Religion in Ancient Mesopotamia

Folklore, Oct, 2002 by M.J. Geller

By Jean Bottero, translated by T. L. Fagan. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2001. 246 pp. hbk. $30.00. ISBN 0-226-06717-3.

This informative and original approach to Mesopotamian religion stimulates thinking and discussion, partly because there is much with which one can disagree, as well as many new things to be learned. On the positive side, the present study offers the best discussion to date of "henotheism" in relation to the Mesopotamian pantheon (see pp. 41-3, 55-8). Bottero's concise explanation of henotheism clarifies how a pantheon, with its bewildering myriad of gods, becomes personalised through personal preference for a single deity. Although the concept of monotheism was unknown in Mesopotamia, a worshipper could focus on a single deity as the object of his own worship and reverence, without assuming that his personal deity was unique or exclusive. Much of this information regarding an individual preference for a particular deity can be seen in Akkadian personal names, which frequently contain a full clause expressing a religious sentiment (p. 39). Furthermore, Bottero explains how the numbers of gods in the pantheon diminished over time, reflecting an increasing emphasis on personal relationships with individual gods.

A further point in Bottero's favour is his argument regarding the predominant fear and reverence in which Babylonians held their gods (in contrast to the more benevolent character of Egyptian gods). Babylonians had an almost neurotic fear of their gods, perhaps because of the many vicissitudes of everyday life, and this fear encouraged worshipping gods from a distance, rather than developing a closer mystical union with the divine (p. 40).

So far so good. The negative aspects of the book are few, but significant. First, the bibliography is not up to date, but it reflects Bottero's reading and thinking up to ten years ago, with few exceptions. Furthermore, the method of footnoting sources is rather eccentric, since notes usually cite previous books of Bottero's that translated relevant literary or religious texts by their original and common designation. Hence the reader is forced to rely on his own memory or find the reference in another of the author's oeuvres.

A more serious objection, however, concerns the fact that Sumerian religion--as distinct from Babylonian--is virtually absent from the discussion. Since Bottero believes that it is impossible to isolate Sumerian religion from its Semitic contemporaries, he prefers to avoid the difficulties by describing "Mesopotamian" religion. By doing so, he rides roughshod over some key distinctions between Sumerian and Akkadian thought.

There are some Sumerian religious terms, for instance, which are untranslatable into Akkadian. The word /me/, for instance, is Sumerian for "power" (p. 94), but the word has other connotations as well, such as "divine office," and the /me/ was also a three-dimensional symbolic object, since these "powers" were stolen from the gods by the goddess Inanna. The Akkadian word, parvu, used to translate /me/ is totally inadequate, since it refers to a "rite." The Sumerian /me/ simply does not exist in Semitic thought, and hence the term must be discussed within the context of Sumerian and not Akkadian religion. There are also clear distinctions between Sumerian and Akkadian liturgy and hymns, as well as cosmology.

The methodological problems in trying to identify Sumerian as opposed to Akkadian religion are twofold. First, Sumerian is usually translated through reference to Akkadian translations of Sumerian words and passages, and hence we are dependent on Akkadian understanding of Sumerian. The second problem is one of development, since religious thinking and practice originating with Sumerians in the third millennium B.C. may well have developed further in the second and first millennia B.C. For example, Sumerian incantations from the third millennium B.C. tend to be simpler than more complex compendia of later millennia, while omens seem to have developed as a post-Sumerian science. Hence, the differences between religious concepts in Sumerian and Akkadian might reflect both cultural differences as well as later developments in religious thinking.

Nevertheless, more can be done to isolate Sumerian from Akkadian religious notions. One could, for instance, pay more attention to the character of Sumerian gods within Sumerian mythology, independent of later Akkadian myths about the same gods or their Semitic counterparts. Furthermore, comparisons between liturgies might produce interesting results. Bottero's chapter on "religious behaviour" (pp. 114-202) contains many translations of liturgy and hymns, and it is immediately noticeable--even in translation--how different these genres are in both style and content. One finds examples of personal prayer in Akkadian, while Sumerian liturgy is more likely to reflect the official temple cult. Much more could be said on this subject. This does not appear to be a simple question of differences between languages, as if prayer begins to differ in second and first millennium texts because religious fashions change and become more personal.