Babylonia
Could not find Babylonios in Logeion dictionaries. Looking for closest alphabetic form.
- 1. Babylonische vrouw;
- 2. (vul aan: terra) de landstreek Babylonië, aan de benedenloop v.d. Eufraat en Tigris, ook gebruikt voor Syrië, Assyrië, Mesopotamië;
- 3. de stad Babylon.
BABYLO´NIA (ἡ Βαβυλωνία), a province of considerable extent on the banks of the Euphrates and Tigris, and the 9th satrapy of Dareius. (Her. 3.183.) Its capital was Babylon, from which it is probable that the district adjoining derived its name. It is not easy to determine from ancient authors with any strictness what its boundaries were, as it is often confounded with Mesopotamia and Assyria, while in the Bible it receives the yet more indefinite appellation of the land of the Chaldees. In early times, however, it was most likely only a small strip of land round the great city, perhaps little more than the southern end of the great province of Mesopotamia. Afterwards it is clear that it comprehended a much more extensive territory. A comparison of Strabo and Ptolemy shows that, according to the conception of the Roman geographers, it was separated from Mesopotamia on the N. by an artificial work called the Median Wall [MEDIAE MURUS], which extended from the Tigris, a little N. of Sittace, to the neighbourhood of the Euphrates, and that it was bounded on the E. by the Tigris, on the S. by the Persian Gulf, and on the W. and SW. by the desert sands of Arabia. Eratosthenes (ap. Strab. 2.80) compares its shape to that of the rudder of a ship. The most ancient name for Babylonia was Shinar which is first mentioned in Genesis (10.10), where it is stated that the beginning of the kingdom of Nimrod was Babel in the land of Shinar: a little later we meet with the name of Amraphel, who was king of that country in the time of Abraham (Gen. 14.1, &c.) It long continued a native appellation of that land. Thus we find Nebuchadnezzar removing the vessels of the temple of Jehovah to the house of his god in the land of Shinar( Dan. 1.2); and, as late as B.C. 519, Zephaniah declaring that a house shall be built in the land of Shinar( Zeph. 5.11). A fragment of Histiaeus (ap. Joseph. Antiq. 1.43) shows that the name was not unknown to Greek writers, for he speaks of Σεννάαρ τῆς Βαβυλωνίας.
It has been thought by some that the ancient name has been preserved in the classical Singara (ὁ Σιγγάρας, Ptol. 5.18.2; Ammian. 23.5, 25.7), now Sinjar. But this seems very doubtful; as the character of the Sinjar country is wholly different from the plain land of Babylonia. If, however, we adopt this view, and Bochart inclines to it, we must suppose the name of the high northern land of Mesopotamia to have been gradually extended to the lowlands of the south (Wahl, Asien, p. 609; Rosenm. Bibl. Alt. 2.8). Niebuhr has noticed this attribution. D'Anville (Comp. Anc. Geogr. p. 433) has rejected it; while Beke (Orig. Bibl. p. 66) has identified Shinar and the present Kharput Dawassi, for which there seem to be no grounds whatever.
The inhabitants of Babylonia bore the general name of Babylonians; but there also appears everywhere in their history a people of another name, the Chaldaeans, about whom and their origin there has been much dispute in modern times. Their history is examined elsewhere. [CHALDAEA] It is sufficient to state here that we think there is no good evidence that the Chaldaeans were either a distinct race from the Babylonians, or a new people who conquered their country. We believe that they were really only a distinguished caste of the native population, the priests, magicians, soothsayers, and astrologers of the country; till, in the end, their name came to be applied as the genuine title of the main body of the people, among whom they were, originally, only the class who devoted themselves to scientific pursuits. Strabo (16. p. 739), indeed, speaks as though he considered them as a separate but indigenous nation, and places them in the southern part of Babylonia, adjoining the Persian Gulf and the Deserts of Arabia (see also Ptol. 5.20.3), but the authority of these writers will be diminished, when it is remembered that seven centuries had elapsed between the extinction of the Chaldaeo-Babylonian Empire and the era of those authors. Ptolemy (Ptol. 5.20.3) divides Babylonia into three districts which he calls Auchanitis (Αὐχανῖτις), Chaldaea (Χαλδαία), and Amardocaea (Ἀμαρδοκαία), of none of which, with the exception of Chaldaea, we know any thing; and mentions the following chief towns which are described under their respective names: BABYLON on the Euphrates, VOLOGESIA and BARSITA or BORSIPPA on the Maarsares canal; TEREDON OR DIRIDOTIS near the mouth of the Tigris; and ORCHOR in the Marshes. He speaks also of several smaller towns and villages to which we have now no clue, omitting Seleuceia and some others, because, probably, at his time, they had either altogether ceased to exist, or had lost all importance. A few other places are mentioned by other writers, as Pylae, Charmande, Spasinae-Charax, and Ampe, about which however little is known; and another district called Mesene, apparently different from that in which Apameia was situated [APAMEIA]. These are noticed under their respective names.
