 |
CHAPTER XII
THE CULTURAL INFLUENCE OF SUMER IN EGYPT, ASIA AND THE WEST
 |
IN the
preceding pages we have followed the history of the Sumerian race from the
period of its earliest settlement in Babylonia until the time when its political
power was drawing to a close. The gradual growth of the state has been
described, from the first rude settlements around a series of ancient
cult-centres, through the phase of highly developed but still independent
city-states, to a united kingdom of Sumer and Akkad, based on ideals inherited
from the Semitic North. We have traced the interrelations of North and South,
of Sumerians and Semites, and have watched their varying fortunes in the racial
conflict which bulks so largely in the history of the two countries. Points
have also been noted at which contact with other lands can be historically
proved, and it has thus been found possible to estimate the limits of the
kingdoms which were established in Sumer or Akkad during the later periods. Of foreign
lands which came into direct relationship with Babylonia, Elam plays by far the
most conspicuous part. In the time of the city-states she invades the land of
Sumer, and later on is in her turn conquered by Akkadian and Sumerian kings.
The question naturally arises, how far this close political contact affected
the cultural development of the two countries, and suggests the further query
as to what extent their civilizations were of common origin.
Another
region which figures in the list of conquered countries is Amurru, or the
"Western Land," and an attempt must be made to trace the paths of
Babylonian
influence beyond the limits of Syria, and to ascertain its effects within the
area of Aegean culture. The later trade routes were doubtless already in
existence, and archaeological research can often detect evidence of cultural
connection, at a time when there is no question of any political contact.
Moreover, in spite of the absence of Neolithic settlements in Babylonia, and
the comparatively advanced state of culture which characterizes the earliest of
Sumerian sites, it is possible that contact with other and distant races had
already taken place in prehistoric times. One of the most fascinating problems
connected with the early history of Sumer concerns the relationship which her
culture bore to that of Egypt. On this point recent excavations have thrown
considerable light; and, as the suggested connection, whether direct or
indirect, must admittedly have taken place in a remote age, it will be well to
attack this problem before discussing the relationship of Sumer to the other
great centres of ancient civilization.
Although
no direct contact between Babylonia and Egypt has been proved during the
earlier historical periods, the opinion has been very generally held that the
Egyptian civilization was largely influenced in its first stages by that of
Babylonia. The use of the stone cylinder-seal by the Egyptians certainly
furnished a very cogent argument in favour of the view that some early cultural
connection must have taken place; and, as the cylinder-seal was peculiarly
characteristic of Babylonia during all periods, whereas its use was gradually
discontinued in Egypt, the inference seemed obvious that it was an original
product of Babylonia, whence it had reached Egypt in late predynastic or early
dynastic times. This view appeared to find support in other points of
resemblance which were noted between the early art and culture of the two
countries. Mace-heads of bulbous or "egg-shaped" form were employed
by the early inhabitants of both lands. The Egyptian slate carvings of the
First Dynasty were compared with the early basreliefs and engraved seals of the
Sumerians, and resemblances were pointed out both in subject-matter and in the
symmetrical arrangement of the designs. The employment of brick, in place of
stone, as a building material, was regarded as due to Babylonian influence; and
the crenelated walls of Early Egyptian buildings, the existence of which was
proved not only by pictured representations on the slate carvings, but also by
the remains of actual buildings such as the mastaba-tomb of King Aha at Nakada,
and the ancient fortress of Abydos, known as the Shunet ez-Zebib, were treated
as borrowed from Sumerian originals. That irrigation was practised on the banks
of the Nile as well as in the Euphrates valley, and that wheat was grown in
both countries, were cited as additional proofs that Babylonia must have
exercised a marked influence on Egyptian culture during the early stages of its
development.
In order
to explain such resemblances between the early cultures of Sumer and Egypt, it
was necessary to seek some channel by which the influence of the former country
could have reached the valley of the Nile; and a solution of the problem was
found in the theory of a Semitic invasion of Upper Egypt towards the end of the
predynastic period. That a Semitic element existed in the composition of the
ancient Egyptian language is established beyond dispute; and this fact was
combined with the Egyptian legends of their origin on the Red Sea coast, and
with the situation of the predynastic and early dynastic cemeteries in Upper
Egypt, in support of the theory that Semitic tribes, already imbued with
Sumerian culture, had reached the Nile from the shore of the Red Sea by way of
the Wadi Hammamat. According to this view the Neolithic and predynastic
population of Egypt was of a different race to the early dynastic Egyptians.
The former were regarded as indigenous to the country, speaking a language
possibly akin to the Berber dialects of North Africa. With little or no
knowledge of metal, they were pictured as offering a stubborn but unsuccessful
resistance to their Semitic conquerors. The latter were assumed to have brought
with them a copper age culture, ultimately derived from the Sumerians of
Babylonia. Crossing from southern Arabia by the Straits of Bab el-Mandeb, and
making their way northward along the western shore of the Red Sea, they would
have reached the Nile in the neighbourhood of Koptos. Here they would have
formed their first settlements, and, after subduing the older inhabitants of
Upper Egypt, they would have pushed their way northwards along the valley of
the Nile.
