History of Egypt, Chaldæa, Syria, Babylonia, and Assyria, Volume 3 (of 12)Maspero, G. (Gaston)
History
History of Egypt, Chaldæa, Syria, Babylonia, and Assyria, Volume 3 (of 12)
Maspero, G. (Gaston)
Civilization, Ancient; Egypt -- History -- To 640 A.D.; History, Ancient; Middle East -- History
Those we have enumerated were the ancient Sumerian divinities, but the
characteristics of most of them would have been lost to us, had we
not learned, by means of other documents, to what gods the Semites
assimilated them, gods who are better known and who are represented
under a less barbarous aspect. Ningirsu, the lord of the division of
Lagash which was called Girsu, was identified with Ninib; Inlil is Bel,
Ninursag is Beltis, Inzu is Sin, Inanna is Ishtar, and so on with the
rest. The cultus of each, too, was not a local cultus, confined to some
obscure corner of the country; they all were rulers over the whole of
Chaldaea, in the north as in the south, at Uruk, at Urn, at Larsam, at
Nipur, even in Babylon itself. Inlil was the ruler of the earth and of
Hades, Babbar was the sun, Inzu the moon, Inanna-Antmit the morning and
evening star and the goddess or love, at a time when two distinct
religious and two rival groups of gods existed side by side on the banks
of the Euphrates. The Sumerian language is for us, at the present day,
but a collection of strange names, of whose meaning and pronunciation we
are often ignorant. We may well ask what beings and beliefs were
originally hidden under these barbaric combinations of syllables which
are constantly recurring in the inscriptions of the oldest dynasties,
such as Pasag, Dunshagana, Dumuzi-. Zuaba, and a score of others. The
priests of subsequent times claimed to define exactly the attributes of
each of them, and probably their statements are, in the main, correct.
But it is impossible for us to gauge the motives which determined the
assimilation of some of these divinities, the fashion in which it was
carried out, the mutual concessions which Semite and Sumerian must have
made before they could arrive at an understanding, and before the
primitive characteristics of each deity were softened down or entirely
effaced in the process. Many of these divine personages, such as Ea,
Merodach, Ishtar, are so completely transformed, that we may well ask to
which of the two peoples they owed their origin. The Semites finally
gained the ascendency over their rivals, and the Sumerian gods from
thenceforward preserved an independent existence only in connection with
magic, divination, and the science of foretelling events, and also in
the formulas of exorcists and physicians, to which the harshness of
their names lent a greater weight. Elsewhere it was Bel and Sin, Shamash
and Eamman, who were universally worshipped, but a Bel, a Sin, a
Shamash, who still betrayed traces of their former connection with the
Sumerian Inlil and Inzu, with Babbar and Mermer. In whatever language,
however, they were addressed, by whatever name they were called upon,
they did not fail to hear and grant a favourable reply to the appeals of
the faithful.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account