y maintained[114] that the family
idea must form our starting-point for an understanding of the pantheon
of Lagash. The theory, however, does not admit of consistent
application. There are gods, as Amiaud recognized, who cannot be brought
under his scheme, so far at least as present testimony is concerned; and
others can only by an arbitrary assumption be forced into accord with
the theory. Moreover, we should expect to find traces of this family
idea in the later phases of the Assyro-Babylonian pantheon. Such,
however, is not the case. A more reasonable and natural explanation of
the relationship existing between many--not all--of the gods of Gudea's
pantheon has already been suggested. In part, we must look to the
development of a theological system of thought in the Euphrates Valley
to account for the superior position accorded to certain gods, and in
part, political conditions and political changes afford an explanation
for the union of certain deities into a family group. So far, indeed,
Amiaud is correct, that the relationship existing between the various
deities, was as a rule expressed in terms applicable to human society.
The secondary position occupied, _e.g._, by Sin when compared with a god
whose domain is the entire 'lower regions,' would be aptly expressed by
calling the moon-god the eldest son of En-lil or Bel; and, similarly, a
goddess like Bau would be called the daughter of Anu. It is a mistake,
however, to interpret the use of 'daughter' and 'son' literally. Such
terms are employed in all Semitic languages in a figurative sense, to
indicate a dependent position of some sort. Again, we have seen that the
union of a number of cities or states under one head would be followed
by a union of the deities proper to these cities or states. That union
would be expressed, according to circumstances, either by placing the
deities on a footing of equality--in which case they would be consorts,
or brothers and sisters, _offsprings_ therefore of one and the same
god--or, the superior rank of one patron god would be indicated by
assigning to the god of a conquered or subordinate territory the rank of
offspring or attendant.

In studying such a list as that presented by Gudea, we must, therefore,
make due allowance for what may be called local peculiarities and local
conditions. It is only by comparing his list with others that we can
differentiate between the general features of Babylonian cults and the
special feat