There
is
no doubt that the union of Upper and Lower Egypt into a single
monarchy,
traditionally ascribed to Mena, the legendary founder of the
first Egyptian
dynasty, did result from a conquest of the North by the South.
Mena himself was
regarded as sprung from a line of local rulers established at
This, or Thinis,
in the neighbourhood of Abydos, and also as the founder of
Memphis at the head
of the Delta, whither he transferred his throne. Further traces
of the
conquest of the North by the South have been preserved in the
legends
concerning the followers of Horus, the patron deity of the first
kings of Upper
Egypt. The advance of the Sky-god of Edfu with his Mesniu or
"Smiths," who are related to have won battle after battle as they
pressed
northwards, is amply confirmed by the early dynastic monuments
that have been
recovered by excavation. The slate carving of Narmer, on which
is portrayed
the victory of Horus over the kingdom of the Harpoon near the
Canopic branch of
the Nile, may well represent one of the last decisive victories
of the
Horus-worshippers, as they extended their authority northwards
to the sea. Of
the historical character
of this conquest of Lower Egypt by the kings of the South, which resulted in
the union of the whole country under a single monarchy, there are now no two
opinions. The point, about which some uncertainty still exists, concerns the
racial character of the conquerors and the origin of their higher culture, by
virtue of which their victories were obtained.
On the
hypothesis of a Semitic invasion, the higher elements in the early culture of
Egypt are, as we have seen, to be traced to a non-Egyptian source. The Semitic
immigrants are assumed to have introduced, not only the use of metal, but also
a knowledge of letters. The Sumerian system of writing has been regarded as the
parent of the Egyptian hieroglyphic characters; and comparisons have been made
between the names of Sumerian and Egyptian gods. The suggestion has also been
put forward that the fashion of extended burial, which in Egypt gradually
displaced the contracted position of the corpse, was also to be traced to
Babylonian influence.
It must
be admitted that, until quite recently, this view furnished a very plausible explanation
of the various points of resemblance noted between the civilizations of the
two countries. Moreover, the evidence obtained by excavation on early sites
certainly appeared to show a distinct break between the predynastic and early
dynastic cultures of Egypt. To account for what seemed so sudden a change in
the character of Egyptian civilization, the theory of a foreign invasion seemed
almost inevitable. But the publication of the results of Dr. Reisner's
excavations at Naga-ed-Der and other early cemeteries in Upper Egypt, has
rendered it necessary
to revise the theory; while the still more recent diggings of M. Naville at
Abydos prove that the changes, in certain districts, were even more gradual
than had been supposed.
Put
briefly, Dr. Reisner's conclusion is that there was no sudden break of
continuity between the Neolithic and early dynastic cultures of Egypt. His
extensive and laborious comparison of the predynastic burials with those of the
First and Second Dynasties, has shown that no essential change took place in the
Egyptian conception of the life after death, or in the rites and practices
which accompanied the interment of the body. In early dynastic as in Neolithic
times the body of the dead man was placed in a contracted position on its left
side and with the head to the south, and the grave was still furnished with
food, arms, tools, and ornaments. Moreover, the changes observable in the
construction of the grave itself, and in the character of the objects within
it, were not due to the sudden influence of any alien race, but may well have
been the result of a gradual process of improvement in the technical skill of
the Egyptians themselves.
The three
most striking points of difference beween the products of the predynastic and
dynastic periods centre round the character of the pottery and vessels for
household use, the material employed for tools and weapons, and the invention
of writing. It would now appear that the various changes were all gradually
introduced, and one period fades into another without any strongly marked line
of division between them. A knowledge of copper has always been credited to the
later predynastic Egyptians, and it is now possible to trace the gradual steps
by which the invention of a practical method of working it was attained. Copper
ornaments and objects found in graves earlier than the middle predynastic
period are small and of little practical utility, as compared with the
beautifully flaked flint knives, daggers, and lances, which still retained the
importance they enjoyed in purely Neolithic times. At a rather later stage in
the predynastic period copper dagger-blades and adzes were produced in
imitation of flint and stone forms, and these mark the transition to the heavy
weapons and tools of copper, which in the early dynastic period largely ousted
flint and stone implements for practical use.