Babylonia was an almost unbroken plain. without a single natural hill, and admirably adapted for the great fertility for which it was celebrated in antiquity, but liable at the same time to very extensive floods on the periodical rising of its two great rivers. Herodotus (Hdt. 1.193) says that its soil was so well fitted for the growth of the cerealia, that it seldom produced less than two hundred fold, and in the best seasons as much as three hundred fold. He mentions also the Cenchrus (Panicum miliaceum) and Sesamum (perhaps the Sesamum Indicum, from which an useful oil was extracted: Plin. Nat. 18.10; Diosc. 2.124; Forskal, Flora Arab. p. 113) as growing to a prodigious size. He adds that there was a great want of timber, though the date-palm trees grew there abundantly, from which wine and honey were manufactured by the people. (See also Ammian. 24.3; Plut. Sympos. 8.4; S. Basil. Homil. 5.) Xenophon (Xen. Anab. 1.5.10.) alludes to the great fertility of the soil, and notices the honey made from the palm, the excellence of the dates themselves, which were so good that what the Babylonians gave to their slaves were superior to those which found their way to Greece (Anab. 2.3. § § 15, 16), and the intoxicating character of the wine made from their fruit. In the Cyropaedeia (7.5.11) he speaks also of the gigantic size of the Babylonian palm-trees. Strabo (16. p. 741) states that Babylonia produced barley such as no other country did; and that the palm-tree afforded the people bread and honey, and wine and vinegar, and materials for weaving. Its nuts served for the blacksmith's forge, and when crushed and macerated in water were wholesome food for the oxen and sheep. In short, so valuable was this tree to the natives, that a Poem is said to have been written in Persian, enumerating 360 uses to which it could be applied. At present Mr. Ainsworth says (Res. p. 125) that the usual vegetation is, on the river bank, shrubberies of tamarisk and acacia, and occasionally poplars, whose lanceolate leaves resemble the willow, and have hence been taken for it. It is curious that there is no such thing as a weeping willow (Salix Babylonica) in Babylonia. The common tamarisk is the Athleh or Atle of Sonnini (Athele, Ker Porter, 2. p. 369, resembling the Lignum Vitae, Rich, Mem. p. 66, the Tamarix Orientalis of Forskal, Flora Arab. p. 206) In the upper part of Babylonia, Herodotus (Hdt. 1.179) mentions a village called Is, famous for the production of bitumen, which is procured there in large quantities, and which was used extensively in the construction of their great works. Strabo (l. c.) confirms this statement, distinguishing at the same time between the bitumen or asphalt of Babylonia, which was hard, and the liquid bitumen or naphtha, which was the product of the neighbouring province of Susiana. He adds that it was used in the construction of buildings and for the caulking of ships. (Comp. Diod. 2.12.)
The great fertility of Babylonia is clear from the statement of Herodotus, who visited Babylon about seventy years after the destructive siege by Dareius, and who did not, therefore, see it in its magnificence. Even in his time, it supported the king of Persia, his army, and his, whole establishment for four months of the year,affording, therefore, one-third of the produce of the whole of that king's dominions: it fed also 800 stallions and 16,000 mares for the then Satrap Tritantaechmes, four of its villages (for that reason free of any other taxes) being assigned for the maintenance of his Indian dogs alone (Her. 1.192; Ctesias, p. 272, Ed. Bähr.)
We may presume also that its climate was good and less torrid than at present, as Xenophon (Xen. Cyrop. 8.7.22) expressly states that Cyrus was in the habit of spending the seven colder months at Babylon, because of the mildness of its climate, the three spring months at Susa, and two hottest summer ones at Ecbatana.
The fertility of Babylonia was due to the influence of its two great rivers, assisted by numerous canals which intersected the land between them. Theremains of many great works, the chief objects of which were the complete irrigation or draining of the country, may yet be traced; though it is not easy, even since the careful survey of the Euphrates by Col. Chesney and the officers who, with him, conducted the Euphrates Expedition,s atisfactorily to identify many of them with the descriptions we have of their ancient courses. Rich. (p. 53.) and Ker Porter (p. 289) state that, at present, the canals themselves show that they are of all ages, and that new ones are continually being made. Arrian (Arr. Anab. 7.7.) considers that a difference between the relative heights of the beds of the Euphrates and Tigris was favourable to their original construction, an opinion which has been borne out by modern examination; though it seems likely that Arrian had exaggerated notions of the beds of the two rivers, as he had, also, of the difference in the rapidity of their streams. Not far above Babylon, the bed of the Euphrates was found to be about five feet above that of the Tigris, according to Mr. Ainsworth, (Researches, p. 44.) who confirms, generally, Arrian's views, and shows that, owing to the larger quantity of alluvium brought down by the Euphrates than by the Tigris, it happens that, above Babylon, the waters of the Euphrates find a higher level by which they flow into the Tigris, while, at a considerable distance below Babylon, the level of the Euphrates is so low that the Tigris is able to send back its waters, He doubts, however (p. 110.), the statement of the difference in the speed of the current of the two rivers, which he considers to be much the same, and not very rapid even in flood time. Rich (p. 53), on the other hand, says, that the banks of the Euphrates are lower, and the stream more equal than that of the Tigris. These points are more fully discussed elsewhere [EUPHRATES; TIGRIS]. The canals were not sunk into the land, but were rather aqueducts constructed on its surface. The water was forced into them by dykes or dams made across the river. Instances of the former practice are still found at Adhem on the Diala (one of the eastern tributaries of the Tigris), and at Hit on the Euphrates (Frazer, Mesop. and Assyr. p. 31).
Herodotus, who states generally, that Babylonia, like Egypt, was intersected by many canals (κατατέτμηται εἰς διώρυχας, 1.193), describes particularly one only, which was constructed by a Queen Nitocris as a protection against an invasion from Media. (1.185.) It was an immense work, whereby, he adds, the course of the Euphrates, which had previously been straight, was rendered so tortuous, as thrice to pass the same village, Ardericca. The position of this place has not been ascertained: we only knew that it was to the north of Babylon itself; probably not far below the ancient Pylae or Charmande, which both Colonel Chesney and Mr. Ainsworth suppose to be near Hit. The position indeed of Pylae cannot be accurately determined, but it has been supposed: (Grote, Hist. Greece, vol. 9.48) that there were some artificial barriers dividing Babylonia from Mesopotamia and which bore the name of Pylae, or Gates. It was, probably, at that part of the country where the hills which have previously followed the course of the Euphrates melt into the alluvial plain. (See. remarks of Col. Chesney, 1. p. 54).
