patron deities of the more important political centers of the country; and (4) the minor ones, representing the local cults of less important places. Naturally, the dividing line between the two last-named classes is not sharply marked, and in accordance with the ever-varying political kaleidoscope, local deities will rise from the rank of minor gods to a higher place in the pantheon; while such as once enjoyed high esteem will, through decline in the political fortunes of their worshippers, be brought down from the higher to an inferior rank.[112] It is this constant interaction between the political situation and the relationship of the gods to one another, that constitutes one of the most striking features of the religion of Babylonia and Assyria. In the course of time, as an organized pantheon leads to greater stability in the domain of theological speculation, the influence of the politics of the country on the religion becomes less marked, without, however, disappearing altogether. The various classes into which the gods are divided, are definitely fixed by the schools of theology that, as we shall see, take their rise in the Euphrates Valley. The rivalry, on the one hand, between the Babylonian empire united under one head, and the Assyrian empire on the other, alone remains to bring about an occasional exchange of places between the two gods who stand at the head of the great gods of the Babylonian and Assyrian pantheon respectively. The attempt has been made by Amiaud[113] to arrange the pantheon of this oldest period in a genealogical order. In Gudea's long list of deities, he detects three generations—the three chief gods and one goddess, as the progenitors of Sin, Shamash, Nin-girsu, Bau, and others. The gods of this second division give rise to a third class, viewed again as the offspring of the second. Professor Davis, taking up this idea of Amiaud, has quite recently maintained[114] that the family idea must form our starting-point for an understanding of the pantheon of Lagash. The theory, however, does not admit of consistent application. There are gods, as Amiaud recognized, who cannot be brought under his scheme, so far at least as present testimony is concerned; and others can only by an arbitrary assumption be forced into accord with the theory. Moreover, we should expect to find traces of this family idea in the later phases of the Assyro-Babylonian pantheon. Such, however, is not the case. A more reasonable and natural explanation of the relationship existing between many—not all—of the gods of Gudea's pantheon has already been suggested. In part, we must look to the development of a theological system of thought in the Euphrates Valley to account for the superior position accorded to certain gods, and in part, political conditions and political changes afford an explanation for the union of certain deities into a family group. So far, indeed, Amiaud is correct, that the relationship existing between the various deities, was as a rule expressed in terms applicable to human society. The secondary position occupied, e.g., by Sin when compared with a god whose domain is the entire 'lower regions,' would be aptly expressed by calling the moon-god the eldest son of En-lil or Bel; and, similarly, a goddess like Bau would be called the daughter of Anu. It is a mistake, however, to interpret the use of 'daughter' and 'son' literally. Such terms are employed in all Semitic languages in a figurative sense, to indicate a dependent position of some sort. Again, we have seen that the union of a number of cities or states under one head would be followed by a union of the deities proper to these cities or states. That union would be expressed, according to circumstances, either by placing the deities on a footing of equality—in which case they would be consorts, or brothers and sisters, offsprings therefore of one and the same god—or, the superior rank of one patron god would be indicated by assigning to the god of a conquered or subordinate territory the rank of offspring or attendant.
In studying such a list as that presented by Gudea, we must, therefore, make due allowance for what may be called local peculiarities and local conditions. It is only by comparing his list with others that we can differentiate between the general features of Babylonian cults and the special features due to political and local associations. We are in a position now to institute this comparison for a period which is certainly some centuries earlier than Gudea. The date of the reign of Lugal-zaggisi, king of Uruk, who has been several times referred to in a previous chapter, is fixed by Hilprecht at c. 4500 B.C., but it is doubtful whether so high an age will be accepted by scholars. The chronology for the period beyond Gudea is still in a very uncertain condition. Lugal-zaggisi, in a long list of deities at the beginning of an important inscription, enumerates in succession Anu, the goddess Nisaba, the gods En-lil (or Bel), En-ki (=Ea), En-zu (Sin), Utu (the sun-god), the goddess Ninni (or Nanâ(?)), Nin-khar-sag, Umu, and Nin-akha-kuddu. As for Anu, the king introduces the name, as Ur-Ningirsu of Lagash does (see above, p. 90), in calling himself 'priest of Anu,' and which, according to the explanation suggested, means simply 'divine priest.'
Bel, Ea, Sin, and Shamash (or Utu) are common to Gudea and Lugal-zaggisi. These constitute, then, the great gods whose worship is no longer limited to any particular district. They have become common property, in part through the sanctity attached to the places where the gods were worshipped, in part through the antiquity of these places, and in part, no doubt, as the result of a political development lying behind the period under consideration. The prominence given by Lugal-zaggisi to Nisaba is rather surprising. He calls himself and also his father, 'hero' of Nisaba. If, however, it be borne in mind that of the goddesses at least two, Umu and Nin-akha-kuddu, are of a local character, the conclusion appears justified that Nisaba was a goddess associated more particularly with the district in which Uruk lay. The goddess Ninni (written simply as 'the goddess') is no doubt identical with the great Nanâ of Uruk, and Nin-khar-sag is introduced as the consort of En-lil.
As a result of this comparison, we may note the tendency towards a general recognition of certain great gods, which is more fully developed in the period of Hammurabi. At the same time, the loyalty of the rulers to the gods, peculiar to their own district, is manifested by the prominent place assigned in the several cases to gods who otherwise play an insignificant rôle, and who eventually are absorbed by others; and lastly, as between Lugal-zaggisi and Gudea, the observation may be made of the disposition to emphasize local gods, less for their own sake, than because of the éclat furnished by the enumeration of a large pantheon, which shall be coequal in extent and dignity to the district claimed by the rulers and to the rank assumed by them.
[112] See Winckler's excellent remarks on the relationship between the city and the god in ancient Babylonia (Altorientalische Forschungen, III. 232–235).