The
gradual attainment of skill in the working of copper ore on the part of the
early Egyptians had a marked effect on the whole status of their culture. Their
improved weapons enabled them by conquest to draw their raw materials from a
far more extended area; and the adaptation of copper tools for quarrying blocks
of stone undoubtedly led to its increased employment as a stronger and more
permanent substitute for clay. The use of the copper chisel also explains the
elaborate carvings upon the early dynastic slates, and the invention of the
stone borer brought about the gradual displacement of pottery in favour of
stone vessels for household purposes. Thus, while metal-casting and stone-working
improved, they did so at the expense of the older arts of flint-knapping and
the manufacture of pottery by hand, both of which tended to degenerate and die
out. Dr. Reisner had already inferred that for ceremonial purposes, as
distinct from the needs of everyday life, both flint implements and certain
earlier types of pottery continued to be employed. And M. Naville's diggings at
Abydos, during the season of 1909-10, seem to prove that the process was even
slower and less uniform than had been thought possible. In fact, according to
the excavators, it would appear that in certain districts in Egypt a modified
form of the predynastic culture, using the characteristic red and black
pottery, survived as late as the Sixth Dynasty ; while it is known that in Nubia
a type of pottery, closely akin to the same prehistoric ware, continued in use
as late as the Eighteenth Dynasty. However such survivals are to be explained,
the beginning of the dynastic period in Egypt does not appear to present a
break in either racial or cultural continuity. Indeed, a precisely parallel
development may be traced between the early dynastic period, and that
represented by the Third and Fourth Dynasties, when there is no question of any
such break. As the stone vessels of the first two
dynasties had proved themselves superior to hand-made pottery for practical
purposes, so they in turn were displaced by wheel-made pottery. These changes
may be traced to gradual improvements in manufacture; arts such as mat-weaving
and bead-making, which were unaffected by the new inventions, continued to be
practised without change in the early dynastic as in the predynastic periods.
Recent
archaeological research thus leaves small room for the theory that Egyptian
culture was subjected to any strong foreign influence in early dynastic times,
and its conclusions on this point are confirmed by anatomical evidence. The
systematic measurement and comparison of skulls from predynastic and dynastic
burials, which have been conducted by Dr. Elliot Smith of the Khedivial School
of Medicine in collaboration with the Hearst Expedition, has demonstrated the
lineal descent of the dynastic from the predynastic Egyptians. The two groups
to all intents and purposes represent the same people, and in the later period
there is no trace of any new racial element, or of the admixture of any foreign
strain. Thus the theory of an invasion of Egypt by Semitic tribes towards the
close of the predynastic period must be given up, and, although this does not
in itself negative the possibility of Sumerian influence having reached Egypt
through channels of commercial intercourse, it necessitates a more careful
scrutiny of the different points of resemblance between the cultures of the two
countries on which the original theory was founded.
One of
the subjects on which the extreme upholders of the theory have insisted
concerns the invention of the Egyptian system of writing, which is alleged by
them to have been borrowed from Babylonia. But it must be noted that those
signs which correspond to one another in the two systems are such as would
naturally be identical in any two systems of pictorial writing, developed
independently but under similar conditions. The sun all the world over would be
represented by a circle, a mountain by a rough outline of a mountain peak, an ox
by a horned head, and so on. To prove any
connection between the two systems a resemblance should be established between
the more conventionalized signs, and here the comparison breaks down
completely. It should further be noted that the Egyptian system has reached us
in a far more primitive state than that of Babylonia. While the hieroglyphic
signs are actual pictures of the objects represented, even the earliest
line-characters of Sumer are so conventionalized that their original form would
scarcely have been recognized, had not their meaning been already known. In
fact, no example of Sumerian writing has yet been recovered which could have
furnished a pattern for the Egyptian scribe.
Moreover,
the appearance of writing in Egypt was not so sudden an event as it is often
represented. The buff-coloured pottery of predynastic times, with its red line
decoration, proves that the Eygptian had a natural faculty for drawing men,
animals, plants, boats and conventional designs. In these picture-drawings of
the predynastic period we may see the basis of the hieroglyphic system of
writing, for in them the use of symbolism is already developed. The employment
of fetish emblems, or symbols, to represent the different gods, is in
itself a rough form of ideographic expression, and, if developed along its own
lines, would naturally lead to the invention of a regular ideographic form of
writing. There is little doubt that this process is what actually took place.
The first impetus may have been given by the necessity for marks of private
ownership, and by the need for conveying authority from the chief to his
subordinates at a distance. Symbols for the names of rulers and of places would
thus soon be added to those for the gods, and when a need was felt to
commemorate some victory or great achievement of the king, such symbols would
naturally be used in combination. This process may be traced on the earlier
monuments of the First Dynasty, the records on which are still practically
ideographic in character. A very similar process doubtless led to the invention
of the cuneiform system, and there is no need to assume that either Egypt or
Babylonia was indebted to the other country for her knowledge of writing.
We obtain
a very similar result in the case of other points of resemblance which have
been cited to prove a close connection between the early cultures of the two
countries. Considerable stress has been laid on a certain similarity, which the
Egyptian slate carvings of the dynastic period bear to examples of early
Sumerian sculpture and engraving. It is true that composite creatures are
characteristic of the art of both countries, and that their arrangement on the
stone is often "heraldic" and symmetrical. But the human-headed
bull, the favourite monster of Sumerian art, is never found upon the Egyptian
monuments, on which not only the natural beasts but also the composite
creatures are invariably of an Egyptian or African character. The general
resemblance in style has also been exaggerated. To take a single instance, a
comparison has frequently been made between the Stele of the Vultures and the
broken slate carving in the British Museum, No. 20791. On the former vultures
are depicted carrying off the limbs of the slain, and on the latter captives
are represented as cast out into the desert to be devoured by birds and beasts
of prey. But the style of the two monuments is very different, and the Egyptian
is far more varied in character. In addition to a single vulture, we see a
number of ravens, a hawk, an eagle, and a lion, all attracted by the dead; and
the arrangement of the composition and the technique itself
are quite unlike Sumerian work. There is also no need to trace the symmetrical
arrangement of other of the Egyptian compositions to Babylonian influence, for,
given an oval plaque to decorate while leaving a circular space in the centre,
a symmetrical arrangement would naturally arise.