Xenophon (Xen. Anab. 1.7.15) speaks of four principal canals, which were separated the one from the other by a parasang. According to him, they flowed from the Tigris in the direction of the Euphrates, and were large enough to convey corn vessels. It is most likely that the Nahr-Malcha (which appears under various names more or less corrupted as in Isid. Charax, Narmacha; in Zosimus, 3.27, Narmalaches; in Abyd.ap.Euseb. Praep. Evang.ix. 41, Armacales; in Plin. Nat. 6.26, Armalchar) is the μεγίστη τῶν διωρύχων of Herodotus, as this appears to have borne the name of the Royal River. Ammianus (24.6) speaks of a work which was called Naarmalcha, quod interpretatur flumen regium,a nd Abydenus (l. c.) attributes its creation to Nebuchadnezzar. Herodotus (Hdt. 1.193) says that it connected the two rivers and was navigable. Like all the other canals in the soft alluvial soil of Babylonia, it soon fell into decay on the decline of the capital. It was however, opened again by Trajanus and Severus, so that,with some subsequent reparation, Julian's fleet passed down by it from the Euphrates to the Tigris (Ammian. 24.6). It appears to have left the Euphrates not far above the modern castle of Felujah, and to have entered the Tigris originally below the city of Seleuceia. In later times, its course was slightly altered, and an opening was made for it above that city.
Besides the canals to the N. of Babylon, and more or less connecting the Euphrates with the Tigris, there were two other great works, of which mention is made in antiquity, designed, as it would seem, to carry off seawards the superabundant waters of the Euphrates, and to facilitate the navigation of the river. The first of these, called by Ptolemy (Ptol. 5.20.2) Maarsares (Μααρσάρης), and by Ammnianus (23.6.) Marses, (most correctly Nahr-sares), commenced a little above Babylon, and flowed on the west side of it, parallel with the Euphrates, till it terminated near the place where that river and the Tigris form one stream. It has been conjectured that it may be the same as the Narraga of Pliny (Plin. Nat. 6.26), but for this there is no sufficient evidence.
The second was called Pallacopas (Ραλλακόπας, Arrian, 7.21; Pallacottas, Appian, App. BC 2.153.) It commenced about 800 stadia, or 76 miles, below Babylon, and served as an outlet for its waters into the marshes below, at the time when they were at their highest. At the drier season it was, however, found necesary to prevent the escape of the water from the river, and Arrian mentions a Satrap who ruled the country and who had employed 10,000 men (as it would seem ineffectually) in constructing dams &c. to keep the river within its ordinary channel. It is recorded,. by the same writer, that Alexander having sailed down the Euphrates to the Pallacopas, at once perceiving the necessity of making the works more efficient, blocked up its former mouth, and cut a new channel 30 stadia lower down the Euphrates, where the nature of the soil was more strong and less yielding. Arrian adds, that Alexander having reached the land of Arabians by the Pallacopas, built a city there; and founded a colony for his mercenary and invalided Greek soldiers. Frazer (p. 34) supposes that the Pallacopas must have commenced about the latitude of Kufah, and that Meshed Ali now represents the site of the town he founded. Its termination was at the sea near Teredon (now Jebel Sanam), for Col. Chesney travelling W. from Basrah found its bed sixty paces broad, between Zobeir and that town. (Frazer, l. c.)
Besides the main stream of the Euphrates, and the numerous canals more or less connected with it, a large portion of Babylonia, especially to the S. of the capital, was covered by shallow lakes or marshes. Of these some were probably artificial, like the vast work ascribed to Nitocris by Herodotus (Hdt. 1.185), which was to the N. of Babylon. The majority of them, however, were certainly natural ; on the west, extending up to the very walls of the city, and forming an impassable natural defence to it (Arrian, 7.17); on the south, covering a vast extent of territory, and reaching, with little interruption, to the junction of the Euphrates and Tigris. They bore the general name of τὰ ἕλη τὰ κατὰ Χαλδαίους (Strab. 16.767), Chaldaicus Lacus (Plin. Nat. 6.27. s. 31), and it was through them, according to Onesicritus, that the Euphrates reached the sea (Strab. 15. p. 729). Late surveys confirm the general accuracy of the ancient accounts. Thus the marshes of Lamlúm no doubt represent the first great tract of marshy land below Babylon. Ainsworth (Res. p. 123) describes them as shallow sheets of water with reeds and rushes like the tarns of Scotland and meres of England: they teem with buffaloes, and when partially dried in summer, are covered with luxuriant rice crops. They extend from Lamlúm to Kelát-al-Gherrah, 40 miles in lat. and nearly the same in long. The people live in reed huts temporarily erected on the dry spots like islets. To the south, the plains rise almost imperceptibly from the marshes. A little N. of Korna, the place where the Euphrates and Tigris now join, Ainsworth states (Res. p. 123) that there is a vast extent of country subject to almost perpetual inundation, and (p. 129) extensive reed marshes which are chiefly fed by the Tigris.
Col. Chesney thinks that the Chaldaicus Lacus is now represented by the Samargah and Samidah marshes ; but these would seem to be too much to the E. Pliny, however, speaks of the Tigris flowing into them.
