BAB'YLO'NIA. An ancient country in the district of Mesopotamia, included between the Arabian Desert on the west, the Tigris on the east, and the Persian Gulf on the south, while the northern boundary, never definitely determined, may be roughly fixed above the point (near the modern Bagdad) where the Euphrates and Ti gris first approach one another. The term Babylonia is not the name given to the country by the Babylonians themselves, but is derived from the name of the capital city Babylon, and because of the importance of the capital is ap plied in the Old Testament to the entire country, just as, in the north, the city Asshur gives its name to the country Assyria. In the Babylonian inscriptions, the district consists of several di visions, the southern part being in earliest days known as Simmer, the equivalent of the Hebrew word Shiner, the northern part as Akkad (or Accad). Another designation of a portion of the country was Karduniash, and in the clays of the Kassite dynasty (Eighteenth to Twelfth Century me.) this was extended to include the whole of Babylonia. In the later Neo-Baby lonian period, again, the term Akkad was ex tended to all Babylonia. In the Old Testament we find still another name for all of Babylonia, namely. Cha lihea (Heti. Kasdim) (e.g. Gen. 28; •Ier. 1. 10; li. 24, etc.). This corresponds to Kaldn, found in cuneiform inscriptions, which properly belongs to the district southeast of Shinar, bordering directly on the Persian Gulf. Its capital was llit-Yakin, and its more common name was Tamtim, i.e. 'Sea-Land.' Be sides furnishing a dynasty (the Kassite) which ruled Babylonia proper, it retained a position of independence at all times. and the founder of the Neo Babylonian Kingdom, Nabopolassar (c. (126 me.) was a K.aldu or ChabImam It was this fact which led the Old Testament writers to make Chalthea an equivalent of Babylonia. and classical writers fell into the same error. While Babylonia was an exceedingly fertile country, its prosperity was dependent upon a careful control of the an nual inundations to \Odell the land was subject by the swelling of the Euphrates and Tigris dur ing the prolonged rainy season, which lasts from November till April. This was accomplished by embankments and the building of canals to direct tne waters into the fields, so that in the days of her glory Babylonia presented the appearance of a network of canals. The principal products of
the country were wheat and dates. Barley, mil let, and vetches were also cultivated in large quantities, and likewise the vine and such fruits as apples, oranges, and pears. Among domestic :mini:Hs of Babylonia may be mentioned camels, oxen, sheep, goats, horses, and clogs; among wild animals, lions, wild wild boars, and jackals.
The ancient Babylonians were a people of primitive Semitic stock, physically and linguis tically, who moved from the Upper Tigris-En phrates region some 10,000-8000 B.C. into the valley of the lower rivers, and, mingling with peoples of Aryan and Caucasic race, developed, by 5000 B.C., a remarkable urban civilization, curiously anticipating many of the phenomena and problems of modern city life. A number of authorities, Sayre, Schrader, Haupt among others, bold that Babylonian city life, institu tions, science. art, literature, and other culture phenomena, including the famous cuneiform writing, were borrowed from a non-Semitic race styled Sumerian, or Stnnero-Accadian. It is claimed that the inscriptions present evi dence that the cuneiform writing was first used for a non-Semitic language. lint certain scholars whose opinions are entitled to respect, following the lead of Halevy in 1874, maintain that this so-called Sumerian language was really a sacer dotal dialect of the Semitic. The question is not settled; and it must lie admitted that the Sume rian language, if it ever existed, is still imper fectly understood (for further discussion see the article Sumlint&N LANGUAGE ) . Those who accept Halevy's theory also maintain that the Babylo nian culture, including the religion, in its oldest form known to us, is so distinctively Semitic that we must for the present rest content with the hypothesis which ascribes the origin of the cul ture to Semites or to the predominance of the Semitic element in the population. The language spoken by the inhahitants of Babylonia in tines that fall within our historical horizon is likewise Semitic; and the Assyrian spoken in the north presents merely dialectical from that of the south.