Another
Egyptian characteristic, also ascribed to Babylonian influence,
is the custom
of extended burial with mummification, which only begins to be
met with during
the Third and Fourth Dynasties. Since the dead are portrayed on
the Stele of
the Vultures as arranged in the extended position beneath the
burial-mound, it was formerly assumed that this was the regular Sumerian
practice; and the contracted forms of burial, which had been
found at Warka,
Mukayyar, Surghul, Niffer and other Babylonian sites, were
usually assigned to
very late periods. The excavations at Fara and Abu Hatab have
corrected this
assumption, and have proved that the Sumerian corpse was
regularly arranged for
burial in the contracted position, lying on its side. The
apparent
exception to this rule upon the Stele of the Vultures may
probably be regarded
as characteristic only of burial upon the field of battle. There
it must often
have been impossible to furnish each corpse with a grave to
itself, or to
procure the regular offerings and furniture which accompanied
individual
interment. The bodies were therefore arranged side by side in a
common grave,
and covered with a tumulus of earth to ensure their entrance
into the under
world. But this was clearly a makeshift form of burial,
necessitated by
exceptional circumstances, and was not the regular Sumerian
practice of the period. Whatever may have given rise to the Egyptian
change in burial customs, the cause is not to be sought in Babylonian
influence.
A further
point, which has been cleared up by recent excavation on early Babylonian
sites, concerns the crenelated form of building, which was formerly regarded as
peculiarly characteristic of Sumerian architecture of the early period and as
having influenced that of Egypt. It is now known that this form of external
decoration is not met with in Babylonia before the period of Gudea and the
kings of Ur. Thus, if any borrowing took place, it must have been on the
Babylonian side. The employment of brick as a building material may also have
been evolved in Egypt without any prompting from Babylonia, for the forms of
brick employed are quite distinct in both countries. The peculiar plano-convex
brick, which is characteristic of early Sumerian buildings, is never found in
Egypt, where the rectangular oblong form was employed from the earliest
period. Thus many points of resemblance, which were formerly regarded as
indicating a close cultural connection between the two countries, now appear to
be far less striking than was formerly the case. Others, again, may be
explained as due to Egyptian influence on Babylonian culture rather than as the
result of the reverse process. For example, the semblance
that has been pointed out between Gudea's sculpture in the round and that of
the Fourth Dynasty in Egypt may not be fortuitous. For Gudea maintained close
commercial relations with the Syrian coast, where Egyptian influence at that
time had long been effective.
There
remains to be considered the use of the bulbous mace-head and of the stone
cylindrical seal, both of which are striking characteristics of the early
Egyptian and Sumerian cultures. It is difficult to regard these classes of
objects, and particularly the latter, as having been evolved independently in
Egypt and by the Sumerians. In Babylonia the cylinder-seal is already highly
developed when found on the earliest Sumerian sites, and it would appear that
the Sumerian immigrants brought it with them into the country, along with their
system of writing and the other elements of their comparatively advanced state
of civilization. Whether they themselves had evolved it in their original home,
or had obtained it from some other race with whom they came into contact before
reaching the valley of the Euphrates, it is still impossible to say. The
evidence from Susa has not yet thrown much light upon this point. While some
stone seals and clay sealings have been found in the lowest stratum of the
mound, they are not cylindrical but in the form of flat stamps. The cylindrical
seal appears, however, to have been introduced at Susa at a comparatively early
period, for examples are said to have been found in the group of strata
representing the "Second Period," at a depth of from fifteen to twenty
metres below the surface. The published material does not yet admit of any
certain pronouncement with regard to the earliest history of the cylinder-seal
and its migrations. In favour of the view that would regard it as an
independent product of the early Egyptians, it may be noted that wood and not
stone was the commonest material for cylinders in the earliest period. But if the predynastic cylinder of Egypt is to be
regarded as ultimately derived from Asia, the connection is to be set at a
period anterior to the earliest Sumerian settlements that have yet been
identified.
Thus the
results of recent excavation and research, both in Egypt and Babylonia, have
tended to diminish rather than to increase the evidence of any close
connection between the early cultures of the two countries. Apart from any
Babylonian influence, there is, however, ample proof of a Semitic element, not
only in the language, but also in the religion of ancient Egypt. The Egyptian
sun-worship, which forms so striking a contrast to the indigenous animal-cults
and worship of the dead, was probably of Semitic origin, and may either have
reached Upper Egypt from Southern Arabia, or have entered Lower Egypt by the
eastern Delta. The latter region has always formed an open door to Egypt, and
the invasion of the Hyksos may well have had its prototype in predynastie
times. The enemies, whose conquest is commemorated on several of the early
dynastic slate-carvings, are of non-Egyptian type; they may possibly have been
descendants of such Semitic immigrants, unless they were Libyan settlers from
the west. In the historic period we have evidence of direct contact between
Syria and Egypt at the time of the Third Dynasty, for the Palermo Stele records
the arrival in Egypt of forty ships laden with cedar-wood in Sneferu's reign.