The general effect of these canals and marshes was to make the main stream of the Euphrates of very irregular breadth, and to produce the resuit noticed very early in History that the Euphrates was distinguished from all other known rivers, in that it got smaller instead of bigger as it flowed on. Col. Chesney shows that this difference of breadth is still very manifest. Thus at Hillah, it is 200 yards broad; at Diwaniyah, 160; at Lamlûm, 120; through the marshes, often not more than 60: below them and on to Korna, its original breadth of 200 yards returns. Below Korna, there is reason to believe that the alluvium brought down by the two rivers has produced a very considerable delta, and that the land now projects into the Persian Gulf full fifty miles further than it did when Nebuchadnezzar founded Teredon. [EUPHRATES]
On the whole, the accounts of modern travellers confirm in all essential points the narratives of ancient authors. Rich and Ker Porter, Colonel Chesney, Mr. Ainsworth and Mr. Frazer, demonstrate that, allowing for the effect of centuries during which no settled population have inhabited the country, the main features of Babylonia remain as Herodotus, Xenophon, and Arrian have recorded. Ker Porter speaks of the amazing fertility of the land on the subsiding of the annual inundations (Travels, vol. 2. p. 259), and states that the name Nahr Malka for one of the canals is still preserved among the people (ibid. p. 289), (according to Chesney, now called the Abu-Hitti canal), adding that one great difficulty in identifying ancient descriptions and modern works arises from this, that new canals are constantly being cut (one was in operation when he was there in 1818), dividing and subdividing the ruined embankments again and again, like a sort of tangled net-work over the interminable ground( ibid. p. 297).
One great peculiarity of Babylonia are the vast mounds which still remain, attesting the extent of the former civilization of the district and the vast works undertaken by its rulers. Besides the great mounds of the Birs-i-Nimrúd near Babylon, and those of Al Heimar and Akkerkuf between it and Baghdád, Col. Chesney's survey of Euphrates and the investigations of other modern travellers have brought to light the existence of a vast number of these works between the latitude of Baghdád and the Persian Gulf. Of these the most important seem to be those of Umgheier, Warha, Senkera, Tel Eide, Jebel Sanúm (Teredon) Iskuriyah, Tel Siphr, Niffer, and Beth Takkara. Mr. Loftus has examined lately the mound at Warka, and has found extraordinary remains, leading him to suppose that it must have been the necropolis of the surrounding country. Some coffins beautifully glazed, the results of his excavations, are now in the British Museum. Of Umgheier or Mugeyer, the place of Bitumen,M r. Frazer, the only traveller who has, so far as we know, examined the place thoroughly, has given a particular description (p. 149). It was noticed by Della Valle as early as 1625, and was supposed by Rennell to be the same as Orchoe.
(Rich, Babylon and Persepolis; Rennell, Geogr. of Herodotus; Ker Porter, Travels, vol. ii.; Ainsworth, Researches in Assyria, &c.; Frazer, Mesop. and Assyria; Chesney, Exped. for Survey of Euphrates; Rawlinson, Jour. Asiat. Soc. vol. xii.)
[V](Βαβυλωνία; in the Assyrian inscriptions called Babilu; in the Persian, Babirush). A plain watered by the lower streams of the Tigris and Euphrates, and forming the modern province of Irak-Arabi. The boundaries of Babylonia varied considerably during the different periods of Babylonian and Assyrian power; but in general the northern boundary consisted partly of the Euphrates and its affluents, and partly of the frontier forts established by the monarchs of Assyria and Babylonia, these forts and their outposts forming in all probability the “Median Wall” of the classical writers. The Tigris River formed a natural eastern boundary-line, though the province of Namri (Kurdistan) lying east of that stream was sometimes included in the Chaldaean Empire. The Euphrates with the desert lying east of it was the western limit, while the territory terminated at the Persian Gulf on the south, this body of water in early times having extended further inland than at present. The country so bounded is spoken of in the Old Testament as Shinar, Babel, and “the land of the Chaldees,” and has always been one of the richest and most fertile districts of Western Asia, so that Herodotus (i. 193) speaks of it as supplying one third of the grain produced by the whole Persian Empire—a fact to which the inscriptions bear witness. A magnificent system of artificial irrigation enhanced this natural productiveness, a network of canals having extended over the entire territory, some of them being still navigable, and the greatest of them—the Nar Malka, which connected the Tigris with the Euphrates —having been used as late as A.D. 700.
Babylonia was divided into several provinces of varying number and extent at different periods. The chief division was into the two large provinces of Sumir (Shinar) or South Babylonia, and Akkad or North Babylonia, which latter extended from the city of Babylon to the Assyrian frontier. Babylon was the capital of Sumir, and the double city Sippara-Akkad (Agade) on both banks of the Euphrates was the capital of North Babylonia. Minor divisions were Gan-Duniyas, Edina (Eden), Gambulu (Afadj) and Mat Kaldu, the land of the Chaldaeans on the Persian Gulf.
Ethnology and Civilization.—Babylonia was a land of mixed races, as is testified both by the sacred and profane writers of antiquity, and by the heterogeneous character of its linguistic and monumental remains. The first population was Ugro-Finnic in its racial affiliations, as is seen by the statues of this period, which exhibit features of a pure Tartar type, with doliocephalic skulls, high cheek-bones, and slanting eyes. This type is ethnically altered to the Proto-Medes and to the Elamites of Susiana. The name of Sumero-Akkadians has been applied to this people, who originally came from the mountains to the northeast, whence the name Akkadai, “mountaineers.” At the time of their immigration into Babylonia they are believed to have brought with them the elements of civilization. Not long after them, the Semites entered Babylonia, their type also appearing in the glyptic remains; and later, other ethnic elements were added to the population by the natural operations of war and commerce. That the Semitic immigrants ultimately attained to a high degree of influence in the land is seen in the fact that as early as B.C. 3800 we find a Semitic line of kings, under Sargon of Akkad, ruling in North Babylonia.
