* Soe Winckler in Helmolt’s History of the World (1903), vol. iii. pp. 8-10,
TNS
534 RELIGION OF BABYLONIA
RELIGION.OF BABYLONIA
ranean. The glory of Gishban, however, appears to have been of short duration, and we next hear of the kings of Agade, to the north of Kish, extend- ing their rule far into the south, and including in their domain both Nippur and Shirpurla in the south. The most famous of these rulers of Agade were Sargon and his son Naram-Sin, the fame of whose exploits, involving military expedi- tions to the distant West, survived to a late period, and, becoming enveloped in myth, gave to Sargon more particularly a semi-legendary character.
Of the oldest history of Evech we as yet know little. The names of a few of her rulers whose date falls about or before 3000 B.c. are known, and some of their exploits, which show that this centre succeeded in maintaining its independence, without, however, attaining, within the period for which material is available, to a position of supremacy, except possibly for a short time. On the other hand, the prominence belonging to the chief goddess of the place, Nand, who retains an independent position down to the latest Assyrian period (despite the general tendency in both Babylonia and Assyria to consolidate the various goddesses worshipped at different centres in one great goddess, who becomes known as Ishtar), is again an important testimony to the part that Erech as a centre must have played in the political life of southern Babylonia at an early period— perhaps earlier even, as in the case of Eridu and Nippur, than the date of our oldest sources.
Much more satisfactory is our knowledge of another important centre of southern Babylonia, Ur, whose existence can also be traced back to about 3000 B.c. Its kings about this time secured control over Shirpurla. While the king- dom of Ur, with a frequent change of dynasties, maintains itself down to c. 2600 B.c., it was obliged at times to yield in rank to other cities— at one period to Isin, probably to the north of Erech—some of whose rulers (¢c. 2700-2500 B.c.) claim control over Ur, Nippur, Eridu, and Erech, and later to a centre, Larsa, which, for a short time at least (c. 2300 B.C.), succeeds in bringing the kingdom of Ur under its immediate control.
2. A new era of Babylonian history opens with the rise of a dynasty in the city of Babylon itself, of which until ¢. 2300 B.c. we hear nothing at all. Its position in the north is significant as pointing to the gradual shifting of the real centre of the entire Euphrates district in this direction. The sixth member of this dynasty, Hammurabi (c. 2250 B.C.), succeeded in accomplishing the great task of uniting northern and southern Babylonia under one sovereignty, and it is only from his time onwards that we can properly speak of a Baby- lonian empire. True, efforts were made from time to time by the southern districts—comprised under the term Chaldwa—to secure their independence, and the New Babylonian empire, which represents the last, and in some respects the greatest, effort of the Euphrates Valley to rise to a position as a world- empire, was founded by Chaldeans; but, amidst all the vicissitudes of the seventeen centuries following Hammurabi, Babylon maintains its position as the capital of the country, while the old centres, Eridu, Nippur, Ur, Erech, Larsa, Sippar, retain their im- portance as religious centres merely, or, as in the case of Shirpurla, Kish, Gishban, Agade, and Isin, disappear from the foreground of history entirely. We are able to distinguish a large number of dynasties ruling with Babylon as a centre from c. 2400 to 539 B.c. Not all of these, however, are of Babylonian origin. Indeed, the very first dynasty to which the position of Babylon as the permanent centre of the Euphrates Valley is due, represents a foreign invasion of the country from the interior or the western coast of Arabia, and
marks the triumph of a migratory movement from this direction that had probably been going on for some time before the dénouement is reached under Hammurabi, c. 2250 B.c. The successors of Hammurabi maintain their supremacy till c. 2100 B.C., when they are forced to yield to invaders who appear to have come likewise from the south.
3. About 400 years later, foreigners from the east, who call themselves Kassites, obtain posses- sion of the Babylonian throne, and maintain their supremacy for a period of 576 years (c. 1730 to ce. 1150 B.C.); and, although the Kassite rulers manifest particular devotion to Nippur and its deity, Babylon still remains the political centre and the seat of government. At last the Kassites are driven out, and native Babylonians, hailing, as it would seem, from the ancient centre of Isin, mount the throne.
4, From this time onwards internal disturbances and the pressure from the north (where meanwhile a powerful kingdom had established itself, with its centre alternately at Ashur, Calah, and finally Nineveh) are the two factors that determine the changes that the south undergoes in its rulers. About the middle of the 13th cent. the relation- ship with Assyria, —as this northern kingdom was called,—which had at first been on the whole of a peaceable character, became hostile, and it was soon apparent that the more vigorous northern kingdom seriously threatened the older culture of the south. The steady advance of the Assyrian power, despite periods of retrogression, goes pari passu with the decline of Babylonia, until at the close of the 12th cent. an Assyrian ruler, Tiglath- pileser I., reduces Babylonia for a time to the rank of an Assyrian vassal, though it is significant that southern Babylonia or Chaldza does not come under Assyrian sway. On the contrary, this latter district —divided once more into a number of States, loosely united to one another—maintains a large measure of independence, and at most is forced to pay tribute to Assyria during certain periods. On the whole, however, the political star of the south sinks behind the horizon, and only as the glory of Assyria herself is eclipsed by temporary discomfitures to her military ambitions or by internal dissensions, does Babylonia regain a portion of her former rank. If, despite this general condition of dependence upon the north, Babylonia at least enjoyed the privilege of having native rulers on the .throne—with some excep- tional periods, when it became a prey to invaders from the south or east, or when the Assyrian kings forced their choice (some favourite general, or their sons or brothers) upon the Babylonians, or in some cases themselves assumed the reins of government,—this was due, in the first instance, to the intellectual and commercial superiority of the south, which could not be set aside by mere force of arms; and, secondly, to the respect inspired by the religious sanctuaries of the south, to which the Assyrians were as fervently attached as the Baby- lonians, if for no other reason than because of the disasters that they dreaded in case of any offence offered to the great gods of the south;—whose position had in the course of millenniums become independent of the political kaleidoscope.