These evidently formed an expedition sent by sea to the Lebanon, and we may
assume that Sneferu's predecessors had already extended their influence along
the Syrian coast. It is in Syria that we may also set the first contact
between the civilizations
of Egypt and Babylonia in historic times. The early Sumerian ruler
Lugal-zaggisi boasts that he reached the Mediterranean coast, and his
expedition merely formed the prelude to the conquest of Syria by
Shar-Gani-sharri of Akkad. It has indeed been suggested that evidence of
Egyptian influence, following on the latter's Syrian campaign, is to be seen
in the deification of early Babylonian kings. And although this practice may
now be traced with greater probability to a Sumerian source, there can be
little doubt that from Shar-Gani-sharri's reign onwards Syria formed a
connecting-link between the two great civilizations on the Euphrates and the
Nile.
Far
closer than her relations with Egypt were the ties which connected Babylonia
with the great centre of civilization which lay upon her eastern frontier. In
the course of this history reference has frequently been made to the contact
which was continually taking place from the earliest historical period between
Elam and the Sumerian and Semitic rulers of Sumer and Akkad. Such political
relationships were naturally accompanied by close commercial intercourse, and
the effects of Sumerian influence upon the native culture of Elam have been
fully illustrated by the excavations conducted at Susa by the "Délégation
en Perse". Situated on the river Kerkha, Susa occupied an important
strategic position at the head of the caravan routes which connected the
Iranian plateau with the lower valley of the Tigris and Euphrates and the
shores of the Persian Gulf. The river washed the foot of the low hills on which
the town was built, and formed a natural defence against attack from the west.
The situation of the city on the left bank of the stream is an indication that
even in the earliest period its founders sought to protect themselves from the
danger of sudden raids from the direction of Sumer and Akkad. The earliest
Sumerian records also reflect the feelings of hostility to Elam which animated
their writers. But from these scattered
reference it would appear that the Elamites at this time were
generally the aggressors, and that they succeeded in keeping their country free
from any political interference on the part of the more powerful among the
Sumerian city-states. It was not until the period of Semitic expansion, under
the later kingdom of Kish and the empire of Akkad, that the country became
dominated by Babylonian influence.
We could
not have more striking evidence of the extent to which Elam at this time became
subject to Semitic culture than in the adoption of the Babylonian character and
language by the native rulers of the country. We are met with the strange
picture of native patesis of Susa and governors of Elam recording their votive
offerings in a foreign script and language, and making invocations to purely
Babylonian deities. The Babylonian script was also adopted for writing
inscriptions in the native Elamite tongue, and had we no other evidence
available, it might be urged that the use of the Semitic language for the
votive texts was dictated by purely temporary considerations of a political
character. There is no doubt, however, that the Semitic conquest of Elam was
accompanied, and probably preceded, by extensive Semitic immigration. Even at
the time of the Dynasty of Ur, when Elam was subject to direct Sumerian
control, the Semitic influence of Akkad had become too firmly rooted to be
displaced, and it received a fresh impetus under the later rulers of the First
Dynasty of Babylon. The clay tablets of a commercial and agricultural
character, dating from the period of Adda-Pakshu, are written in the
Babylonian character and language, like those found at Mai-Amir to the
east of Susa. The latter do not date from a period earlier than about 1000
B.C., and they throw an interesting light on the permanent character of
Babylonian influence in the country. The modified forms of the Babylonian
characters, which were employed by the Achaemenian kings for the Elamite column
of their trilingual inscriptions, are to be traced to a comparatively late
origin. The development of the writing exhibited by the Neo-Anzanite texts may
be connected with the national revival which characterized the later Elamite
monarchy.
The
evidence furnished by the inscriptions found at Susa and other sites in Elam is
supported by the archaeological discoveries in proving that, from the time of
the Semitic kings of Kish and Akkad, the cultural development of Elam was to a
great extent moulded by Babylonia. But the later products of native Elamite workmanship
that have been recovered are no slavish copies of Babilonian originals, and
the earlier examples of sculpture and engraving are of a character quite
distinct from anything found on Babylonian soil. Moreover, in the casting
of metal and in the jewellers' art Elam certainly in time excelled her
neighbour, and, even in the later periods, her art presents itself as of
vigorous growth, influenced it is true by that of Babylonia, but deriving its
impetus and inspiration from purely native sources. It is also significant that
the earlier the remains that have been recovered the less do they betray any
trace of foreign influence.