The Babylonian people were possessed of a civilization whose greatness has only of late been properly appreciated; for the meagre notices in Herodotus and other ancient writers give little more than a faint suggestion of the truth. The recovery and decipherment in recent times of many thousands of inscribed tablets from the libraries of the oldest cities of Babylonia, give us a means of reconstructing a very accurate picture of the sociology of their ancient life, and one more clear in its details than that given us by the records of almost any other ancient people, except perhaps of Egypt.
The government was despotic, and of a typically Oriental type. The laws were administered by supreme judges under whom were ordinary judges, who sat in the gates of the temple and at the great gate of the city to hear causes, and gave judgment in strict conformity with precedent, the chief punishments being fines, loss of civic rights, imprisonment, and death. Appeals could be made to the king. The chief taxes were the “king's tax,” or tax on all property; the “army tax”; and the tax levied, like the English “ship-money” of former times, upon certain districts for ships. Local taxes were temple-tithes (esritum), the first-fruit tax, the sheep tax, and a tax for the maintenance of roads and canals. A silver currency was employed (talents, manehs, shekels, paras), coined money having been introduced in the reign of Darins. These early coins were perhaps the tetradrachma (q. v.) of the Athenian Greeks.
Women occupied a favourable position, especially after marriage, which was effected by both a religious and a civil ceremony. Offences against a mother were severely punished, sometimes even by mutilation. Women could own slaves and other property in their own right, and could even engage in business. All Chaldaeans of free birth were educated. Slaves were protected by law against harsh treatment from their masters; they could own property; and in fact were often taught trades and other self-supporting occupations by their owners.
Art, Literature, and Manufactures.—The recent explorations of Rassam at Sippara and of De Sarzec at Tel-lô have added immensely to our knowledge of Chaldaean art, which had hitherto been represented by a few engraved cylinders and gems. The statues discovered by these gentlemen have much artistic merit. The largest is nearly life-size, is accurate in its anatomy, and is carved in hard green diorite. Another even more remarkable piece of workmanship is a head cut in red porphyry, the execution making it evident that tools of rare excellence must have been used. Several bronze statuettes attest a knowledge of the art of casting metals. Many talismans and amulets have been found, the stones selected by the lapidaries being green and red jasper, haematite, chalcedony, crystal, carnelian, lapis-lazuli, sardonyx, and onyx. Music was cultivated, as the sculptors prove by their representations of the harp, cymbals, and other instruments.
Among the Sumero-Akkadian population, the scribe caste contained many members of high rank, and literature in consequence was highly esteemed. As has been already stated, every free Babylonian had a certain amount of education, including a knowledge of tablet writing. Libraries were common, and tablets have been found directing the student how to ask for such works as he needed from the libraries; whence it appears that a very careful system of cataloguing prevailed. Various schools of literature are noted as having existed, each influenced by local schools of thought. In the most ancient school of Eridhu, for example, magic was cultivated, with the result that many works on magic and its cognate subjects were written and compiled, among them the series of tablets known as the “books of spells relating to diseases of the head,” and having a remarkable resemblance to the Atharvaveda or Black-Veda of the Aryans. The school of Erech produced the epic poem of Gizdhubar, consisting of twelve books arranged according to the twelve signs of the zodiac. An admirable specimen of Babylonian literature is a tablet, of which both Assyrian and Babylonian versions exist, describing the war in heaven between Merodach (Marduk) and the demon Tiamat. This tablet came from the library of the Temple of Nebo at Borsippa. Besides poetry and magic, the remains of these great libraries have yielded specimens of historical writing, legal, geographical, and religious composition, and tréatises on astrology, divination, astronomy, and mythology, besides fables and proverbs. The greater part of the Chaldaean classics were copied by the Assyrians under Assur-bani-pal, and thus became a part also of the literature of the Northern Empire. See Assyria.
The natural products of Babylonia were very numerons, comprising, besides corn and other cereals, many kinds of fruits, such as grapes and melons, and also vegetables—sesame, onions, garlic, cucumbers, etc. Trades were varied, and the tablets make especial mention of weaving, dyeing, pottery, building, and many other mechanical arts.
Chronology and History.—Hitherto students of Babylonia have been almost entirely dependent upon the fragmentary portions of the Canon of Kings, drawn up by the Graeco-Chaldaean priest Berosus (q.v.), about B.C. 268; but these lists are now confirmed and superseded by Babylonian Canon inscriptions dating from the sixth century before our era. The documents are: (1) a Canon of Kings by their dynasties, extending from B.C. 2200 until B.C. 647, partly mutilated, but capable of restoration;
(2) the Tablet of Synchronous History of Assyria and Babylonia, which gives the names of the Babylonian kings from about B.C. 1800 to B.C. 732;
(3) a Chronicle Tablet giving the chief events in Babylonia, the month and day being given in most cases, from B.C. 747 to B.C. 660; and
(4) a collection of dated contract tablets extending from B.C. 680 to B.C. 150. This unequalled series of chronological documents gives an almost complete sequence to Babylonian history, and although there are still lacunae, the basis is now much more sure than when we were dependent solely upon the secondhand statements of Ctesias and Berosus.
