, while the arrow-heads (E) are shaped in the same manner. The two extremities of the bow from which the king despatches his unerring shafts into the heart of the enemy, the lion, or the wild bull, and for which he also finds use in the performance of religious ceremonies, often find their termination in the head of a bird (F). But though the arrows themselves are severely practical in their appearance, the quivers in which they reposed when “off duty” are more elaborate (cf. (G)-(L)). The largest of these quivers could accommodate as many as five arrows (cf. (L)), but the normal number seems to have been four. The quiver was slung over the back by means of cords (cf. (G), (J) and (L)). The swords would appear to have been generally straight ((M) (N)), though sometimes curved (O). The sword-hilt was frequently adorned with several lions’ heads, while the scabbard itself was often decorated with lions, the result of which is highly ornamental and effective. The sceptre was a ceremonial weapon—inoffensive without doubt, but eloquently symbolic of royalty (cf. (P)), while the dirk (Q) on the other hand is brandished in a most alarming manner by the composite monstrosities portrayed on the palace walls of Ashur-naṣir-pal.
But by far the most formidable military invention of the warlike Assyrians was the battering-ram; the ram was brought to bear upon the wall of the besieged city by a movable tower, in the shelter of which the ram could be effectively and safely worked, the tower and the battering-ram thus forming together a most potent factor in both offensive and defensive operations. These movable towers were by no means uniform, but varied both in size and height, sometimes they were surmounted by towers (cf. Fig. 111 (A)) from which the attacking forces could shower their arrows upon the beleaguered army with impunity, at other times they were quite low and shaped liked a torpedo, the larger ones resting on six wheels (cf. Fig. 44), and the smaller on four (Q). The ram itself also varied—sometimes it was set at an angle slanting upwards (A), its projecting extremity being at the same time heavier and thicker than the shaft, but more usually the ram was fixed horizontally and pointed like a spear (B), the tower sometimes being armed with two of these rams (C). The most noticeable of the shields here represented are the large shields, from behind the shelter of which the bowman could aim and shoot at his ease, the shield of course being held in position by a shield-bearer (cf. (D), (E), (F)). These large shields were generally upright (F), but were often curved at the top to protect the head of the archer from the missiles of the enemy (D), while sometimes the whole shield was curved (E). But the lancers required no such protection, a small hand-shield which they could carry themselves being the only type of defence which would not completely nullify their usefulness in the field. These shields varied in shape and size; they were generally round (cf. (G)-(K)), but sometimes curved and oblong (L), while at other times they were concave in the body, oval at the top, straight at the bottom, and decorated with a boss in the centre and an engraved design round the edge (cf. (N)). Another type of shield was shaped somewhat like a lozenge (O), but they all alike have their handles in the centre. They were often most elaborately engraved, the designs being formed by an arrangement of straight lines ((G) and (P)), geometrical figures ((H) and (L)), or circles of rosettes ((I) and (J)). One of the shields illustrated here differs from the rest in having its outer face notched like the edge of a saw, and must have served offensive as well as defensive purposes (cf. (M)).
But the Assyrians waged war “terra marique,”—on the sea as well as on dry land, and in Fig. 112 (A) we have an example of one of the war-galleys used by Sennacherib in his pursuit of the Babylonian rebels across the mouth of the Persian Gulf. It is a bireme, i.e. a boat with two banks of oars; below are the oarsmen, while the warriors are stationed on an upper deck. The boat is shaped rather like a cutter in front, but the stern ends off in a sweeping upward curve, and there is a mast and cross-beam secured by yards in the fore-part of the galley. The course of the boat is steered by means of two oars worked from behind, which differ in shape from those used to propel the boat. In (B) we have another variety of this type of craft: here both ends of the boat are curved, the extremities being squared off instead of pointed as in (A), and there is moreover no mast, but in (C) we have a different kind of boat altogether; it is an open boat with only one bank of oars and there are no warriors aboard. There are only four rowers and their oars are totally different from those used in the war-galleys, the oars of the galleys resembling long shafted spades, while those here are not unlike hockey sticks. Both prow and stern are curved, the latter terminating in a horse’s head, and in the centre of the boat there is a mast. The custom of decorating the ends of a boat with an animal’s head, no doubt originated among the Phœnicians, who were the maritime people of the Oriental world. In one of the scenes on the bronze gates from Balâwât we see Shalmaneser II receiving the tribute of the ships of Tyre and Sidon (D); these ships, or rather boats, are curved at either end, while both prow and stern are figured with the heads of camels. Only two men are required to manipulate the heavily laden craft, one of whom is apparently steering, while the other is pulling the boat along with the aid of a very heavy and clumsy-looking oar. But war-galleys were not the only boats in use in the time of Sennacherib; a lighter and far smaller boat was employed for the transport of goods (E). The cargo occupies the centre of this odd little vessel, on either side of which two oarsmen are busily plying their oars. Strange to say, they appear to be pulling in opposite directions, but we must possibly attribute this anomaly to the sculptor’s ignorance of nautical affairs; the oars are quite different from those employed in the battleships, but they are exactly the same as those used on the cargo raft above (F); the raft seems to be loaded with large blocks of stone; the wooden raft by itself is clearly incapable of sustaining so heavy a weight, and the requisite buoyancy is attained by fastening inflated skins to the nether part of the raft. A kind of reed raft seems to have been used for traversing the marshy districts of Lower Mesopotamia (H), the reeds being tied together by means of osiers, and the water excluded by a covering of leather or a thick coating of bitumen. These reed crafts sometimes assume the form of flat rafts, while at other times they resemble canoes.
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 Egypt177 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.
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.
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 Hammurabi181 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.
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.
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 holding184 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.
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 latter185 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 B[=e]lit (==“the Lady”), but the same goddess sometimes appears as the consort of Bel186 and sometimes also as the wife of Ea, in the Assyrian inscriptions, while at other times again B[=e]lit 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 B[=e]lit, 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.