A very
striking proof of the independent development of Elamite culture prior to the
Semitic conquest is now furnished by the texts inscribed in the so-called
"proto-Elamite" system of writing. The majority consist of
small roughly-formed tablets of clay, and the signs upon them are either
figures or ideographs for various objects. Though they have not been fully deciphered,
it is clear that they are tablets of accounts and inventories. A very few of
the signs, such as those for "tablet" and "total," resemble
the corresponding Babylonian characters, but the great majority are entirely
different and have been evolved on a system of their own. Lapidary forms of the
characters have been found in inscriptions accompanying Semitic texts of
Basha-Shushinak; and, from the position of each upon the stone, it was
inferred that the Semitic text was engraved first and the proto-Elamite section
added to it. That they were contemporary additions seemed probable, and this
has now been put beyond a doubt by the discovery at Susa of a stone statuette
seated upon a throne, which was dedicated to a goddess by Basha- Shushinak.
On the front of the throne at each side of the seated figure is an inscription
; that on the left side is in Semitic, and that on the right in proto-Elamite
characters. The one is obviously a translation of the other, and their
symmetrical arrangement leaves no doubt that they were inscribed at the same
time.
It is
therefore clear that at the time of Basha-Shushinak the two languages and
scripts were sometimes employed side by side for votive inscriptions, while the
clay tablets prove that the native script had not yet been superseded for the
purposes of everyday life. The "proto-Elamite" characters present
very few parallelisms to Babylonian signs, and those that do occur are clearly
later accretions. Thus it would be natural enough to borrow the Babylonian sign
for "tablet", at a time when the clay tablet itself found its way across
the border; and, though the signs for " total" correspond, the
Elamite figures differ and are based on a decimal, not on a sexigesimal system
of numeration. It may therefore be inferred that the writing had no connection
in its origin with that of the Sumerians, and was invented independently of the
system employed during the earliest periods in Babylonia. It may have been
merely a local form of writing and not in general use throughout the whole of
Elam, but its existence makes it probable that the district in which Susa was
situated was not subject to any strong influence from Babylonia in the age
preceding the Semitic expansion. This inference is strengthened by a study of
the seal-impressions upon many of the tablets; the designs consist of figured
representations of animals and composite monsters, and their treatment is
totally different to that found on early Sumerian cylinders. In the total
disappearance of its local script Cappadocia offers an interesting parallel to
Elam. The Hittite hieroglyphs were obviously of purely native origin, but they
did not survive the introduction of the clay tablet and of cuneiform
characters.
The
earlier strata of the mounds at Susa, which date from the prehistoric periods
in the city's history, have proved to be in some confusion as revealed by the
French excavations; but an explanation has recently been forthcoming of many of
the discrepancies in level that have previously been noted. It would seem that
the northern and southern extremities of the Citadel Tell were the most ancient
sites of habitation, and that from this cause two small hills were formed which
persisted during the earlier periods of the city's history. In course of time
the ground between them was occupied and was gradually filled in so that the
earlier contour of the mound was lost. It thus happens that while remains of
the Kassite period are found in the centre of the tell at a depth of from
fifteen to twenty metres, they occur at the two extremities in strata not more
than ten metres below the surface. Even so, the later of the two prehistoric
strata at the extremities of the
mound, representing an epoch anterior to that of the
"proto-Elamite" inscriptions, contains only scattered objects, and it is
still difficult
to trace the gradual evolution of culture which took place in
this and in the
still earlier period. It should also be noted that the presence
of a single
stratum, enclosing remains of a purely Neolithic period, has not
yet been
established at Susa. There is little doubt, however, that such a
stratum at one
time existed, for stone axes, arrow-heads, knives and scrapers,
representing a
period of Neolithic culture, are found scattered at every level
in the mound.
It is thus possible that, in spite of the presence of metal in
the same
stratum, much of the earlier remains discovered at Susa, and
particularly the
earlier forms of painted pottery, are to be assigned to a
Neolithic
settlement upon the site.
Fortunately
for the study of the early ceramics of Elam, we have not to depend solely on
the rather inconclusive data which the excavations at Susa have as yet
furnished. Digging has also been carried out at a group of mounds, situated
about ninety-three miles to the west of Susa, which form a striking feature on
the caravan route to Kermanshah. The central and most important of the mounds
is known as the Tepe Mussian, and its name is often employed as a general
designation for the group. The excavations conducted there in the winter of
1902-3 have brought to light a series of painted wares, ranging in date from a
purely Neolithic period to an age in which metal was already beginning to
appear. This wealth of material is valuable for comparison with the very
similar pottery from Susa, and has furnished additional data for determining
the cultural connections of the earlier inhabitants of the country. The designs
upon the finer classes of painted ware, both at Susa and Mussian, are not only
geometric in character, but include vegetable and animal forms. Some of the
latter have been held to bear a certain likeness to designs which occur upon
the later pottery of the predynastic age in Egypt, and it is mainly on the
strength of such points of resemblance that M. de Morgan would trace a
connection between the early cultures of the two countries.[
But quite
apart from objections based on the great difference of technique, the absence
of any pottery similar to the Egyptian in Babylonia and Northern Syria renders
it difficult to accept the suggestion; and it is in other quarters that we may
possibly recognize traces of a similar culture to that of the earlier age in
Elam. The resemblance between the more geometric designs upon the Elamite
pottery and that discovered at Kara-Uyuk in Cappadocia has been pointed out by
Professor Sayce; and Mr. Hall has recently compared them in detail with
very similar potsherds discovered by the Pumpelly Expedition at Anau in Russian
Turkestan, and by Professor Garstang at Sakjegeuzi in Syria. It
should be noted that, so far as Elam is concerned, the resemblance applies only
to one class of the designs upon the early painted pottery, and does not
include the animal and a majority of the vegetable motives. It is sufficiently
striking, however, to point the direction in which we may look for further
light upon the problem. Future excavations at Susa itself and on sites in Asia
Minor will doubtless show how far we may press the suggested theory of an early
cultural connection.