It is now evident, from the monuments and inscriptions which have been obtained from the traditionally oldest cities of Chaldaea, that the civilization of the ancient people of Babylonia has an antiquity surpassing that of ancient Egypt. The earliest monument of which we can accurately fix the date is a stone whorl in the British Museum, brought from Sepharvaim by Mr. Rassam. It is an oval-shaped stone, inscribed in what is called line writing—that is, writing in which the characters are formed more by lines than by the ordinary wedges, a style that goes back to a time when the hieroglyphic or pictorial system of writing was beginning to be discontinued. The king's name inscribed is that of Sargon I., king of Akkad, who is now universally assigned to the remote antiqurty of B.C. 3800, and other inscriptions of this distant period are to be found in other European museums. Older still, in all probability, are the very archaic records found by M. de Sarzec at Tel-lô, in the neighbourhood of Erech, which, written in the ancient agglutinative dialect of the Sumero-Akkadian inhabitants, must precede the Semitic inscriptions of the northern kingdom of Sargon and his successors. These early inscriptions are mostly of a very short character, containing little more than the names and titles of the kings who ruled the cities, but at the same time they afford us information as to the state of civilization existing in Chaldaea nearly 4000 years before the Christian era. The Empire had not become one consolidated whole, and polyarchy was the most prevalent form of government, each city being ruled by its local king. Thus, Sargon was king of Akkad, and especially styles himself king of “the city.” Ur-bahu and Dungi were rulers of Ur, and others held sway in the cities of Eridhu, Larsa, and Babylon. Some of these early rulers claim the titles of king of Sumir (Shinar) and Akkad, a division which in after-time had the geographical signification of North and South Babylonia, but which in the earlier ages are certainly rather to be regarded as ethnic than local divisions of this early population. Babylon, though always one of the most important cities of the empire, was not the earliest capital, for the cradle of Chaldaean civilization was in the region of the south. Here all the ancient legends connected with Gizdhubar as Nimrod are located, and find their centre in the city of Urn-ki, the Erech of Genesis, the name of which means “the city of the land,” or capital.
The next most important city in this southern region was Ur, the sacred city of the Moon-god, the ruins of which are marked by the mound of Mugheir, on the west bank of the Euphrates, the city from which Abram came. Larsa (Senkereh), the Ellasar of Gen. xiv.; Sergul or Kulunu, the Calneh of Genesis, now known as the site of Zerghul on the Shat-el-Hie; and Eridhu, the most sacred city of South Babylonia, called frequently the “Holy City,” were all seats of local rulers.
The first ruler who succeeded in combining those various city kingdoms into one consolidated whole was Ur-bahu, whose reign must be placed about B.C. 2700. This ruler restored temples in nearly all the above-mentioned cities, and appointed “priest viceroys” to rule in them. He was succeeded by his son Dungi, who has left us a large number of inscriptions. Already Chaldaean civilization had made great progress and was far advanced, and the sciences, especially mathematics and astronomy, were studied; while the ships of Chaldaea navigated the Persian Gulf. The first really historical chronicle belongs to this period, and is found on a statue of Gudea, which shows the Babylonians already at war with Elam and the nations to the west. The wars with Elam form the chief features of the history of this period. In B.C. 2280 a powerful confederation of Elamites under Kudurnakhundi invaded South Chaldaea, and sacked the capital, Erech, carrying away the statue of the divine patroness Nana or Istar. This dynasty lasted until about B.C. 2120, and was very powerful, as shown by the numerous inscriptions of the kings found in various parts of Babylon. Of the kings of this period two are specially important — viz., Kudur-mabug, who appears to have been lord-paramount of the confederation of kings, and who claimed the title of “lord of the west,” or Syria; and his son, Eri-aku, who was ruler of Larsa. This latter ruler is almost universally identified by Assyriologists with the Arioch, king of Ellasar, mentioned in Gen. xiv. This dynasty was overthrown by the powerful usurper, King Khammuragas, who appears not to have been of native Babylonian origin, but rather a Kassite or Cosscan who had settled in the land and availed himself of this period of depression to seize the throne. This Kassite dynasty is one of the most important periods in Babylonian history, as great political changes took place at this time. It was at this time that Babylon began to assume its position as the capital of the whole Empire. Khammuragas rebuilt the temples of Bel at Babylon, Nebo in Borsippa, and restored several of the sacred edifices in South Babylonia—at Ur, Erech, and Larsa —which had suffered at the hands of the Elamite invaders. His greatest public work, however, was the construction of a canal called the river of Khammuragas, “joy of men,” which there is little doubt was the Nar Malka, or Royal River of the classics. This canal crossed North Babylonia, passing through Sippara, and is now represented by the Yusifieh Canal, one of the few ancient canals navigable at the present day. This dynasty lasted about 180 years, the founder himself ruling fortyfive. The very numerous collection of inscriptions of this period in the British Museum shows that at this time Babylonia was occupied by a much mixed population, consisting of Sumero - Akkadians, Elamites, Kassites, and a large Semitic element. The Semites appear principally as traders and merchants.
The three succeeding dynasties, extending over a period of about 600 years, consisted of a mixture of Semitic and non-Semitic princes, who ruled with Babylon as capital. The history of this period is chiefly to be derived from the Tablet of Synchronous History, and only a few Babylonian records of the period have been preserved. One of the most important is the memorial stone of Nebuchadnezzar I., B.C. 1150—a usurper who seized the throne and waged war against the rising Empire of Assyria. In this inscription the king records the result of a campaign against the Elamite chiefs in the region of Namri or Kurdistan, and on the banks of the Ulai River, on which the city of Shushan was afterwards built. The description of the campaign undertaken in the hot summer months is extremely graphic for so ancient a document: “In the month Tammuz he took the road; the rocks were burning and scorched like fire; from the gardens was burned all vegetation; there was no water in the springs, and cut off were the drinking-places; the strength of the great horses wearied, and to the warlike hero his courage returned.” The writer then describes the battle, in which the Babylonians were undoubtedly worsted, and only saved from complete defeat by the aid of the governor of an adjacent city who refused to surrender to the Elamites. In return for this the city has a charter of freedom granted it, declaring it free from taxes and from the usual levy for men in time of war.
