TWO SEMITIC PROBLEMS 89 



however, certain other considerations have been urged in favor of one 

 or another region as the home of the primitive Semitic people. 



One argument is based on what is assumed to be the relation be- 

 tween the civilizations of Egypt and Babylonia. It is affirmed that 

 Egyptian civilization was borrowed from Babylonia, and it is thence 

 inferred that this latter country, having developed so vigorous a 

 culture at so early a time, must be the original Semitic centre. This 

 inference is by no means valid: supposing that Babylonia was the 

 first Semitic region to create a great civilization, it would not follow 

 that it was the original seat of the Semites, since it is quite conceiv- 

 able that the Babylonians might have migrated from their original 

 home to the Tigris-Euphrates valley. It is, in fact, doubtful how 

 far what we know as Babylonian civilization is of Semitic origin; 

 the Babylonians seem certainly to have borrowed much from their 

 non-Semitic predecessors. But, leaving this point aside, there is no 

 proof that Egyptian civilization was borrowed from the Babylonian. 

 The two have certain things in common, as indeed it is possible to 

 find common elements in all the ancient civilizations. The political 

 constitutions of the two countries show a certain similarity; but the 

 similar features arise naturally out of the social conditions, and 

 there is no reason why they should not have arisen independently 

 in two different countries. It is possible to discover some resemblance 

 in the architecture: the pyramids of Egypt have been compared 

 with the Babylonian tower-temples. Both of these structures consist 

 of a series of platforms built one over another. But similar structures 

 are found in other parts of the world, as, for example, in Mexico and 

 Polynesia. And the uses of the two were very different: in the one 

 case we have a tomb, in the other a temple. Perhaps the most striking 

 difference between the two civilizations is found in the religious 

 development, and that in two respects. In the first place the Egypt- 

 ians developed a system of departmental or specific gods, while the 

 Babylonians never really reached such a point. The Babylonian 

 deities are constructed after one design : any one of them may take 

 the place of any other that is to say, they represent simply the 

 conception of superhuman power, and every local deity was sufficient 

 for all the needs of his worshipers. Each in turn becomes universal 

 and omnipotent. Now this is to some extent true of Egypt, as it is 

 true of all ancient countries. But the Egyptian pantheon developed 

 far more individualized divine characters, approaching in that 

 respect the Greek. Then there is the curious Egyptian worship of 

 living animals, to which nothing similar is found in Babylonia. In 

 the second place the two peoples diverged widely in their represent- 

 ations of the future life. No two conceptions, could be more unlike 

 than the colorless existence in the Babylonian underworld and the 

 vigorous moral element introduced by the Egyptians into the picture 