While
such suggestions are still in a nebulous state, it would be rash to dogmatize
on the relation of these prehistoric peoples to the Elamites of history. A
study of the designs upon the Elamite potsherds makes it clear, however, that there
was no sudden break between the cultures of the two periods. For many of the
animal motives of a more conventionalized character are obviously derived from
the peculiarly Elamite forms of composite monsters, which are reproduced in the
seal-impressions upon "proto-Elamite" tablets. Moreover, it is
stated that among the decorative motives on potsherds recently discovered in
the lowest stratum at Susa are a number of representations of a purely
religious character. It is possible that these will prove to be the ancestors
of some of the sacred emblems which, after being developed on Elamite soil,
reached Babylonia during the Kassite period. How far Babylonia participated
in the prehistoric culture of Elam it is difficult to say, since no Neolithic
settlement has yet been identified in Sumer or Akkad. Moreover, the early
Sumerian pottery discovered at Tello, which dates from an age when a knowledge
of metal was already well advanced, does not appear to have resembled the
prehistoric wares of Elam, either in composition or in design. It should be
noted, however, that terra-cotta female figurines, of the well-known Babylonian
type, occur in Elam and at Anau4; and it is possible that in Babylonia they
were relics of a prehistoric culture. On sites in the alluvial portion of the
country it is probable that few Neolithic remains
have been
preserved. But it should be noted that fragments of painted pottery have
been found at Kuyunjik, which bear a striking resemblance to the early
Syro-Cappadocian ware; and these may well belong to a Neolithic settlement
upon the site of Nineveh. It is thus possible that the prehistoric
culture, which had its seat in Elam, will be found to have extended to Southern
Assyria also, and to non-alluvial sites on the borders of the Babylonian
plain.
It would
seem that the influence of Sumerian culture during the historic period first
began to be felt beyond the limits of Babylonia at the time of the Semitic
expansion. The conquest of Syria by Shar-Gani-sharri undoubtedly had important
results upon the spread of Babylonian culture. The record, which has been
interpreted to mean that he went still further westward and crossed the
Mediterranean to Cyprus, is now proved to have been due to the misunderstanding
of a later scribe. It is true that some seals have been found in Cyprus,
which furnish evidence of Babylonian influence in the island, but they belong
to a period considerably later than that of the Akkadian empire. Of these, the
one said to have been found in the treasury of the temple at Curium by General
di Cesnola refers to the deified Naram-Sin, but the style of its
composition and its technique definitely prove that it is of Syro-Cappadocian
workmanship, and does not date from a much earlier period than that of the
First Dynasty of Babylon. The most cursory comparison of the seal with the
clay-sealings of Naram-Sin's period, which have been found at Tello, will
convince any one of this fact. The other, which was found in an early bronze age
deposit at Agia Paraskevi with its original gold mounting, may be definitely
dated in the period of the First Babylonian Dynasty, and Nudubtum, its
original owner, who styles himself a servant of the god Martu (Amurru), may
well have been of Syrian or West Semitic origin. Beyond such isolated
cylinders, there is, however, no trace of early Babylonian influence in
Cyprus. This is hardly compatible with the suggested Semitic occupation during
Shar-Gani-sharri's reign; there may well have been a comparatively early trade
connection with the island, but nothing more.
Yet the
supposed conquest of Cyprus by Shar-Gani-sharri has led to the wildest
comparisons between Aegean and Babylonian art. Not content with leaving him in
Cyprus, Professor Winckler has dreamed of still further maritime expeditions on
his part to Rhodes, Crete,
and even to the mainland of Greece itself. There is no warrant for such
imaginings, and the archaeologist must be content to follow and not outrun his
evidence. Babylonian influence would naturally be stronger in Cyprus than in
Crete, but with neither have we evidence of strong or direct contact. There
are, however, certain features of Aegean culture which may be traced to a
Babylonian source, though some of the suggested comparisons are hardly
convincing. The houses at Fara, for instance, are supplied with a very
elaborate system of drainage, and drains and culverts have been found in the
pre-Sargonic stratum at Nippur, at Surghul, and at most early Sumerian sites
where excavations have been carried out. These have been compared with the
system of drainage and sanitation at Knossos. It is true that no other
parallel to the Cretan system can be cited in antiquity, but, as a matter of fact,
the two systems are not very like, and in any case it would be difficult to
trace a path by which so early a connection could have taken place. It has
indeed been suggested that both Babylonia and Crete may have inherited elements
of some prehistoric culture common to the eastern world, and that what looks
like an instance of influence may really be one of common origin. But, as in
the case of a few parallels between early Egyptian and Elamite culture, it is
far more probable that such isolated points of resemblance are merely due to
coincidence.