The history is, after this date, chiefly to be derived from Assyrian sources, and it is not until the time of Nabunazir, the Nabonassar of the Canon of Ptolemy, that we have any complete sequence of Babylonian history. Our information is now chiefly derived from the important, but unfortunately fragmentary, Chronicle Tablet already spoken of. Nabonassar, whose reign forms an important epoch in Babylonian history, ascended the throne in B.C. 747, and ruled for fourteen years. During his reign the country was twice invaded by the Assyrians, and, though they claim the victory, they do not seem to have shaken the king on his throne. Nadinu (the Nadinos of Ptolemy), who succeeded to his father's throne in B.C. 734, only ruled for two years, when one of the popular revolts unseated him and placed Ukinziru (the Chimzoros of Ptolemy) on the throne. In the third year the country was invaded by the armies of Tiglath-pileser III., king of Assyria, who drove the Babylonian king from his capital into the marshes of South Babylonia, where he found him and put him to death, ascending his throne under the Babylonian name of Pulu or Pul. This conquest of Babylonia, in B.C. 729, was a very important event in the history of the Kingdom, for it brought the two courts of the north and south kingdoms once more into close relationship. The death of Shalmaneser IV., king of Assyria, and the usurpation of the throne by Sargon the Tartan in B.C. 722, was the opportunity seized by the Babylonians for once more becoming independent, under the leadership of a prince of very ancient descent— Merodach-baladan II. This prince was one of the most popular rulers of the middle Babylonian Kingdom, and was supported by all classes of the people as well as by the Elamite court, who were the most powerful opponents of Assyria. For twelve years the wars in Syria and other parts of the Empire kept the Assyrians from despatching sufficiently strong forces to the south to crush this powerful prince. In B.C. 712, Sargon was purposing to march into Babylonia, when a counteraction was caused by the Babylonian prince sending an embassy to Hezekiah and the other princes of Syria, and raising a revolt which called the invaders a way (2 Kings, xx. 6); but in B.C. 710 the storm broke, and Sargon captured Babylon, proclaiming himself king. On the assassination of Sargon in B.C. 705, Merodach-baladan returned, and after a reign of some nine months was driven from the land by Sennacherib, seeking refuge in the Elamite provinces on the east shore of the Persian Gulf. For some years Babylonia was now ruled by viceroys and princes appointed by the kings of Assyria, although several native princes attempted revolt. In B.C. 688, Sennacherib, after a very severe campaign, in which he defeated the allied Elamites and Babylonians, became sovereign of the two kingdoms. His son and successor, Esarhaddon, attempted to carry out a policy of a more conciliatory kind, and divided his time between the two courts; but the violent opposition of Egypt in Syria weakened his power, and the Elamites and Babylonians constantly harassed him. Shortly before his death he appointed his son Samas-sum-yukin (the Saosduchinos of Ptolemy) ruler, which appointment was confirmed by his son and successor Assur-bani-pal. This prince, tempted by the intrigue of the Babylonian priests, revolted against his brother, and was defeated after a terrible war, in which Babylon, Sippara, and Borsippa were besieged, and burned himself in his palace, B.C. 647. Kandalanu, who succeeded him, was little more than a viceroy, depending in every way upon the Ninevite court, although tablets are dated in his reign. On the disruption of the Assyrian Empire after the death of Assur-banipal, the throne of Babylon was seized by Nabuabla-utzar, or Nabopolassar, the general of the Babylonian garrison, who had married a Median princess, and was himself, no doubt, of collateral descent from the royal line of Babylonian kings.
The general disruption of the states of Western Asia which took place in B.C. 625, subsequent upon the inroad of a large mass of Aryan and other invaders from the east, afforded the Babylonians an opportunity for throwing off the hated yoke of Assyria, and Nabopolassar was proclaimed king in B.C. 625. He was succeeded in B.C. 604 by his son Nebuchadnezzar, one of the greatest sovereigns who ever ruled over the ancient Empire. During a long reign of forty-three years the prince succeeded in recovering the long-lost provinces of the kingdom, and once more making Babylon queen of nations. He not only restored the Empire and rebuilt Babylon, but almost every temple and edifice throughout the land underwent restoration at his hands. It is an astonishing fact that not a single mound throughout Babylonia has as yet been opened by the explorers which has not been found to contain bricks, cylinders, or tablets inscribed with his name. In B.C. 599, he captured Jerusalem, and sent Jehoiakim captive to Babylon; and eleven years later, owing to the still disturbed state of the kingdom (B.C. 588), he destroyed the city, and removed most of the inhabitants to Chaldaea. Nebuchadnezzar was succeeded in B.C. 561 by his son Evil-merodach, who released Jehoiakim, but was murdered by his brother-in-law NergalSharezer, who was the rab makhu, or “chief seer,” of one of the temples. His reign lasted until B.C. 556, his son Labasi-Kudar (the Laborasoarchad of Ptolemy) only ruling a few months. The throne was in B.C. 556 usurped by a powerful and active prince, Nabu-naid or Nabonidus, the son of a “chief seer,” whose reign is the most important, next to that of Nebuchadnezzar, in later Babylonian history. The inscriptions of this king are found in almost all temples, and some of them contain important historical facts. In a cylinder found at Sippara the king records his restoration of the temple at Kharran, which was destroyed by the Scythians, and in his sixth year, B.C. 549, he records the overthrow of Astyages, king of the Medes, and the capture of Ecbatana by Cyrus (q.v.). In the king's seventeenth year the whole land of Babylonia was in revolt against him for neglecting the duties of court and religion, leaving all to his son Belshazzar. During the summer of this year Cyrus invaded Babylonia, advancing from the neighbourhood of the modern Bagdad, and reaching Sippara on the fourteenth day of Tammuz (June), which the garrison yielded without fighting. Two days later, Tammuz 16, Babylon was taken in the same manner. Cyrus appointed Gobryas ruler. Three months later, Nabonidus, who was a prisoner, died, and after a week's mourning by the people was buried on the fourth day of Nisan, B.C. 538. Babylonia now became a Persian province, and under the rule of Cyrus (B.C. 538-529) and Cambyses (529-521) it appears to have been peaceful. On the accession to the throne of Darius, son of Hystaspes, the old rebellious spirit once more asserted itself, and for three years (521-519), the city held out against the Persians under Nadinta-Bel, who claimed to be Nebuchadnezzar, son of Nabonidus. Again, in B.C. 513, the city revolted under Arakha, an Armenian.
