The religions of ancient Egypt and BabyloniaSayce, A. H. (Archibald Henry)
Religion
The religions of ancient Egypt and Babylonia
Sayce, A. H. (Archibald Henry)
Assyro-Babylonian religion; Egypt -- Religion
Until Eridu, however, is excavated with the same systematic care as
Nippur, we must be content to derive our knowledge of it and of its
influence upon the primitive culture and religion of Babylonia from the
records which have been found elsewhere. That its sanctuary was at least
as old as that of Nippur, we may gather from the fact that it was founded
before the coast-line had receded from the spot on which it stood. Its
early relations to Nippur must be left to the future to disclose.
That neither Nippur nor Eridu should have been the seat of a secular
kingdom, is not so strange as at first sight it appears to be. The
priesthood of each must have been too numerous and powerful to surrender
its rights to a single pontiff, or to allow such a pontiff to wrest from
it its authority in civil affairs. It is difficult for a king to establish
himself where a theocratic oligarchy holds absolute sway, and the
reverence in which the temples and worship of El-lil and Ea were held
would have prevented the success of any attempt of the kind. It was their
sanctuaries which made Babylonia a holy land, wherein all who could were
buried after death. Like Abydos in Egypt, Nippur or Eridu continued to be
a sanctuary, governed by its own hierarchy and enjoying its own
independent existence, while secular kingdoms grew up at its side.(209)
Like Egypt, Babylonia was originally divided into several independent
States. From time to time one of these became predominant, and obliged the
other States to acknowledge its supremacy. But the centre of power shifted
frequently, and it took many centuries before the government became
thoroughly centralised. The earlier dynasties which claimed rule over the
whole country had at times to defend their claims by force of arms.
Like Egypt, too, Babylonia fell naturally into two halves, Akkad in the
north and Sumer in the south. The recollection of the fact was preserved
in the imperial title of “king of Akkad and Sumer,” which thus corresponds
with the Egyptian title of “king of Upper and Lower Egypt.” But whereas in
Egypt the conquering race moved from south to north, causing the name of
Upper Egypt to come first in the royal title, in Babylonia it was the
Semites of the northern half who imposed their yoke upon the south. Akkad
accordingly takes precedence of Sumer.
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