A far
more probable suggestion is that the clay tablet and stilus reached Crete from
Babylonia. Previous to its introduction the Minoan hieroglyphs, or
pictographs, had been merely engraved on seal-stones, but with the adoption of
the new material for writing they were employed for lists, inventories and the
like, and these forms became more linear. The fact that the
cuneiform system of writing was not introduced along with the tablet, as
happened in Anatolia, is sufficient proof that the connection between Babylonia
and Crete was indirect. It was doubtless by way of Anatolia that the clay
tablet travelled to Crete, for the discoveries at Kara-Uyuk prove that,
before the age of Hammurabi, both tablet and cuneiform writing had penetrated
westward beyond the Taurus. Through its introduction into Crete the
Babylonian tablet may probably be regarded as the direct ancestor of the wax
tablet and stilus of the Greeks and Romans.
Unlike
the clay tablet, the cylinder-seal never became a characteristic of the Aegean cultural
area, where the seal continued to be of the stamp or button-form. A
cylinder-seal has indeed been found in a larnax-burial at Palaikastro, on the
east coast of Crete ; and it is a true cylinder, perforated from end to end,
and was intended to be rolled and not stamped upon the clay. The designs
upon it are purely Minoan, but the arrangement of the figures, which is quite
un-Egyptian in character, is similar to that of the Mesopotamian
cylinder. In spite of the rarity of the type among Cretan seals, this
single example from Palaikastro is suggestive of Babylonian influence, through
the Syro-Cappadocian channel by which doubtless the clay tablet reached Crete.
Anatolia
thus formed a subsidiary centre for the further spread of Babylonian culture,
which had reached it by way of Northern Syria before crossing the Taurus. The
importance of the latter district in this connection has been already
emphasized by Mr. Hogarth. Every traveller from the coast to the region of the
Khabur will endorse his description of the vast group of mounds, the deserted
sites of ancient cities, which mark the surface of the country. With one or two
exceptions these still await the spade of the excavator, and, when their lowest
strata shall have yielded their secrets, we shall know far more of the early
stages in the spread of Babylonian culture westwards. We have already noted the
role of Syria as a connecting-link between the civilizations of the Euphrates
and the Nile, and it plays an equally important part in linking both of them
with the centre of early Hittite culture in Asia Minor. It was by the coastal
regions of Syria that the first Semitic immigrants from the south reached the
Euphrates, and it was to Syria that the stream of Semitic influence, now impregnated
with Sumerian culture, returned. The sea formed a barrier to any further
advance in that direction, and so the current parted, and passed southwards
into the Syro-Palestinian region and northwards through the Cilician Gates,
whence by Hittite channels it penetrated to the western districts of Asia
Minor. Here, again, the sea was a barrier to further progress westwards, and
the Asiatic coast of the Aegean forms the western limit of Asiatic influence.
Until the passing of the Hittite power, no attempts were made by Aegean
sea-rovers or immigrants from the mainland of Greece to settle on the western
coast of Asia Minor, and it is not therefore surprising that Aegean culture
should show such scanty traces of Babylonian influence.
Of the
part which the Sumerians took in originating and moulding the civilization of
Babylonia, it is unnecessary to treat at greater length. Perhaps their most
important achievement was the invention of cuneiform writing, for this in time
was adopted as a common script throughout the east, and became the parent of other
systems of the same character. But scarcely less important were their legacies
in other spheres of activity. In the arts of sculpture and seal-engraving
their own achievements were notable enough, and they inspired the Semitic work
of later times. The great code of Hammurabi's laws, which is claimed to have
influenced western codes besides having moulded much of the Mosaic legislation,
is now definitely known to be of Sumerian origin, and Urukagina's legislative
effort was the direct forerunner of Hammurabi's more successful appeal to past
tradition. The literature of Babylon and Assyria is based almost throughout on
Sumerian originals, and the ancient ritual of the Sumerian cults survived in
the later temples of both countries. Already we see Gudea consulting the omens
before proceeding to lay the foundations of E-ninnu, and the practice of
hepatoscopy may probably be set back into the period of the earliest Sumerian
patesis. Sumer, in fact, was the principal source of Babylonian civilization,
and a study of its culture supplies a key to many subsequent developments in
Western Asia. The inscriptions have already yielded a fairly complete picture
of the political evolution of the people, from the village community and
city-state to an empire which included the effective control of foreign
provinces. The archaeological record is not so complete, but in this direction
we may confidently look for further light from future excavation and research.
END
|