With the overthrow of the Persian monarchy Babylonia came under the short-lived dominion of Alexander the Great, who died in the capital (B.C. 323). Seleucus I., to whom it had been promised at the conference of Triparadisus, contested and won the possession of it from Antigonus (B.C. 312). About B.C. 140, it was taken from the Syrian monarchs by the Parthians. It came into the hands of the Romans only temporarily, first under Trajan (A.D. 114); under Septimius Severus (A.D. 199); and, again, under Julian (A.D. 363). When in 650 the successors of Mohammed put an end to the new Persian monarchy of the Sassanides, the province of Babylonia, where Bagdad was built (762-766), became the seat of the califs till 1258. Since 1638, when the Turks, for the second time, took it from the Persians, it has been under the dominion of Turkey, divided into the pachalics of Bagdad and Basra.
Religion.—During its long history many changes took place in the religion of Babylonia. The primitive Sumero-Akkadians had a sort of fetich-worship, regarding every object of nature as the abode of a spirit or living principle (Zî) which governed its relationship to man. The priests of this religion were a class of exorcists dealing only with the malevolent powers of nature— sickness, disease, and others hostile to the life of man. From the libraries of Nineveh the liturgies of these priests have been recovered in the form of magical formulas, incantations, and hymns, from which it appears that the first gods of the SumeroAkkadian theogony are the Spirit of Heaven and the Spirit of Earth—the Dingri, or Creators—the parents of all the other gods. These other gods are very numerous, each locality having its own local pantheon, but in subordination to some one divine patron of the city.
One of the earliest seats of the Babylonian worship was Eridhu on the Persian Gulf, the seat of the worship of Ea, the “lord of the waves” as well as “lord of laws,” and identified with the mysterious fish-divinity of Berosus (q.v.), who relates that he taught the early inhabitants of the land the elements of civilization. The wife of Ea was Dav-kina, the “lady of the earth.” The pair had a son, Tammuz, “the only-begotten,” whose worship is united to that of his sister, Istar, who is also his consort. Next in importance came, among the local deities, the god Mul-lil (Belus or Bel of the Semites), whose sacred city was Nipur (Niffer). He it was who, according to one version of the story of the Deluge, destroyed mankind. His name means “lord of ghost-land,” and his wife, Ninkigat or Allat, is the “lady of ghost-land.” Their child was Namtar, the demon of fever and goddess of fate, who controls the agencies of disease.
After the Semitic influence began to prevail, especially in the northern cities, Samas, the sungod, assumes great importance. Many cities had their own local sun-god or solar hero; and in Sippara, where stood the Temple of E Bábara (The House of Lustre), this worship attained its highest development. The great Semitic prince Sargon I. (B.C. 3800) did much to advance the cult of the sun, which as it spread over Chaldaea brought about a gradual change in the religion of the country, resulting in an amalgamation of the Semitic and Akkadian systems. Thus grew up the worship of Bel-Merodach (Marduk) who gradually, from being only a local sun-god, became the great national deity, as Assur was of the Assyrians, so completely overshadowing all the other divinities that the later faith of Babylonia approaches a pure monotheism. His temple, which stood on the eastern side of Babylon, was one of the wonders of the world. (See Babylon.) Other divinities of the later religion are Zirpanit, the wife of Merodach; Nebo (see Assyria) with his spouse Tasmit; Ninep, the god of war; Nergal, the god of death; and Gibil, the fire-god.
Bibliography.—See Layard, Nineveh and Babylon (1867); Lenormant, Manuel d'Histoire Ancienne de l'Orient (9th ed. 1882); id. La Langue Primitive de la Chaldée (1875); Oppert, Histoire des Empires de Chaldée et d'Assyrie (1865); Perrot and Chipiez, History of Art in Chaldaea and Assyria (Eng. trans. 1884); Rawlinson, Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western Asia (Brit. Mus.1861-84); Sayce, Ancient Empires of the East (1884); id. Fresh Light from the Ancient Monuments (1885); Delitszch, Wo lag das Paradies? (1881). The reader is also referred to the Babylonian and Oriental Record, begun in 1886; and, for a summary of very recent discoveries, to a paper by Prof. Sayce in the Contemporary Review for January, 1897.