circle of sovereign states which so closely hemmed in the city of Bel.
We may surmise with all probability that the history of Babylon in early
times resembled in the main that of the Egyptian Thebes. It was a small
seigneury in the hands of petty princes ceaselessly at war with petty
neighbours: bloody struggles, with alternating successes and reverses,
were carried on for centuries with no decisive results, until the day
came when some more energetic or fortunate dynasty at length crushed its
rivals, and united under one rule first all the kingdoms of Northern and
finally those of Southern Chaldæa.

The lords of Babylon had, ordinarily, a twofold function, religious
and military, the priest at first taking precedence of the soldier, but
gradually yielding to the latter as the town increased in power.
They were merely the priestly representatives or administrators of
Babel--_shakannaku Babili_--and their authority was not considered
legitimate until officially confirmed by the god. Each ruler was obliged
to go in state to the temple of Bel Merodach within a year of his
accession: there he had to take the hands of the divine statue, just
as a vassal would do homage to his liege, and those only of the native
sovereigns or the foreign conquerors could legally call themselves Kings
of Babylon--_sharru Babili_--who had not only performed this rite, but
renewed it annually.*

* The meaning of the ceremony in which the kings of Babylon
"took the hands of Bel" has been given by Winckler; Tiele
compares it very aptly with the rite performed by the
Egyptian kings--at Heliopolis, for example, when they
entered alone the sanctuary of Râ, and there contemplated
the god face to face. The rite was probably repeated
annually, at the time of the Zakmuku, that is, the New Year